A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Bacterial adherence of Staphylococcus epidermidis to intraocular lenses: a bioluminescence and scanning electron microscopy study. | LitMetric

Purpose: To analyze and compare the adherence of Staphylococcus epidermidis to intraocular lenses (IOLs) made of five different biomaterials (native or heparinized polymethylmethacrylate, silicone, hydrophilic acrylic, or hydrogel) and to detail the different steps and mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to a polymer.

Methods: A clinical strain carrying the intercellular adhesion (ica) locus was used. In a previous study, the extent of bacterial binding was measured by counting. In this study, two different techniques, bioluminescence and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), were used to analyze the accuracy of each one, to obtain a comparison between the various IOLs, and to complete previous observations. The results were compared using both the Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney nonparametric tests.

Results: Bacterial adhesion was statistically weakest on hydrogel and then on hydrophilic acrylic polymer. Adhesion depended on the hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity of the biomaterials. Slight differences were found between the two methods, and these differences are explained. Furthermore, SEM observations highlighted two different patterns of bacterial adhesion (isolated bacteria and clusters of bacteria), assuming that hydrophobic IOLs (silicone and PMMA) probably facilitate bacterial colonization and biofilm production.

Conclusions: Attachment mechanisms may be different in each case, depending on the polymer material and the infecting organism, because there are various types of behavior among S. epidermidis strains. Hydrophilic polymer surfaces (hydrogel and probably hydrophilic acrylic) seem to be useful in avoiding the development of bacterial colonies and hence in preventing endophthalmitis. Fewer bacteria were attached, demonstrating inhibition or delay in bacterial colonization.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.03-0186DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

hydrophilic acrylic
12
bacterial adhesion
12
bacterial
8
adherence staphylococcus
8
staphylococcus epidermidis
8
epidermidis intraocular
8
intraocular lenses
8
bioluminescence scanning
8
scanning electron
8
electron microscopy
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!