AIM: To compare the recovery of parasites in faecal samples using the Midi Parasep with ethyl acetate and Midi Parasep Solvent Free (SF) faecal parasite concentrators. METHODS: 23 preserved and 11 fresh faecal samples were microscopically examined for the presence of parasites using the Midi Parasep concentrator with ethyl acetate centrifuged for 1 and 3 min and the Midi Parasep SF concentrator. RESULTS: The Midi Parasep SF faecal parasite system recovered significantly fewer ova and cysts and resulted in a notably larger deposit than the Midi Parasep concentrator with ethyl acetate. CONCLUSIONS: Parasites present in small numbers that would be detected using the Midi Parasep concentrator with ethyl acetate could be missed using the SF faecal parasite system.
AIM: To compare the recovery of parasites in faecal samples using the Midi Parasep with ethyl acetate and Midi Parasep Solvent Free (SF) faecal parasite concentrators. METHODS: 23 preserved and 11 fresh faecal samples were microscopically examined for the presence of parasites using the Midi Parasep concentrator with ethyl acetate centrifuged for 1 and 3 min and the Midi Parasep SF concentrator. RESULTS: The Midi Parasep SF faecal parasite system recovered significantly fewer ova and cysts and resulted in a notably larger deposit than the Midi Parasep concentrator with ethyl acetate. CONCLUSIONS: Parasites present in small numbers that would be detected using the Midi Parasep concentrator with ethyl acetate could be missed using the SF faecal parasite system.
Authors: Brianne A Couturier; Ryan Jensen; Nora Arias; Michael Heffron; Elyse Gubler; Kristin Case; Jason Gowans; Marc Roger Couturier Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 5.948