Yazıcı, Cenk MuratGülen, DumrulDoğan, ÇağrıKaya, Ayşe DemetMalkoç, Ercan2022-05-112022-05-1120141309-07201309-2014https://doi.org/10.4328/JCAM.1385https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11776/5788Aim: Urine culture is one of the most common labaratory test in urology clinics. Contamination of urine cultures is a challenging problem that causes extra efforts for both clinical and economical aspects. Perineal antiseptic cleaning was thought to be an effective method to reduce contamination rates. In this prospective study, we tried to evaluate if antiseptic usage during perineal cleaning was able to decrease contamination rates in scientific manner or is it a myth of urology. Material and Method: A total of 150 female patients over 18 years old with the symptom of dysuria and/or frequency and had a minimum one positive leukocyte at urine dipstick test, were prospectively enrolled to the study. Two midstream clean-catch urine samples were given by the same patient at 6 hour intervals, one with sterile saline and other with antiseptic usage for perineal cleaning. All samples were incubated in microbiology laboratory for urine culture evaluation. Results: Median age of study population was 45.0 +/- 22 years old. Culture reports of the first urine samples were; 96(64%) sterile, 32(21,3%) contaminated and 22(14.7%) with significant bacterial growth. These results were 101(67.3%), 27(18%) and 22(14.7%) at cultures with antiseptic cleaning, respectively (p=0.62). Mean colony count of contaminated cultures in saline group was 88.8 +/- 63.9 whereas it was 50.7 +/- 37.6 in antiseptic group (p=0.02). Discussion: Perineal antiseptic cleaning did not significantly affect culture results. Significant bacterial growth and contamination rates did not differ between groups indicating that, antiseptic usage for perineal cleaning may not be warrant.en10.4328/JCAM.1385info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessUrine AnalysisperineumAnti-Infective AgentsCystitisUrinary Tract InfectionsArticle55374376N/AWOS:0002155665000082-s2.0-84900335037N/A