Effection of Bacteria-culture Sample Number on the Confirmation of the Pathogens of Chronic Osteomyelitis
1.Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology，People’s Hospital of Qinghai
2.Pediatric Surgery，Chinese PLA General Hopital
3.Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology，Beijing Jishuitan Hopital
Abstract：Objective To examine the correlations between the bacteria-culture sample during the debridement in the operation and its ability to confirm the causative pathogens of chronic osteomyelitis.Methods 255 patients with chronic osteomyelitis in our hospital from January 2007 to January 2014，were selected in the current study.There were 202 male and 53 female，with the average age of (45.2±16.5)years(15~84 years).Bacteria were sent to culture for 295 times in total，in which there were one sample for 63 times，two samples for 76 times，three samples for 51 times，four samples for 41 times，and five samples for 64 times.After finishing the bacterium culture，bacterial spectrum，population and its ability to confirm the pathogens were calculated and different samples were compared.Results 42 kinds of bacteria were examined in the bacteria culture，the top five bacteria were Staphylococcus Aureus(35.51%)，the Staphylococcus Epidermidis(14.29%)，Pseudomonas Aeruginosa(9.80%)，Enterobacter Cloacae(5.31%)，and Escherichia Coli(4.49%).Detection rate among different samples were：66.7%(one sample)，69.7%(Two samples)，74.5%(Three samples)，78.0%(Four samples)，and 90.6%(Five samples or above).Percentage of pathogens detected in different samples were 42.1%(Two samples)，51.9%(Three samples)，68.3%(Four samples)，and 82.8%(Five samples or above).The result of the comparison between two samples and four samples，two samples and five samples，three samples and five samples，were statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusion Five samples sent to bacteria culture have the strongest detection ability of the causative pathogens，while one sample has the poorest detection ability.Therefore，at least five samples sent to bacteria culture to confirm the causative pathogen is recommended during the operation.
马显志 1，王振栋 2*，王满宜 3，张伯松 3*. 初探慢性骨髓炎患者中不同细菌送检套数确定致病菌的能力[J]. 实用骨科杂志, 2018, 24(12): 1085-1088.
Ma Xianzhi 1，Wang Zhendong 2，Wang Manyi 3，et al. Effection of Bacteria-culture Sample Number on the Confirmation of the Pathogens of Chronic Osteomyelitis. sygkzz, 2018, 24(12): 1085-1088.
［1］Malandain D，Bemer P，Leroy AG，et al.Assessment of the automated multiplex-PCR (Unyvero i60 ITI) cartridge system to diagnose prosthetic joint infection：a multicenter study［J］.Clin Microbiol Infect，2018，24(1)：83.
［2］Zegaer BH，Ioannidis A，Babis GC，et al.Detection of bacteria bearing resistant biofilm forms，by using the universal and specific PCR is still unhelpful in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections［J］.Front Med，2014(1)：30.
［3］Parvizi J，MD，Zmistowski B，et al.New definition for periprosthetic joint infection：from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society［J］.Clin Orthop Relat Res，2011(469)：614-615.
［4］Atkins BL，Athanasou N，Deeks JJ，et al.Prospective Evaluation of Criteria for Microbiological Diagnosis of Prosthetic-Joint Infection at Revision Arthroplasty［J］.J Clin Microbiol，1998，36(10)：2932.
［5］Holinka J，Krepler P，Matzner M，et al.Stabilising effect of dynamic interspinous spacers in degenerative low-grade lumbar instability［J］.Inter Orthop，2011，35(3)：395-400.
［6］Kamme C，Lindberg L.Aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in deep infections after total hip arthroplasty：differential diagnosis between infectious and non-infectious loosening［J］.Clin Orthop Relat Res，1981(154)：201.
［7］Trampuz A，Piper KE，Jacobson MJ，et al.Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection［J］.New England Journal of Medicine，2007，357(7)：654.
［8］Achermann Y，Vogt M，Leunig M，et al.Improved diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection by multiplex PCR of sonication fluid from removed implants［J］.J Clinl Microbiol，2010，48(4)：1208.
［9］Morawietz L，Tiddens O，Mueller M，et al.Twenty-three neutrophil granulocytes in 10 high-power fields is the best histopathological threshold to differentiate between aseptic and septic endoprosthesis loosening［J］.Histopathology，2009，54(7)：847-853.
［10］Müller M，Morawietz L，Hasart O，et al.Diagnosis of periprosthetic infection following total hip arthroplasty-evaluation of the diagnostic values of pre-and intraoperative parameters and the associated strategy to preoperatively select patients with a high probability of joint infection［J］.J Orthop Surg，2008，3(1)：31.
［11］Portillo ME，Salvado M，Sorli L，et al.Multiplex PCR of sonication fluid accurately differentiates between prosthetic joint infection and aseptic failure［J］.J Infect，2012，65(6)：541.
［12］Bemer P，Plouzeau C，Tande D，et al.Evaluation of 16S rRNA Gene PCR Sensitivity and Specificity for Diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infection：a Prospective Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study［J］.J Clin Microbiol，2014，52(10)：3583-3589.
［13］Lausmann C，Zahar A，Citak M，et al.Are there benefits in early diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection with multiplex polymerase chain reaction?［J］.J Bone Joint Infect，2017，2(4)：175-183.
［14］Levy PY，Fenollar F.The role of molecular diagnostics in implant-associated bone and joint infection［J］.Clin Microbiol Infect，2012，18(12)：1168-1175.
［15］Hischebeth GTR，Randau TM，Buhr JK，et al.Unyvero i60 implant and tissue infection(ITI) multiplex PCR system in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection［J］.J Microbiol Methods，2015(121)：27.
［16］Prieto-Borja L，Rodriguez-Sevilla G，Aunon A，et al.Evaluation of a commercial multiplex PCR(Unyvero i60 ) designed for the diagnosis of bone and joint infections using prosthetic-joint sonication［J］.Enfermedades Infecciosas Y Microbiologia Clinica，2017，35(4)：236-242.
晋公网安备 14010702070875号