ASPIRATED versus BIOPSY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTED WOUNDS
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme |
Texto Completo: | https://revistaenfermagematual.com/index.php/revista/article/view/1335 |
Resumo: | Objective: To analyze the effectiveness of different collection methods for microbiological analysis in the diagnosis of infection in skin lesions. Method: Quantitative, descriptive approach, through the method of comparative clinical investigation, carried out in a University Hospital, the sample consisted of 8 patients, to perform the cultures, two samples were collected from each wound, a sample by the biopsy technique and the another for aspirate. Results: 16 collections of material from wounds for culture were performed, 8 of which were aspirated and 8 biopsies, the comparison was made between the different collection methods, one sample showed a negative result for microorganisms in both collection techniques, in the others 25 microorganisms were isolated , being 21 Gram Negative and 4 Gram Positive, of these, 14 were identified by the biopsy technique, there was a difference in the presence and type of microorganism in two collections. Conclusion: It can be concluded that the most effective method of collection for culture and microbiological analysis in the diagnosis of infection in skin lesions and which was more sensitive in the identification of microorganisms was the biopsy. |
id |
SOBENFE-1_68b13d2219353d56b51bb3d88a0f95d3 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:revistae_ojs.revistaenfermagematual.a2hosted.com:article/1335 |
network_acronym_str |
SOBENFE-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
ASPIRATED versus BIOPSY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTED WOUNDSASPIRACIÓN versus BIOPSIA PARA EL DIAGNÓSTICO DE HERIDAS INFECTADASASPIRADO versus BIÓPSIA PARA O DIAGNÓSTICO DE FERIDAS INFECTADASCuidado de enfermagem; Análise microbiológica de ferida; Biópsia; Infecção de feridas;Objective: To analyze the effectiveness of different collection methods for microbiological analysis in the diagnosis of infection in skin lesions. Method: Quantitative, descriptive approach, through the method of comparative clinical investigation, carried out in a University Hospital, the sample consisted of 8 patients, to perform the cultures, two samples were collected from each wound, a sample by the biopsy technique and the another for aspirate. Results: 16 collections of material from wounds for culture were performed, 8 of which were aspirated and 8 biopsies, the comparison was made between the different collection methods, one sample showed a negative result for microorganisms in both collection techniques, in the others 25 microorganisms were isolated , being 21 Gram Negative and 4 Gram Positive, of these, 14 were identified by the biopsy technique, there was a difference in the presence and type of microorganism in two collections. Conclusion: It can be concluded that the most effective method of collection for culture and microbiological analysis in the diagnosis of infection in skin lesions and which was more sensitive in the identification of microorganisms was the biopsy.Objetivo: Analizar la efectividad de diferentes métodos de recolección para análisis microbiológicos en el diagnóstico de infección en lesiones cutáneas. Método: Enfoque cuantitativo, descriptivo, a través del método de investigación clínica comparada, realizado en un Hospital Universitario, la muestra estuvo conformada por 8 pacientes, para realizar los cultivos se recolectó dos muestras de cada herida, una muestra por la técnica de biopsia y la otro para aspirado. Resultados: Se realizaron 16 colectas de material de heridas para cultivo, de las cuales 8 fueron aspiradas y 8 biopsias, se hizo la comparación entre los diferentes métodos de colecta, una muestra arrojó resultado negativo para microorganismos en ambas técnicas de colecta, en las otras 25 microorganismos fueron aislados, siendo 21 Gram Negativos y 4 Gram Positivos, de estos, 14 fueron identificados por la técnica de biopsia, hubo diferencia en la presencia y tipo de microorganismo en dos colectas. Conclusión: Se puede concluir que el método de recolección para cultivo y análisis microbiológico más efectivo en el diagnóstico de infección en lesiones cutáneas y que fue más sensible en la identificación de microorganismos fue la biopsia.Objetivo: Analisar a eficácia de diferentes métodos de coleta para análise microbiológica no diagnóstico de infecção em lesões de pele. Método: Abordagem quantitativa, descritivo, através do método de investigação clínica comparativa, realizado em um Hospital Universitário, a amostra foi composta por 8 pacientes, para realização das culturas, duas amostras foram coletadas de cada ferida, uma amostra pela técnica de biópsia e a outra por aspirado. Resultados: Foram realizadas 16 coletas de material de feridas para cultura, sendo 8 aspirados e 8 biópsias, a comparação ocorreu entre os diferentes métodos de coleta, uma amostra apresentou resultado negativo para microrganismos em ambas as técnicas de coleta, nas demais foram isolados 25 microrganismos, sendo 21 Gram Negativo e 4 Gram Positivo, destes, 14 foram identificados pela técnica de biópsia, houve diferença quanto a presença e o tipo de microrganismo em duas coletas. Conclusão: Pode-se concluir que o método mais eficaz de coleta para cultura e análise microbiológica no diagnóstico de infecção em lesões de pele e que se mostrou mais sensível na identificação de microrganismo foi à biópsia.SOBENFeE2022-04-22info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdftext/htmlhttps://revistaenfermagematual.com/index.php/revista/article/view/133510.31011/reaid-2022-v.96-n.38-art.1335Journal Enfermagem Atual In Derme; Vol. 96 No. 38 (2022): Abr. Maio Jun.; e-021227Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme; v. 96 n. 38 (2022): Abr. Maio Jun.; e-0212272447-2034reponame:Revista Enfermagem Atual In Dermeinstname:Sociedade Brasileira de Enfermagem em Feridas e Estética (SOBENFeE)instacron:SOBENFeEporhttps://revistaenfermagematual.com/index.php/revista/article/view/1335/1327https://revistaenfermagematual.com/index.php/revista/article/view/1335/1328Copyright (c) 2022 Revista Enfermagem Atual In Dermeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTokarski, JaquelineAlves, Débora CristinaGioppo, NereidaSantos, Reginaldo Passoni dosBrandt, Suelem BassanLordani, Tarcisio Vitor Augusto2023-12-26T12:52:34Zoai:revistae_ojs.revistaenfermagematual.a2hosted.com:article/1335Revistahttps://revistaenfermagematual.com/index.php/revista/indexONGhttps://revistaenfermagematual.com/index.php/revista/oaikatia.simoes@gmail.com || contato@revistaenfermagematual.com.br2447-20342447-2034opendoar:2023-12-26T12:52:34Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme - Sociedade Brasileira de Enfermagem em Feridas e Estética (SOBENFeE)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
ASPIRATED versus BIOPSY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTED WOUNDS ASPIRACIÓN versus BIOPSIA PARA EL DIAGNÓSTICO DE HERIDAS INFECTADAS ASPIRADO versus BIÓPSIA PARA O DIAGNÓSTICO DE FERIDAS INFECTADAS |
title |
ASPIRATED versus BIOPSY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTED WOUNDS |
spellingShingle |
ASPIRATED versus BIOPSY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTED WOUNDS Tokarski, Jaqueline Cuidado de enfermagem; Análise microbiológica de ferida; Biópsia; Infecção de feridas; |
title_short |
ASPIRATED versus BIOPSY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTED WOUNDS |
title_full |
ASPIRATED versus BIOPSY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTED WOUNDS |
title_fullStr |
ASPIRATED versus BIOPSY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTED WOUNDS |
title_full_unstemmed |
ASPIRATED versus BIOPSY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTED WOUNDS |
title_sort |
ASPIRATED versus BIOPSY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTED WOUNDS |
author |
Tokarski, Jaqueline |
author_facet |
Tokarski, Jaqueline Alves, Débora Cristina Gioppo, Nereida Santos, Reginaldo Passoni dos Brandt, Suelem Bassan Lordani, Tarcisio Vitor Augusto |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Alves, Débora Cristina Gioppo, Nereida Santos, Reginaldo Passoni dos Brandt, Suelem Bassan Lordani, Tarcisio Vitor Augusto |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Tokarski, Jaqueline Alves, Débora Cristina Gioppo, Nereida Santos, Reginaldo Passoni dos Brandt, Suelem Bassan Lordani, Tarcisio Vitor Augusto |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Cuidado de enfermagem; Análise microbiológica de ferida; Biópsia; Infecção de feridas; |
topic |
Cuidado de enfermagem; Análise microbiológica de ferida; Biópsia; Infecção de feridas; |
description |
Objective: To analyze the effectiveness of different collection methods for microbiological analysis in the diagnosis of infection in skin lesions. Method: Quantitative, descriptive approach, through the method of comparative clinical investigation, carried out in a University Hospital, the sample consisted of 8 patients, to perform the cultures, two samples were collected from each wound, a sample by the biopsy technique and the another for aspirate. Results: 16 collections of material from wounds for culture were performed, 8 of which were aspirated and 8 biopsies, the comparison was made between the different collection methods, one sample showed a negative result for microorganisms in both collection techniques, in the others 25 microorganisms were isolated , being 21 Gram Negative and 4 Gram Positive, of these, 14 were identified by the biopsy technique, there was a difference in the presence and type of microorganism in two collections. Conclusion: It can be concluded that the most effective method of collection for culture and microbiological analysis in the diagnosis of infection in skin lesions and which was more sensitive in the identification of microorganisms was the biopsy. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-04-22 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://revistaenfermagematual.com/index.php/revista/article/view/1335 10.31011/reaid-2022-v.96-n.38-art.1335 |
url |
https://revistaenfermagematual.com/index.php/revista/article/view/1335 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.31011/reaid-2022-v.96-n.38-art.1335 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistaenfermagematual.com/index.php/revista/article/view/1335/1327 https://revistaenfermagematual.com/index.php/revista/article/view/1335/1328 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
SOBENFeE |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
SOBENFeE |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Journal Enfermagem Atual In Derme; Vol. 96 No. 38 (2022): Abr. Maio Jun.; e-021227 Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme; v. 96 n. 38 (2022): Abr. Maio Jun.; e-021227 2447-2034 reponame:Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Enfermagem em Feridas e Estética (SOBENFeE) instacron:SOBENFeE |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Enfermagem em Feridas e Estética (SOBENFeE) |
instacron_str |
SOBENFeE |
institution |
SOBENFeE |
reponame_str |
Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme |
collection |
Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme - Sociedade Brasileira de Enfermagem em Feridas e Estética (SOBENFeE) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
katia.simoes@gmail.com || contato@revistaenfermagematual.com.br |
_version_ |
1796797519438544896 |