4.4 Article

Effect of hydrophilic coating on microorganism colonization in silicone tubing

期刊

ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA
卷 146, 期 6, 页码 603-610

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00701-004-0262-z

关键词

bacterial colonization; dimethylpolysiloxane (silicone); polyvinylpyrrolidone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Shunt infections are one of the major causes of mortality and morbidity of patients with hydrocephalus. The aim of this research is to compare the bacterial colonization characteristics of a regular silicone elastomer shunt material coated with polyvinylpyrrolidone and dimethylpolysiloxane (silicone). Method. Regular coated shunt materials were compared by in-vivo and in-vitro methods. In the in-vitro experiment, silicone and coated material immersed and not immersed in vancomycin solution was treated with a certain concentration of Staphylococcus epidermidis. In the in-vivo study, silicone and coated material specimens were treated with Staphylococcus epidermidis and they were stereotactically placed in the lateral ventricles of the rats. One week after the inoculation, shunt pieces were removed and the colonies were counted by using a scanning electron microscope. Findings. There was a statistically significant difference of colonization in the in-vitro groups in coated material vs. silicone, coated material vs. vancomycin treated silicone, vancomycin treated coated material vs. silicone, vancomycin treated coated material vs. vancomycin treated silicone. There was no statistically significant difference for colonization in in-vitro groups of coated material and vancomycin treated coated material. With in-vivo experiments we can say that, coated material catheters are superior than the silicone catheters in respect to colonization but after the bacterial colonization has occurred, the amount of colonization did not differ. Interpretation. Coated material catheters are superior to silicone catheters and they prevent bacterial colonization in some respect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据