Next Article in Journal
Antimicrobial Resistance Elements in Coastal Water of Llanquihue Lake, Chile
Previous Article in Journal
Emergence of blaNDM-5 and blaOXA-232 Positive Colistin- and Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in a Bulgarian Hospital
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/antibiotics13070678
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Enhancing Pathogen Detection in Implant-Related Infections through Chemical Antibiofilm Strategies: A Comprehensive Review

by
Fabiana Giarritiello
1,
Carlo Luca Romanò
2,
Guenter Lob
3,
Joseph Benevenia
4,
Hiroyuki Tsuchiya
5,
Emanuele Zappia
1 and
Lorenzo Drago
6,7,*
1
Department of Medicine and Health Sciences “V. Tiberio”, University of Molise, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
2
Romano Institute, 1001 Tirana, Albania
3
Section Injury Prevention, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie (DGOU), 10117 Berlin, Germany
4
Orthopaedics Department, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ 07103, USA
5
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa 921-8641, Japan
6
Clinical Microbiology and Microbiome Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy
7
UOC Laboratory of Clinical Medicine with Specialized Areas, IRCCS MultiMedica, 20138 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2024, 13(7), 678; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13070678
Submission received: 27 June 2024 / Revised: 11 July 2024 / Accepted: 16 July 2024 / Published: 22 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Single-Stage Management of Musculo-Skeletal Infections: Local Antibacterial Protection, Antibiotics, and Surgical Treatments)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Implant-related infections (IRIs) represent a significant challenge to modern surgery. The occurrence of these infections is due to the ability of pathogens to aggregate and form biofilms, which presents a challenge to both the diagnosis and subsequent treatment of the infection. Biofilms provide pathogens with protection from the host immune response and antibiotics, making detection difficult and complicating both single-stage and two-stage revision procedures. This narrative review examines advanced chemical antibiofilm techniques with the aim of improving the detection and identification of pathogens in IRIs. The articles included in this review were selected from databases such as PubMed, Scopus, MDPI and SpringerLink, which focus on recent studies evaluating the efficacy and enhanced accuracy of microbiological sampling and culture following the use of chemical antibiofilm. Although promising results have been achieved with the successful application of some antibiofilm chemical pre-treatment methods, mainly in orthopedics and in cardiovascular surgery, further research is required to optimize and expand their routine use in the clinical setting. This is necessary to ensure their safety, efficacy and integration into diagnostic protocols. Future studies should focus on standardizing these techniques and evaluating their effectiveness in large-scale clinical trials. This review emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in developing reliable diagnostic tools and highlights the need for innovative approaches to improve outcomes for patients undergoing both single-stage and two-stage revision surgery for implant-related infections.

1. Introduction

Implant-related infections (IRIs) represent one of the most significant challenges in modern surgery, with an increasing prevalence due to the rise in joint replacement surgeries and the widespread use of implantable medical devices [1,2]. When an implant is inserted, the human body identifies it as a foreign object, establishing a physiological balance between the host (the human body) and the implant. This phenomenon, known as biocompatibility, can be severely compromised if bacteria adhere to the surface of the implant, potentially leading to a form of implant rejection [3]. IRIs are often caused by pathogenic microorganisms that have the ability to adhere to implant surfaces, aggregate, and form biofilms [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. The accurate diagnosis of IRIs is crucial for successful treatment. Misdiagnosis can lead to inappropriate treatments that fail to eradicate pathogens, resulting in repeated surgical interventions and an increased risk of complications for the patient. Bacterial biofilms make the diagnosis of IRIs particularly challenging, as bacteria encapsulated within the biofilm often evade traditional diagnostic methods [11]. This leads to standard microbiological cultures returning false-negative results, further delaying appropriate treatment [12]. Advanced chemical antibiofilm strategies aim to disrupt these protective structures, thereby improving the detection and identification of pathogens in IRIs [13]. The adoption of these methods can significantly enhance the sensitivity of diagnostic tests, allowing for more accurate bacterial detection and better guiding treatment decisions. Additionally, the review will include a section on innovative antibiofilm treatment techniques for IRIs.

2. Single-Stage and Two-Stage Revision Procedures in Orthopedics

Implant-related infections caused by biofilms represent a significant challenge in surgery, necessitating the evolution of revision procedures for effective treatment.
Traditionally, two-stage revision has been the gold standard for the treatment of chronic infections, particularly in the context of orthopedic prosthetic infections [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. This approach involves removing the infected prosthesis, inserting an antibiotic-loaded spacer, administering systemic antibiotic therapy, and eventually replacing the prosthesis. The success rate for two-stage revisions is reported to range from 60% to 100% [21,22,23,24,25,26]. Despite its effectiveness, this technique has several disadvantages, including high costs, prolonged immobilization, joint stiffness, pain, and the requirement for multiple surgeries [27,28]. Prolonged targeted systemic antibiotic administration and eventually the local antimicrobial protection of the implant are commonly reported as a required part of the patient’s management [29].
On the other hand, a “one-shot” procedure, a single-stage revision, demands the removal of all infected biomaterials, an extremely meticulous debridement and the careful management of local and systemic comorbid factors. The advantages of single-stage revision include reduced costs, faster functional recovery, and fewer required surgeries. Retrospective studies indicate that single-stage revision has a success rate of 88%, comparable to the two-stage procedure [30]. Once again, pathogen identification is considered a key factor for the success, allowing for the correct choice of the local and systemic antimicrobial administration [31].
In conclusion, while both procedures have demonstrated efficacy in treating infections, the choice between single-stage and two-stage revision should be based on a thorough assessment of the patient’s clinical condition and the capabilities of the treating center. Both procedures follow fundamental principles, including removal of the infected implant, thorough debridement of infected tissues, and targeted antibiotic application. This requires meticulous microbiological analysis, including correct selection and collection of samples during surgery, transportation, and processing of samples in the microbiology laboratory, preferably using anti-biofilm pre-treatment techniques [32]. The selection of samples is of paramount importance and aims to maintain the integrity and preserve the samples from cross-contamination. Additionally, this selection is always influenced by the diagnostic technique intended to be used. For instance, in the context of implant-related infections, once the site is infected, the analysis proceeds with the explanted material. Physical techniques like sonication can only analyze prosthetic materials, whereas chemical pretreatment techniques can be applied to both tissues and biological materials. Therefore, the samples chosen for microbiological analysis are those best suited to each diagnostic technique and must be free from contamination. These samples are extracted from the patient and placed directly into sterile containers designated for transport and microbiological analysis [33].

3. Heart Valve Prosthesis Infections

Heart valve prosthesis infections, particularly prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), are significant contributors to morbidity and mortality in cardiovascular surgery. The overall incidence of PVE has been reported to be between 0.3% and 1.2% per patient/year, with mortality rates reaching up to 50% [34,35,36]. PVE accounts for 20% of all cases of infective endocarditis (IE), with an increasing incidence. The timing of infection often reflects different pathogenic mechanisms, and PVE is typically classified into early-onset and late-onset groups based on the time elapsed from surgery.
Traditional culture methods for diagnosing native valve (NV) and prosthetic valve (PV) infections often fall short in effectiveness. Despite advancements in microbiological technologies, no single technique has emerged as a definitive reference standard. Blood culture remains the cornerstone for the diagnosis of IE; however, blood culture–negative IE can occur in up to 31% of all cases, posing diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas [37,38].

4. Diagnostic Challenges Posed by Biofilm in Implant-Related Infections

The diagnosis of implant-related infections (IRIs) is significantly complicated by the presence of biofilm. Biofilms are complex structures composed of bacterial communities encapsulated in an extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) matrix that adheres to implant surfaces [7]. This matrix provides a protective environment for bacteria, shielding them from the host immune system and antibiotics [8,9,10]. The lifecycle of a biofilm results in its maturation into a complex structure, which can then detach bacterial cells, allowing them to colonize new surfaces, as summarized in Figure 1. Consequently, bacteria within biofilms often evade traditional diagnostic methods, leading to false-negative results in standard microbiological cultures. This diagnostic challenge is critical, as a delayed or incorrect diagnosis can result in the persistence of infection and the need for revision surgery [39].
Traditional diagnostic approaches, including tissue sampling and culture, frequently fail to detect biofilm-encased bacteria due to their resilient nature. These methods typically yield low sensitivity and specificity when biofilms are involved, causing clinicians to miss the underlying infection [40,41]. Furthermore, biofilms can produce small colony variants and dormant cells that are particularly difficult to detect and may not grow in standard culture conditions [42,43,44,45].
Numerous techniques have been proposed to improve the sensitivity and specificity of traditional bacterial cultures. Among these, sonication, a physical approach that uses sound waves to break down the extracellular matrix of the biofilm, has shown promising results [46]. The sonication technique involves the use of an ultrasonic bath or a probe sonicator to emit high-frequency sound waves, which disintegrate the biofilm and release the encapsulated bacteria. Samples are typically immersed in an ultrasonic bath for a duration ranging from 5 to 15 min, depending on the specific protocol used. However, due to the resilience of bacterial behavior, technical dependency, and costs, sonication is becoming obsolete and less commonly used. This is because it presents several disadvantages, such as the possibility of destroying microorganisms during the process, thereby reducing their viability and the accuracy of the resulting microbiological cultures; the inability to process cement and tissue samples; cross-contamination; and the requirement for specific equipment and containers for transport and processing, making it expensive [47,48]. Since sonication is primarily suitable for prosthetic materials, it can be useful for certain types of samples, but its limitations reduce its overall applicability in diagnostic procedures.
Molecular techniques such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) offer high sensitivity and specificity, allowing for the identification of bacterial DNA even in small quantities [49,50]. However, the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, including 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, shotgun metagenomics, and metatranscriptomics, is revolutionizing pathogen detection. Multiplex PCR and 16S rRNA sequencing have demonstrated improved sensitivity compared to traditional cultures [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61], although the dependence of PCR on specific primers limits its range [54,55]. NGS can detect a wide range of organisms, including non-culturable and non-viable ones, with metagenomic NGS providing detailed genomic data and metatranscriptomic NGS offering insights into active infections [62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69].
With technological advancements in microbiology, promising chemical approaches are gaining traction. These approaches demonstrate increases in diagnostic sensitivity and specificity comparable to traditional techniques but are less costly, less technically dependent, and more accessible to all hospital and diagnostic centers [70].
Antibiotics 13 00678 g001
Figure 1. Biofilm formation process and how chemical treatments act when added to biofilm-infected sample [71,72,73,74,75,76]. Biofilm formation process and maturation: pathogens encapsulated in EPS (Extracellular Polymeric Substances) shown in yellow that adheres to implant surfaces; the effects of antibiofilm pre-treatment to counteract it, with possible chemical treatments highlighted in red: DTT (Dithiothreitol) and MESNA (2-Mercaptoethane sulfonate sodium) as described in Section 5.1.
Figure 1. Biofilm formation process and how chemical treatments act when added to biofilm-infected sample [71,72,73,74,75,76]. Biofilm formation process and maturation: pathogens encapsulated in EPS (Extracellular Polymeric Substances) shown in yellow that adheres to implant surfaces; the effects of antibiofilm pre-treatment to counteract it, with possible chemical treatments highlighted in red: DTT (Dithiothreitol) and MESNA (2-Mercaptoethane sulfonate sodium) as described in Section 5.1.
Antibiotics 13 00678 g001

5. Recent Antibiofilm Techniques

Given the significant challenges posed by microbial biofilm to identify recent advancements in chemical antibiofilm techniques aimed at improving pathogen detection in IRIs, a comprehensive review was conducted. Articles were selected from databases such as PubMed, Scopus, MDPI and SpringerLink, focusing on studies published between January 2018 and June 2024. The search terms used included “chemical antibiofilm”, “microbiological sampling”, “pathogen detection”, and “culture accuracy”. Only studies that evaluated the efficacy and enhanced accuracy of microbiological sampling and culture following the use of chemical antibiofilm agents were included in this review.
The initial research yielded numerous articles related to current treatments for implant-related infections, employing both chemical and non-chemical methods. By refining our search, we were able to focus specifically on the diagnostic aspect, which is the primary focus of this review. However, the findings from all the articles retrieved in our search were significant. Therefore, we decided to divide the discussion section into two parts. The first part concentrates on the chemical techniques used as antibiofilm methods that precede traditional microbiological cultures, enhancing and refining bacterial counts. The second part addresses emerging treatments for IRIs to improve clinical outcomes.
Both aspects are fundamental and essential for providing a comprehensive, up-to-date overview of the approaches to IRIs.

5.1. Diagnostic Advances Due to the Use of Chemical Agents in IRIs

In this first section, we analyze recent studies on chemical agents that have been identified over time to possess antibiofilm properties. In this section, we analyze recent studies on chemical agents that have been identified over time for their antibiofilm properties. These include DTT, as well as chelating and reducing agents such as DIGEST-EUR® and MESNA. These promising chemical agents are used in the pre-treatment of biofilm-encased bacteria to enhance the sensitivity and specificity of microbiological cultures without affecting microbial viability.

5.1.1. Dithiothreitol (DTT)

Dithiothreitol (DTT) has emerged as a promising chemical agent used in the pre-treatment of biofilm-encased bacteria to enhance the sensitivity and specificity of microbiological cultures without affecting microbial viability. It works by breaking disulfide bonds in the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) matrix of biofilms, effectively releasing the bacteria encapsulated within.
The chemical process involves treating samples with a 0.1% DTT solution, typically at a concentration of 25 mM for 15 min. This treatment increases the likelihood of detecting these bacteria in subsequent cultures. Studies have demonstrated that DTT treatment significantly improves the detection rates of biofilm-associated bacteria compared to untreated samples. The use of DTT in clinical settings has been associated with higher diagnostic accuracy, making it a valuable tool in the management of implant-related infections (IRIs) [71].
Another study highlights the efficacy of DIGEST-EUR®, a mucolytic agent used for rapid digestion and mucus fluidification. It has been shown that DIGEST-EUR® works by breaking disulfide bonds because it also contains DTT. The chemical procedure involves treating samples with a DIGEST-EUR® solution for 15 min at 37 °C [72].
This underscores the ability of DTT and its various formulations to disrupt biofilms before classical analysis, supporting its use in enhancing diagnostic accuracy.
In line with these findings, a recently developed diagnostic device, MicroDTTect, represents a significant advancement in infection management. This innovative device contains DTT and operates within a fully closed system, facilitating the collection, transport, and processing of samples directly from the operating room to the microbiology laboratory. This system ensures the preservation of sample integrity and prevents any form of contamination throughout the entire analytical process [73,74].

5.1.2. Chelating Agent Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA)

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is a chelating agent that has shown promise in the dislodgement of biofilm-encased bacteria. EDTA works by chelating divalent cations such as calcium, magnesium, zinc, and iron, which are essential for the stability of the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) matrix of biofilms. By sequestering these cations, EDTA destabilizes the biofilm structure, facilitating the release of bacteria encapsulated within.
The samples are treated with an EDTA solution, typically at a concentration of 25 mM for 15 min. This treatment effectively disrupts the biofilm matrix by chelating the necessary cations. The treated samples are then subjected to standard microbiological culturing techniques. Studies have shown that EDTA treatment significantly improves the detection rates of biofilm-associated bacteria compared to untreated samples. The use of EDTA in clinical settings has been associated with higher diagnostic accuracy, making it a valuable tool in the management of implant-related infections (IRIs). EDTA has been found to be particularly effective in dislodging biofilms of various bacterial strains, including Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [75].

5.1.3. MESNA

Sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate (MESNA) is a synthetic thiol compound that has shown promise in the dislodgement of biofilm-encased bacteria, enhancing the accuracy of microbiological cultures. MESNA works by breaking disulfide bonds in the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) matrix of biofilms, effectively releasing the bacteria encapsulated within. Its application in pediatric cholesteatoma has demonstrated significant changes in biofilm structure, aiding in the management of chronic infections. Samples are treated with a 4% MESNA solution for 10 min at 37 °C. This treatment breaks down the biofilm matrix by breaking disulfide bonds. The treated samples are then subjected to standard microbiological culturing techniques. MESNA has been found to be particularly effective in dislodging biofilms of various bacterial strains, including Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [77] (Table 1).

5.2. Innovative Treatment Approaches for Implant-Related Infections

The second part of this review explores advanced chemical techniques for the breakdown of biofilms, aimed at improving the treatment of IRIs.
Treatment techniques resulting from the above type of research include:
  • Antimicrobial Peptides (AMP): These peptides are used to prevent the formation of biofilms on surfaces of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). They exhibit antibacterial activity by breaking the cell membrane of pathogens, reducing bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation [78].
  • AIEgen: These probes, employed as theranostic instruments, enhance penetration into biofilms and facilitate both the diagnosis and treatment of multi-resistant bacterial biofilm infections due to their capacity to generate localized heat [79].
  • Cold Plasma Treatments: By modifying the surfaces of materials, cold plasma treatments render surfaces anti-adhesive and antibacterial, preventing adhesion and bacterial growth. This treatment is designed to modify the surface of medical implants and counteract the adhesion phase of biofilm formation, thereby improving the antibacterial activity of the materials [76].
  • Silver Nanoparticles (AgNPs): Derived from Lactobacillus casei, these nanoparticles possess powerful antibiofilm properties, inhibiting the formation and growth of bacterial biofilms. These nanocubes are activated by NIR light to generate heat, which destroys bacterial biofilms and improves the effectiveness of antibiotics. They offer a promising approach to the treatment of implant-related infections due to their ability to selectively degrade biofilms [80].
Selected articles explore various innovative approaches, each with unique mechanisms of action and proven efficacy against bacterial biofilms. Below is a summary of the methodologies used and their effectiveness in treating IRIs.
The following Table 2 summarizes the methods, year of publication, efficacy on IRIs, and mechanisms of action of the selected articles:

6. Discussion and Conclusions

This review highlights the critical role of chemical antibiofilm agents in both the diagnosis and treatment of implant-related infections (IRIs). Techniques such as DTT, EDTA, and MESNA have demonstrated significant promise in disrupting biofilms and detecting encapsulated bacteria within the EPS matrix. These advancements have improved diagnostic accuracy and treatment outcomes across various surgical fields, particularly in cardiovascular surgery. The application of these agents has proven effective in managing implant-related infections, reducing complications, and improving patient prognosis.
Following diagnostic techniques, recent emerging treatments using nanoparticles have also shown substantial benefits.
Nowadays, the frequent use of antibiotics for treating biofilm-associated infections has led to a steady and progressive increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that cannot be eradicated with traditional antibiotic treatments. Bacterial biofilms are the leading cause of healthcare-associated infections in humans. Therefore, there is an urgent need for new approaches and strategies to inhibit biofilm formation [81].
The integration of chemical antibiofilm agents into clinical practice has provided a new dimension to the management of IRIs. However, challenges remain concerning the standardization of these techniques, cost considerations, and the need for specialized equipment. Continued research and clinical trials are essential to optimize these methods and ensure their widespread adoption.

7. Future Needs to Improve the Surgical Revision Procedure

Biofilms present a significant challenge in the context of implant-related infections (IRIs), particularly affecting the success of single-stage and two-stage revision procedures [82]. Various efforts are underway to identify new candidates for preventing and treating biofilm-forming bacteria. Chemical agents, along with nanotechnology-based methods, have shown promise in antibiofilm activity. However, their effectiveness in clinical settings is often limited due to a lack of understanding of the underlying mechanisms.
A major challenge lies in bridging the gap between in vitro and in vivo testing. Despite promising in vitro results, current models fail to replicate the complex conditions of the human body, where biofilm formation occurs on implants. This limitation underscores the need for more realistic models to better predict clinical outcomes. Developing standardized protocols for the use of chemical antibiofilm agents during single-stage and two-stage revision procedures is crucial. The consistent application of these protocols, based on robust clinical evidence, will improve patient outcomes by ensuring that the most effective methods are used uniformly across clinical settings.
Cost reduction and continued research into more effective antibiofilm agents are necessary to facilitate broader adoption and improve treatment efficacy. Collaboration between microbiologists, surgeons, and engineers can drive innovation and develop integrated biofilm management strategies. Advanced diagnostic tools that quickly detect biofilm-associated infections will enhance early intervention and treatment success.
These findings emphasize the need for innovative strategies to improve revision procedures, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and managing implant-related infections more effectively in clinical surgery.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.G. and L.D.; figures and preparation of the original draft, F.G.; proofreading and editing, C.L.R., G.L., J.B., H.T., E.Z. and L.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

C.R. is co-founder of and receives royalties from Nova Health Srl, the company producing the MicroDTTect diagnostic system; L.D. declares receiving a research and consultancy grant from Nova Health Srl; Author Carlo Luca Romanò was employed by the company Romano Institute. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

IRIs Implant-related infections
PCRPolymerase chain reaction
NGSNext-Generation Sequencing
DTTDithiothreitol
EDTAEthylenediaminetetraacetic acid
MESNASodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate
EPSExtracellular polymeric substance
AMPAntimicrobial Peptides
PMMAPolymethyl methacrylate
AIEAggregation-Induced Emission
AgNPsSilver Nanoparticles

References

  1. Ribeiro, M.; Monteiro, F.J.; Ferraz, M.P. Infection of orthopedic implants with emphasis on bacterial adhesion process and techniques used in studying bacterial-material interactions. Biomaterials 2012, 2, 176–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Benito, N.; Franco, M.; Ribera, A.; Soriano, A.; Rodriguez-Pardo, D.; Sorlí, L.; Fresco, G.; Fernández-Sampedro, M.; Del Toro, M.D.; Guío, L.; et al. Time trends in the aetiology of prosthetic joint infections: A multicentre cohort study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, 732.e1–732.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gristina, A.G. Biomaterial-centered infection: Microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. Science 1987, 237, 1588–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Adnan, M.; Patel, M.; Deshpande, S.; Alreshidi, M.; Siddiqui, A.J.; Reddy, M.N.; Emira, N.; De Feo, V. Effect of Adiantum philippense extract on biofilm formation, adhesion with its antibacterial activities against foodborne pathogens, and characterization of bioactive metabolites: An in vitro-in silico approach. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Jamal, M.; Ahmad, W.; Andleeb, S.; Jalil, F.; Imran, M.; Nawaz, M.A.; Hussain, T.; Ali, M.; Rafiq, M.; Kamil, M.A. Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2018, 81, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rather, M.A.; Gupta, K.; Mandal, M. Microbial biofilm: Formation, architecture, antibiotic resistance, and control strategies. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2021, 52, 1701–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Di Martino, P. Extracellular polymeric substances, a key element in understanding biofilm phenotype. AIMS Microbiol. 2018, 4, 274–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Abusrewil, S.; Alshanta, O.A.; Albashaireh, K.; Alqahtani, S.; Nile, C.J.; Scott, J.A.; McLean, W. Detection, treatment and prevention of endodontic biofilm infections: What’s new in 2020? Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 46, 194–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Chen, L.; Wen, Y.M. The role of bacterial biofilm in persistent infections and control strategies. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2011, 3, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Evelhoch, S.R. Biofilm and chronic nonhealing wound infections. Surg. Clin. 2020, 100, 727–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kovaleva, J.; Peters, F.T.M.; van der Mei, H.C.; Degener, J.E. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 26, 231–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Clauss, M.; Trampuz, A.; Borens, O.; Bohner, M.; Ilchmann, T. Biofilm formation on bone grafts and bone graft substitutes: Comparison of different materials by a standard in vitro test and microcalorimetry. Acta Biomater. 2010, 6, 3791–3797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Holinka, J.; Bauer, L.; Hirschl, A.M.; Graninger, W.; Windhager, R.; Presterl, E. Sonication cultures of explanted components as an add-on test to routinely conducted microbiological diagnostics improve pathogen detection. J. Orthop. Res. 2011, 29, 617–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cadambi, A.; Jones, R.E.; Maale, G.E. A protocol for staged revision of infected total hip and knee arthroplasties: The use of antibiotic-cement implant composites. Int. Orthop. 1995, 3, 133–145. [Google Scholar]
  15. Maale, G.E.; Hsu, W.K.; McLaren, A.C.; Springer, B.D. (Eds.) Debridement for orthopaedic infection. In Let’s Discuss Surgical Site Infections; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS): Rosemont, IL, USA, 2015; Chapter 5. [Google Scholar]
  16. Haddad, F.S.; Masri, B.A.; Campbell, D.; McGraw, R.W.; Beauchamp, C.P.; Duncan, C.P. The PROSTALAC functional spacer in two-stage revision for infected knee replacements. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2000, 82, 807–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Maale, G.E.; Pascoe, H.R.; Piercy, E.A. A standardized approach for the treatment of infected total joint arthroplasties by the DFW sarcoma group osteomyelitis protocol; Staged revisions at 2 weeks using antibiotic-cement-implant composites as spacers. J. Jt. Arthroplast. 1993, 8, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Netti, M.P.; Long, W.J.; Della Valle, C.J. Diagnosis and treatment of infected total joint arthroplasty. World Clin. Orthoped. 2014, 1, 75–90. [Google Scholar]
  19. Wolf, C.F.; Gu, N.Y.; Doctor, J.N.; Manner, P.A.; Leopold, S.S. Comparison of one and two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasty complicated by infection: A markov expected-utility decision analysis. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2011, 93-A, 631–639. [Google Scholar]
  20. Woods, J.; Boegli, L.; Kirker, K.R.; Agostinho, A.M.; Durch, A.M.; Delancey Pulcini, E.; Stewart, P.S.; James, G.A. Development and application of a polymicrobial, in vitro, wound biofilm model. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 112, 998–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Cierny III, G.; Mader, J.T. Adult chronic osteomyelitis. Orthopedics 1984, 7, 1557–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Jamsen, E.; Stogiannidis, I.; Malmivaara, A.; Pajamaki, J.; Puolakka, T.; Konttinen, Y.T. Outcome of prosthethesis exchange for infected knee arthroplasty: The effect of treatment approach. Acta Orthop. 2009, 80, 67–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lonner, J.H.; Desai, P.; Dicesare, P.E.; Steiner, G.; Zuckerman, J.D. The reliability of analysis of intraoperative frozen sections for identifying active infection during revision hip or knee arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1996, 78, 1553–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Pangaud, C.; Ollivier, M.; Argenson, J.N. Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection. EFORT Open Rev. 2019, 4, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sanchez-Sotelo, J.; Berry, D.J.; Hanssen, A.D. Mid-term to long-term follow-up of staged reimplantation for infected hip arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2009, 467, 219–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Simpson, A.H.; Deakin, M.; Latham, J.M. Chronic osteomyelitis: The effect of the extent of surgical resection on infection free survival. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2001, 83, 403–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Uchholz, H.W.; Elson, R.A.; Engelbrecht, E.; Lodenkamper, H.; Rottger, J.; Siegel, A. Management of deep infection of total hip replacement. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1981, 63, 342–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Stevens, C.M.; Tetsworth, K.D.; Calhoun, J.H.; Mader, J.T. An articulated antibiotic spacer used for infected total knee arthroplasty: A comparative in vitro elution study of Simplex and Palacos bone cements. J. Orthop. Res. 2005, 23, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Cordero-Ampuero, J.; Esteban, J.; García-Cimbrelo, E.; Munuera, L.; Escobar, R. Low relapse with oral antibiotics and two-stage exchange for late arthroplasty infections in 40 patients after 2-9 years. Acta Orthop. 2007, 78, 511–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Thakrar, R.R.; Horriat, S.; Kayani, B.; Haddad, F.S. Indications for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic prosthetic joint infection. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101-B (1 Suppl. A), 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lum, Z.C.; Holland, C.T.; Meehan, J.P. Systematic Review of Single Stage Revision for Prosthetic Joint Infection. World J. Orthoped. 2020, 11, 559–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Vuotto, C.; Donelli, G. Biofilm-Based Healthcare-Associated Infections; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 1, pp. 47–63. [Google Scholar]
  33. Janz, V.; Wassilew, G.I.; Hasart, O.; Tohtz, S.; Perka, C. Improvement in the detection rate of PJI in total hip arthroplasty through multiple sonicate fluid cultures. J. Orthop. Res. 2013, 31, 2021–2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. López, J.; Revilla, A.; Vilacosta, I.; Villacorta, E.; González-Juanatey, C.; Gómez, I.; Rollán, M.J.; San Román, J.A. Definition, clinical profile, microbiological spectrum, and prognostic factors of early-onset prosthetic valve endocarditis. Eur. Heart J. 2007, 28, 760–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Nagpal, A.; Sohail, M.R.; Steckelberg, J.M. Prosthetic valve endocarditis: State of the heart. Clin. Investig. 2012, 2, 803–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hoen, B.; Duval, X. Infective Endocarditis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 368, 1425–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lamas, C. Diagnostic Strategy for Blood Culture-Negative Endocarditis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 51, 141–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sumatani, I.; Kagiyama, N.; Saito, C.; Makanae, M.; Kanetsuna, H.; Ahn, K.; Mizukami, A.; Hashimoto, Y. Infective endocarditis with negative blood culture and negative echocardiographic findings. J. Echocardiogr. 2015, 13, 66–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Høiby, N.; Bjarnsholt, T.; Moser, C.; Bassi, G.L.; Coenye, T.; Donelli, G.; Hall-Stoodley, L.; Holá, V.; Imbert, C.; Kirketerp-Møller, K.; et al. ESCMID guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2010, 21, S1–S25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Parvizi, J.; Ghanem, E.; Sharkey, P.; Aggarwal, A.; Burnett, S.R.; Barrack, R.L. Diagnosis of infected total knee: Findings of a multicenter database. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2007, 464, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Zimmerli, W.; Trampuz, A.; Ochsner, P.E. Prosthetic-joint infections. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 351, 1645–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Brown, M.R.W.; Allison, D.G.; Gilbert, P. Resistance of bacterial biofilms to antibiotics: A growth-rate related effect? J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1988, 22, 777–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lewis, K. Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2001, 45, 999–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stewart, P.S.; Franklin, M.J. Physiological heterogeneity in biofilms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2008, 6, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kim, L. Persister cells, dormancy and infectious disease. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2007, 5, 48–56. [Google Scholar]
  46. Trampuz, A.; Zimmerli, W. Diagnosis and treatment of infections associated with fracture-fixation devices. Injury 2006, 37, S59–S66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Romanò, C.L.; Scarponi, S.; Gallazzi, E.; Romanò, D.; Drago, L. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Antibiofilm Microbiological Techniques for Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection Diagnosis. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Sambri, A.; Cadossi, M.; Giannini, S.; Pignatti, G.; Marcacci, M.; Ferrari, M.C.; Donati, D.M.; De Paolis, M. Is Treatment with Dithiothreitol More Effective than Sonication for the Diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infection? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2018, 476, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Trampuz, A.; Piper, K.E.; Jacobson, M.J.; Hanssen, A.D.; Unni, K.K.; Osmon, D.R.; Mandrekar, J.N.; Cockerill, F.R.; Steckelberg, J.M.; Greenleaf, J.F.; et al. Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 357, 654–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Fariñas-Álvarez, C.; Fernández-Roblas, R.; Esteban, J. Comparison of molecular techniques for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 3690–3694. [Google Scholar]
  51. Wade, W. Unculturable bacteria–the uncharacterized organisms that cause oral infections. J. R. Soc. Med. 2002, 95, 81–83. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Sathiananthamoorthy, S.; Malone-Lee, J.; Gill, K.; Tymon, A.; Nguyen, T.K.; Gurung, S.; Collins, L.; Kupelian, A.S.; Swamy, S.; Khasriya, R.; et al. Reassessment of routine midstream culture in diagnosis of urinary tract infection. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2019, 57, e01452-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Wilson, M.R.; Sample, H.A.; Zorn, K.C.; Arevalo, S.; Yu, G.; Neuhaus, J.; Federman, S.; Stryke, D.; Briggs, B.; Langelier, C.; et al. Clinical metagenomic sequencing for diagnosis of Meningitis and Encephalitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 2327–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Achermann, Y.; Vogt, M.; Leunig, M.; Wust, J.; Trampuz, A. Improved diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection by multiplex PCR of sonication fluid from removed implants. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48, 1208–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Janz, V.; Schoon, J.; Morgenstern, C.; Preininger, B.; Reinke, S.; Duda, G.; Breitbach, A.; Perka, C.F.; Geissler, S. Rapid detection of periprosthetic joint infection using a combination of 16s rDNA polymerase chain reaction and lateral flow immunoassay. Bone Jt. Res. 2018, 7, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Sigmund, I.K.; Holinka, J.; Sevelda, F.; Staats, K.; Heisinger, S.; Kubista, B.; McNally, M.A.; Windhager, R. Performance of automated multiplex polymerase chain reaction (mPCR) using synovial fluid in the diagnosis of native joint septic arthritis in adults. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101-B, 288–296. [Google Scholar]
  57. Fenollar, F.; Roux, V.; Stein, A.; Drancourt, M.; Raoult, D. Analysis of 525 samples to determine the usefulness of PCR amplification and sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene for diagnosis of bone and joint infections. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 1018–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Cazanave, C.; Greenwood-Quaintance, K.E.; Hanssen, A.D.; Karau, M.J.; Schmidt, S.M.; Gomez Urena, E.O.; Mandrekar, J.N.; Osmon, D.R.; Lough, L.E.; Pritt, B.S.; et al. Rapid molecular microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2013, 51, 2280–2287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Janda, J.M.; Abbott, S.L. 16S rRNA gene sequencing for bacterial identification in the diagnostic laboratory: Pluses, perils, and pitfalls. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 2761–2764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Tsang, S.T.J.; McHugh, M.P.; Guerendiain, D.; Gwynne, P.J.; Boyd, J.; Simpson, A.H.R.W.; Walsh, T.S.; Laurenson, I.F.; Templeton, K.E. Underestimation of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA and MSSA) carriage associated with standard culturing techniques. Bone Jt. Res. 2018, 7, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Chen, M.F.; Chang, C.H.; Chiang-Ni, C.; Hsieh, P.H.; Shih, H.N.; Ueng, S.W.; Chang, Y. Rapid analysis of bacterial composition in prosthetic joint infection by 16S rRNA metagenomic sequencing. Bone Jt. Res. 2019, 8, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Tarabichi, M.; Alvand, A.; Shohat, N.; Goswami, K.; Parvizi, J. Diagnosis of Streptococcus canis periprosthetic joint infection: The utility of next-generation sequencing. Arthroplast. Today 2018, 4, 20–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Street, T.L.; Sanderson, N.D.; Atkins, B.L.; Brent, A.J.; Cole, K.; Foster, D.; McNally, M.A.; Oakley, S.; Peto, L.; Taylor, A.; et al. Molecular diagnosis of orthopedic-device-related infection directly from sonication fluid by metagenomic sequencing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 55, 2334–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ruppé, E.; Lazarevic, V.; Girard, M.; Mouton, W.; Ferry, T.; Laurent, F.; Schrenzel, J. Clinical metagenomics of bone and joint infections: A proof of concept study. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Thoendel, M.J.; Jeraldo, P.R.; Greenwood-Quaintance, K.E.; Yao, J.Z.; Chia, N.; Hanssen, A.D.; Abdel, M.P.; Patel, R. Identification of prosthetic joint infection pathogens using a shotgun metagenomics Approach. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 67, 1333–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tarabichi, M.; Shohat, N.; Goswami, K.; Alvand, A.; Silibovsky, R.; Belden, K.; Parvizi, J. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: The potential of next-generation sequencing. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2018, 100, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Huang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Li, W.; Fang, X.; Wang, Q.; Xing, L.; Li, Y.; Nie, X.; Yang, B.; Zhang, W. Metagenomic next- generation sequencing contribution in identifying prosthetic joint infection due to parvimonas micra: A case report. J. Bone Jt. Infect. 2019, 4, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Huang, W.; Yin, C.; Wang, G.; Rosenblum, J.; Krishnan, S.; Dimitrova, N.; Fallon, J.T. Optimizing a metatranscriptomic next-generation sequencing protocol for bronchoalveolar lavage diagnostics. J. Mol. Diagn. 2019, 21, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Goswami, K.; Shope, A.J.; Tokarev, V.; Wright, J.R.; Unverdorben, L.V.; Ly, T.; Chen See, J.; McLimans, C.J.; Wong, H.T.; Lock, L.; et al. Comparative meta-omics for identifying pathogens associated with prosthetic joint infection. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 23749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Tsikopoulos, K.; Poultsides, L.; Nana, A.; Zormpala, A.; Kokkalis, Z.; Tsaganos, T.; Mavrogenis, A.F. Is Sonication Superior to Dithiothreitol in Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infections? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 526. [Google Scholar]
  71. Drago, L.; Romanò, C.L. Commentary: Dithiothreitol (DTT), When Used as Biofilm Detaching Method to Diagnose Implant-Associated Infections, Does Not Affect Microorganisms’ Viability, according to the Current Literature. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 814945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Moris, V.; Lam, M.; Amoureux, L.; Magallon, A.; Guilloteau, A.; Maldiney, T.; Zwetyenga, N.; Falentin-Daudre, C.; Neuwirth, C. What Is the Best Technic to Dislodge Staphylococcus Epidermidis Biofilm on Medical Implants? BMC Microbiol. 2022, 22, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Bakalakos, M.; Vlachos, C.; Ampadiotaki, M.M.; Stylianakis, A.; Sipsas, N.; Pneumaticos, S.; Vlamis, J. Role of Dithiothreitol in Detection of Orthopaedic Implant-Associated Infections. J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Giannetti, A.; Romano, J.; Fidanza, A.; Di Mauro, M.; Brunetti, M.; Fascione, F.; Calvisi, V. The diagnostic potential of MicroDTTect compared to conventional culture of tissue samples in orthopedic infections. Lo Scalpello J. 2022, 36, 111–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Karbysheva, S.; Di Luca, M.; Butini, M.E.; Winkler, T.; Schütz, M.; Trampuz, A. Comparison of Sonication with Chemical Biofilm Dislodgement Methods Using Chelating and Reducing Agents: Implications for the Microbiological Diagnosis of Implant Associated Infection. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Hage, M.; Khelissa, S.; Akoum, H.; Chihib, N.E.; Jama, C. Cold Plasma Surface Treatments to Prevent Biofilm Formation in Food Industries and Medical Sectors. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 106, 81–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. de la Torre González, C.; Huante-Guido, M.; Guadarrama, N.V.; Preciado, D.; López, G.P. Changes in Biofilm in Chronic Cholesteatomatous Otitis Media in Children Following the Application of Sodium 2-Mercaptoethanesulfonate (MESNA). Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2018, 110, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Volejníková, A; Melicherčík, P.; Nešuta, O.; Vaňková; E.; Bednárová; L.; Rybáček, J.; Čeřovský, V. Antimicrobial Peptides Prevent Bacterial Biofilm Formation on the Surface of Polymethylmethacrylate Bone Cement. J. Med. Microbiol. 2019, 68, 961–972. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Liu, X.; Fan, D.; Feng, X.; Zheng, Y.; Wegner, S.V.; Liu, M.; Chen, F.; Zeng, W. Breaching Bacterial Biofilm Barriers. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2022, 14, 41671–41683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Siddiqui, A.J.; Patel, M.; Jahan, S.; Abdelgadir, A.; Alam, M.J.; Alshahrani, M.M.; Alturaiki, W.; Sachidanandan, M.; Khan, A.; Badraoui, R.; et al. Silver Nanoparticles Derived from Probiotic Lactobacillus Casei—A Novel Approach for Combating Bacterial Infections and Cancer. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2023. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Mancuso, G.; Midiri, A.; Gerace, E.; Marra, M.; Zummo, S.; Biondo, C. Urinary Tract Infections: The Current Scenario and Future Prospects. Pathogens 2023, 12, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Kunutsor, S.K.; Whitehouse, M.R.; Blom, A.W.; Board, T.; Kay, P.; Wroblewski, B.M.; Zeller, V.; Chen, S.Y.; Hsieh, P.H.; Masri, B.A.; et al. One- and two-stage surgical revision of peri-prosthetic joint infection of the hip: A pooled individual participant data analysis of 44 cohort studies. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2018, 33, 933–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Chemical antibiofilm agents employed to improve diagnosis of biofilm infections.
Table 1. Chemical antibiofilm agents employed to improve diagnosis of biofilm infections.
MethodYearMethod of ApplicationMechanism of Action
DTT solution and formulations2022
[71,72,73,74]		Samples are treated with a 0.1% DTT solution at a concentration of 25 mM for 15 min.Breaks disulfide bonds in EPS matrix, releasing encapsulated bacteria
EDTA 2020
[75]		Samples are treated with an EDTA solution at a concentration of 25 mM for 15 min.Chelates divalent cations essential for EPS stability, destabilizing biofilm structure.
MESNA2018
[77]		Samples are treated with a 4% MESNA solution for 10 min at 37 °C.Breaks disulfide bonds in EPS matrix, releasing encapsulated bacteria
Table 2. Recent promising strategies for counteracting biofilm formation.
Table 2. Recent promising strategies for counteracting biofilm formation.
MethodYearsEffectiveness on the Treatment of IRIsMechanism of Action
Antimicrobial Peptides (AMP)2019
[78]		Significant reduction in bacterial adhesion and biofilm formationDisrupt bacterial cell membranes, preventing adhesion and biofilm formation
AIEgen 2022
[79]		Effective biofilm penetration and increased antibacterial efficacy against multidrug-resistant bacteriaEnhance penetration and disrupt biofilms via photothermal effect
Cold Plasma Treatments2021
[76]		Significant reduction in bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on various surfacesModify surface properties to reduce bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation
Silver Nanoparticles (AgNPs)2023
[80]		Effective inhibition of biofilm formation and growth of bacterial biofilmsInteract with bacterial cell membranes to disrupt biofilm formation and bacterial growth
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Giarritiello, F.; Romanò, C.L.; Lob, G.; Benevenia, J.; Tsuchiya, H.; Zappia, E.; Drago, L. Enhancing Pathogen Detection in Implant-Related Infections through Chemical Antibiofilm Strategies: A Comprehensive Review. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13070678

AMA Style

Giarritiello F, Romanò CL, Lob G, Benevenia J, Tsuchiya H, Zappia E, Drago L. Enhancing Pathogen Detection in Implant-Related Infections through Chemical Antibiofilm Strategies: A Comprehensive Review. Antibiotics. 2024; 13(7):678. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13070678

Chicago/Turabian Style

Giarritiello, Fabiana, Carlo Luca Romanò, Guenter Lob, Joseph Benevenia, Hiroyuki Tsuchiya, Emanuele Zappia, and Lorenzo Drago. 2024. "Enhancing Pathogen Detection in Implant-Related Infections through Chemical Antibiofilm Strategies: A Comprehensive Review" Antibiotics 13, no. 7: 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13070678

APA Style

Giarritiello, F., Romanò, C. L., Lob, G., Benevenia, J., Tsuchiya, H., Zappia, E., & Drago, L. (2024). Enhancing Pathogen Detection in Implant-Related Infections through Chemical Antibiofilm Strategies: A Comprehensive Review. Antibiotics, 13(7), 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13070678

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop