Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorYazıcı, Cenk Murat
dc.contributor.authorGülen, Dumrul
dc.contributor.authorDoğan, Çağrı
dc.contributor.authorKaya, Ayşe Demet
dc.contributor.authorMalkoç, Ercan
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-11T14:14:07Z
dc.date.available2022-05-11T14:14:07Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.issn1309-0720
dc.identifier.issn1309-2014
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.4328/JCAM.1385
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11776/5788
dc.description.abstractAim: 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherDerman Medical Publen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4328/JCAM.1385
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectUrine Analysisen_US
dc.subjectperineumen_US
dc.subjectAnti-Infective Agentsen_US
dc.subjectCystitisen_US
dc.subjectUrinary Tract Infectionsen_US
dc.titlePreculture Antiseptic Cleaning in Women Patients; is it a Myth or a Scientific Fact?en_US
dc.title.alternativeKadi{dotless}n hastalarda kültür öncesi antiseptik temizli?i; efsane mi, bilimsel gerçek mi?]en_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Clinical and Analytical Medicineen_US
dc.departmentFakülteler, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü, Üroloji Ana Bilim Dalıen_US
dc.departmentFakülteler, Tıp Fakültesi, Temel Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü, Tıbbi Mikrobiyoloji Ana Bilim Dalıen_US
dc.authorid0000-0001-6140-5181
dc.identifier.volume5en_US
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.startpage374en_US
dc.identifier.endpage376en_US
dc.institutionauthorYazıcı, Cenk Murat
dc.institutionauthorGülen, Dumrul
dc.institutionauthorDoğan, Çağrı
dc.institutionauthorKaya, Ayşe Demet
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.authorscopusid8416588900
dc.authorscopusid6602366586
dc.authorscopusid55608201600
dc.authorscopusid57188868231
dc.authorscopusid35264829200
dc.authorwosidMalkoc, Ercan/AAJ-3012-2020
dc.authorwosidYazici, Cenk Murat/AAA-4330-2020
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000215566500008en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84900335037en_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster