This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BACKGROUND: Sonication of explanted implants has improved microbiological detection in implant-associated infections. However, large inter-laboratory variability in sonication protocols limits comparability and clinical interpretability. A national consensus-driven initiative was launched to standardize the diagnostic sonication process, using current Swiss practice and the published evidence as a foundation. METHODS: An evidence-informed structured consensus process was conducted, including a national protocol survey and a scoping review of published sonication workflows. An online consensus meeting followed, with structured item-by-item discussion and a single round of anonymous voting per item (consensus: ≥80% agreement among valid votes). RESULTS: Twenty-one laboratories participated; four without sonication and one duplicate response was identified. Consensus was reached in 8 of 9 domains: sonication frequency (40 kHz, 100%), intensity (100% device output, 100%), temperature (room temperature, 100%), duration (1 min, 90.5%), fluid (Ringer's solution, 95.5%), pre- and post-sonication vortexing (30 s each, 94.4%), processing within 6 h (87.5%), culture media panel (aerobic blood agar 93.8%, chocolate agar +5% CO₂ 100%, thioglycolate broth 100%, anaerobic Schaedler agar 93.3%), incubation (14 days, 84.6%), and quantitative reporting (CFU/mL, 100%). Neither volume standardization proposal reached consensus: weight-based volume achieved 33.3% and minimum volume rule 43.8%, reflecting ongoing feasibility and implementation concerns. CONCLUSION: A national consensus protocol was developed to harmonize sonication-based implant microbiology processing across key technical, handling, culture, incubation, and reporting domains, while volume standardization remained open due to operational constraints. This framework is intended to facilitate inter-laboratory comparability, with future work focused on implementation evaluation and evidence-based interpretive thresholds.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: