Identification of vascular graft infections: A comparison of culture techniques

A Narrative Review of Experimental Assessment to Study Vascular Biomaterials Infections and Infectability

“…demonstrated an enhanced recovery of S. epidermidis on aortic replacement grafts in dogs after sonication compared with broth culture alone (8/36 vs 0/36, p < .010). 17 In another animal study conducted on dogs, sonication also significantly improved the bacterial culture positivity rate of S. epidermidis ( p < .010). 23 In vitro studies demonstrated a higher bacterial load recovered from the graft after sonication than ultrasonic disruption or vortexing (>1 log).…”

“…Sometimes, grafts were only vigorously agitated 11 or vortexed 30 seconds to several minutes, until 1 hour of vortexing. 12 Other techniques were used, such as homogenisation with a dispersing instrument, 13 ultrasonic disruption, 14 bead beaters with glass beads, 15 hand crushing with a sterile mortar, 16 tissue grinding associated with sonication, 17 or trypsin digestion of the graft and perigraft tissues. 18 …”

“…Despite protocol discrepancies, microorganism recovery was better with sonication than with vortexing alone 14 or ultrasonic disruption. 14 This superiority in bacterial recovery has been assessed in both in vitro 14 , 22 and animal models, 17 , 23 especially for Staphylococcus epidermidis , 14 , 17 , 22 , 23 but also Staphylococcus aureus , Escherichia coli , Enterococcus faecalis , and Klebsiella pneumoniae . 14 …”

“…The better efficacy for microbial recovery after sonication has been assessed in several in vitro and in vivo studies on VGEIs. 14 , 17 , 22 , 23 Its clinical impact on VGEI microbiological diagnosis has been well demonstrated in bone and joint infections (BJIs) 31 and remains likely in VGEIs. 32 It should therefore be used in experimental studies before bacterial count on grafts.…”