الفهرس 
Review of literatureOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 188 |  |  |
| | | from | 188 | | |
Abstract
The present study was d~signed as an ettempt to find out a rapld and
rel.a’::,e method for urine screening and ear~’,Idetection of urinary tract infe:;f,or.
compared versus Ir,s ord’lnarY urtne eva’uaMn pro::edures.
The study was conducted at CHnical Palho~ugy Department at Bentla
Unl\j~r$lty Hospital flnd induded 30 patients, 11 males and 19 females; wi~h
age range of 30-7 a years, mean age was a 47.3±11.5 year. Patienls were
chosen off tnose attend’,ng the Qlltpatlent clln\c 0’ Urology Departmenl for
’.I~inary tract infe::tion resisting usual treatment and were diagnossd as cases
with urlnary tract lnJsctio;\ 10, investi9ations.
All the tr,irty ::olle~ed samples w~re SJ’Jjected to urlne ano”ysis and
Gram-stained fl~m5 examination, Then, urine specimens were ::;Ubjected to
cu’turs test lor enumeration and ioentil’,::aCon 01 Llropatnogens using the
trad’lIonal culture media. 3loctlemical tests forlnfe::tiv€ organism ~dentlhcation
and PRoxi’~ :est lor rapid determina1ion of ~eucoc:yte pero>:ldase achvity were
performed. Thereafter, all Ur’,IW samples were cultured Jsing Screen g~l, ID
~apld, 10 Direct al1d U,iselect-3 media.
Microscopic exam di8gnosed UT’ presenled with bacteriuria up to 10
5
-
1Co’; p;..lUmi in 18 spec;men~ (60%1, while failed. to det~cl injection pres~nted
’;)y bacterluria ”’J~tr, .::1O~Pl’\L!ml. However, PRoxi’s test reslllted,n 30 po::;it’,ve
results d va,Y~Tlgdegrees, On the other hand, using screen £oelmedia onl’Y 2
samples showed negative result. wnereas Ihe other 26 samples showed
positive results of ••a.lj,’inG degrees.
146
SUMMARY &- CONCLUSiON
Depending on tne quantltatlcn ct PNL or ,CFUlml as a guide for diagnosis
of UT, both ”Jet and Gram-sta.ined fll rns exam of collected urine samples ~ailed
tc detect in”!ection. presentej by oactenurla with <10~ PNUml anc oiagnossj
these sarr.p’es as free of infection (12 specimens, 40%), Hcwever, us:ng
Jrlse\ect.3 allowec identification of samples with ’ower number of PNUrn’, down
. t:;l 10” CFUlml in 6 sam p’,es (20%), 10:1CFU/m’, ir. 3 samples (’,0%), and even
cou 10 :.jen;~fy bacteriuria of <10” CfUlmi In 5 samples (1E.7%)”
Regarding tna occurrence of growth by variant media compared versus
!-radltlonal culture, all of lD ’\apid, 10 Direct and Uriselec;t-3 could idl.!ntify the
,n”ec!lng pathogen wltr sensltlvltv rate cf 100% and an accuracy rate of 63,3%,
t..;1 with variant specificity rates. ID Rapid had a specificity of 80%, wnsreas 10
C,reet and Uriselect-3 hao apeGificity rats of ;:;0%
On \he other hand, the occ •..rrence of growth by variant media corn pared
verses i 0 Dlreci a~.j Urlsslect-S (Doir. showed the same nurn ber of positive and
nogative results), screen gel could diagnose the presence of infecficn wllr
sensnivlty cf 100, an accu rac;y rate: 01 90%, but witl’, ,;;pecib::ity ra:e of 66 7%
’v\lhera1ls ID Rapi,j showed a s8r1sitivity rate cf 96,3%, an accuracy ra;o of
56,7% and hac! specnclty :-ate 01 i 88%,
There was a slqnlficant {X2;;; 8,06, P<O,05)ln~rease 01 number of samples
ga’1e result wi’Nn 4 hours {83,3% VS, 50%) bV rapid and direct tsst respecnvely
an j sig nificant decrease ot nu rnber of samples required inci.batlcn till > 1Shr
(6,7% ’IS, 26,7%) ty rapid an j direct, respecuvely),
SUMMARY & CONCLUSiON
All of the used \~re8 culture media used; namE’(~10 Rapid, lD Direct and
Uroseled:~3 could Icem;fy vcpathogens in all s~u,ii8d samples, wi~h :t1eir resulls
belng cOl:lc1dent •••t•th. Ihat ob1.a’,ned by Iradtic:”la~ culture media.
aut of the presen~ stl.lay we can conc~ud8 t\lal ID Direct and ~Drapid can
’Cje used lor boi~ screenl ng and diagnosis of urinary tract i:’1fection and ihat 1Direc~ can be considered t~e ideal test for diagnosis of UTI b office pra:llce