Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T17:12:16.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative efficacies of topical antiseptic eardrops against biofilms from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and quinolone-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2018

C K Youn ,
Y Jun ,
E-R Jo ,
S-J Jang ,
H Song  and
S I Cho
C K Youn
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Chosun University School of Medicine, Gwangju, South Korea Department of Premedical Science, Chosun University School of Medicine, Gwangju, South Korea
Y Jun
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, Chosun University School of Medicine, Gwangju, South Korea
E-R Jo
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Chosun University School of Medicine, Gwangju, South Korea
S-J Jang
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chosun University School of Medicine, Gwangju, South Korea
H Song
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Chosun University School of Medicine, Gwangju, South Korea
S I Cho*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Chosun University School of Medicine, Gwangju, South Korea
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Sung Il Cho, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Chosun University, 365 Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu, Gwangju 61453, South Korea Fax: +82 62 225 2702 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The present study aimed to compare the anti-biofilm activities of four commonly available antiseptic eardrops against biofilms from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and quinolone-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro.

Methods

The anti-biofilm activities of 50 per cent Burow's solution, vinegar with water (1:1), 2 per cent acetic acid solution, and 4 per cent boric acid solution were evaluated using biofilm assays. Additionally, the anti-biofilm activities of the four antiseptic solutions against tympanostomy tube biofilms were compared using a scanning electron microscope.

Results

The inhibition of biofilm formation from methicillin-resistant S aureus and quinolone-resistant P aeruginosa occurred after treatment with 4 per cent boric acid solution, 2 per cent acetic acid solution, and vinegar with water (1:1). However, 50 per cent Burow's solution did not exhibit effective anti-biofilm activity.

Conclusion

The results indicate that 4 per cent boric acid solution and vinegar with water (1:1) are potent inhibitors of biofilms from methicillin-resistant S aureus and quinolone-resistant P aeruginosa, and provide safe pH levels for avoiding ototoxicity.

Keywords

Anti-Infective AgentsMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus AureusQuinolonesPseudomonas AeruginosaBiofilmsOtitis Media
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 6 , June 2018 , pp. 519 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr S I Cho takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Ah-Tye, C, Paradise, JL, Colborn, DK. Otorrhea in young children after tympanostomy-tube placement for persistent middle-ear effusion: prevalence, incidence, and duration. Pediatrics 2001;107:1251–8Google Scholar
2Karlan, MS, Skobel, B, Grizzard, M, Cassisi, NJ, Singleton, GT, Buscemi, P et al. Myringotomy tube materials: bacterial adhesion and infection. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1980;88:783–94Google Scholar
3Ciofu, O, Rojo-Molinero, E, Macià, MD, Oliver, A. Antibiotic treatment of biofilm infections. APMIS 2017;125:304–19Google Scholar
4Bjarnsholt, T, Alhede, M, Jensen, PØ, Nielsen, AK, Johansen, HK, Homøe, P et al. Antibiofilm properties of acetic acid. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 2015;4:363–72Google Scholar
5Stationery Office (Great Britain). British Pharmacopoeia 2009. London: Stationery Office, 2008Google Scholar
6Wang, JC, Hamood, AN, Saadeh, C, Cunningham, MJ, Yim, MT, Cordero, J. Strategies to prevent biofilm-based tympanostomy tube infections. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2014;78:1433–8Google Scholar
7Mandel, EM, Casselbrant, ML, Kurs-Lasky, M. Acute otorrhea: bacteriology of a common complication of tympanostomy tubes. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1994;130:713–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Idicula, WK, Jurcisek, JA, Cass, ND, Ali, S, Goodman, SD, Elmaraghy, CA et al. Identification of biofilms in post-tympanostomy tube otorrhea. Laryngoscope 2016;126:1946–51Google Scholar
9Donlan, RM, Costerton, JW. Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev 2002;15:167–93Google Scholar
10Dickschat, JS. Quorum sensing and bacterial biofilms. Nat Prod Rep 2010;27:343–69Google Scholar
11Jotić, A, Božić, DD, Milovanović, J, Pavlović, B, Ješić, S, Pelemiš, M et al. Biofilm formation on tympanostomy tubes depends on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus genetic lineage. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:615–20Google Scholar
12Jang, CH, Cho, YB, Choi, CH. Effect of ion-bombarded silicone tympanostomy tube on ciprofloxacin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2012;76:1471–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Hoiby, N, Bjarnsholt, T, Givskov, M, Molin, S, Ciofu, O. Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2010;35:322–32Google Scholar
14Singh, DP, Gowda, AU, Chopra, K, Tholen, M, Chang, S, Mavrophilipos, V et al. The effect of negative pressure wound therapy with antiseptic instillation on biofilm formation in a porcine model of infected spinal instrumentation. Wounds 2017;28:175–80Google Scholar
15Osgood, R, Salamone, F, Diaz, A, Casey, JR, Bajorski, P, Pichichero, ME. Effect of pH and oxygen on biofilm formation in acute otitis media associated NTHi clinical isolates. Laryngoscope 2015;125:2204–8Google Scholar
16Halstead, FD, Rauf, M, Moiemen, NS, Bamford, A, Wearn, CM, Fraise, AP et al. The antibacterial activity of acetic acid against biofilm-producing pathogens of relevance to burns patients. PLoS One 2015;10:e0136190Google Scholar
17Gao, X, Jin, Z, Chen, X, Yu, J. Advances in the progress of anti-bacterial biofilms properties of acetic acid [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi 2016;32:382–4Google ScholarPubMed
18Ikeda, K, Morizono, T. The preparation of acetic acid for use in otic drops and its effect on endocochlear potential and pH in inner ear fluid. Am J Otolaryngol 1989;10:382–5Google Scholar
19Sugamura, M, Yamano, T, Higuchi, H, Takase, H, Yoshimura, H, Nakagawa, T et al. Ototoxicity of Burow solution on the guinea pig cochlea. Am J Otolaryngol 2012;33:595–9Google Scholar
20Youn, CK, Jang, SJ, Jo, ER, Choi, JA, Sim, JH, Cho, SI. Comparative antibacterial activity of topical antiseptic eardrops against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and quinolone-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016;85:80–3Google Scholar