A narrative review of microbial biofilm in postoperative surgical site infections: clinical presentation and treatment

Edmiston, Charles E., McBain, Andrew, Kiernan, Martin ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9926-7781 and Leaper, David (2016) A narrative review of microbial biofilm in postoperative surgical site infections: clinical presentation and treatment. Journal of Wound Care, 25 (12). pp. 693-702. ISSN 0969-0700

[thumbnail of Edmiston et al Final BJS Biofilm Review Submission July 14 - 2016 (1).docx]

Microsoft Word
Edmiston et al Final BJS Biofilm Review Submission July 14 - 2016 (1).docx - Accepted Version
Download (76kB)

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2016.25.12.693

Abstract

Objective: The global impact of surgical site infections (SSIs) on healthcare systems is considerable: many are related to the formation of a microbial biofilm. Biofilm plays a significant role in the pathogenesis of implantable device-related infections and are also important in persistent postoperative skin and soft tissue wound infections.

Method: PubMed and OVID databases were searched for relevant
articles regarding biofilm-associated infection in surgery, including epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and management.

Results: Biofilm-associated infections increase the use of health-care resources, prolong length of stay, increase cost of antibiotic therapy, result in additional surgical revisions and extend rehabilitation after discharge from health care. Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis are the most common isolates recovered from device-related infections. Early infection occurs within two weeks of implantation and is associated with intraoperative wound contamination; late-onset infections
are often occult prolonging recognition by weeks, months and in some cases, years. Biofilm is a physical barrier against antibodies and granulocytic cell populations which may also impede the penetration of antibiotics. The ideal strategy for preventing biofilm-associated SSI is to prevent intraoperative contamination through compliance with effective surgical care bundles. Management of postoperative biofilm-associated infections involves surgical debridement followed by irrigation with antimicrobial agents and removal of infected devices, followed by insertion of antimicrobial adjuncts such as antimicrobial spacers, beads or sutures together with selective therapeutic agents that penetrate the mature biofilm.

Conclusion: Biofilm-associated infections are a significant source of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Appropriate interventional strategies are warranted to reduce the risk of intraoperative contamination

Item Type:	Article
Identifier:	10.12968/jowc.2016.25.12.693
Additional Information:	This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in Journal of Wound Care, © MA Healthcare 2016, after peer review and technical editing by the publisher. To access the final edited and published work see: https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2016.25.12.693
Keywords:	Biofilm, Surgical wound infection
Subjects:	Medicine and health > Microbiology Medicine and health > Nursing > Nursing practice Medicine and health > Clinical medicine > Clinical care Medicine and health > Physiology
Depositing User:	Martin Kiernan
Date Deposited:	04 Jan 2017 10:46
Last Modified:	28 Aug 2021 07:22
URI:	https://repository.uwl.ac.uk/id/eprint/3017

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item

References

1. Reed D, Kemmerly SA. Infection control and prevention: a review of hospital-acquired infections and the economic implications. The Oscher J 2009; 9: 27-31.
2. Shepard J, Ward W, Milstone A, et al. Financial impact of surgical site infections on hospital: the hospital management perspective. JAMA Surg 2013; 148: 907-914.
3. De Lissovoy G, Fraeman K, Hutchins V, et al. Surgical site infection: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Control 2009; 37: 387-397.
4. Herwaldt LA, Cullen JJ, Scholz D, et al. A prospective study of outcome, healthcare resource utilization, and cost associated with postoperative nosocomial infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006; 27: 1291-1298.
5. World Health Organization (WHO), European Health Information Gateway.Total number of inpatient surgical procedures per year. http://portal.euro.who.int/en/indicators/hfa-indicators/hfa_539-6031-total-number-of-inpatient-surgical-procedures-per-year/.
6. Edward R, Harding KG. Bacteria and wound healing. Current Opinion in Infect Dis 2004; 17: 91-96.
7. Hall-Stoodley L, Stoodley P, Kathju S, et al. Towards diagnostic guidelines for biofilm-associated infections. FEMS Immmunol- Med Microbiol 2012; 65: 127-145.
8. Percival SL. Biofilms and their potential role in wound healing. Wound 2004; 16: 234-240.
9. Romling U, Balsalobre C. Biofilm infections, their resilience to therapy and innovative treatment strategies. J Intern Med 2012; 272: 541-561.
10. National Institute of Health Research on microbial biofilms: PA Number: 2002, PA-03-047 [http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-03-047.html].
11. Dowd SE, Wolcott RD, Sun Y, et al. Polymicrobial nature of chronic diabetic foot ulcer infections determined using bacterial tag encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP). PloS One 2008; 3: e3326.
12. Edmiston CE, Krepel CJ, Marks RM, et al. Microbiology of Explanted Sutures Segments from Infected and Non-Infected Surgical Cases. J Clin Microbiol 2013;51:417-421.
13. Hoiby N, Ciofu O, Johansen HK, et al. The clinical impact of bacterial biofilms. Int J Oral Sci 2011;3:55-65.
14. Jenson PO, Givskov M, Bjarnsholt T, et al. The immune system versus. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2011;59:292-305.
15. Akers KS, Mende K, Cheatle K, et al. Biofilms and perisistent wound infections in United States military trauma patients a case-control analysis. BMC Infect Dis 2014; 14: 190 [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/14/190].
16. Buchan B, Ledeboer N, Edmiston CE. Acinetobacter Infections: Epidemiology and Pathogenesis of a Significant Healthcare-Associated Pathogen. Healthcare Infection 2011;16:6-17.
17. Costerton JW, Cheng KJ, Geesey GG, et al. Bacterial biofilms in nature and disease. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1987;41:435-464.
18. Del Pozo JL, Patel R. The challenge of treating biofilm-associated bacterial infections. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Aug;82(2):204-209.
19. Hasanadka R, Seabrook GR, Edmiston CE. Vascular Graft Infections. In: Rello J, Vanes J, Kollef M, eds. 2nd ed. Critical Care Infectious Diseases. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2007, pp. 555-566.
20. Hasanadka R, Seabrook GR, Edmiston CE. Vascular Graft Infections. In: Rello J, Vanes J, Kollef M, eds. 2nd ed. Critical Care Infectious Diseases. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2007 pp. 531-542.
21. Barnes S, Spencer M, Graham D, et al. Surgical wound irrigation: a call for evidence-based standardization of practice. Am J Infect Control 2014; 42: 525-529.
22. Engelsman AF, van der Mei HC, Ploeg RJ, et al. The phenomenon of infection with abdominal wall reconstruction. Biomaterials 2007; 28: 2314-2327.
23. British Hernia Society. Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (2013) Commissioning guide: Groin Hernia. 2013. https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/healthcare-bodies/docs/published-guides/hernia
24. Engelsman AF, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, et al. Morphological aspects of surgical mesh as a risk factor for bacterial colonization. Br J Surg 2008; 95: 1051-1059.
25 Sanchez CJ, Mende K, Beckius ML, et al. Biofilm formation by clinical isolates and the implication in chronic infections, BMC Infect Dis. 2013 Jan 29;13:47. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-47.
26. Edmiston EC, Goheen MP, Seabrook GR, Johnson CP, Lewis BD, Brown KR, Towne JB. Impact of selective antimicrobial agents on staphyococcal adherence to biomedical devices. Am J Surg 192:344-354.
27. Bandyk DF, Black MR. Infection in prosthetic vascular grafts. In Rutherford RB, Johnson KW, eds. Vascular Surgery. 6th ed. Phialdelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders 2005:875-6894.
28. Del Pozo JL, Patel R. Clinical Practice. Infection associated with prosthetic joints. N Eng J Med 2009; 361: 787-794.
29. Public Health England. Surgical site infections (SSI) surveillance: NHS hospitals in England (2014/2015).https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/484874/Surveillance_of_Surgical_Site_Infections_in_NHS_Hospitals_in_England_report_2014-15.pdf.
30. Portillo, ME, Corvec S, Borens O, et al. "Propionibacterium acnes: an underestimated pathogen in implant-associated infections." Biomed Res Int 2013: 804391.
31. Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, et al. Microbial biofilms. Ann Rev Microbiol 1995; 49: 711-745.
32. Edmiston CE. Prosthetic device infections in surgery. In Nichols RL, Nyhus LM, eds. Update Surgical Sepsis. Philadelphia, PA; JB Lippincott. 1993, pp. 444-468.

33. Kim DH, Spencer M, Davidson SM, et al. Institutional prescreening for detection and eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg 2010; 92: 1820-1826.
34. Nemoto K, Hirota K, Ono T, et al. Effect of varidase (streptokinase) on biofilm formed by Staphylococcus aureus. Chemother 2000; 46: 111-115.
35. James GA, Ge Zhao A, Usui M, et al. Microsensor and transcriptomic signatures of oxygen depletion in biofilms associated with chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen 2016;24:373-383.
36. Gilbert P, Maira-Litran T, McBain AJ, et al.The physiology and collective recalcitrance of microbial biofilm communities. Adv Microb Physiol. 2002;46:202-256.
37. Arnold WV, Shirtliff ME, Stoodley P. (2013) Bacterial biofilms and periprosthetic infections. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;;95:2223-229.
38. Flemming HC, Wingender J. The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:623-633.
39. Stoodley L, Sidhu S, Nistco L. et al. Kinetics and morphology of polymicrobial biofilm formation on polypropylene mesh. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2012:283-290;
40. Gilbert P, Maira-Litran T, McBain AJ, et al.The physiology and collective recalcitrance of microbial biofilm communities. Adv Microb Physiol 2002;46:202-256.
41. Davies DG, Marques CN. A fatty acid messenger is responsible for inducing dispersion in microbial biofilms. J Bacteriol. 2009;191:1393-403.
42. Gilbert P, Maira-Litran T, McBain AJ, et al. The physiology and collective recalcitrance of microbial biofilm communities. Adv Microb Physiol 2002;46:202-256.
43. Stewart PS. 2015 Antimicrobial Tolerance in Biofilms. Microbiol Spectr. 2015; Jun;3 doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.MB-0010-2014
44. Hunt SM, Werner EM, Huang B, t al.Hypothesis for the role of nutrient starvation in biofilm detachment. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004;70: 7418-7425.
45. Werner E, Roe F, Bugnicourt A, et al. Stratified growth in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004;70:6188-6196.
46. Jayaraman R. Bacterial persistence: some new insights into an old phenomenon. J Biosci 2008;33:795-805.
47. Gilbert P, Maira-Litran T, McBain AJ, et al. The physiology and collective recalcitrance of microbial biofilm communities. Adv Microb Physiol 2002;46:202-256.
48. Bigger JW. Treatment of staphylococcal infection with penicillin. Lancet
1944;2:497-500.
49. Conlon BP, Rowe SE, Lewis K. 2015. Persister cells in biofilm associated infections. Adv Exp Med Biol 2015;831:1-9.
50. Percival SL, Hill KE, Williams DW, et al. A review of the scientific evidence for biofilms in wounds. Wnd Repair Regeneration 2012;20:647-657.
51. Wolcott RD, Rhoads D, Dowd SE. Biofilms and chronic wound inflammation. J Wnd Care 2008; 7: 333-34.
52. Wolcott RD, Rhoads DD, Bennett ME, et al. Chronic wounds and the medical biofilm paradigm. J Wnd Care 2010;19:45-53.
53. Wolcott RD, Rhoads DD. A study of biofilm-based wound management in subjects with critical limb ischemia. J Wnd Care 2008.17:145–155.
54. Leaper D, Ousey K. Evidence update on prevention of surgical site infection. Current opinion in infectious diseases 2015; 28:158-163.
55. Wolcott RD, Rumbaugh KP, Stewart PS, Dowd SE. Biofilm maturity studies indicate sharp debridement opens a time-dependent therapeutic window. J Wnd Care 2010;19:320–328.
56. Wolcott RD, Kennedy JP, Dowd SE. Regular debridement is the main tool for maintaining a healthy wound bed in most chronic wounds. J Wnd Care 2009; 18:54-56.
57. Wolcott RD, Cox S. More effective cell-based therapy through biofilm suppression. J Wnd Care 2013; 22:26-31.
58. Hall MR, McGillicuddy E, Kaplan LJ. Biofilm: basic principles, pathophysiology, and implications for clinicians. Surg Infect 2014; 15: 1-7.
59. Cardinal M, Eisenbud DE, Armstrong DG, et al. Serial surgical debridement: a retrospective study on clinical outcomes in chronic lower extremity wounds. Wnd Repair and Regeneration 2010;17:306-311.
60. Leaper DJ, Meaume S, Apelqvist J, et al. Debridement methods of non-viable tissue in wounds. In: Advanced Wound Repair Therapies. Farrar D, ed. Woodhead Publishers. Cambridge, UK, 2011.
61. Edmiston CE, Daoud F, Leaper DJ. Is there an evidence-based argument for embracing an antimicrobial (triclosan)-coated suture technology to reduce the risk for surgical-site infections?: a meta-analysis. Surg 2013;154:89-100.
62. Edmiston CE, Bruden, Rucinski M, et al. Reducing the risk of surgical site infections: does chlorhexidine gluconate provide a risk reduction benefit? Am j Infect Control 2013;41:S49-S55.
63. Griffin JW, Guillot SJ, Redick JA, et al. Removed antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers in two-stage revision joint arthroplasty do not show biofilm formation in vivo. J Arthroplasty 2012;27:1796-1799.
64. Barber KE, Werth BJ, McRoberts JP, et al. A novel approach utilizing biofilm time-kill curves to assess the bactericidal activity of ceftaroline combinations against biofilm-producing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agent Chemother 2014;58:2989-2992.
65. Seaton RA, Malizos KN, Viale P, et al. Daptomycin use in patients with osteomyelitis: a preliminary report from the EU-COREsm database. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013;68:1642-1649.
66. Oates A, Bowling FL, Boulton AJ, et al. The visualization of biofilms in chronic diabetic foot wounds using routine diagnostic microscopy methods. J Diabetes Res 2014 doi: 10.1155/2014/153586.

Tools

CORE (COnnecting REpositories)

The University of West London

A narrative review of microbial biofilm in postoperative surgical site infections: clinical presentation and treatment

Abstract

Downloads

Actions (login required)

Menu