BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that endoscopically obtained cultures from the middle meatus give comparable results to antral puncture for acute sinusitis. The best method for obtaining middle meatal cultures remains somewhat controversial because it has been theorized that specimens obtained with a swab are contaminated easily. This study compares endoscopic culture results from two different methods: swab and aspiration. Specifically, this study sought to determine whether or not the culture contamination rate is higher using the swab versus an aspiration technique. METHODS: One hundred consecutive culture specimensfrom 81 chronic rhinosinusitis patients were compared. Fifty cultures were obtained using a swab technique (group I) and another 50 cultures were obtained by aspirating pathological material into a sterile suction trap (group II). The patient populations in each group were similar; there were no differences in terms of age, gender, comorbid medical conditions, or prior medical therapy. Cultures were considered contaminated if they yielded normal nasal flora or if rare or few Staphylococcus coagulase-negative colonies grew after no bacteria was identified in gram stain. Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus coagulase-negative, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the three most common organisms in both groups. RESULTS: Gram-negative bacteria were noted in 21/60 (35%) positive cultures. Although the contamination rate of the suction aspiration group (14%) was less than the endoscopic swab group (10%), this did not approach statistical significance (p = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study suggest that endoscopically guided aspiration of pathological material is no better than properly obtained swabs in directing antimicrobial therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis.
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that endoscopically obtained cultures from the middle meatus give comparable results to antral puncture for acute sinusitis. The best method for obtaining middle meatal cultures remains somewhat controversial because it has been theorized that specimens obtained with a swab are contaminated easily. This study compares endoscopic culture results from two different methods: swab and aspiration. Specifically, this study sought to determine whether or not the culture contamination rate is higher using the swab versus an aspiration technique. METHODS: One hundred consecutive culture specimensfrom 81 chronic rhinosinusitispatients were compared. Fifty cultures were obtained using a swab technique (group I) and another 50 cultures were obtained by aspirating pathological material into a sterile suction trap (group II). The patient populations in each group were similar; there were no differences in terms of age, gender, comorbid medical conditions, or prior medical therapy. Cultures were considered contaminated if they yielded normal nasal flora or if rare or few Staphylococcus coagulase-negative colonies grew after no bacteria was identified in gram stain. Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus coagulase-negative, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the three most common organisms in both groups. RESULTS: Gram-negative bacteria were noted in 21/60 (35%) positive cultures. Although the contamination rate of the suction aspiration group (14%) was less than the endoscopic swab group (10%), this did not approach statistical significance (p = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study suggest that endoscopically guided aspiration of pathological material is no better than properly obtained swabs in directing antimicrobial therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis.
Authors: B A Stuck; C Bachert; P Federspil; W Hosemann; L Klimek; R Mösges; O Pfaar; C Rudack; H Sitter; M Wagenmann; R Weber; K Hörmann Journal: HNO Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: B A Stuck; C Bachert; P Federspil; W Hosemann; L Klimek; R Mösges; O Pfaar; C Rudack; H Sitter; M Wagenmann; K Hörmann Journal: HNO Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: Martin Desrosiers; Gerald A Evans; Paul K Keith; Erin D Wright; Alan Kaplan; Jacques Bouchard; Anthony Ciavarella; Patrick W Doyle; Amin R Javer; Eric S Leith; Atreyi Mukherji; R Robert Schellenberg; Peter Small; Ian J Witterick Journal: Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 3.406
Authors: Eli O Meltzer; Daniel L Hamilos; James A Hadley; Donald C Lanza; Bradley F Marple; Richard A Nicklas; Claus Bachert; James Baraniuk; Fuad M Baroody; Michael S Benninger; Itzhak Brook; Badrul A Chowdhury; Howard M Druce; Stephen Durham; Berrylin Ferguson; Jack M Gwaltney; Michael Kaliner; David W Kennedy; Valerie Lund; Robert Naclerio; Ruby Pawankar; Jay F Piccirillo; Patricia Rohane; Ronald Simon; Raymond G Slavin; Alkis Togias; Ellen R Wald; S James Zinreich Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Eli O Meltzer; Daniel L Hamilos; James A Hadley; Donald C Lanza; Bradley F Marple; Richard A Nicklas; Claus Bachert; James Baraniuk; Fuad M Baroody; Michael S Benninger; Itzhak Brook; Badrul A Chowdhury; Howard M Druce; Stephen Durham; Berrylin Ferguson; Jack M Gwaltney; Michael Kaliner; David W Kennedy; Valerie Lund; Robert Naclerio; Ruby Pawankar; Jay F Piccirillo; Patricia Rohane; Ronald Simon; Raymond G Slavin; Alkis Togias; Ellen R Wald; S James Zinreich Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Stephanie S Smith; Elisabeth H Ference; Charlesnika T Evans; Bruce K Tan; Robert C Kern; Rakesh K Chandra Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Valin Rujanavej; Ethan Soudry; Niaz Banaei; Ellen Jo Baron; Peter H Hwang; Jayakar V Nayak Journal: Am J Rhinol Allergy Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.467