ASPIRATED versus BIOPSY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTED WOUNDS

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Tokarski, Jaqueline
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Alves, Débora Cristina, Gioppo, Nereida, Santos, Reginaldo Passoni dos, Brandt, Suelem Bassan, Lordani, Tarcisio Vitor Augusto
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