Combating orthopedic implant biofilms — SABER (Study on Agitation for Biofilm Eradication and Reduction) evaluates mechanical, sonication, and radiofrequency approaches: a preclinical in vitro study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2026.45569Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Biofilm, Cells, Hip, Implants, Infection, Knee, SepsisAbstract
Background and purpose: Medical devices commonly employed in orthopedic surgery continue to be susceptible to challenging and costly biofilm bacterial infections. We aimed to evaluate the impact of mechanical brushing with sonication and radiofrequency on biofilms grown on 3 metallic alloys commonly utilized in orthopedic implants: titanium, stainless steel, and cobalt-chromium.
Methods: Biofilms of 4 common bacteria encountered in orthopedic infections were grown on 540 metal chips for 3 metal alloy cohorts. The biofilms were treated with sterile saline irrigation, sonication brushing, or radiofrequency sonication brushing to compare against untreated control. Biofilm burden was evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively with scanning electron microscopy imaging and crystal violet (CV) staining optical density or colony-forming unit measurements, respectively. Parametric, nonparametric, and linear regression analyses for quantitative data were performed.
Results: Qualitatively and quantitatively, all interventions showed a strong reduction in biofilm burden of all microbes on all metals. There was a significant decrease in CV-stained biofilms for brushing interventions compared with irrigation alone and controls. Biofilm burden was significantly reduced in all experiments. The untreated control represented 100% biofilm. Irrigation alone reduced biofilm to 44%, while sonication further decreased biofilm to 25%. The most effective method, sonication with radiofrequency, reduced biofilm to 20%.
Conclusion: Our data shows consistent qualitative and quantitative reduction in biofilm burden with brushing interventions compared with irrigation and control. While further study is warranted, our data suggest that mechanical brushing with sonication and radiofrequency may be beneficial tools in reducing biofilm burden on orthopedic metal implants.
Downloads
References
Konigsberg B S, Hartman C W, Hewlett A L, Garvin K L. Current and future trends in the diagnosis of periprosthetic hip infection. Orthop Clin North Am 2014; 45: 287-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2014.03.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2014.03.002
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 780-5. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
Schwartz A M, Farley K X, Guild G N, Bradbury T L Jr. Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: S79-S85. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.030
Choi S R, Kwon J W, Suk K S, Kim H S, Moon S H, Park S Y, Moon S E, Lee B H. Effectiveness of toothbrushing technique for biofilm removal and postoperative infection control after spinal fusion surgery: a retrospective study. Bioengineering (Basel) 2023; 10. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10101143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101143
Donlan R M. Biofilm formation: a clinically relevant microbiological process. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: 1387-92. doi: 10.1086/322972. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/322972
Lu Y, Cai W J, Ren Z, Han P. The role of staphylococcal biofilm on the surface of implants in orthopedic infection. Microorganisms 2022; 10: 1909. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10101909. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10101909
Wolcott R D, Rhoads D D, Bennett M E, Wolcott B M, Gogokhia L, Costerton J W, et al. Chronic wounds and the medical biofilm paradigm. J Wound Care 2010; 19: 45-6, 48-50, 52-3. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2010.19.2.46966. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2010.19.2.46966
Kildow B J, Springer B D, Brown T S, Lyden E R, Fehring T K, Garvin K L. Long term results of two-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic knee infection: a multicenter study. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37: S327-S332. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.029
Kurtz S M, Higgs G B, Lau E, Iorio R R, Courtney P M, Parvizi J. Hospital costs for unsuccessful two-stage revisions for periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37: 205-12. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.10.018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.10.018
Parisi T J, Konopka J F, Bedair H S. What is the long-term economic societal effect of periprosthetic infections after THA? A Markov analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475: 1891-900. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5333-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5333-6
Digel I, Kern I, Geenen E M, Akimbekov N. Dental plaque removal by ultrasonic toothbrushes. Dent J (Basel) 2020; 8. doi: 10.3390/dj8010028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8010028
Kadouri D, O’Toole G A. Susceptibility of biofilms to Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus attack. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005; 71: 4044-51. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.7.4044-4051.2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.7.4044-4051.2005
Kadouri D, Venzon N C, O’Toole G A. Vulnerability of pathogenic biofilms to Micavibrio aeruginosavorus. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007; 73: 605-14. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01893-06. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01893-06
Merritt J H, Kadouri D E, O’Toole G A. Growing and analyzing static biofilms. Curr Protoc Microbiol 2005; Chapter 1: Unit 1B 1. doi: 10.1002/9780471729259.mc01b01s00. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780471729259.mc01b01s00
O’Toole G A, Pratt L A, Watnick P I, Newman D K, Weaver V B, Kolter R. Genetic approaches to study of biofilms. Methods Enzymol 1999; 310: 91-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(99)10008-9
Shanks R M, Donegan N P, Graber M L, Buckingham S E, Zegans M E, Cheung A L, et al. Heparin stimulates Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. Infect Immun 2005; 73: 4596-606. doi: 10.1016/s0076-6879(99)10008-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.73.8.4596-4606.2005
Glass G V, Peckham P D, Sanders J R. Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Rev Educ Res 1972; 42: 237-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543042003237
Harwell M R, Rubinstein E N, Hayes W S, Olds C C. Summarizing Monte Carlo results in methodological research: the one- and two-factor fixed effects ANOVA cases. J Educ Stat 1992; 17: 315-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986017004315
Lix L M, Keselman J C, Keselman H J. Consequences of assumption violations revisited: a quantitative review of alternatives to the one-way analysis of variance F test. Rev Educ Res 1996; 66: 579-619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004579
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Software 2015; 67: 1–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Otto M. Staphylococcal biofilms. Microbiol Spectr 2018; 6: 10.1128/microbiolspec.gpp3-0023-2018. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.GPP3-0023-2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.GPP3-0023-2018
O’Toole G A, Kolter R. Flagellar and twitching motility are necessary for Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm development. Mol Microbiol 1998; 30: 295-304. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.01062.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.01062.x
Orazi G, Jean-Pierre F, O’Toole G A. Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA14 enhances the efficacy of norfloxacin against Staphylococcus aureus Newman biofilms. J Bacteriol 2020; 202: e00159-20. doi: 10.1128/JB.00159-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00159-20
Pratt L A, Kolter R. Genetic analysis of Escherichia coli biofilm formation: roles of flagella, motility, chemotaxis and type I pili. Mol Microbiol 1998; 30: 285-93. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.01061.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.01061.x
Shanks R M, Sargent J L, Martinez R M, Graber M L, O’Toole G A. Catheter lock solutions influence staphylococcal biofilm formation on abiotic surfaces. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21: 2247-55. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfl170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfl170
Tapscott D C, Wottowa C. Orthopedic implant materials. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls publishing; 2024.
Urish K L, DeMuth P W, Craft D W, Haider H, Davis C M 3rd. Pulse lavage is inadequate at removal of biofilm from the surface of total knee arthroplasty materials. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1128-32. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.012
Kildow B J, Della-Valle C J, Springer B D. Single vs 2-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: S24-S30. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.051
Butcher G, Pinnuck L. Wound bed preparation: ultrasonic-assisted debridement. Br J Nurs 2013; 22: S36, S38-43. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2013.22.Sup4.S36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2013.22.Sup4.S36
Caubet R, Pedarros-Caubet F, Chu M, Freye E, de Belem Rodrigues M, Moreau JM, et al. A radio frequency electric current enhances antibiotic efficacy against bacterial biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48: 4662-4. doi: 10.1128/AAC.48.12.4662-4664.2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.48.12.4662-4664.2004
Flores-Escobar S, Alvaro-Afonso F J, Garcia-Alvarez Y, Lopez-Moral M, Lazaro-Martinez J L, Garcia-Morales E. Ultrasound-assisted wound (UAW) debridement in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 1911. doi: 10.3390/jcm11071911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11071911
Portillo M E, Salvado M, Alier A, Martinez S, Sorli L, Horcajada J P, et al. Advantages of sonication fluid culture for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. J Infect 2014; 69: 35-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2014.03.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2014.03.002
Ribeiro T C, Honda E K, Daniachi D, Cury R P L, da Silva C B, Klautau G B, et al. The impact of sonication cultures when the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection is inconclusive. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0252322. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252322
Bjerkan G, Witso E, Bergh K. Sonication is superior to scraping for retrieval of bacteria in biofilm on titanium and steel surfaces in vitro. Acta Orthop 2009; 80: 245-50. doi: 10.3109/17453670902947457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453670902947457
Russo A, Gatti A, Felici S, Gambardella A, Fini M, Neri M P, et al. Piezoelectric ultrasonic debridement as new tool for biofilm removal from orthopedic implants: a study in vitro. J Orthop Res 2023; 41: 2749-55. doi: 10.1002/jor.25599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.25599
Chao C A, Khilnani T K, Hammad M, Bostrom M P G, Carli A V. Pulsatile lavage is not enough to remove implant biofilm: an in vitro evaluation of sonication brushing. JB JS Open Access 2026; 11: e25.00296. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00296
Zimmerli W, Sendi P. Orthopaedic biofilm infections. APMIS 2017; 125: 353-64. doi: 10.1111/apm.12687. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.12687
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Timothy Greeley McManus, Michael W Fort, Kaitlyn E Barrack, Gabrielle S Ray, Michael B Sparks, Kevin J McGuire, George A O’TOOLE O'Toole
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
