İRFAN AYAN, GÖNÜL ASLAN, ÜLKÜ ÇÖMELEKOĞLU, Nejat YILMAZ, MEHMET ÇOLAK

Exogen cihazı kaynaklı düşük yoğunluklu ses dalgalarının Staphylococcus aureus morfolojisi ve genetiği üzerine etkileri

Amaç: Bu çalışmada ortopedik cerrahide kaynama gecikmesi ya da kaynamama durumlarında kullanılması önerilen Exogen cihazı ile verilen düşük yoğunluklu ses dalgalarının, ortopedik enfeksiyonlarda sık karşılaşılan Staphylococcus aureus’un koloni sayısı, antimikrobiyal duyarlılığı, bakteriyel morfolojisi ve genetiği üzerine etkisi araştırıldı. Çalışma planı: İçinde S. aureus (ATCC 25923) suşu bulunan 0.5 McFarland bulanıklığında hazırlanan 30 adet tüp süspansiyonunun 15’ine (test grubu) 20 dakika boyunca Exogen cihazı ile düşük yoğunluklu ses dalgası uygulanırken, diğer 15’ine (kontrol grubu) ses dalgası uygulanmadı. Uygulama sonrasında iki gruptaki tüpler koloni sayısı, antibiyotik duyarlılığı ve genotip farklılıklar açısından karşılaştırıldı. Grupların histolojik değerlendirmeleri elektron mikroskopu ile yapıldı. Sonuçlar: Uygulama sonrasında, kontrol grubuyla karşılaştırıldığında, test grubundaki bakteri koloni sayısı anlamlı derecede azalmış bulundu (p

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Koloni sayımı, mikrobiyal, Staphylococcus aureus, Mikrobiyal duyarlılık testleri, Tedavi sonucu, Proteze bağlı enfeksiyonlar, Cerrahi yara enfeksiyonu, Ortopedik işlemler, İlaç direnci, bakteriyel, Osteitis, Stafilokok enfeksiyonları, Ultrasonik terapi

The effect of low-intensity pulsed sound waves delivered by the Exogen device on Staphylococcus aureus morphology and genetics

Objectives: We investigated the effect of low-intensity pulsed sound waves delivered by the Exogen device, which is recommended for the treatment of delayed union and nonunion in orthopedic surgery, on the colony number, antimicrobial susceptibility, bacterial morphology, and genetics of Staphylococcus aureus, which is a frequent pathogen in orthopedic infections. Methods: Thirty tubes containing 0.5 McFarland suspensions of S. aureus (ATCC 25923) were used. Fifteen tubes forming the test group were subjected to low-intensity sound waves by the Exogen device for 20 minutes. The remaining 15 tubes were untreated as controls. The two groups were then compared with respect to colony number, antibiotic susceptibility, and genotypic properties. The tubes were examined histologically by electron microscopy. Results: The test tubes treated with sound waves showed a significantly lower number of bacteria colonies compared to the control tubes (p<0.001). The two groups were similar with respect to antibiotic susceptibility and genotypic properties. Bacterial cell wall structure in the control group was of normal appearance, whereas partial destruction and break-up were observed in test samples. Bacterial cell wall thickness was significantly higher in the test group compared to the control group (41.54 nm and 24.27 nm, respectively; p<0.001). Conclusion: Low-intensity sound waves may be beneficial as a prophylactic measure to prevent infections in primary orthopedic operations and as an adjuvant therapy for infected nonunions.

Keywords:

Colony Count, Microbial, Staphylococcus aureus, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Treatment Outcome, Prosthesis-Related Infections, Surgical Wound Infection, Orthopedic Procedures, Drug Resistance, Bacterial, Osteitis, Staphylococcal Infections, Ultrasonic Therapy,

___

1. Mason TJ, Joyce E, Phull SS, Lorimer JP. Potential uses of ultrasound in the biological decontamination of water. Ultrason Sonochem 2003;10:319-23.
2. Piyasena P, Mohareb E, McKellar RC. Inactivation of microbes using ultrasound: a review. Int J Food Microbiol 2003;87:207-16.
3. Rediske AM, Roeder BL, Brown MK, Nelson JL, Robison RL, Draper DO, et al. Ultrasonic enhancement of antibiotic action on Escherichia coli biofilms: an in vivo model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43:1211-4.
4. Vollmer AC, Kwakye S, Halpern M, Everbach EC. Bacterial stress responses to 1-megahertz pulsed ultrasound in the presence of microbubbles. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998;64:3927-31.
5. Cooter R, Babidge W, Mutimer K, Wickham P, Robinson D, Kiroff G, et al. Ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty. ANZ J Surg 2001;71:309-17.
6. Garaj-Vrhovac V, Kopjar N. Investigation into possible DNA damaging effects of ultrasound in occupationally exposed medical personnel-the alkaline comet assay study. J Appl Toxicol 2005;25:184-92.
7. Miller DL, Reese JA, Frazier ME. Single strand DNA breaks in human leukocytes induced by ultrasound in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 1989;15:765-71.
8. Shintaku Y, Takabayashi T, Sasaki H, Ozawa N, Yajima A. Sister chromatid exchanges in mouse after exposure to pulse-wave ultrasound in utero. Tohoku J Exp Med 1993;170:63-9.
9. Stella M, Trevisan L, Montaldi A, Zaccaria G, Rossi G, Bianchi V, et al. Induction of sister-chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes exposed in vitro and in vivo to therapeutic ultrasound. Mutat Res 1984;138:75-85.
10. Nolte PA, van der Krans A, Patka P, Janssen IM, Ryaby JP, Albers GH. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound in the treatment of nonunions. J Trauma 2001;51:693-702.
11. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. 6th ed. Approved standard, NCCLS document M2-A6. NCCLS: Pennsylvania; 1997.
12. Guducuoglu H, Ayan M, Durmaz R, Berktas M, Bozkurt H, Bayram Y. Epidemiological analysis of Staphylococcus aureus strains from nasal carriers in a teaching hospital. New Microbiol 2002;25:421-6.
13. Durmaz R, Ayan M. Acinetobacter baumannii izolatlarının moleküler epidemiyolojisinde “arbitrarily primed” PZR ve “pulsed-field gel” elektroforezi. In: Durmaz R, editör. Uygulamalı moleküler mikrobiyoloji. 2nd ed. İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevi; 2001. p. 219-28.
14. Tenover FC, Arbeit RD, Goering RV, Mickelsen PA, Murray BE, Persing DH, et al. Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis: criteria for bacterial strain typing. J Clin Microbiol 1995;33:2233-9.
15. Pitt WG, Ross SA. Ultrasound increases the rate of bacterial cell growth. Biotechnol Prog 2003;19:1038-44.
16. Scherba G, Weigel RM, O’Brien WD Jr. Quantitative assessment of the germicidal efficacy of ultrasonic energy. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991;57:2079-84.
17. Joyce E, Phull SS, Lorimer JP, Mason TJ. The development and evaluation of ultrasound for the treatment of bacterial suspensions. A study of frequency, power and sonication time on cultured Bacillus species. Ultrason Sonochem 2003;10:315-8.
18. Takabayashi T, Sato S, Sato A, Ozawa N, Sou S, Yajima A, et al. Influence of pulse-wave ultrasonic irradiation on the prenatal development of mouse. Tohoku J Exp Med 1985;147:403-10.
19. Carmen JC, Nelson JL, Beckstead BL, Runyan CM, Robison RA, Schaalje GB, et al. Ultrasonic-enhanced gentamicin transport through colony biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli. J Infect Chemother 2004;10:193-9.
20. Carmen JC, Roeder BL, Nelson JL, Beckstead BL, Runyan CM, Schaalje GB, et al. Ultrasonically enhanced vancomycin activity against Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms in vivo. J Biomater Appl 2004;18:237-45.
21. Mecikoglu M, Saygi B, Yildirim Y, Karadag-Saygi E, Ramadan SS, Esemenli T. The effect of proteolytic enzyme serratiopeptidase in the treatment of experimental implantrelated infection. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2006;88:1208-14.
22. Sahin O, Donmez-Altuntas H, Hizmetli S, Hamurcu Z, Imamoglu N. Investigation of genotoxic effect of ultrasound in cases receiving therapeutic ultrasound by using micronucleus method. Ultrasound Med Biol 2004;30:545-8.
23. Miller MW, Azadniv M, Cox C, Miller WM. Lack of induced increase in sister chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes exposed to in vivo therapeutic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 1991;17:81-3.