Abstract
We are developing electrical approaches to treat biofilm‐associated orthopedic foreign‐body infection. Although we have previously shown that such approaches have antibiofilm activity, the effects on bone have not been assessed. Herein, low‐amperage 200 μA fixed direct current (DC) was compared with no current, in a rat femoral foreign‐body infection model. In the infected group, a platinum implant seeded with S. epidermidis biofilm (105 CFU/cm2), plus 50 μL of a 109 CFU suspension of bacteria, were placed in the femoral medullary cavity of 71 rats. One week later, rats were assigned to one of four groups: infected with no current or DC, or uninfected with no current or DC. After 2 weeks, bones were removed and subjected to histopathology, micro‐computed tomography (μCT), and strength testing. Histopathology showed no inflammation or bony changes/remodeling in the uninfected no current group, and some osteoid formation in the DC group; bones from the infected no current group had evidence of inflammation without bony changes/remodeling; along with inflammation, there was moderate osteoid present in the DC group. μCT showed more cortical bone volume and density, trabecular thickness, and cancellous bone volume in the DC group compared with the no current group, for both uninfected and infected bones (p < 0.05). There was no difference in torsional strength or stiffness between the no current versus DC groups, for both infected and uninfected bones (p > 0.05). © 2018 The Authors. JBMR Plus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
2 Biomaterials and Histomorphometry Core Laboratory, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
3 Biomechanics Research Core Laboratory, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
4 Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
5 Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA; Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA





