Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 1/2019

Open Access 01-01-2019 | Original Article

Comparison of different human tissue processing methods for maximization of bacterial recovery

Authors: Mohamed Askar, Waheed Ashraf, Brigitte Scammell, Roger Bayston

Published in: European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Tissues are valuable microbiological samples that have proved superiority over swabs. Culture of tissue samples is used in the diagnosis of a variety of infections. However, as well as factors such as the site of obtaining the sample, the number of samples, and previous antibiotic use, the method of tissue processing may have an important effect on sensitivity. Data from the literature comparing different tissue processing methods is very limited. This study aimed to compare different mechanical and chemical methods of tissue processing in terms of efficacy and retaining the viability of the bacteria in the tissues. Standard suspensions of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli were prepared and treated differently to test the effect of that treatment on bacterial viability. Artificially inoculated pork tissue and known infected human tissue samples were then processed by different methods prior to culture, and results were compared. Percentages of reduction in the number of viable bacteria compared to the control by homogenization was similar to 5-min dithiothreitol treatment but significantly lower than bead beating. Bacterial recovery from homogenized human tissues was significantly higher than from any other method of treatment. Although bead beating could be the most efficient method in obtaining a homogeneous tissue product, it significantly reduces the number of viable bacteria within tissues. Homogenization offers the most effective easily controllable retrieval of bacteria from tissue and retains their viability. Guidelines for diagnosing infections using tissue samples should include a standardized processing method.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Chen AF (2013) Proceedings of the international consensus on Periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J 95-B(11):1450–1452CrossRefPubMed Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Chen AF (2013) Proceedings of the international consensus on Periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J 95-B(11):1450–1452CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Aggarwal VK et al (2013) Swab cultures are not as effective as tissue cultures for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(10):3196–3203CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Aggarwal VK et al (2013) Swab cultures are not as effective as tissue cultures for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(10):3196–3203CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Atkins BL et al (1998) Prospective evaluation of criteria for microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection at revision arthroplasty. The OSIRIS collaborative study group. J Clin Microbiol 36(10):2932–2939PubMedPubMedCentral Atkins BL et al (1998) Prospective evaluation of criteria for microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection at revision arthroplasty. The OSIRIS collaborative study group. J Clin Microbiol 36(10):2932–2939PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Redanz S, Podbielski A, Warnke P (2015) Improved microbiological diagnostic due to utilization of a high-throughput homogenizer for routine tissue processing. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 82(3):189–193CrossRefPubMed Redanz S, Podbielski A, Warnke P (2015) Improved microbiological diagnostic due to utilization of a high-throughput homogenizer for routine tissue processing. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 82(3):189–193CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Berbari EF et al (2007) Culture-negative prosthetic joint infection. Clin Infect Dis 45(9):1113–1119CrossRefPubMed Berbari EF et al (2007) Culture-negative prosthetic joint infection. Clin Infect Dis 45(9):1113–1119CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Tande AJ et al (2014) Clinical characteristics and outcomes of prosthetic joint infection caused by small colony variant staphylococci. MBio 5(5):e01910–e01914CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tande AJ et al (2014) Clinical characteristics and outcomes of prosthetic joint infection caused by small colony variant staphylococci. MBio 5(5):e01910–e01914CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Osmon DR et al (2013) Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 56(1):e1–e25CrossRefPubMed Osmon DR et al (2013) Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 56(1):e1–e25CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Bemer P et al (2016) How many samples and how many culture media to diagnose a prosthetic joint infection: a clinical and microbiological prospective multicenter study. J Clin Microbiol 54(2):385–391CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bemer P et al (2016) How many samples and how many culture media to diagnose a prosthetic joint infection: a clinical and microbiological prospective multicenter study. J Clin Microbiol 54(2):385–391CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Peel TN et al (2017) Optimal Periprosthetic tissue specimen number for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. J Clin Microbiol 55(1):234–243CrossRefPubMed Peel TN et al (2017) Optimal Periprosthetic tissue specimen number for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. J Clin Microbiol 55(1):234–243CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Peel TN et al (2016) Improved diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection by culturing periprosthetic tissue specimens in blood culture bottles. MBio 7(1):e01776–e01715CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Peel TN et al (2016) Improved diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection by culturing periprosthetic tissue specimens in blood culture bottles. MBio 7(1):e01776–e01715CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Malekzadeh D et al (2010) Prior use of antimicrobial therapy is a risk factor for culture-negative prosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(8):2039–2045CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Malekzadeh D et al (2010) Prior use of antimicrobial therapy is a risk factor for culture-negative prosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(8):2039–2045CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Li L et al (2014) The importance of the viable but non-culturable state in human bacterial pathogens. Front Microbiol 5:258PubMedPubMedCentral Li L et al (2014) The importance of the viable but non-culturable state in human bacterial pathogens. Front Microbiol 5:258PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Swindle MM et al (2012) Swine as models in biomedical research and toxicology testing. Vet Pathol 49(2):344–356CrossRefPubMed Swindle MM et al (2012) Swine as models in biomedical research and toxicology testing. Vet Pathol 49(2):344–356CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Drago L et al (2013) Use of dithiothreitol to improve the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections. J Orthop Res 31(11):1694–1699PubMed Drago L et al (2013) Use of dithiothreitol to improve the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections. J Orthop Res 31(11):1694–1699PubMed
15.
go back to reference De Vecchi E et al (2016) Treatment with dithiothreitol improves bacterial recovery from tissue samples in osteoarticular and joint infections. J Arthroplast 31(12):2867–2870CrossRef De Vecchi E et al (2016) Treatment with dithiothreitol improves bacterial recovery from tissue samples in osteoarticular and joint infections. J Arthroplast 31(12):2867–2870CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Roux AL et al (2011) Diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection by beadmill processing of a periprosthetic specimen. Clin Microbiol Infect 17(3):447–450CrossRefPubMed Roux AL et al (2011) Diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection by beadmill processing of a periprosthetic specimen. Clin Microbiol Infect 17(3):447–450CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Janz V et al (2015) Improved identification of polymicrobial infection in total knee arthroplasty through sonicate fluid cultures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(10):1453–1457CrossRefPubMed Janz V et al (2015) Improved identification of polymicrobial infection in total knee arthroplasty through sonicate fluid cultures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(10):1453–1457CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Trampuz A et al (2007) Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med 357(7):654–663CrossRefPubMed Trampuz A et al (2007) Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med 357(7):654–663CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Renz N et al (2015) Sonication in the diagnosis of periprosthetic infections : Significance and practical implementation. Orthopade 44(12):942–945CrossRefPubMed Renz N et al (2015) Sonication in the diagnosis of periprosthetic infections : Significance and practical implementation. Orthopade 44(12):942–945CrossRefPubMed
20.
Metadata
Title
Comparison of different human tissue processing methods for maximization of bacterial recovery
Authors
Mohamed Askar
Waheed Ashraf
Brigitte Scammell
Roger Bayston
Publication date
01-01-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0934-9723
Electronic ISSN: 1435-4373
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-018-3406-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 1/2019 Go to the issue