The Effect of Slime Factor in the Treatment of Spinal Implant Infections.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Hasan Turkoglu, Emrullah Cem Kesilmez, Kutsal Devrim Secinti, Ilke Evrim Secinti, Burak Kucuk, Murat Aral, Recep Eken, Zafer Yuksel
{"title":"The Effect of Slime Factor in the Treatment of Spinal Implant Infections.","authors":"Hasan Turkoglu, Emrullah Cem Kesilmez, Kutsal Devrim Secinti, Ilke Evrim Secinti, Burak Kucuk, Murat Aral, Recep Eken, Zafer Yuksel","doi":"10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.43753-23.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate the effect of the biofilm-forming ability of the bacteria on treatment in rats by using biofilm-forming and nonbiofilm- forming strains of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Forty rats were divided into four equal groups as Group 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B. All rats underwent single distance lumbar laminectomy, and titanium implants were introduced. Group 1 rats were inoculated with Slime factor (-) S. aureus, while Group 2 rats were inoculated with biofilm Slime factor (+) S. aureus. None of the rats were given antibiotics. One week later, the surgical field was reopened and microbiological samples were taken. The implants of rats in Groups 1A and 2A were left in place, while the implants of rats in Groups 1B and 2B were removed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no statistically significant difference between the groups inoculated with slime factor (+) S. aureus; although, Groups 1A and 2A showed statistically significant difference. Statistical analysis with respect to bacterial count also showed a statistically significant difference between Groups 1A and 2A. There was a statistically significant difference between Group 1B and 2B.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results obtained in the present study reveal that in case of implant-dependent infection, the first sample taken can be checked for slime factor, and if there is infection with slime factor-negative bacterium, treatment without removing the implant may be recommended. S. aureus was used in the study because it is the most common cause of implant-related infection at surgical sites. Further studies using different bacterial species are needed to reach a definitive conclusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":23395,"journal":{"name":"Turkish neurosurgery","volume":"1 1","pages":"468-474"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.43753-23.1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the effect of the biofilm-forming ability of the bacteria on treatment in rats by using biofilm-forming and nonbiofilm- forming strains of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus).

Material and methods: Forty rats were divided into four equal groups as Group 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B. All rats underwent single distance lumbar laminectomy, and titanium implants were introduced. Group 1 rats were inoculated with Slime factor (-) S. aureus, while Group 2 rats were inoculated with biofilm Slime factor (+) S. aureus. None of the rats were given antibiotics. One week later, the surgical field was reopened and microbiological samples were taken. The implants of rats in Groups 1A and 2A were left in place, while the implants of rats in Groups 1B and 2B were removed.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups inoculated with slime factor (+) S. aureus; although, Groups 1A and 2A showed statistically significant difference. Statistical analysis with respect to bacterial count also showed a statistically significant difference between Groups 1A and 2A. There was a statistically significant difference between Group 1B and 2B.

Conclusion: The results obtained in the present study reveal that in case of implant-dependent infection, the first sample taken can be checked for slime factor, and if there is infection with slime factor-negative bacterium, treatment without removing the implant may be recommended. S. aureus was used in the study because it is the most common cause of implant-related infection at surgical sites. Further studies using different bacterial species are needed to reach a definitive conclusion.

埃尔辛-阿尔斯兰市医院神经外科,土耳其加济安泰普。
目的:种植体表面形成的生物膜层是治疗失败的主要原因,这种观点比较突出。但众所周知,每种细菌都有能形成生物膜和不能形成生物膜的菌株。本研究采用可形成生物膜和不可形成生物膜的金黄色葡萄球菌(S. aureus)菌株,研究细菌形成生物膜的能力对大鼠治疗的影响:将 40 只大鼠平均分为四组,分别为 1A、1B、2A 和 2B。所有大鼠均接受腰椎单远端切除术,并植入钛金属假体。第 1 组大鼠接种粘液因子(-)金黄色葡萄球菌,第 2 组大鼠接种生物膜粘液因子(+)金黄色葡萄球菌。所有大鼠均未使用抗生素。一周后,重新打开手术视野并采集微生物样本。1A 组和 2A 组大鼠的植入物留在原处,而 1B 组和 2B 组大鼠的植入物被移除:结果:接种粘液因子(+)金黄色葡萄球菌的各组之间在统计学上没有显著差异;但 1A 组和 2A 组在统计学上有显著差异。对细菌数量的统计分析也显示,1A 组和 2A 组之间存在显著差异。1B 组和 2B 组在统计学上有显著差异:本研究的结果表明,在种植体依赖性感染的情况下,可以在采集的第一份样本中检查粘液因子,如果感染的是粘液因子阴性的细菌,则建议在不拔除种植体的情况下进行治疗。研究中使用金黄色葡萄球菌是因为它是手术部位最常见的植入相关感染原因。要得出明确的结论,还需要使用不同的细菌种类进行进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Turkish neurosurgery
Turkish neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
126
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Turkish Neurosurgery is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary, open access and totally free journal directed at an audience of neurosurgery physicians and scientists. The official language of the journal is English. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research. Turkish Neurosurgery will only publish studies that have institutional review board (IRB) approval and have strictly observed an acceptable follow-up period. With the exception of reference presentation, Turkish Neurosurgery requires that all manuscripts be prepared in accordance with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信