Collection of samples from wounds for microbiological testing in surgery: a comparison of the methods id swabbing and imprinting

VEVERKOVÁ, Lenka, Zdeněk CHOVANEC, Miroslav VOTAVA, Zdeněk WILHELM, Jan ŽÁK, Petr VLČEK a Václav JEDLIČKA. Collection of samples from wounds for microbiological testing in surgery: a comparison of the methods id swabbing and imprinting. In EWMA 2011, 25-27 May Brussel, Belgium, www.ewma.org/EWMA2011. 2011. ISSN 1609-2759.

Základní údaje

• Originální název: Collection of samples from wounds for microbiological testing in surgery: a comparison of the methods id swabbing and imprinting
• Autoři: VEVERKOVÁ, Lenka, Zdeněk CHOVANEC, Miroslav VOTAVA, Zdeněk WILHELM, Jan ŽÁK, Petr VLČEK a Václav JEDLIČKA.
• Vydání: EWMA 2011, 25-27 May Brussel, Belgium, www.ewma.org/EWMA2011, 2011.

Další údaje

• Originální jazyk: angličtina
• Typ výsledku: Konferenční abstrakt
• Obor: 30200 3.2 Clinical medicine
• Stát vydavatele: Belgie
• Utajení: není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
• Organizační jednotka: Lékařská fakulta
• ISSN: 1609-2759
• Klíčová slova anglicky: imprinting method, swabbing

Anotace

Introduction: In clinical pratice it is essential to utilize a correct method of colecting samples for microbiological testing, as well as it is storage, transport, evaluation and a clear interpretation of the data. The guidelines of The WUWHS initiative clearly indentify when samples should be taken for microbiological testing. Method: In the period between October 2008 and June 2010 we examined 100 samples from 40 patients. We collected samples from surgical wounds. 14 from the chest, 42 from the abdomen, 32 from the perigluteal area and 12 from other areas. We collected samples for microbiological testing using a sterile cotton swab pad on a stick which were transported in ates tube with transport medium according to Amis the result are qualitative and we also employed the method of imprinting. The results are semi- quantitative Results and conslusion:In 58% of the cases the results achieved using the two methods were identical while they difered in 42%.We conduceted statistical analysis using contingency tables and Mc Nemars test. We tested the hypothesis that swabing represents good practice.In 13 cases both the imprint and the swab were negative, in 44 case positive. In 11 cases the inprint was negative and the swab pozitive and in 32 cases the inprint was pozitive and the swab negative. The statistical significance was 0,00229, which means that our hypothesis about swabbing as good practice was not confirmed, on the contrary, we found that imprinting provides a more accurate method. Swabbing and imprinting indentified 22 types of microbes.