Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T00:48:47.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis: what is new and where next?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2015

Y Ramakrishnan*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
R C Shields
Affiliation:
School of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, UK
M R Elbadawey
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Department of Otolaryngology, Tanta University, Egypt
J A Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Yujay Ramakrishnan, Department of Otolaryngology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK E-mail: yujay.ramakrishnan@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common, heterogeneous condition. An effective means of mitigating disease in chronic rhinosinusitis patients remains elusive. A variety of causes have been implicated, with the biofilm theory gaining increasing prominence.

Objective:

This article reviews the literature on the role of biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis, in terms of pathophysiology and with regard to avenues for future treatment.

Methods:

A systematic review of case series was performed using databases with independently developed search strategies, including Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane library, and Zetoc, in addition to conference proceedings and a manual search of literature, with the last search conducted on 18 January 2014. The search terms included the following, used in various combinations to maximise the yield of articles identified: ‘biofilms’, ‘chronic rhinosinusitis’, ‘DNase’, ‘extracellular DNA’ and ‘biofilm dispersal’.

Results:

The existing evidence lends further support for the role of biofilms (particularly the Staphylococcus aureus phenotype) in more severe, recalcitrant disease and poorer surgical outcomes.

Conclusion:

Multimodality treatment, with a shift in paradigm to incorporate anti-biofilm strategies, is likely to form the mainstay of future recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis management.

Information

Type
Review Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Biofilm life cycle. 1 = free-floating planktonic form; 2 = initial attachment; 3 = proliferation, permanent attachment with loss of motility, and so on; 4 = biofilm matrix produced; 5 = biofilm maturation – different phenotypes, such as persister cells, are present in biofilm; and 6 = biofilm continues to mature, cells are shed from biofilm and process begins again

Figure 1

Table I Diagnostic criteria for biofilm infections

Figure 2

Fig. 2 Scanning electron microscopy images of Streptococcus constellatus FH20 biofilms treated with NucB or buffer control. Biofilms were visualised after treatment for 1 hour with buffer (a) or with NucB (b). At higher magnification, extracellular material (white arrow) was observed in the absence of NucB treatment (c), but was not seen in NucB-treated biofilms (d). Reproduced with permission.19

Figure 3

Table II Biofilm determination in chronic rhinosinusitis

Figure 4

Fig. 3 Confocal laser scanning microscopy images of surface-associated bacteria on mucosa removed from chronic rhinosinusitis patients. Bacteria (green) were visualised using a EUB338 peptide nucleic acid fluorescence in situ hybridisation probe, and epithelial cells (blue) were counterstained with DAPI (4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole). Reproduced with permission.19