Cargando…

Comparing different methods used to collect material for a microbiological evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

There is still controversy on which is the best method to collect the secretion directly from the middle meatus or maxillary sinus in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of bacteria in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and compare the suction trap collector to di...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mantovani, Karina, Rodrigues, Daniela de Oliveira, Tamashiro, Edwin, Valera, Fabiana Cardoso Pereira, Demarco, Ricardo Cassiano, Martinez, Roberto, Lima, Wilma Terezinha Anselmo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9442182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20658011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942010000300009
_version_ 1784782753821097984
author Mantovani, Karina
Rodrigues, Daniela de Oliveira
Tamashiro, Edwin
Valera, Fabiana Cardoso Pereira
Demarco, Ricardo Cassiano
Martinez, Roberto
Lima, Wilma Terezinha Anselmo
author_facet Mantovani, Karina
Rodrigues, Daniela de Oliveira
Tamashiro, Edwin
Valera, Fabiana Cardoso Pereira
Demarco, Ricardo Cassiano
Martinez, Roberto
Lima, Wilma Terezinha Anselmo
author_sort Mantovani, Karina
collection PubMed
description There is still controversy on which is the best method to collect the secretion directly from the middle meatus or maxillary sinus in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of bacteria in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and compare the suction trap collector to direct aspiration attached to a syringe for the microbiological analysis of these secretions. Materials and Methods: Prospective study involving 31 patients who underwent endoscopically guided maxillary secretion aspiration by two different methods (aspiration with the collector tube “suction trap” and aspiration with the use of a catheter connected to a syringe), to determine the microbiological diagnosis and to compare the two methods used. Results: microorganisms grew samples collected from 55% of the 31 patients. The most frequent bacteria were S. aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other aerobic Gram-negative bacteria. The results from cultures were similar between the two methods in 71% of patients. Conclusion: S. aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other aerobic Gram-negative bacteria make up the main flora in the maxillary sinus of the patients. There was good correlation between the microbiological results obtained by using a catheter attached to a syringe and the “suction trap” nasal collector.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9442182
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94421822022-09-09 Comparing different methods used to collect material for a microbiological evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis Mantovani, Karina Rodrigues, Daniela de Oliveira Tamashiro, Edwin Valera, Fabiana Cardoso Pereira Demarco, Ricardo Cassiano Martinez, Roberto Lima, Wilma Terezinha Anselmo Braz J Otorhinolaryngol Original Article There is still controversy on which is the best method to collect the secretion directly from the middle meatus or maxillary sinus in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of bacteria in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and compare the suction trap collector to direct aspiration attached to a syringe for the microbiological analysis of these secretions. Materials and Methods: Prospective study involving 31 patients who underwent endoscopically guided maxillary secretion aspiration by two different methods (aspiration with the collector tube “suction trap” and aspiration with the use of a catheter connected to a syringe), to determine the microbiological diagnosis and to compare the two methods used. Results: microorganisms grew samples collected from 55% of the 31 patients. The most frequent bacteria were S. aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other aerobic Gram-negative bacteria. The results from cultures were similar between the two methods in 71% of patients. Conclusion: S. aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other aerobic Gram-negative bacteria make up the main flora in the maxillary sinus of the patients. There was good correlation between the microbiological results obtained by using a catheter attached to a syringe and the “suction trap” nasal collector. Elsevier 2015-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9442182/ /pubmed/20658011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942010000300009 Text en . https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Mantovani, Karina
Rodrigues, Daniela de Oliveira
Tamashiro, Edwin
Valera, Fabiana Cardoso Pereira
Demarco, Ricardo Cassiano
Martinez, Roberto
Lima, Wilma Terezinha Anselmo
Comparing different methods used to collect material for a microbiological evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis
title Comparing different methods used to collect material for a microbiological evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis
title_full Comparing different methods used to collect material for a microbiological evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis
title_fullStr Comparing different methods used to collect material for a microbiological evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis
title_full_unstemmed Comparing different methods used to collect material for a microbiological evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis
title_short Comparing different methods used to collect material for a microbiological evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis
title_sort comparing different methods used to collect material for a microbiological evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9442182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20658011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942010000300009
work_keys_str_mv AT mantovanikarina comparingdifferentmethodsusedtocollectmaterialforamicrobiologicalevaluationofpatientswithchronicrhinosinusitis
AT rodriguesdanieladeoliveira comparingdifferentmethodsusedtocollectmaterialforamicrobiologicalevaluationofpatientswithchronicrhinosinusitis
AT tamashiroedwin comparingdifferentmethodsusedtocollectmaterialforamicrobiologicalevaluationofpatientswithchronicrhinosinusitis
AT valerafabianacardosopereira comparingdifferentmethodsusedtocollectmaterialforamicrobiologicalevaluationofpatientswithchronicrhinosinusitis
AT demarcoricardocassiano comparingdifferentmethodsusedtocollectmaterialforamicrobiologicalevaluationofpatientswithchronicrhinosinusitis
AT martinezroberto comparingdifferentmethodsusedtocollectmaterialforamicrobiologicalevaluationofpatientswithchronicrhinosinusitis
AT limawilmaterezinhaanselmo comparingdifferentmethodsusedtocollectmaterialforamicrobiologicalevaluationofpatientswithchronicrhinosinusitis