Comparison of two non-invasive methods of microbial analysis in surgery practice: incision swabbing and the indirect imprint technique.

BACKGROUND

A variety of methods exist to take samples from surgical site infections for cultivation; however, an unambiguous and suitable method has not yet been defined. The aim of our retrospective non-randomized study was to compare two non-invasive techniques of sampling material for microbiologic analysis in surgical practice. We compared bacteria cultured from samples obtained with the use of the swab technique, defined in our study as the gold standard, with the indirect imprint technique.

METHODS

A cotton-tipped swab (Copan, Brescia, Italy) was used; the imprints were taken using Whatman no. 4 filter paper (Macherey-Nagal, Duren, Germany) cut into 5×5 cm pieces placed on blood agar in a Petri dish. To culture the microorganisms in the microbiology laboratory, we used blood agar, UriSelect 4 medium (Bio-Rad, Marnes-la-Coquette, France), and a medium with sodium chloride (blood agar with salt). After careful debridement, a sample was taken from the incision surface by swab and subsequently the same area of the surface was imprinted onto filter paper. The samples were analyzed in the microbiology laboratory under standard safety precautions. The cultivation results of the two techniques were processed statistically using contingency tables and the McNemar test. Those samples that were simultaneously cultivation-positive by imprint and -negative by swabbing were processed in greater detail.

RESULTS

Over the period between October 2008 and March 2013, 177 samples from 70 patients were analyzed. Sampling was carried out from 42 males and 28 females. One hundred forty-six samples were from incisions after operations (21 samples from six patients after operation on the thoracic cavity, 73 samples from 35 patients after operation on the abdominal cavity combined with the gastrointestinal tract, 52 samples from 19 patients with other surgical site infections not included above) and 31 samples from 11 patients with no post-operative infection. One patient had a sample taken both from a post-operative and a non-post-operative site. Coincidently, the most frequent cultivation finding with both techniques was a sterile one (imprint, 62; swab, 50). The microorganism cultivated most frequently after swabbing was Pseudomonas aeruginosa (22 cases), compared with Escherichia coli when the filter paper (imprint) was used (31 cases). The imprint technique was evaluated as more sensitive compared with swabbing (p=0.0001). The κ statistic used to evaluate the concordance between the two techniques was 0.302. Of the 177 samples there were 53 samples simultaneously sterile using the swab and positive in the imprint. In three samples colony- forming units (CFU) were not counted; 22 samples were within the limit of 0-25×10(1) CFU/cm(2), 20 samples within the limit of 25×10(1)-25×10(2) CFU/cm(2), five within the limit of 25×10(2)-25×10(3) CFU/cm(2), and three of more than 25×10(4) CFU/cm(2).

CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesis of swabbing as a more precise technique was not confirmed. In our study the imprint technique was more sensitive than swabbing; the strength of agreement was fair. We obtained information not only on the type of the microorganism cultured, but also on the number of viable colonies, expressed in CFU/cm(2).