Skip to main page content

• HOME
• Current Issue
• Archive
• Alerts
• About ASM
• Contact us
• Tech Support
• Journals.ASM.org

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Esteban, J. Articles by Fernandez-Roblas, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Esteban, J. Articles by Fernandez-Roblas, R.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, February 2008, p. 488-492, Vol. 46, No. 2
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01762-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of Quantitative Analysis of Cultures from Sonicated Retrieved Orthopedic Implants in Diagnosis of Orthopedic Infection

Jaime Esteban,^1* Enrique Gomez-Barrena,² Jose Cordero,³ Nieves Zamora Martín-de-Hijas,¹ Teemu J. Kinnari,¹ and Ricardo Fernandez-Roblas¹

Departments of Clinical Microbiology,¹ Orthopaedic Surgery, Fundación Jiménez Díaz-UTE, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain,² Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital la Princesa, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain³

Received 5 September 2007/ Returned for modification 16 October 2007/ Accepted 28 November 2007

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
To improve the microbiological diagnosis of device-related osteoarticular infections, we have developed a protocol based on the sonication of device samples, followed by concentration and inoculation of the sonicate in a broad variety of media in a quantitative manner. Sixty-six samples from 31 patients were included in the study (17 of them with clinical diagnosis of infection). The sonication procedure had a sensitivity of 94.1%, which is better than that of conventional cultures (88.2%). One case of contamination and six cases of unexpected positive cultures were detected (specificity of 42.8%): two of these were considered to represent true infection, while the other four were considered to be nonsignificant (corrected specificity of 50%), although the clinical importance of these isolates is questionable. When we analyzed the number of CFU, no breakpoint between significant and nonsignificant isolates could be established. Based on our results, the procedure of sonication of retrieved implants is better than conventional cultures for the diagnosis of device-related infections. The significance of some isolates in patients without clinical infection remains uncertain. However, they may become pathogens and cannot be routinely considered to be contamination.

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Although prosthetic joint implantation has become an important medical procedure that improves quality of life for many patients, the majority of failures that lead to severe consequences remain unsolved. A significant proportion of these failures may be infectious, with the secondary risk of bone infection. These infections have severe consequences not only for the patient but also for society because of long hospital stays, long and expensive treatments, and multiple surgeries (4).

Septic implant analysis is especially interesting due to the fact that infected materials act as bacterium reservoirs, impairing implant function and propagating infection into the bone. Moreover, both the diagnosis and treatment of prosthetic osteoarticular infections are further complicated by the development of a bacterial biofilm, where the bacteria have changed their phenotypes to an extremely resistant sessile form of life (3, 5, 7). The surge of multiresistant microorganisms that easily adhere to inert surgical materials stresses the value of adequate diagnosis leading to proper therapy for these patients. Although periprosthetic tissue culture remains the standard microbiological diagnostic method, organisms adhered to the prosthesis are occasionally impossible to detect by common bacterial cultures. Different approaches to obtain data from the potentially infected prosthetic material (11, 14, 18, 21, 25) include sampling from the surface of the implant (direct swab), surrounding fluids, and the implant after sonication. False-negative and false-positive results are found with these methods, compared with the clinical diagnosis of infection. False-negative cultures frequently occur due to empirical antibiotic treatments, low numbers of circulating bacteria in the implant-surrounding tissues, or biofilm formation. On the other hand, false-positive cultures frequently come from contamination, as orthopedic infections are often caused by the same bacteria responsible for the contamination of cultures (4, 18), such as coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CNS) or Propionibacterium spp. Highly sensitive techniques can lead to unacceptably high numbers of false-positive determinations. Another potential source of error is the contamination of the removed implant during transportation to the diagnostic unit, especially because of leakages in plastic transport bags (19). Besides, the basic media commonly used for bacterial isolation do not adequately allow the isolation of uncommon organisms such as mycobacteria or fungi, while the determination of bacterial DNA in the synovial fluid around the implant by means of PCR may increase the risk of false-positive determinations (15).

The ideal diagnostic approach would require high sensitivity and specificity to confirm orthopedic implant infection. We have designed a prospective study to evaluate the diagnostic value of quantitative cultures performed after orthopedic implant sonication, associated with the inoculation of a broad range of media, to discriminate between contamination and true infection according to the number of CFU detected in the cultures.

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Patients and samples. Patients with clinical diagnoses of osteoarticular infection directly related to an orthopedic device were included in the study from July 2006 to April 2007. Patients were selected among those attending two university hospitals in Madrid (Spain): Hospital Fundación Jiménez Díaz and Hospital La Princesa. A protocol was designed to evaluate clinical data for these patients, including demographics, underlying diseases, types of devices, and previous antibiotic treatments. Patients without clinical diagnosis of infection were also included as controls.

Clinical diagnosis of prosthetic infection was based on the standard preoperative and intraoperative signs associated with orthopedic implant infection: fistula, purulent discharge from the wound, intraoperative identification of periprosthetic purulence and/or a sinus tract communicating with the prosthesis, laboratory findings (maintained elevation of C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate), radiological signs, and/or gamma scan findings (2, 9, 17).

Removal of the prosthetic device was performed under aseptic conditions as a regular orthopedic surgery procedure. Multiple (three to five) periprosthetic tissue samples were sent to microbiology laboratories for routine cultures. Prosthetic devices were sent to the reference laboratory (Fundación Jiménez Díaz microbiology department) in sterile closed containers for specimen processing. Samples were stored at 4°C until processing (maximum delay of 24 h).

Sample processing. In the reference laboratory, samples were aseptically introduced and hermetically closed in 20- by 40-cm sterile plastic bags with 50 ml of sterile phosphate buffer (pH 6.8) (bioMérieux, Marcy-L'Étoile, France). Bags were previously steam sterilized and sealed until use. The samples were sonicated with an Ultrasons-H 3000840 low-power bath sonicator (J. P. Selecta, Abrera, Spain) during 5 min. The bags were visually inspected before and after sonication to detect leaks in the bag.

The sonicate was removed under an aseptical manipulation protocol and placed into 50-ml Falcon tubes. Samples were then centrifuged at 3,000 x g during 20 min, and the supernatant was discharged. The sediment was resuspended in 5 ml of sterile phosphate buffer, and 10 µl was inoculated onto the following culture media: tryptic soy-5% sheep blood agar, chocolate agar, Schaedler-5% sheep blood agar, MacConkey agar, Sabouraud-chloramphenicol agar, and Middlebrook 7H10 agar. Ten microliters was also prepared for Gram staining. Samples were streaked onto each medium for quantitative culture. The media were then incubated under different conditions: at 37°C in a 5% CO₂ atmosphere during 7 days (tryptic soy-5% sheep blood agar and chocolate agar) or 15 days (Middlebrook 7H10 agar), at 37°C under a normal atmosphere during 1 day (MacConkey agar), at 37°C under an anaerobic atmosphere during 7 days (Schaedler-5% sheep blood agar), and at room temperature and atmosphere during 30 days (Sabouraud-chloramphenicol agar). All media were inspected daily for microbial growth. Isolated organisms were identified according to commonly used commercial biochemical tests (API20NE, API Strep, and Rapid ID32A; bioMérieux, Marcy-L'Étoile, France) or commonly accepted protocols (6). Susceptibility testing of the organisms was performed using the Kirby-Bauer disc plate assay, and the results were interpreted according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (formerly NCCLS) standards (12).

When two phenotypically identical strains were isolated from different patients, the strains were analyzed by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis using previously described protocols (24) with primers Akopyanz (CCG CAG CCA A), p3 (AGA CGT CCA C), and p15 (AAT GGC GCA G).

Statistical analysis. Fisher's exact test was used for evaluations of the presence of confluent bacteria related to clinical diagnosis. All calculations were performed with EPI-INFO 3.4.1 software (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Sixty-six samples from 31 patients were included in the study (2.13 samples/patient). Seventeen of the patients (37 samples; 2.17 samples/patient) had a clinical diagnosis of prosthetic infection. In all these samples, the preoperative diagnosis of infection was clinically confirmed in the operation by macroscopic periprosthetic purulence. Additionally, in some cases, a sinus tract communicating with the prosthesis was observed. The other 14 patients (29 samples; 2.07 samples/patient) had no clinical diagnosis of infection (aseptic loosening in six cases, mechanical pain in three cases, pseudoarthrosis in two cases, and other conditions in three cases). Results for sonicates and conventional cultures are shown in Table 1.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 1. Results of conventional and sonicate cultures

The processed retrieved orthopedic materials were hip prostheses (15 cases; 38 samples), knee prostheses (3 cases; 10 samples), intramedullar nails (four cases; six samples), and other devices (9 cases; 12 samples).

Among the patients with clinical diagnosis of infection, all but one (with clinical diagnosis of total knee prosthetic infection) had positive results for the sonicate (sensitivity of 94.1%), and two had negative results by conventional culture methods (sensitivity of 88.2%). Specificity, however, was lower for the sonication (42.8%) than for the conventional culture (specificity of 100% for nine patients with conventional cultures). The positive predictive value was 66.7% for sonication and 100% for conventional cultures, and the negative predictive value was 85.7% for sonication and 81.8% for conventional cultures. One patient with total hip prosthetic infection had S. aureus isolated from the sonicate culture, but the conventional cultures were negative.

Of the cases with no clinical diagnosis of infection, but where conventional cultures were performed (n = 9), four had positive results for the sonicate. After reviewing the clinical chart, one of these cultures was considered to be a true-positive result (Pseudomonas aeruginosa), while the other three were considered to be without clinical significance (one Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and two Burkholderia sp. isolates). Of the cases where no conventional cultures were performed (n = 5), one was considered to be clinically significant after reevaluation (Staphylococcus aureus), and the true significance of another one was doubtful (one isolation of Mycobacterium fortuitum). The rest of these cases were considered to be of no clinical relevance (one isolate of Burkholderia cepacia and one isolate of Sphingomonas paucimobilis). The S. maltophilia isolate was considered to be contamination caused by visible leakage found in the plastic sonication bag. No other cases of bag leakage were detected.

After these late considerations, if we include all the cases with a final diagnosis of infection, the sensitivity of sonication remained at 94.7%, while conventional cultures showed a sensitivity of 84.2%. However, specificity remained lower for sonication (50%) than for conventional cultures (100% of eight cases). The positive predictive value rose to 75% for sonication (conventional cultures remained at 100%), but the negative predictive value was not affected.

In relation to the isolated organisms, all the samples from four patients grew two different organisms (S. aureus and Streptococcus agalactiae, S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, S. aureus and CNS, and CNS and Aspergillus terreus). All the other positive cultures grew only one organism: gram-positive cocci were the most common of them (S. aureus in nine cases and CNS in six cases); P. aeruginosa, S. maltophilia, and Burkholderia spp., were isolated in two cases each, and one isolate was detected for other organisms (Table 2). No identical strains were detected in two different patients according to RAPD results.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 2. Characteristics of the two groups of patients

When we evaluated the data obtained from the Gram stain, 33.3% of all the positive samples gave a positive result. All but one of these samples showed a colony count higher than 100,000 CFU. Quantification of the isolates showed that no breakpoint could be established to evaluate if the organism was contamination, because in one case (diagnosed as contamination with S. maltophilia), the colony number was higher than 500,000 CFU; in other cases of possible contamination, the count was between 100,000 CFU (B. cepacia and both Burkholderia sp. isolates) and 250,000 CFU (S. paucimobilis), while in one case of a truly significant isolate (Prevotella oralis), the colony count was lower than 250 CFU. No statistical difference was found for the presence of confluent bacterial growth in the cultures related to the clinical diagnosis of infection (P = 0.42 by Fisher's exact test), even if the two cases of unsuspected infection were considered to be true positives (P = 0.31 by Fisher's exact test).

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The diagnosis of infection related to biomaterials in orthopedic surgery remains a challenge for microbiology laboratories (1, 4, 14, 18, 25) because, despite all advances in microbiological techniques, there is no truly valid technique that could serve as a "gold standard" for this diagnosis.

Clinical evaluation, both perioperatively and intraoperatively, has many pitfalls, and several reports have shown that patients with clinically aseptic loosening may in fact have oligosymptomatic infection that cannot be diagnosed until microbiological evaluation is performed (13, 23).

The pathogenesis of these infections may explain the diagnostic problems. Biofilm is an extremely important form of bacterial life that seems to be a crucial part of the development of biomaterial-related infection (3, 5, 7, 8). Other potential factors related to infections are intracellular survival of bacteria and the ability of low-pathogenic-potential organisms to develop infection when foreign bodies are present through long time periods (16). All these factors lead to difficulties in diagnoses, as bacterial isolates that are part of a biofilm or are inside cells grow poorly in culture media. Moreover, there could be fastidious organisms involved, such as mycobacteria or fungi, that cannot be isolated unless special culture media or prolonged incubation times are used (10).

Sonication of the implanted material seems to be a valid approach for the diagnosis of device-related infections, as has been stated previously (19, 20, 22, 25). This technique dislodges the adhered organisms and allows their detection through conventional microbiological cultures. Reports describing approaches similar to the one used in the present work (20, 22) have shown better sensitivity results for sonication than for conventional cultures, as confirmed in our work. However, the specificity in our results was lower than that that reported previously by Trampuz et al. (20), while no specificity was reported previously by Tunney et al. (22). Several factors could explain this difference. First, the number of conventional cultures taken among patients without infection was very low in our report, so the specificity of conventional cultures could be lower than what was detected. Second, it is possible that sonication in bags could increase the number of positive cultures due to contamination, as previously stated (19), so the specificity reported previously by Trampuz et al. was lower than that of conventional cultures (88.5% versus 90.9%) (20); however, in those studies, the sonication bags were perforated, allowing the entrance of water from the sonicator with subsequent contamination of the sample; we detected only one case of a damaged bag in our work where S. maltophilia was subsequently isolated, while in all the other cases, no rupture could be detected despite careful inspection of the bags before and after sonication. Moreover, we changed the water of the sonicator after each sonication, and the sonicator remained empty so as to avoid bacterial overgrowth in the water and subsequent contaminations. Third, the number of culture media employed by us is higher than those used by Trampuz et al. (20), so there is a possibility that some isolates may not be detected if only conventional media are used; in fact, Burkholderia sp. isolates grew only on Middlebrook 7H10 agar plates, and A. terreus isolates grew both in Sabouraud-chloramphenicol agar tubes and on Middlebrook 7H10 agar plates; if we had used the culture media described previously (20), we would not have detected these isolates, and the specificity would have increased to 66.7%.

The fact that two cases of true infection caused by pathogenic organisms were detected without initial suspicion of infection raises the question of clinical evaluation as a gold standard (23).

On the opposite side, and even more interesting, is the fact that organisms isolated in our study as being false positives share a common characteristic: all of them are nonfermenter gram-negative rods or uncommon isolates (environmental mycobacteria and fungi) with a low pathogenic potential for humans. However, their true significance in these samples is questionable because no clinical symptoms were detected in the patients. These organisms could have been attached to the implant surface and may not have led to clinical infection but may have contributed to the loosening of the prosthesis in the long-term. The high number of colonies detected and the absence of these organisms in control cultures from the sonicator make this hypothesis reasonable. As the use of multiple culture media in our study was done to increase the detection possibilities of fastidious or uncommon organisms, the significance of these organisms as cause of contamination or a true pathogen remains doubtful. Although no clinical disease could be found, the patients with Burkholderia sp. isolates had symptoms leading to prosthesis removal (due to pseudoarthrosis and aseptic loosening), as was also the case for the patient with M. fortuitum (with motion problems). In the case of A. terreus, the fungus was isolated together with CNS, a more common pathogen, in a patient with clinical diagnosis of infection, so its role in the disease is difficult to establish.

In conclusion, the use of sonication, together with a broad spectrum of culture media, increases the possibilities for the diagnosis of device-related orthopedic infections. The significance of some isolates that appeared with high colony counts but without clinical symptoms or signs needs further evaluation to classify them properly as contaminants or pathogens.

 
This study was supported by a grant from the CICYT (MAT2006-12603-C02-02). We also acknowledge the support of the European Science Foundation, COST action 537. N. Z. Martín-de-Hijas was funded by the Fundación Conchita Rábago de Jiménez Díaz.

There are no conflicts of interest for any author.

 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Clinical Microbiology, Fundación Jiménez Díaz-UTE, Av. Reyes Católicos 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain. Phone: 34 915504800. Fax: 34 915494764. E-mail: jesteban{at}fjd.es

Published ahead of print on 12 December 2007.

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 

1
1. Campoccia, D., L. Montannaro, and C. R. Arciola. 2006. The significance of infection related to orthopedic devices and issues of antibiotic resistance. Biomaterials 27:2331-2339.[CrossRef][Medline]
2
2. Cordero-Ampuero, J., J. Esteban, E. García-Cimbrelo, L. Munuera, and R. Escobar. 2007. Low relapse with oral antibiotics and two-stage exchange for late arthroplasty infections in 40 patients after 2-9 years. Acta Orthopaed. 78:511-519.[CrossRef]
3
3. Costerton, J. W., L. Montanaro, and C. R. Arciola. 2005. Biofilm in implant infections: its production and regulation. Int. J. Artif. Organs 28:1062-1068.[Medline]
4
4. Darouiche, R. O. 2004. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N. Engl. J. Med. 350:1422-1429.[Free Full Text]
5
5. Donlan, R. M., and J. W. Costerton. 2002. Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 15:167-193.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6
6. Dumler, J. S., J. M. Janda, and A. von Graevenitz. 2003. Bacteriology, p. 271-1036. In P. R. Murray, E. J. Baron, J. H. Jorgensen, M. A. Pfaller, and R. H. Yolken (ed.), Manual of clinical microbiology, 8th ed., vol. 1. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
7
7. Hall-Stoodley, L., J. W. Costerton, and P. Stoodley. 2004. Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2:95-108.[CrossRef][Medline]
8
8. Hall-Stoodley, L., and P. Stoodley. 2005. Biofilm formation and dispersal and the transmission of human pathogens. Trends Microbiol. 13:7-10.[CrossRef][Medline]
9
9. Leone, J. M., and A. D. Hanssen. 2006. Management of infection at the site of a total knee arthroplasty. Instr. Course Lect. 55:449-461.[Medline]
10
10. Marculescu, C. E., E. F. Berbari, F. R. Cockerill, and D. R. Osmon. 2006. Unusual aerobic and anaerobic bacteria associated with prosthetic joint infections. Clin. Orthopaed. Relat. Res. 451:55-63.[CrossRef]
11
11. Marculescu, C. E., E. F. Berbari, A. D. Hanssen, J. M. Steckelberg, and D. R. Osmon. 2005. Prosthetic joint infection diagnosed postoperatively by intraoperative culture. Clin. Orthopaed. Relat. Res. 439:38-42.[CrossRef]
12
12. NCCLS. 2000. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests, approved standard M2-A7. NCCLS, Wayne, PA.
13
13. Nelson, C. L., A. C. McLaren, S. G. McLaren, J. W. Johnson, and M. S. Smeltzer. 2005. Is aseptic loosening truly aseptic? Clin. Orthopaed. Relat. Res. 437:25-30.
14
14. Neut, D., J. R. van Horn, T. G. van Kooten, H. C. van der Mei, and H. J. Busscher. 2003. Detection of biomaterial-associated infections in orthopaedic joint implants. Clin. Orthopaed. Relat. Res. 413:261-268.[CrossRef]
15
15. Panousis, K., P. Grigoris, I. Butcher, B. Rana, J. H. Reilly, and D. L. Hamblen. 2005. Poor predictive value of broad-range PCR for the detection of arthroplasty infection in 92 cases. Acta Orthopaed. 76:341-346.
16
16. Proctor, R. A., P. van Langevelde, M. Kristjansson, J. N. Maslow, and R. D. Arbeit. 1995. Persistent and relapsing infections associated with small-colony variants of Staphylococcus aureus. Clin. Infect. Dis. 20:95-102.[Medline]
17
17. Salvati, E. A., A. G. Della-Valle, B. A. Masri, and C. P. Duncan. 2003. The infected total hip arthroplasty. Instr. Course Lect. 52:223-246.[Medline]
18
18. Trampuz, A., and A. F. Widmer. 2006. Infections associated with orthopedic implants. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 19:349-356.[Medline]
19
19. Trampuz, A., K. E. Piper, A. D. Hanssen, D. R. Osmon, F. R. Cockerill, J. M. Steckelberg, and R. Patel. 2006. Sonication of explanted prosthetic components in bags for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection is associated with risk of contamination. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:628-631.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20
20. Trampuz, A., K. E. Piper, M. J. Jacobson, A. D. Hanssen, K. K. Unni, D. R. Osmon, J. N. Mandrekar, F. R. Cockerill, J. M. Steckelberg, J. F. Greenleaf, and R. Patel. 2007. Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 357:654-663.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21
21. Trampuz, A., and W. Zimmerli. 2006. Diagnosis and treatment of infections associated with fracture-fixation devices. Int. J. Care Injured 37:S59-S66.
22
22. Tunney, M. M., S. Patrick, M. D. Curran, G. Ramage, D. Hanna, J. R. Nixon, S. P. Gorman, R. I. Davis, and N. Anderson. 1999. Detection of prosthetic hip infection at revision arthroplasty by immunofluorescence microscopy and PCR amplification of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene J. Clin. Microbiol. 37:3281-3290.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23
23. Waldvogel, F. A. 2007. Ultrasound—now also for microbiologists? N. Engl. J. Med. 357:705-706.[Free Full Text]
24
24. Wang, G., T. S. Whittam, C. M. Berg, and D. E. Berg. 1993. RAPD (arbitrarily primer) PCR is more sensitive than multilocus enzyme electrophoresis for distinguishing related bacterial strains. Nucleic Acids Res. 21:5930-5933.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25
25. Zimmerli, W. 2996. Prosthetic-joint-associated infections. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 20:1045-1063.[CrossRef]

---

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, February 2008, p. 488-492, Vol. 46, No. 2
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01762-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Del Pozo, J. L., Patel, R. (2009). Infection Associated with Prosthetic Joints. NEJM 361: 787-794 [Full Text]  
• Monsen, T., Lovgren, E., Widerstrom, M., Wallinder, L. (2009). In Vitro Effect of Ultrasound on Bacteria and Suggested Protocol for Sonication and Diagnosis of Prosthetic Infections. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 2496-2501 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Piper, K. E., Jacobson, M. J., Cofield, R. H., Sperling, J. W., Sanchez-Sotelo, J., Osmon, D. R., McDowell, A., Patrick, S., Steckelberg, J. M., Mandrekar, J. N., Fernandez Sampedro, M., Patel, R. (2009). Microbiologic Diagnosis of Prosthetic Shoulder Infection by Use of Implant Sonication. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 1878-1884 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• TAMAKI, Y., TAKAKUBO, Y., GOTO, K., HIRAYAMA, T., SASAKI, K., KONTTINEN, Y. T., GOODMAN, S. B., TAKAGI, M. (2009). Increased Expression of Toll-like Receptors in Aseptic Loose Periprosthetic Tissues and Septic Synovial Membranes Around Total Hip Implants. The Journal of Rheumatology 36: 598-608 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Esteban, J. Articles by Fernandez-Roblas, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Esteban, J. Articles by Fernandez-Roblas, R.