Pre-processing tissue specimens with a tissue homogenizer: clinical and microbiological evaluation.
culture
microbiological yield
tissue
tissue homogenizer
Journal
BMC microbiology
ISSN: 1471-2180
Titre abrégé: BMC Microbiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100966981
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 07 2021
02 07 2021
Historique:
received:
15
03
2021
accepted:
17
06
2021
entrez:
3
7
2021
pubmed:
4
7
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Tissues are valuable specimens in diagnostic microbiology because they are often obtained by invasive methods, and effort should thus be taken to maximize microbiological yield. The objective of this study was to evaluate the added value of using tissue pre-processing (tissue homogenizer instrument gentleMACS Dissociator) in detecting microorganisms responsible for infections. We included 104 randomly collected tissue samples, 41 (39.4 %) bones and 63 (60.6 %) soft tissues, many of those (42/104 (40.4 %)) were of periprosthetic origins. We compared the agreement between pre-processing tissues using tissue homogenizer with routine microbiology diagnostic procedure, and we calculated the performance of these methods when clinical infections were used as reference standard. There was no significant difference between the two methods (McNemar test, p = 0.3). Among the positive culture using both methods (n = 62), 61 (98.4 %) showed at least one similar microorganism. Exactly similar microorganisms were found in 42/62 (67.7 %) of the samples. From the included tissues, 55/ 104 (52.9 %) were deemed as infected. We found that the sensitivity of homogenized tissue procedure was lower (83.6 %) than when tissue was processed using tissue homogenizer (89.1 %). Sub-analysis on periprosthetic tissues and soft or bone tissues showed comparable results. The added value of GentleMACS Dissociator tissue homogenizer is limited in comparison to routine tissue processing.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Tissues are valuable specimens in diagnostic microbiology because they are often obtained by invasive methods, and effort should thus be taken to maximize microbiological yield. The objective of this study was to evaluate the added value of using tissue pre-processing (tissue homogenizer instrument gentleMACS Dissociator) in detecting microorganisms responsible for infections.
METHODS
We included 104 randomly collected tissue samples, 41 (39.4 %) bones and 63 (60.6 %) soft tissues, many of those (42/104 (40.4 %)) were of periprosthetic origins. We compared the agreement between pre-processing tissues using tissue homogenizer with routine microbiology diagnostic procedure, and we calculated the performance of these methods when clinical infections were used as reference standard.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference between the two methods (McNemar test, p = 0.3). Among the positive culture using both methods (n = 62), 61 (98.4 %) showed at least one similar microorganism. Exactly similar microorganisms were found in 42/62 (67.7 %) of the samples. From the included tissues, 55/ 104 (52.9 %) were deemed as infected. We found that the sensitivity of homogenized tissue procedure was lower (83.6 %) than when tissue was processed using tissue homogenizer (89.1 %). Sub-analysis on periprosthetic tissues and soft or bone tissues showed comparable results.
CONCLUSIONS
The added value of GentleMACS Dissociator tissue homogenizer is limited in comparison to routine tissue processing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34215175
doi: 10.1186/s12866-021-02271-6
pii: 10.1186/s12866-021-02271-6
pmc: PMC8254327
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
202Références
mBio. 2016 Jan 05;7(1):e01776-15
pubmed: 26733067
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Oct;36(10):2932-9
pubmed: 9738046
Burns. 1996 May;22(3):177-81
pubmed: 8726253
N Engl J Med. 2007 Aug 16;357(7):654-63
pubmed: 17699815
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jul;29(7):1331
pubmed: 24768547
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016 Jan;84(1):16-18
pubmed: 26514077
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015 Jul;82(3):189-93
pubmed: 25886816
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019 Jan;38(1):149-155
pubmed: 30357554
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 Oct;21(10):931-5
pubmed: 26119720
Lancet. 2016 Jan 23;387(10016):386-394
pubmed: 26135702
Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Nov 1;45(9):1113-9
pubmed: 17918072
Front Microbiol. 2014 Jun 02;5:258
pubmed: 24917854
J Microbiol Methods. 2014 Oct;105:80-1
pubmed: 25019518
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014 Apr;27(2):302-45
pubmed: 24696437
In Vivo. 2017 Sep-Oct;31(5):937-942
pubmed: 28882962
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Oct;471(10):3196-203
pubmed: 23568679
Eurasian J Med. 2013 Feb;45(1):34-8
pubmed: 25610245