title: The Microbiological Profiles of Infected Prosthetic Implants with an Emphasis on the Organisms which Form Biofilms.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In spite of the decreasing incidence of orthopaedic device related infections to 1%, nowadays, device-related infections still remain a diagnostic, therapeutic and cost -related problem.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To record the common causative organisms and the contributing risk factors for orthopaedic device-related infections in a tertiary care teaching hospital.
  
  
  METHODS
  In a prospective study, fifty patients who underwent orthopaedic device implantation from Jan 2009 - June 2010 were enrolled; among them, 42 patients were complicated with infections. The demography, microbiological data, treatment and the outcome of each patient were recorded.
  
  
  METHODS
  The data was analyzed in terms of frequency and percentage.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of the 50 samples, 42(84%) were culture positive, while 8(16%) were cultures negative. The femur was the most commonly affected bone in both males (median age-37.1yrs) and females (median age-41.3 yrs). Staphylococcus aureus was the organism which was most commonly isolated and which caused biofilms, followed by non-fermenting, gram negative bacilli and Klebsiella spp. We reported the first case till date in the literature of Candida krusei PJI, to the best of our knowledge. No anaerobes were isolated. Tissue trauma, open fractures, post-operative surgical site infections and Diabetes mellitus were found to be the important risk factors. The biofilm forming organisms were commonly associated with polymicrobial infections and even an aggressive antibiotic therapy was often inadequate to eliminate the infections. A conservative surgical treatment was associated with treatment failures. Implant removal or replacement was required in most of the cases to eradicate the infection.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The most common bacteria which were isolated included Staphylococcus aureus, followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella. A majority of them are resistant to the commonly used antibiotics, leading to treatment failures which necessitated an implant removal.
authors.affiliation: Postgraduate Resident, Father Muller Medical College , Kankanady, Mangalore-575 002, Karnataka State, India .
authors.forename: Anisha
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Fernandes
authors.forename: Meena
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Dias
keywords: Biofilm; Implant surgery; Prosthetic joint infection
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Jun;90(6):770-7
references.pmid: 18539671
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Feb;46(2):488-92
references.pmid: 18077647
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Sep 1;33 Suppl 2:S94-106
references.pmid: 11486305
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980 Apr;62(3):457-62
references.pmid: 7364818
references.citation: Int J Infect Dis. 2010 Oct;14 Suppl 4:S67-77
references.pmid: 20843721
references.citation: Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2003 May;21(5):232-6
references.pmid: 12732112
references.citation: Swiss Med Wkly. 2005 Apr 30;135(17-18):243-51
references.pmid: 15965826
references.citation: Int J Med Sci. 2009 Sep 02;6(5):234-40
references.pmid: 19834588
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 May;81(5):672-83
references.pmid: 10360695
references.citation: JAMA. 1998 May 20;279(19):1537-41
references.pmid: 9605897
references.citation: Injury. 2006 May;37 Suppl 2:S59-66
references.pmid: 16651073
references.citation: Indian J Med Microbiol. 2006 Jan;24(1):25-9
references.pmid: 16505551
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 1997 May;24(5):914-9
references.pmid: 9142792