Assessment of Staphylococcus Aureus growth on biocompatible 3D printed materials

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 9 - Trang 1-6 - 2023
Nicole Senderovich1, Sharan Shah2, Thomas J. Ow2,3, Stephanie Rand4, Joshua Nosanchuk5, Nicole Wake6,7
1Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Health System, Bronx, USA
2Department of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Montefiore Health System, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA
3Department of Pathology, Montefiore Health System, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA
4Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Montefiore Health System, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA
5Department of Infectious Disease, Montefiore Health System, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA
6Department of Research and Scientific Affairs, GE HealthCare, New York, USA
7Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI²R) and Bernard and Irene, Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, USA

Tóm tắt

The customizability of 3D printing allows for the manufacturing of personalized medical devices such as laryngectomy tubes, but it is vital to establish the biocompatibility of printing materials to ensure that they are safe and durable. The goal of this study was to assess the presence of S. aureus biofilms on a variety of 3D printed materials (two surgical guide resins, a photopolymer, an elastomer, and a thermoplastic elastomer filament) as compared to standard, commercially available laryngectomy tubes. C-shaped discs (15 mm in height, 20 mm in diameter, and 3 mm in thickness) were printed with five different biocompatible 3D printing materials and S. aureus growth was compared to Shiley™ laryngectomy tubes made from polyvinyl chloride. Discs of each material were inoculated with S. aureus cultures and incubated overnight. All materials were then removed from solution, washed in phosphate-buffered saline to remove planktonic bacteria, and sonicated to detach biofilms. Some solution from each disc was plated and colony-forming units were manually counted the following day. The resulting data was analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test to determine pairwise significance between the laryngectomy tube material and the 3D printed materials. The Shiley™ tube grew a median of 320 colonies (IQR 140–520), one surgical guide resin grew a median of 640 colonies (IQR 356–920), the photopolymer grew a median of 340 colonies (IQR 95.5–739), the other surgical guide resin grew a median of 431 colonies (IQR 266.5–735), the thermoplastic elastomer filament grew a median of 188 colonies (IQR 113.5–335), and the elastomer grew a median of 478 colonies (IQR 271–630). Using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, manual quantification showed a significant difference between biofilm formation only between the Shiley™ tube and a surgical guide resin (p = 0.018). This preliminary study demonstrates that bacterial colonization was comparable among most 3D printed materials as compared to the conventionally manufactured device. Continuation of this work with increased replicates will be necessary to determine which 3D printing materials optimally resist biofilm formation.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Mitsouras D, et al. Medical 3D Printing for the Radiologist. Radiographics. 2015;35(7):1965–88.

Matsumoto JS, et al. Three-dimensional physical modeling: applications and experience at Mayo Clinic. Radiographics. 2015;35(7):1989–2006.

Wake N, et al. Patient-specific 3D printed and augmented reality kidney and Prostate cancer models: impact on patient education. 3D Print Med. 2019;5(1):4.

Wake N, et al. 3D printed renal cancer models derived from MRI data: application in pre-surgical planning. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42(5):1501–9.

Ballard DH, et al. Medical 3D Printing cost-savings in orthopedic and maxillofacial Surgery: cost analysis of operating Room Time Saved with 3D printed anatomic models and Surgical guides. Acad Radiol. 2020;27(8):1103–13.

Yoo SJ, et al. 3D printing in medicine of congenital Heart Diseases. 3D Print Med. 2015;2(1):3.

Ryan J, et al. 3D printing for congenital Heart Disease: a single site’s initial three-yearexperience. 3D Print Med. 2018;4(1):10.

Sporer S, et al. Evaluation of a 3D-printed total knee arthroplasty using radiostereometric analysis: assessment of highly porous biological fixation of the tibial baseplate and metal-backed patellar component. Bone Joint J. 2019;101–B(7SuppleC):40–7.

Wang Z, Yang Y. Application of 3D Printing in Implantable Medical Devices Biomed Res Int, 2021. 2021: p. 6653967.

Restrepo S, Smith EB, Hozack WJ. Excellent mid-term follow-up for a new 3D-printed cementless total knee arthroplasty Bone Joint J, 2021. 103-B(6 Supple A): p. 32–37.

Zopf DA, et al. Bioresorbable airway splint created with a three-dimensional printer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(21):2043–5.

Morrison RJ, et al. Mitigation of tracheobronchomalacia with 3D-printed personalized medical devices in pediatric patients. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(285):285ra64.

Khan G, et al. The application of three-Dimensional Simulation Program and Three-Dimensional Printing in secondary Rhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(8):e774–7.

Yousefi F, et al. Accuracy of maxillofacial prototypes fabricated by different 3-dimensional printing technologies using multi-slice and cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2021;51(1):41–7.

Okajima Y, et al. Biofilm formation by Staphylococcus epidermidis on intraocular lens material. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(7):2971–5.

Palka L, et al. Susceptibility to biofilm formation on 3D-printed titanium fixation plates used in the mandible: a preliminary study. J Oral Microbiol. 2020;12(1):1838164.

10993 I. Biological evaluation of medical devices — Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process 2018.

Arsenijevic S, et al. Demographic characteristics of patients with laryngeal cancer and their socioeconomic status. J BUON. 2010;15(1):131–5.

Ezri T, et al. A complication of a flexible tracheostomy tube during laryngectomy. Anaesthesia. 1991;46(4):328.

White AC, Kher S. O’Connor, when to change a tracheostomy tube. Respir Care. 2010;55(8):1069–75.

Kuo M, et al. Tracheostomal stenosis after total laryngectomy: an analysis of predisposing clinical factors. Laryngoscope. 1994;104(1 Pt 1):59–63.

Solomon DH, et al. Characterization of bacterial biofilms on tracheostomy tubes. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(8):1633–8.

Sheagren JN. Staphylococcus aureus. The persistent pathogen (first of two parts). N Engl J Med. 1984;310(21):1368–73.

Cross AS, Roup B. Role of respiratory assistance devices in endemic nosocomial Pneumonia. Am J Med. 1981;70(3):681–5.

Darouiche RO. Treatment of Infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(14):1422–9.

Frieri M, Kumar K, Boutin A. Antibiotic resistance. J Infect Public Health. 2017;10(4):369–78.

Zimmerli W, Moser C. Pathogenesis and treatment concepts of orthopaedic biofilm Infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2012;65(2):158–68.

Discussion Paper: 3D Printing Medical Devices at the Point of Care U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

Hall DC Jr., et al. Bacterial biofilm growth on 3D-Printed materials. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:646303.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Tập 9

1-6

Thông tin tác giả