According to U.S. statistics, there were 51.4 million surgeries performed last year. Out of those, a little over one million surgeries were total knee and hip replacements and another million were due to cardiac catheterizations alone. These people put their lives and trust into the doctors performing the surgeries, which in turn require them to live the remainder of their lives with a foreign object in their bodies. What happens to these implants and devices inside the body post surgery could become threatening and dangerous to the patient and must therefore must be studied.
A) Why did the scientists perform the study (i.e. description of background)?
Any medical device ...view middle of the document...
Development and localization of Staphylococcus epidermidis infection in tissue surrounding the implant because of the bacteria previously present on the surface is the focus of investigation. To do this, the scientists inoculated Staphylococcus epidermidis on the surface of an implant and used it as a model for a biofilm. They then placed it in a mouse to be used as a mouse biomaterial-associated infection. Therefore, the scientists believed that bacteria in a biofilm on the implant are a potential source of infection of the surrounding tissue, and antimicrobial strategies should prevent both biofilm formation and tissue colonization.
C) What were the major results and did they support or negate the hypothesis? Which key techniques were used to achieve these results?
The major results were that, S. epidermidis, either pre-seeded or pre-grown as biofilm on the surface of titanium implants, infected the tissue surrounding the implant, therefore supporting the hypothesis being tested. Techniques used to achieve these results included : culturing bacteria on biofilm, and then on titanium plates, implanting tissue into host mice, and constructing a fully virulent fluorescent S. epidermidis strain in order to study the pathogenesis of biomaterial-associated infection in murine model.
D) Why are the results significant and do they point to further/future studies? In other words, why does this article matter and what should or could be done next?
The results in this study are significant because they show possible routes of infection at the interface between...