Sterile Setup Table in the Operating Room Is Not So Sterile

In vitro models for studying implant-associated biofilms - A review from the perspective of bioengineering 3D microenvironments

Biofilm research has grown exponentially over the last decades, arguably due to their contribution to hospital acquired infections when they form on foreign body surfaces such as catheters and implants. Yet, translation of the knowledge acquired in the laboratory to the clinic has been slow and/or often it is not attempted by research teams to walk the talk of what is defined as 'bench to bedside'. We therefore reviewed the biofilm literature to better understand this gap. Our search revealed substantial development with respect to adapting surfaces and media used in models to mimic the clinical settings, however many of the in vitro models were too simplistic, often discounting the composition and properties of the host microenvironment and overlooking the biofilm-implant-host interactions. Failure to capture the physiological growth conditions of biofilms in vivo results in major differences between lab-grown- and clinically-relevant biofilms, particularly with respect to phenotypic profiles, virulence, and antimicrobial resistance, and they essentially impede bench-to-bedside translatability. In this review, we describe the complexity of the biological processes at the biofilm-implant-host interfaces, discuss the prerequisite for the development and characterization of biofilm models that better mimic the clinical scenario, and propose an interdisciplinary outlook of how to bioengineer biofilms in vitro by converging tissue engineering concepts and tools.

Using Next-Generation Sequencing to Understand Infection Prevention in Surgical Treatment of Upper Extremity Fractures-A Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative fracture site infection can lead to notable patient morbidity, increase cost of care, and further contribute to healthcare disparities globally. Dogma suggests surgical blades as a vehicle for introducing bacteria into the surgical site; however, there is a paucity of literature to support this claim. This study uses advanced DNA sequencing to detect bacterial DNA on surgical blades used in upper extremity fracture surgeries.

METHODS

This was a prospective study, conducted at a high-volume level 1 trauma center. All acute, closed upper extremity fractures requiring surgical stabilization were consecutively enrolled in a prospective fashion. The primary end point was the presence of bacterial DNA on the surgical blade using next-generation sequencing (NGS). At the time of surgery, two blades were sterilely opened. One blade served as the control while the other was used for the initial skin incision. Two negative control blades were opened directly into a sterile container. Two positive control blades were used for skin incision through known infections. All samples were sent for NGS analysis.

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled in this study. The median age was 33.5 years, and 30% were female; the median body mass index was 26.52. Humerus fractures were the most common injury (N = 17, 42.5%), followed by clavicle fractures (13, 32.5%) and radius/ulna fractures (10, 25.0%). NGS analysis revealed no contamination of test blades used for skin incision. Three control blades tested positive for bacterial DNA. Negative control blades tested negative for bacterial DNA (0/2); the positive control blades resulted positive for bacterial DNA contamination (2/2).

CONCLUSION

Surgical blades used for skin incision in the upper extremity are not contaminated with bacterial DNA as analyzed by NGS. This finding challenges previous surgical dogma regarding surgical blade contamination and supports that the same surgical blade can safely be used for deeper dissection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II study: IRB approval-IRB#848938.

The False-Positive Rate of Synovial Fluid Culture at a Single Clinical Laboratory Using Culture Bottles

Introduction Synovial fluid (SF) cultures can yield false-positive or negative results when diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). False-positives may arise during sample collection or from laboratory contamination. Understanding false-positive SF culture rates is crucial for interpreting PJI laboratory data, yet clinical laboratories rarely report these rates. This study aimed to define the false-positive SF culture rate at a major specialized clinical laboratory. Methods This study retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data at a single clinical laboratory that receives SF for clinical testing for PJI. A total of 180,317 periprosthetic SF samples from the hip, knee, and shoulder were identified from January 2016 to December 2023, which met the inclusion criteria for this study. Samples were classified by both a modified 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) score and an inflammation score that combined the SF-C-reactive protein, alpha-defensin, SF-white blood cell count, and SF-polymorphonuclear% into one standardized metric. Logistic regression was utilized to evaluate the impact of various collection-based characteristics on culture positivity, including inflammation biomarkers, the source joint, quality control metrics, and days of specimen transport to the laboratory. SF culture false-positivity was calculated based on the ICM category of "not-infected" or low inflammation score. Results Overall, 13.3% (23,974/180,317) of the samples were associated with a positive culture result: 12.5% for knee samples, 20.3% for hip samples, and 14.7% for shoulder samples. The false-positive SF culture rate among 131,949 samples classified as "not-infected" by the modified 2018 ICM definition was 0.47% (95%CI: 0.43 to 0.51%). Stratification by joint revealed a false-positive rate of 0.34% (95%CI: 0.31 to 0.38%) for knee samples, 1.24% (95%CI: 1.05 to 1.45%) for hip samples, and 3.02% (95%CI: 2.40 to 3.80%) for shoulder samples, with p < 0.0001 for all comparisons. The false-positive SF culture rate among 90,156 samples, representing half of all samples with the lowest standardized inflammation scores, was 0.47% (95%CI: 0.43 to 0.52%). Stratification by joint revealed a false-positive rate of 0.33% (95%CI: 0.29 to 0.37%) for knee samples, 1.45% (95%CI: 1.19 to 1.77%) for hip samples, and 3.09% (95%CI: 2.41 to 3.95%) for shoulder samples, with p<0.0001 for all comparisons. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated the joint source (hip, shoulder) and poor sample quality as collection-based factors associated with a false-positive culture. Evaluation of a cohort of samples selected to minimize collection-based causes of false-positive culture demonstrated a false-positive rate of 0.30%, representing the ceiling limit for laboratory-based SF culture false-positivity. Conclusions This study utilizes two methods to estimate the false-positive SF culture rate at a single specialized clinical laboratory, demonstrating an overall false-positive rate of approximately 0.5%. Stratification of samples by source joint demonstrated that periprosthetic SF from the shoulder and hip have a substantially higher false-positive culture rate than that of the knee. The lowest false-positive SF culture rate (0.30%) was observed among samples from the knee-passing quality control. Culture positivity due to contamination at this specific laboratory is less than 0.30% because all specimens undergo identical processing.