title: Sponge swabs increase sensitivity of sterility testing of processed bone and tendon allografts.
abstract: Sterility testing is the final, and critical, step in quality control of tissue banking. It informs the decision whether to release the tissue allografts for clinical use, or not. The most common method for sterility testing of structural bone and tendon allografts is to swab using cotton tip streaks. This method provides low recovery efficiency; and therefore may pass allografts with low bioburden, providing false negatives. Our pilot data revealed organism recovery efficiencies of 60, 30 and 100% from cotton swab, membrane filtration and sponge swaps, respectively. Our aim was to develop a high sensitivity sterility test for structural bone and tendon allografts using a sponge sampling method. Eighty-one bone and tendon allograft samples were inoculated with organism suspensions (10(2) or less organisms per 0.1 mL) of Clostridium sporogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida albicans, Bacillus subtilis, Aspergillus niger, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Micrococcus spp. Nasco sponges (4 × 8 cm) were used to aseptically sample the whole surface of allograft samples. The sponges were cut in half and cultured in either tryptone soya or fluid thioglycollate broths for 14 days. Positive culture samples were further examined for microbial morphology. The results showed that the sensitivity of the method, and negative predictive value, is 100% for all inoculated organisms incubated with thioglycollate. We conclude that this sponge sampling method should be applied as the standard for sterility testing of structural bone and tendon allografts.
authors: The Queensland Bone Bank, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
authors: Huynh
authors: H
authors: Nguyen
authors: David A F
authors: DA
authors: Morgan
authors: Sharon
authors: S
authors: Cull
authors: Morris
authors: M
authors: Benkovich
authors: Mark R
authors: MR
authors: Forwood
references: Hong Kong Med J. 2004 Dec;10(6):401-5
references: 15591599
references: J Food Prot. 2010 Apr;73(4):747-51
references: 20377966
references: Cell Tissue Bank. 2008 Jun;9(2):139-47
references: 18320354
references: J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2005 Aug;32(8):349-54
references: 15973533
references: Acta Orthop Belg. 1994;60(2):152-4
references: 8053313
references: J Hosp Infect. 2001 Mar;47(3):193-7
references: 11247679
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010 Feb;76(3):688-94
references: 20023101
references: Cell Tissue Bank. 2011 Feb;12(1):45-50
references: 19806469
references: J Arthroplasty. 2011 Feb;26(2):303-8
references: 20570097
references: Chir Organi Mov. 2003 Oct-Dec;88(4):345-50
references: 15259549
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Mar;(300):259-63
references: 8131346
references: J Microbiol Methods. 2007 Aug;70(2):374-8
references: 17582530
references: Int Orthop. 2004 Oct;28(5):315-8
references: 15480661
references: Cell Tissue Bank. 2011 Feb;12(1):37-43
references: 19760122
references: J Food Prot. 2001 Mar;64(3):325-34
references: 11252475
references: Res Microbiol. 2005 Jan-Feb;156(1):104-6
references: 15636754
references: Cell Tissue Bank. 2005;6(3):181-9
references: 16151958
references: Ugeskr Laeger. 1996 Oct 28;158(44):6260-2
references: 8966808
references: Acta Orthop Scand. 2002 Apr;73(2):165-9
references: 12079013
references: J Food Prot. 2010 Jan;73(1):81-7
references: 20051208
references: J Food Prot. 2005 Sep;68(9):1848-52
references: 16161683
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Sep;89(9):2044-7
references: 17768205
references: Aust N Z J Surg. 2000 Jul;70(7):480-4
references: 10901573