J Korean Surg Soc.  2010 Jan;78(1):1-6. 10.4174/jkss.2010.78.1.1.

In Vitro Antibacterial Efficacy of Vicryl and PDS Plus Antibacterial Suture

• Yook JH
• Sung H

• KMID: 1775438
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2010.78.1.1

Abstract

PURPOSE: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common nosocomial infection in surgical patients, and this accounts for approximately 17% of all hospital-acquired infections. Suture materials are possibly significant sources of SSI. This study aims to evaluate the in vitro antibacterial efficacy of Vicryl and PDS plus antibacterial suture coating with triclosan against bacteria.
METHODS
Vicryl and PDS plus antibacterial suture coating with and without triclosan were tested for in vitro efficacy against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant S. aureus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis, Escherichia coli by a zone of inhibition assay and test of bacterial adhesion and viability.
RESULTS
Vicryl and PDS plus antibacterial suture coating with triclosan demonstrated activity against all tested bacteria in vitro. Evaluations by a zone of inhibition assay and test of bacterial adhesion and viability show the antibacterial activity compared with untreated sutures. Pretreatment of surgical sutures with fetal bovine serum did not diminish antibacterial activity of the triclosan-coated sutures compared with non-coated sutures (P<0.01).
CONCLUSION
Vicryl and PDS plus antibacterial suture reduced in vitro colonization of several strains of bacteria compared with untreated control sutures.

Keyword

Surgical site infection; Suture; Triclosan; Antibacterial

MeSH Terms

Bacteria
Bacterial Adhesion
Colon
Cross Infection
Escherichia coli
Humans
Methicillin Resistance
Polyglactin 910
Staphylococcus aureus
Staphylococcus epidermidis
Sutures
Triclosan
Polyglactin 910
Triclosan

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Zone of inhibition of 2-0 Vicryl, 2-0 Vicryl Plus Antibacterial, 2-0 PDS II, and 2-0 PDS Plus Antibacterial sutures (left-to-right) against (A) methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) ATCC 25923, (B) methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) ATCC 43300, (C) Staphylococcus epidermidis, and (D) extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) producing Escherichia coli. Antibacterial suture materials showed the inhibition of bacterial growth.

• 

  Fig. 2 Zone of inhibition of 4-0 Vicryl, 4-0 Vicryl Plus Antibacterial, 4-0 PDS II, and 4-0 PDS Plus Antibacterial sutures (left-to-right) against (A) MSSA ATCC 25923, (B) MRSA ATCC 43300, (C) S. epidermidis, and (D) ESBL producing E. coli. Antibacterial suture materials showed the inhibition of bacterial growth.

• 

  Fig. 3 Mean microbial recovery from Vicryl and Vicryl Plus Antimicrobial sutures exposed to bacterial inoculum for 60 minutes. There were significant differences in bacterial adherence and viability (P<0.01).

• 

  Fig. 4 Impact of 20% feta bovine serum (FBS) on MRSA ATCC 43300 and E. coli mean microbial recovery from Vicryl and Vicryl Plus Antimicrobial sutures. There were significant differences in bacterial adherence and viability (P<0.01).

Reference

1. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999. 20:250–280.

2. Weaving P, Cox F, Milton S. Infection prevention and control in the operating theatre: reducing the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs). J Perioper Pract. 2008. 18:199–204.

3. Vadaux P, Francois P, Lew DP, Waldvogel FA. Waldvogel FA, Bisno AL, editors. Host factors predisposing to and influencing therapy of foreign body infections. Infections Associated with Indwelling Medical Devices. 2000. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press;1–26.

4. Kaiser AB, Kernodle DS, Parker RA. Low-inoculum model of surgical wound infection. J Infect Dis. 1992. 166:393–399.

5. Chuard C, Lucet JC, Rohner P, Herrmann M, Auckenthaler R, Waldvogel FA, et al. Resistance of Staphylococcus aureus recovered from infected foreign body in vivo to killing by antimicrobials. J Infect Dis. 1991. 163:1369–1373.

6. Zimmerli W, Waldvogel FA, Vaudaux P, Nydegger UE. Pathogenesis of foreign body infection: description and characteristics of an animal model. J Infect Dis. 1982. 146:487–497.

7. Christensen GD, Simpson WA, Bisno AL, Beachey EH. Experimental foreign body infections in mice challenged with slime-producing Staphylococcus epidermidis. Infect Immun. 1983. 40:407–410.

8. Vaudaux P, Grau GE, Huggler E, Schumacher-Perdreau F, Fiedler F, Waldvogel FA, et al. Contribution of tumor necrosis factor to host defense against staphylococci in a guinea pig model of foreign body infections. J Infect Dis. 1992. 166:58–64.

9. Zimmerli W. Experimental models in the investigation of device-related infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993. 31:Suppl D. 97–102.

10. Chu CC, Williams DF. Effects of physical configuration and chemical structure of suture materials on bacterial adhesion. A possible link to wound infection. Am J Surg. 1984. 147:197–204.

11. Katz S, Izhar M, Mirelman D. Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures. A possible factor in suture induced infection. Ann Surg. 1981. 194:35–41.

12. Anderson JM, Marchant RE. Waldvogel FA, Bisno AL, editors. Biomaterials: factors favoring colonization and infection. Infections Associated with Indwelling Medical Devices. 2000. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press;89–110.

13. Ming X, Rothenburger S, Yang D. In vitro antibacterial efficacy of MONOCRYL plus antibacterial suture (Poliglecaprone 25 with triclosan). Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2007. 8:201–208.

14. Edmiston CE, Seabrook GR, Goheen MP, Krepel CJ, Johnson CP, Lewis BD, et al. Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures: can antibacterial-coated sutures reduce the risk of microbial contamination? J Am Coll Surg. 2006. 203:481–489.

15. Ming X, Rothenburger S, Nichols MM. In vivo and in vitro antibacterial efficacy of PDS plus (polidioxanone with triclosan) suture. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2008. 9:451–457.

16. Esuvaranathan K, Kuan YF, Kumarasinghe G, Bassett DC, Rauff A. A study of 245 infected surgical wounds in Singapore. J Hosp Infect. 1992. 21:231–240.