1989
DOI: 10.1016/0142-9612(89)90073-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In vitro and in vivo comparative colonization of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis on orthopaedic implant materials

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
102
0
5

Year Published

1996
1996
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 219 publications
(110 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
3
102
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The possible explanation for such subclinical infection status may be that microorganisms identified are most likely to be opportunists and lowly virulent strains. Whether infection recurs or not will eventually rely upon interaction between microorganisms, the implant and the host [36][37][38]. Weakening of the body defenses at the implant surface-tissue interface will facilitate the establishment of an infection around the implant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The possible explanation for such subclinical infection status may be that microorganisms identified are most likely to be opportunists and lowly virulent strains. Whether infection recurs or not will eventually rely upon interaction between microorganisms, the implant and the host [36][37][38]. Weakening of the body defenses at the implant surface-tissue interface will facilitate the establishment of an infection around the implant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, studies have shown that, in vitro, Staphylococcus aureus adhesion was significantly reduced on PLLA compared to metal whereas the inverse has been observed for Staphylococcus epidermis (Barth et al, 1989). Thus, it can then be summarized that the poly(Îą-hydroxyacid) compositions do not affect significantly bacterial adhesion and infection.…”
Section: Eglin and M Alinimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Along with changes in the chemical composition of a substratum surface after conditioning film formation (Barth, 1989;Hogt et al, 1985;Oga et al, 1988), physicochemical properties of the surface such as its hydrophobicity, roughness, charge and elasticity may alter (Bakker et al, 2003b). Although many studies have shown relationships between substratum hydrophobicity, charge or roughness with bacterial adhesion, it is still hard to understand how the multiple changes brought about by the adsorption of a conditioning film affect bacterial adhesion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%