Cargando…

Characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (AUS)

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the bacterial colonization on artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) devices following revision surgery. We aim to evaluate the microbial compositions of explanted AUS devices identified on standard culture at our institution. METHODS: Twenty-three AUS de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leong, Joon Yau, Ancira, Jacob, Bulafka, Jessica, Shenot, Patrick J., Das, Akhil K., Chung, Paul H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10251108/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37305623
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-702
_version_ 1785055882707468288
author Leong, Joon Yau
Ancira, Jacob
Bulafka, Jessica
Shenot, Patrick J.
Das, Akhil K.
Chung, Paul H.
author_facet Leong, Joon Yau
Ancira, Jacob
Bulafka, Jessica
Shenot, Patrick J.
Das, Akhil K.
Chung, Paul H.
author_sort Leong, Joon Yau
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the bacterial colonization on artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) devices following revision surgery. We aim to evaluate the microbial compositions of explanted AUS devices identified on standard culture at our institution. METHODS: Twenty-three AUS devices explanted were included in this study. During revision surgery, aerobic and anaerobic culture swabs are taken from the implant, capsule, fluid surrounding the device, and biofilm, if present. Culture specimens are sent to the hospital laboratory for routine culture evaluation immediately upon case completion. Differences in number of microorganism species detected across samples (richness) against demographic variables were determined through backwards selection of all variables using analysis of variance (ANOVA). We assessed the prevalence (how many times each species occurred) of microbial culture species. Statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package in R (version 4.2.1). RESULTS: Cultures reported positive results in 20 (87%) cases. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most commonly identified bacteria among explanted AUS devices (n=16, 80%). Among two of the four infected/eroded implants, more virulent organisms such as Escherichia coli and fungal species such as Candida albicans were identified. The mean number of species identified amongst culture positive devices was 2.15±0.49. The number of unique bacteria identified per sample was not significantly associated with demographic variables including race, ethnicity, age at revision, smoking history, duration of implantation, etiology for explantation, and concomitant medical comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of AUS devices removed for non-infectious reasons harbor organisms on traditional culture at the time of explantation. The most commonly identified bacteria in this setting is coagulase-negative staphylococci, which may be a result of bacterial colonization introduced at the time of implant. Conversely, infected implants may harbor microorganisms with higher virulence including fungal elements. Bacterial colonization or biofilm formation on implants may not necessarily equate to clinically infected devices. Future studies with more sophisticated technology, such as next-generation sequencing or extended cultures, may evaluate microbial compositions of biofilm at a more granular level to understand its role in device infections.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10251108
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102511082023-06-10 Characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) Leong, Joon Yau Ancira, Jacob Bulafka, Jessica Shenot, Patrick J. Das, Akhil K. Chung, Paul H. Transl Androl Urol Original Article on Surgical Management of Stress Urinary Incontinence in Men BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the bacterial colonization on artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) devices following revision surgery. We aim to evaluate the microbial compositions of explanted AUS devices identified on standard culture at our institution. METHODS: Twenty-three AUS devices explanted were included in this study. During revision surgery, aerobic and anaerobic culture swabs are taken from the implant, capsule, fluid surrounding the device, and biofilm, if present. Culture specimens are sent to the hospital laboratory for routine culture evaluation immediately upon case completion. Differences in number of microorganism species detected across samples (richness) against demographic variables were determined through backwards selection of all variables using analysis of variance (ANOVA). We assessed the prevalence (how many times each species occurred) of microbial culture species. Statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package in R (version 4.2.1). RESULTS: Cultures reported positive results in 20 (87%) cases. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most commonly identified bacteria among explanted AUS devices (n=16, 80%). Among two of the four infected/eroded implants, more virulent organisms such as Escherichia coli and fungal species such as Candida albicans were identified. The mean number of species identified amongst culture positive devices was 2.15±0.49. The number of unique bacteria identified per sample was not significantly associated with demographic variables including race, ethnicity, age at revision, smoking history, duration of implantation, etiology for explantation, and concomitant medical comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of AUS devices removed for non-infectious reasons harbor organisms on traditional culture at the time of explantation. The most commonly identified bacteria in this setting is coagulase-negative staphylococci, which may be a result of bacterial colonization introduced at the time of implant. Conversely, infected implants may harbor microorganisms with higher virulence including fungal elements. Bacterial colonization or biofilm formation on implants may not necessarily equate to clinically infected devices. Future studies with more sophisticated technology, such as next-generation sequencing or extended cultures, may evaluate microbial compositions of biofilm at a more granular level to understand its role in device infections. AME Publishing Company 2023-02-28 2023-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10251108/ /pubmed/37305623 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-702 Text en 2023 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article on Surgical Management of Stress Urinary Incontinence in Men
Leong, Joon Yau
Ancira, Jacob
Bulafka, Jessica
Shenot, Patrick J.
Das, Akhil K.
Chung, Paul H.
Characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (AUS)
title Characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (AUS)
title_full Characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (AUS)
title_fullStr Characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (AUS)
title_full_unstemmed Characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (AUS)
title_short Characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (AUS)
title_sort characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (aus)
topic Original Article on Surgical Management of Stress Urinary Incontinence in Men
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10251108/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37305623
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-702
work_keys_str_mv AT leongjoonyau characterizingthebiofilmofartificialurinarysphinctersaus
AT ancirajacob characterizingthebiofilmofartificialurinarysphinctersaus
AT bulafkajessica characterizingthebiofilmofartificialurinarysphinctersaus
AT shenotpatrickj characterizingthebiofilmofartificialurinarysphinctersaus
AT dasakhilk characterizingthebiofilmofartificialurinarysphinctersaus
AT chungpaulh characterizingthebiofilmofartificialurinarysphinctersaus