This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background and Objectives Laser generated shockwave (LGS) is a novel modality for minimally invasive disruption of bacterial biofilms. The objectives of this study are to determine the mechanisms behind LGS treatment and non‐biofilm effects on bacterial disruption, including (1) comparing bacterial load with and without LGS in its planktonic form and (2) estimating bacterial cell permeability following LGS. Study Design/Materials and Methods For the first study, planktonic S. epidermidis were treated with gentamicin (0, 8, 16, 32, 64 μg/ml) with and without LGS (1064 nm Nd:YAG laser, 110.14 mJ/mm2, pulse duration 9 ns, spot size 3 mm, n = 8/group), and absorbances at 600 nm compared. For the second study, four samples of planktonic S. epidermidis were treated with LGS (same settings). Propidium iodide (PI) uptake via flow cytometry as a measure of cell permeability was measured at 0, 10, and 20 minutes following LGS. Results In comparing corresponding gentamicin concentrations within both LGS‐treated samples and controls at 0 hours, there were no differences in absorbance (P = 0.923 and P = 0.814, respectively). Flow cytometry found modest PI uptake (10.4 ± 2.5%) immediately following LGS treatment, with time‐dependent increase and persistence of the signal at 20 minutes (R2 = 0.449, P = 0.048). Conclusion Taken together, LGS does not appear to have direct bacteriocidal properties, but rather by allowing for biofilm disruption and bacterial cell membrane permeabilization, both of which likely increase topical antibiotic delivery to pathogenic organisms. Insight into the mechanisms of LGS will allow for improved clinical applications and facilitate safe and effective translation of this technology. Lasers Surg. Med.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yao et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: