Next Article in Journal
Metatranscriptomic Analysis of Oil-Exposed Seawater Bacterial Communities Archived by an Environmental Sample Processor (ESP)
Next Article in Special Issue
Viral Bone Infection: A Neglected Disease?
Previous Article in Journal
Known Antimicrobials Versus Nortriptyline in Candida albicans: Repositioning an Old Drug for New Targets
Previous Article in Special Issue
Does Intra-Wound Vancomycin Powder Affect the Action of Intra-Articular Tranexamic Acid in Total Joint Replacement?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 8
Issue 5
10.3390/microorganisms8050743
microorganisms-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:
Article

Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy against Cutibacterium acnes Implant-Associated Infections: An in Vitro Trial

by
Konstantinos Tsikopoulos
1,*,
Lorenzo Drago
2,
Georgios Koutras
3,
Panagiotis Givissis
4,
Eleni Vagdatli
5,
Prodromos Soukiouroglou
5 and
Paraskevi Papaioannidou
1
1
1st Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Biochemical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy
3
Department of Physical Therapy, Technological Education Institute of Thessaloniki, 57400 Sindos, Greece
4
1st Orthopaedic Department of Aristotle University, G. Papanikolaou General Hospital, Exohi, 57010 Thessaloniki, Greece
5
Laboratory of Microbiology, Hippokration Hospital, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2020, 8(5), 743; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8050743
Submission received: 9 March 2020 / Revised: 29 April 2020 / Accepted: 11 May 2020 / Published: 15 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biofilm Implant Related Infections)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Antibiotic management of low-virulent implant-associated infections induced by Cutibacterium acnes may be compromised by multi-drug resistance development, side effects, and increased cost. Therefore, we sought to assess the effects of shock wave therapy against the above pathogen using an in vitro model of infection. Methods: We used a total of 120 roughened titanium alloy disks, simulating orthopedic biomaterials, to assess the results of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) against C. acnes (ATCC 11827) biofilms relative to untreated control. In particular, we considered 1.6 to 2.5 Bar with a frequency ranging from 8–11 Hz and 95 to 143 impulses per disk to investigate the antibacterial effect of rESWT against C. acnes planktonic (free-floating) and biofilm forms. Results: Planktonic bacteria load diminished by 54% compared to untreated control after a 1.8-bar setting with a frequency of 8 Hz and 95 impulses was applied (median absorbance (MA) for intervention vs. control groups was 0.9245 (IQR= 0.888 to 0.104) vs. 0.7705 (IQR = 0.712 to 0.864), respectively, p = 0.001). Likewise, a statistically significant reduction in the amount of biofilm relative to untreated control was documented when the above setting was considered (MA for treatment vs biofilm control groups was 0.244 (IQR= 0.215–0.282) and 0.298 (IQR = 0.247–0.307), respectively, p = 0.033). Conclusion: A 50% biofilm eradication was documented following application of low-pressure and low-frequency radial shock waves, so rESWT could be investigated as an adjuvant treatment to antibiotics, but it cannot be recommended as a standalone treatment against device-associated infections induced by C. ances.

1. Introduction

Cutibacterium acnes (formerly known as Propionibacterium acnes) is the most frequently isolated microorganism following shoulder arthroplasty, reaching a prevalence of 38.9% [1]. With the financial burden of revision surgery being around 3.6 times greater compared to that of primary reconstruction [2], shoulder periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) represent a serious complication not only for patients, but also for orthopedic surgeons.
From a pathogenetical viewpoint, once C. acnes adheres to a biomaterial and enters the growth and colonization phases, it is less vulnerable to antimicrobials. Thereafter, biofilms consisting of sessile microorganisms enclosed within a polymer matrix develop, [3,4,5] thereby decreasing the susceptibility of C. acnes to antibiotics. In particular, antibiotic dosages up to 1000-times higher than the corresponding minimum inhibitory concentrations are required to eradicate bacteria encapsulated within biofilms [6].
Outcomes following either surgical debridement in conjunction with antibiotics or long-term suppressive chemotherapy are not always optimal [7]. On top of that, side effects related to antibiotic administration can be as high as 22% [8]. Thus, adjuvant nonantibiotic approaches, particularly in terms of ultrasound therapies, may be employed to improve eradication rates [9,10].
Based on the results of prior in vitro laboratory studies, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) presents a promising track record of properties against biofilms produced by clinically relevant aerobic microorganisms [11,12]. While the exact mechanism of the bactericidal action of shock waves still remains unclear [13], it has been postulated that shock wave antibacterial activity occurs at a cell wall level through an increase in permeabilization of bacterial cells [14]. Another possible explanation would be the detachment of enclosed bacteria from implant surface following shock wave application. On top of that, improved infection outcomes could be achieved in living organisms as an increased local immune response occurs following shock wave therapy due to revascularization and soft tissue regeneration [15,16,17]. Of note, amongst the two available types of shock wave treatment intended for orthopedic conditions [18] (i.e., focused and radial shock waves), radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) is less extensively investigated and has not been previously tested against anaerobic bacteria. Therefore, we used an in vitro experimental study design to answer the following questions: (1) Is radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) effective against C. acnes’s planktonic (free-floating) form? (2) Are biofilm C. acnes bacteria susceptible to rESWT?

2. Materials and Methods

The standard C. acnes ATCC 11827 was utilized because it is the most extensively investigated strain in relevant investigations [19,20,21].

2.1. Biomaterials

We employed sandblasted titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) disks (diameter 4mm; height 2mm; Sa > 2 μm) (Online Supplemental Figure S1) resembling orthopedic implants. To remove dirt and ensure sterile working conditions, we rinsed those disks mechanically with low-pressure saline irrigation and subsequently sterilized them at 121 °C prior to use.

2.2. Susceptibility Assessment of C. Acnes Planktonic Form to rESWT

A suspension of C. acnes was prepared with an optical density of 0.5 McFarland (1.5 × 108 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/mL approximately) and successively inoculated to a final concentration of 105 CFU/mL in a 96-well microtiter plate. We incubated C. acnes for 72 h at 37 °C in the presence of sterile titanium disks by using anaerobiosis-generating sachets and the respective jar (Oxoid™ AnaeroGen™ 2.5L; ThermoScientific, Waltham, MA, USA) [21]. Prior to rESWT application (Masterpuls® MP 50 device, Storz Medical AG, Tägerwilen, Switzerland), a thin film of ultrasound gel was considered on the upper surface of each 96 well plate to allow for energy conduction during treatment. Furthermore, in an effort to minimize potential energy loss, care was taken to eliminate any air gaps between the R15 transmitter and the disks. Afterwards, the R15 transmitter was pressed firmly onto the plastic surface and the disks were exposed to radial shock waves at 1.6 to 2.5 Bar with a frequency of 8–11 Hz and 95 to 143 impulses per disk using a standard 15mm head (R15 transmitter). Thereafter, vortexing was performed by means of a microtiter shaking plate and 100 μL from the supernatant of each well was transferred to a new 96-well plate. Subsequently, the XTT ([2–bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide]) proliferation reduction assay was conducted to quantify cell viability [22] and absorbance was read at 450nm with the use of a microplate spectophotometer (EpochTM, BioTek, Vermont, USA).

2.3. Mature Biofilm Production Confirmation

Before executing any biofilm experiments, we ensured that C. acnes was capable of producing mature biofilms. To achieve this objective, confocal scanning laser microscopy (CSLM) was employed to depict images of organized structures of clustered cells grown on a titanium disk (Figure 1). To illustrate, C. acnes biofilms were grown on sandblasted titanium alloy disks and, following careful rinsing with sterile saline, they were subjected to staining for 15 min using Filmtracer™ LIVE/DEAD™ Biofilm Viability Kit (Thermo Fisher Diagnostics SpA). To be more precise, 3 μL of SYTO9 allowing for permeation of living cell membranes and 3 μL of propidium iodide, capable of staining only damaged membranes of dead cells, were added to 1 mL of filter-sterilized water. Then, incubation, washing with sterile saline, and examination with an upright TCS SP8 (Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) using a 20× dry objective (HC PL FLUOTAR 20×/0.50 DRY) was performed. A 488 nm and 552 nm laser line were used to excite SYTO9 and propidium iodide, respectively.

2.4. Susceptibility Assessment of C. acnes Biofilms to Radial Shockwaves

To assess C. acnes susceptibility to rESWT, microorganisms were cultured on Schaedler agar plates and incubated for 72 h at 37 °C anaerobically [21]. Then, the bacterial inoculum was prepared through suspension of bacterial colonies until a turbidity of 0.5 McFarland (approximately 108 CFU/mL) was achieved. Subsequently, C. acnes biofilms were grown following incubation for 72 h at 37 °C in the presence of thioglycolate (ThermoScientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Afterwards, rESWT was applied in a fashion similar to that described above (i.e., 1.6 to 2.5 Bar with a frequency of 8–11 Hz and 95 to 143 impulses per disk). To remove free-swimming bacteria and potentially any detached blasting material, the disks were rinsed mechanically three times utilizing NaCl 0.9%. Then, the microtiter plates were covered with Parafilm to achieve watertightness and the disks were sonicated at a frequency of 35 kHz (Transsonic 570 Elma, Singen, Germany) for five minutes at 37 °C to dislodge bacteria from the surface of the titanium disks [23,24]. Thereafter, vortexing was performed and approximately 100μL from the supernatant was transferred from each cell to a new 96-well plate. At the end of this task, the XTT assay was executed and absorbance was read spectrophotometrically at 450 nm.

2.5. Treatment Arms

One hundred and twenty disks were sequentially allocated into the following intervention groups: (i) Group A (rESWT at 1.6 Bar with a frequency of 8 Hz and 95 impulses per disk); (ii) Group B (rESWT at 1.6 Bar with a frequency of 11 Hz and 95 impulses per disk); (iii) Group C (rESWT at 2.5 Bar with a frequency of 8 Hz and 95 impulses per disk); (iv) Group D (rESWT at 2.5 Bar with a frequency of 11 hz and 95 impulses per disk); (v) Group E (rESWT at 2.5 Bar with a frequency of 11 Hz, and 143 impulses per disk). For every experiment, we considered n = 8 positive (i.e., untreated) and n = 8 negative (that is, microorganism-free) control groups to allow for reliable estimation of the antimicrobial efficacy in the intervention groups. Control disks were handled exactly the same with those in treatment groups and one sample was considered in all cases.

2.6. Sample Size Calculation and Statistical Analysis

The sample size was calculated in accordance with published guidelines for in vitro trials [25], after accounting for the 80–100% [26,27,28] success rates reported in two-stage revision operations for implant-associated infections. More specifically, a total of at least 20 disks per comparison was calculated with the statistical power set at 0.8 and α- and β- errors at 5% and 20%, in that order. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 25.0 software (SPSS Chicago, IL, USA) and a p value of < 0.05 denoted statistical significance. At the beginning of the analyses, a normality test was executed in all cases. If normal distribution was revealed, both parametric and nonparametric tests were considered. For the former, independent-sample t-tests were implemented to compare mean values with their standard errors between intervention and untreated control groups. For the latter, medians were compared between two and multiple groups in terms of the Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests, correspondingly. When data followed non-normal distribution, nonparametric tests were employed, and results were reported by means of medians with the corresponding interquartile ranges. In addition, to achieve comparability in terms of the between-group analysis, we adjusted the spectrophotometric measurements with respect to background correction. To create graphical illustrations, Prism 6 software (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA) was used.

3. Results

3.1. Antimicrobial Susceptibility of C. acnes Planktonic Form to Radial Shockwaves

For within-group comparisons, statistically significant differences in favor of intervention groups were detected in all cases (Table 1). By contrast, when multiple-group comparisons were performed, we did not observe any considerable difference among the included treatment arms (adjusted median absorbance (MA) for group A, B, C, D, and E was 0.13 (IQR = 0.0718 to 0.2235), 0.153 (IQR = 0.108 to 0.1745), 0.185 (IQR = 0.166 to 0.223), 0.131 (IQR = 0.118 to 0.176), 0.1525 (0.06 to 0.1975), in that order; p = 0.06) (Figure 2). Following the application of rESWT, the reduction in bacterial load compared to untreated control varied from 35% to 54% (Table 1).

3.2. Antibiofilm Activity of rESWT

For the first intervention group, statistics showed that there was a considerable difference when compared to untreated control (median absorbance (MA) for the treatment vs control groups were 0.244 (IQR = 0.215–0.282) and 0.298 (IQR = 0.247–0.307), respectively, p = 0.033). For the remainder of the intervention arms, we did not detect any significant difference in favor of the treatment groups (p > 0.05) (Table 2). The documented reduction in the amount of biofilm, in comparison to untreated control, ranged from 14% to 49% (Table 2).
For between-group comparisons, a statistically significant difference in favor of a low-energy and low-frequency intervention was demonstrated (adjusted MAs for groups A, B, C, D, and E were 0.055 (IQR = 0.0263 to 0.0935), 0.07 (IQR = 0.0433 to 0.0933), 0.0885 (IQR = 0.083 to 0.1795), 0.078 (IQR = 0.0663 to 0.095), 0.091 (IQR = 0.0695 to 0.1063)), respectively, p = 0.007) (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

Confronting indolent non-suppurative shoulder PJIs while retaining implants is a challenging task in orthopedic surgery. Owing to the increased revision burden [29] and commonly reported adverse effects stemming from long-term antibiotic suppressive therapy (such as drug resistance, allergic reactions, and toxicity [30,31,32,33]), the adoption of adjuvant modalities, particularly in terms of new nonantibiotic complementary strategies, seems very important [10]. Hence, we investigated the antimicrobial effects of radial shock waves because this is an affordable, relatively new, and not widely investigated intervention [18]. For a realistic and clinically relevant treatment approach of shoulder pathology, we tested the number of impulses as well as frequency and pressure frames recommended by the manufacturer. We demonstrated that up to a 50% reduction in biofilm load was achieved, meaning that, although rESWT cannot be recommended as a standalone treatment, it could be investigated as an adjuvant treatment to antibiotics. Furthermore, in explaining why this method was more successful with freely moving bacteria rather than microorganisms enclosed within a polymer matrix, we advocate that the biofilm structure provided protection to C. acnes similar to that occurring following antibiotic administration [34].

4.1. Biomaterial and Strain Selection

In the current in vitro study, we used sandblasted titanium disks because titanium and its alloys have been extensively used in shoulder-related surgery in recent decades [35]. In particular, this biomaterial is commonly considered in cementless shoulder arthroplasty as well as fracture fixation of proximal humeral fractures, with a proven track record of chemical stability and biocompatibility [36,37]. Concerning the roughness of the employed titanium disk surfaces, we considered standard roughened biomaterials [38] (i.e., disks with poor light reflective capacity) that consistently present higher bacterial adhesion when compared to smoother surfaces [36,39,40,41]. Given the fact that there is no consensus in the literature on an optimum titanium surface roughness [42], we aimed to achieve a Sa of more than 2 μm [43]. It is also important to note that, in the presence of a titanium implant, a surface protein layer is physiologically formed which subsequently renders the surface of the biomaterial prone to biofilm development [38].
As per our confocal laser microscopy biofilm evaluation, standard C. acnes strain was capable of exhibiting substantial contamination potential featuring a massive living cell population. This was because biofilm formation is undoubtedly a distinctive feature of invasive subtypes. Those subtypes are commonly isolated from device-associated infections, as opposed to skin isolates [44]. Besides, when it comes to studying biofilms produced by clinical isolates, recent evidence has suggested that variant distributions and proportions of living and dead C. acnes cells are more often than not detected [45].

4.2. rESWT Application and Reliability in Cell Viability Measurements

When it comes to shock wave treatment application in clinical practice, an ultrasound gel over the area under treatment is usually utilized to achieve sufficient energy conduction. Similarly, in the laboratory setting, we applied an ultrasound gel to the top of 96-well plates and pointed the ultrasound head towards the titanium disks vertically to ensure even energy distribution.
Concerning credibility of the reported findings, evidence has suggested that the XTT ([2–bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide]) reduction assay is a highly reliable method as compared to CFU counting [22,46,47] and particularly suitable for implementing multiple technical replications (i.e., repetition of the same condition within the same experiment).

4.3. Effect of rESWT against C. acnes Planktonic and Biofilm Forms

Regarding the impact of radial shock waves on free-swimming C. acnes, bacteria, there was a lack of “dose-response” effect in all cases. Statistically significant differences relative to untreated control were demonstrated regardless of the variability in the frequency, number of impulses, and pressure amongst the treatment groups. By contrast, concerning the impact of rESWT on C. acnes biofilms, only a low-pressure and low-frequency setting with a low number of impulses yielded a statistically significant difference. In particular, a 50% reduction in the amount of biofilm was documented compared to untreated control, when a 1.6-Bar setting with a frequency of 8 Hz and 2000 impulses per implant was used. However, for the treatment outcome to be clinically relevant, total elimination of all viable bacteria is required because, otherwise, infection can propagate [48]. Based on the above, rESWT cannot be recommended as a standalone treatment against C. acnes implant-related infections. Nevertheless, it may be considered as an adjuvant modality to antibiotics. We also demonstrated that it is not necessary to raise the shock wave pressure, frequency, and number of impulses, with the aim to further enhance its anti-bacterial efficacy, thus minimizing the risk of associated post-intervention adverse events such as regional pain, soft tissue hematoma, petechia, and microfractures, in case of clinical use in the future.

4.4. Study Limitations and Implications for Future Research

While data generated by in vitro models of infections provide useful insights into C. acnes biofilm behavior, we should be careful when extrapolating the results from the current study to deep infections in humans with implants featuring complex geometry. To elaborate, when it comes to assessing device-associated infections, multiple clinical factors should be borne in mind, including, but not limited to, bacterial load, implant characteristics, host immune system status, nutrition, pH, strain virulence, and specific adhesion molecules [15]. Therefore, to account for the above clinical complexity and determine whether the mean radial shock wave penetration depth of 3 cm is sufficient to reach all parts of implants embedded in bone, we suggest that rabbit models of infection be utilized at a subsequent research stage [49].
Furthermore, while it has been claimed that localized infections should no longer be considered a contraindication to shock wave application in orthopedics [50], large-scale studies with long-term follow-up observations should be conducted before drawing safe conclusions on ESWT’s track record of safety [51]. A further potential complication which is worth investigating is contribution of shock waves to implant aseptic loosening.
Additionally, consideration of multiple rESWT sessions to optimize its antimicrobial effects could possibly be considered. For instance, application of rESWT at weekly intervals may be employed as per manufacturer’s recommendations with the aim to examine whether or not the effects of this treatment are cumulative.
Furthermore, it should be noted that following shock wave application, some remaining sandblasting material is likely to detach from titanium disks, thus making suspension cloudier and potentially interfering with cell viability measurements. This potential turbidity interference could have affected the results of planktonic susceptibility testing as the supernatant was utilized to assess the shock wave treatment effect relative to untreated control. By contrast, in biofilms experiments, this issue was overcome by meticulous mechanical rinsing of the disks prior to sonication.
Finally, according to our findings, we suggest that combinations of biofilm-validated antibiotics with shock wave therapy should be further investigated against C. acnes biofilms, as recent in vitro studies have suggested that such treatment combinations are highly effective against biofilms produced by clinically relevant aerobic bacteria [12,52,53].

5. Conclusions

According to our findings, low-pressure/low-frequency rESWT caused a 50% reduction in the formation of biofilms of C. acnes in vitro. Therefore, rESWT could be further investigated in vivo, as an adjuvant treatment to antibiotics, as it may result in higher eradication rates against C. acnes implant-associated infections.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/8/5/743/s1, Figure S1: A sandblasted titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) disk (diameter 4 mm, height 2 mm) is depicted.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.T., L.D., and G.K.; formal analysis, K.T.; investigation, K.T. and E.V.; methodology, L.D., G.K., and P.S.; resources, G.K., E.V., and P.S.; supervision, L.D., P.G., E.V., and P.P.; visualization, P.G. and P.S.; writing—original draft: K.T.; writing—review and editing: P.G. and P.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Stergios Logothetidis from Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki, Greece) for providing us with sonication device and advice on its use, as well as Christoforos Gravalidis from Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki, Greece), who contributed to execution of experiments. We thank Alessandro Bidossi from the Laboratory of Clinical Chemistry and Microbiology, IRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi, (Milan, Italy), who was involved in the confocal laser microscopy studies at the beginning of the current investigation. We also thank Dimitris Mavridis from the Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, University Campus (Ioannina, Greece) for his contribution to the sample size calculation and statistical analysis of the results.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Nelson, G.N.; Davis, D.E.; Namdari, S. Outcomes in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection after shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016, 25, 1337–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Klouche, S.; Sariali, E.; Mamoudy, P. Cost analysis of revisions of the total hip prostheses infected. Rev. Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. 2010, 96, 167–175. [Google Scholar]
  3. Achermann, Y.; Goldstein, E.J.; Coenye, T.; Shirtliff, M.E. Propionibacterium acnes: From commensal to opportunistic biofilm-associated implant pathogen. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 27, 419–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Bayston, R.; Ashraf, W.; Barker-Davies, R.; Tucker, E.; Clement, R.; Clayton, J.; Freeman, B.J.; Nuradeen, B. Biofilm formation by Propionibacterium acnes on biomaterials in vitro and in vivo: Impact on diagnosis and treatment. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2007, 81, 705–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Trampuz, A.; Osmon, D.R.; Hanssen, A.D.; Steckelberg, J.M.; Patel, R. Molecular and antibiofilm approaches to prosthetic joint infection. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2003, 414, 69–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aslam, S. Effect of antibacterials on biofilms. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2008, 36, S175.e9–S17511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zimmerli, W.; Trampuz, A.; Ochsner, P.E. Prosthetic-joint infections. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 351, 1645–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Segreti, J.; Nelson, J.A.; Trenholme, G.M. Prolonged suppressive antibiotic therapy for infected orthopedic prostheses. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1998, 27, 711–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Høiby, N.; Bjarnsholt, T.; Moser, C.; Bassi, G.L.; Coenye, T.; Donelli, G.; Hall-Stoodley, L.; Hola, V.; Imbert, C.; Kirketerp-Moller, K.; et al. ESCMID guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections 2014. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2015, 21 (Suppl. 1), S1–S25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Hsu, J.E.; Bumgarner, R.E.; Matsen, F.A., 3rd. Propionibacterium in Shoulder Arthroplasty: What We Think We Know Today. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2016, 98, 597–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gerdesmeyer, L.; von Eiff, C.; Horn, C.; Henne, M.; Roessner, M.; Diehl, P.; Gollwitzer, H. Antibacterial effects of extracorporeal shock waves. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2005, 31, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gollwitzer, H.; Horn, C.; von Eiff, C.; Henne, M.; Gerdesmeyer, L. Antibakterieller Effekt hochenergetischer extrakorporaler Stoßwellen: Ein in vitro Nachweis. Z. Orthop. Ihre Grenzgeb. 2004, 142, 462–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Reilly, J.M.; Bluman, E.; Tenforde, A.S. Effect of Shockwave Treatment for Management of Upper and Lower Extremity Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Narrative Review. PMR 2018, 10, 1385–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Horn, C.; Mengele, K.; Gerdesmeyer, L.; Gradinger, R.; Gollwitzer, H. The effect of antibacterial acting extracorporeal shockwaves on bacterial cell integrity. Med. Sci. Monit. 2009, 15, BR364–BR369. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Khatoon, Z.; McTiernan, C.D.; Suuronen, E.J.; Mah, T.F.; Alarcon, E.I. Bacterial biofilm formation on implantable devices and approaches to its treatment and prevention. Heliyon 2018, 4, e01067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Wang, C.J.; Huang, H.Y.; Yang, K.; Wang, F.S.; Wong, M. Pathomechanism of shock wave injuries on femoral artery, vein and nerve. An experimental study in dogs. Injury 2002, 33, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gollwitzer, H.; Roessner, M.; Langer, R.; Gloeck, T.; Diehl, P.; Horn, C.; Stemberger, A.; von Eiff, C.; Gerdesmeyer, L. Safety and effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy: Results of a rabbit model of chronic osteomyelitis. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2009, 35, 595–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Van der Worp, H.; van den Akker-Scheek, I.; van Schie, H.; Zwerver, J. ESWT for tendinopathy: Technology and clinical implications. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2013, 21, 1451–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Howlin, R.P.; Winnard, C.; Angus, E.M.; Frapwell, C.J.; Webb, J.S.; Cooper, J.J.; Aiken, S.S.; Bishop, J.Y.; Stoodley, P. Prevention of Propionibacterium acnes biofilm formation in prosthetic infections in vitro. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017, 26, 553–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ravn, C.; Furustrand Tafin, U.; Bétrisey, B.; Overgaard, S.; Trampuz, A. Reduced ability to detect surface-related biofilm bacteria after antibiotic exposure under in-vitro conditions. Acta Orthop. 2016, 87, 644–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Tafin, U.F.; Corvec, S.; Betrisey, B.; Zimmerli, W.; Trampuz, A. Role of rifampin against Propionibacterium acnes biofilm in vitro and in an experimental foreign-body infection model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2012, 56, 1885–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Roehm, N.W.; Rodgers, G.H.; Hatfield, S.M.; Glasebrook, A.L. An improved colorimetric assay for cell proliferation and viability utilizing the tetrazolium salt XTT. J. Immunol. Methods 1991, 142, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bjerkan, G.; Witsø, E.; Bergh, K. Sonication is superior to scraping for retrieval of bacteria in biofilm on titanium and steel surfaces in vitro. Acta Orthop. 2009, 80, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Kobayashi, H.; Oethinger, M.; Tuohy, M.J.; Procop, G.W.; Bauer, T.W. Improved detection of biofilm-formative bacteria by vortexing and sonication: A pilot study. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2009, 467, 1360–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Faggion, C.M., Jr. Guidelines for reporting pre-clinical in vitro studies on dental materials. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 2012, 12, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fink, B.; Grossmann, A.; Fuerst, M.; Schäfer, P.; Frommelt, L. Two-stage cementless revision of infected hip endoprostheses. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2009, 467, 1848–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Hofmann, A.A.; Goldberg, T.D.; Tanner, A.M.; Cook, T.M. Ten-year experience using an articulating antibiotic cement hip spacer for the treatment of chronically infected total hip. J. Arthroplasty 2005, 20, 874–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sherrell, J.C.; Fehring, T.K.; Odum, S.; Hansen, E.; Zmistowski, B.; Dennos, A.; Kalore, N.; Periprosthetic Infection Consortium. The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: Fate of two-stage reimplantation after failed irrigation and débridement for periprosthetic knee infection. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res 2011, 469, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Day, J.S.; Lau, E.; Ong, K.L.; Williams, G.R.; Ramsey, M.L.; Kurtz, S.M. Prevalence and projections of total shoulder and elbow arthroplasty in the United States to 2015. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010, 19, 1115–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Isefuku, S.; Joyner, C.J.; Simpson, A.H. Gentamicin may have an adverse effect on osteogenesis. J. Orthop. Trauma 2003, 17, 212–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Richter-Hintz, D.; Rieker, J.; Rauch, L.; Homey, B. Sensitivity to constituents of bone cement in a patient with joint prosthesis. Hautarzt 2004, 55, 987–989. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  32. Sterling, G.J.; Crawford, S.; Potter, J.H.; Koerbin, G.; Crawford, R. The pharmacokinetics of Simplex-tobramycin bone cement. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2003, 85, 646–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Thomes, B.; Murray, P.; Bouchier-Hayes, D. Development of resistant strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis on gentamicin-loaded bone cement in vivo. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2002, 84, 758–760. [Google Scholar]
  34. Potera, C. Antibiotic Resistance: Biofilm Dispersing Agent Rejuvenates Older Antibiotics. Environ. Health Perspect. 2010, 118, A288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Geethaa, M.; Singh, A.K.; Asokamania, R.; Gogiac, A.K. Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants—A review. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2009, 54, 397–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Truong, V.K.; Lapovok, R.; Estrin, Y.S.; Rundell, S.; Wang, J.Y.; Fluke, C.J.; Crawford, R.J.; Ivanova, E.P. The influence of nano-scale surface roughness on bacterial adhesion to ultrafine-grained titanium. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 3674–3683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rupp, F.; Scheideler, L.; Olshanska, N.; de Wild, M.; Wieland, M.; Geis-Gerstorfer, J. Enhancing surface free energy and hydrophilicity through chemical modification of microstructured titanium implant surfaces. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2006, 76, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hetrick, E.M.; Schoenfisch, M.H. Reducing implant-related infections: Active release strategies. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2006, 35, 780–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Harris, L.G.; Meredith, D.O.; Eschbach, L.; Richards, R.G. Staphylococcus aureus adhesion to standard micro-rough and electropolished implant materials. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2007, 18, 1151–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ivanova, E.P.; Mitik-Dineva, N.; Wang, J.; Pham, D.K.; Wright, J.P.; Nicolau, D.V.; Mocanasu, R.C.; Crawford, R.J. Staleya guttiformis attachment on poly(tert-butylmethacrylate) polymeric surfaces. Micron 2008, 39, 1197–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mitik-Dineva, N.; Wang, J.; Truong, V.K.; Stoddart, P.; Malherbe, F.; Crawford, R.J.; Ivanova, E.P. Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus attachment patterns on glass surfaces with nanoscale roughness. Curr. Microbiol. 2009, 58, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lin, L.; Wang, H.; Ni, M.; Rui, Y.; Cheng, T.Y.; Cheng, C.K.; Pan, X.; Li, G.; Lin, C. Enhanced osteointegration of medical titanium implant with surface modifications in micro/nanoscale structures. J. Orthop. Transl. 2017, 2, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Wennerberg, A.; Albrektsson, T. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009, 20 (Suppl. 4), 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Holmberg, A.; Lood, R.; Mörgelin, M.; Söderquist, B.; Holst, E.; Collin, M.; Christensson, B.; Rasmussen, M. Biofilm formation by Propionibacterium acnes is a characteristic of invasive isolates. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2009, 15, 787–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Okuda, K.I.; Nagahori, R.; Yamada, S.; Sugimoto, S.; Sato, C.; Sato, M.; Iwase, T.; Hashimoto, K.; Mizunoe, Y. The Composition and Structure of Biofilms Developed by Propionibacterium acnes Isolated from Cardiac Pacemaker Devices. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Peeters, E.; Nelis, H.J.; Coenye, T. Comparison of multiple methods for quantification of microbial biofilms grown in microtiter plates. J. Microbiol. Methods 2008, 72, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Pettit, R.K.; Weber, C.A.; Kean, M.J.; Hoffmann, H.; Pettit, G.R.; Tan, R.; Franks, K.S.; Horton, M.L. Microplate Alamar blue assay for Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm susceptibility testing. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 2612–2617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Nana, A.; Nelson, S.B.; McLaren, A.; Chen, A.F. What’s New in Musculoskeletal Infection: Update on Biofilms. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2016, 98, 1226–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Lovati, A.B.; Bottagisio, M.; de Vecchi, E.; Gallazzi, E.; Drago, L. Animal Models of Implant-Related Low-Grade Infections. A Twenty-Year Review. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2017, 97, 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, X.; Li, X. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy could be a potential adjuvant treatment for orthopaedic implant-associated infections. J. Med. Hypotheses Ideas 2013, 7, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Leopold, S.S. Editorial: When “safe and effective” becomes dangerous. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2014, 472, 1999–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Qi, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, J.; Han, D.; Chen, C.; Huang, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, T.; Li, X. Increased effects of extracorporeal shock waves combined with gentamicin against staphylococcus aureus biofilms in vitro and in vivo. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2016, 42, 2245–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Wanner, S.; Gstöttner, M.; Meirer, R.; Hausdorfer, J.; Fille, M.; Stöckl, B. Low-energy shock waves enhance the susceptibility of staphylococcal biofilms to antimicrobial agents in vitro. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2011, 93, 824–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Microorganisms 08 00743 g001 550
Figure 1. Two-dimensional depiction of a 72-h C. acnes biofilm grown on a titanium alloy disk using confocal laser microscopy (Leica model TCS SP5; Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). Live bacteria are represented in green and dead cells in red.
Figure 1. Two-dimensional depiction of a 72-h C. acnes biofilm grown on a titanium alloy disk using confocal laser microscopy (Leica model TCS SP5; Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). Live bacteria are represented in green and dead cells in red.
Microorganisms 08 00743 g001
Microorganisms 08 00743 g002 550
Figure 2. Antimicrobial effects of radial shock waves against C. acnes planktonic form expressed as adjusted median absorbances. rESWT = radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy; XTT = 2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide.
Figure 2. Antimicrobial effects of radial shock waves against C. acnes planktonic form expressed as adjusted median absorbances. rESWT = radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy; XTT = 2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide.
Microorganisms 08 00743 g002
Microorganisms 08 00743 g003 550
Figure 3. Effects of radial shock waves on C. acnes biofilms as measured by adjusted median absorbance. rESWT = radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy; XTT = 2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide.
Figure 3. Effects of radial shock waves on C. acnes biofilms as measured by adjusted median absorbance. rESWT = radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy; XTT = 2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide.
Microorganisms 08 00743 g003
Table
Table 1. Antimicrobial effects of radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Treatment on C. acnes planktonic form.
Table 1. Antimicrobial effects of radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Treatment on C. acnes planktonic form.
Treatment Group (n)Mean Absorbance Difference * (SE)p Value for Parametric Tests †Median Absorbance (IQR)p Value for Non-Parametric Tests †% Reduction in Bacterial Load Based on Negative Control Measurements (Median)
Intervention GroupPositive Control Group
A (20)
(8 Hz, 1.6 Bar, 2000 impulses)		0.1995 (0.044)0.0001750.7705 (0.712 to 0.864)0.9245 (0.888 to 0.104)0.00154% (0.64)
B (20)
(11 Hz, 1.6 Bar, 2000 impulses)		N/AN/A0.7937 (0.748 to 0.815)0.9245 (0.888 to 0.104)0.00146% (0.64)
C (20)
(8 Hz, 2.5 Bar, 2000 impulses)		0.138 (0.346)0.0010.8255 (0.807 to 0.863)0.9245 (0.888 to 0.104)0.00135% (0.64)
D (20)
(11 Hz, 2.5 Bar, 2000 impulses)		0.188 (0.037)p = 0.0000440.7720 (0.758 to 0.817)0.9245 (0.888 to 0.104)0.000346% (0.64)
E (20)
(11 Hz, 2.5 Bar, 3000 impulses)		0.255 (0.055)p = 0.0001210.8870 (0.795 to 0.932)1.0900 (1.014 to 1.240)0.00142% (0.61)
Statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups are demonstrated, suggesting antimicrobial efficacy of rESWT against C. acnes free-floating cells; IQR = interquartile range; rESWT = radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy; N/A = Not applicable (due to data following non-normal distribution); SE = Standard Error between intervention and untreated control groups; † p < 0.05 indicates significance. * between intervention and untreated control groups.
Table
Table 2. Antibiofilm activity of rESWT on C. acnes biofilms.
Table 2. Antibiofilm activity of rESWT on C. acnes biofilms.
Treatment Group (n)Mean Absorbance Difference (SD)p Value for Parametric Test †Median Absorbance (IQR)p Value for Nonparametric Test †% Reduction in Biofilm Based on Negative Control Measurements (Median)
Intervention GroupUntreated Control Group
A (24)
(8 Hz, 1.6 Bar, 2000 impulses)		N/AN/A0.244 (0.215–0.282)0.298 (0.247–0.307)0.03349% (0.188)
B (24)
(11 Hz, 1.6 Bar, 2000 impulses)		0.0005 (0.084)0.9730.255 (0.228–0.278)0.266 (0.246–0.277)0.57114% (0.187)
C (24)
(8 Hz, 2.5 Bar, 2000 impulses)		N/AN/A0.280 (0.275–0.371)0.308 (0.264–0.369)0.42125% (0.196)
D (24)
(11 Hz, 2.5 Bar, 2000 impulses)		N/AN/A0.266 (0.254–0.283)0.297 (0.252–0.33)0.30629% (0.19)
E (24)
(11 Hz, 2.5 Bar, 3000 impulses)		N/AN/A0.331 (0.31–0.346)0.365 (0.340–0.377)0.11224% (0.223)
Results on statistical comparisons between intervention and untreated control groups are shown; a statistically significant difference in favor of comparison 1 is displayed in bold; IQR = interquartile range; N/A = Not Applicable (due to data following non-normal distribution); SD = Standard Deviation; rESWT = radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy; † p < 0.05 denotes statistical significance.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tsikopoulos, K.; Drago, L.; Koutras, G.; Givissis, P.; Vagdatli, E.; Soukiouroglou, P.; Papaioannidou, P. Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy against Cutibacterium acnes Implant-Associated Infections: An in Vitro Trial. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8050743

AMA Style

Tsikopoulos K, Drago L, Koutras G, Givissis P, Vagdatli E, Soukiouroglou P, Papaioannidou P. Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy against Cutibacterium acnes Implant-Associated Infections: An in Vitro Trial. Microorganisms. 2020; 8(5):743. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8050743

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tsikopoulos, Konstantinos, Lorenzo Drago, Georgios Koutras, Panagiotis Givissis, Eleni Vagdatli, Prodromos Soukiouroglou, and Paraskevi Papaioannidou. 2020. "Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy against Cutibacterium acnes Implant-Associated Infections: An in Vitro Trial" Microorganisms 8, no. 5: 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8050743

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