Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians 2013; 5(01): 17-20
DOI: 10.4103/0974-2727.115910
Original Article

Effect of Urogenital Cleaning with Paper Soap on Bacterial Contamination Rate While Collecting Midstream Urine Specimens

Rashmi Shrestha
Department of Microbiology, B. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal
,
Narayan Gyawali
Department of Microbiology, Nepal Medical College, Attarkhel, Kathmandu, Nepal
,
Rajendra Gurung
Department of Microbiology, B. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal
,
Ritu Amatya
Department of Microbiology, Nepal Medical College, Attarkhel, Kathmandu, Nepal
,
Shyamal Kumar Bhattacharya
Department of Microbiology, B. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal
› Author Affiliations Source of Support: Nil
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Context: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the major health problems. Urine culture is considered as a gold standard method for the diagnosis of UTI. But, improper sample collection can lead to contamination with normal urogenital flora. Use of any portable disinfectant that can reduce contamination rate would be the significant help in urine culture interpretation.

Aims: To observe the effect of urogenital cleaning with paper soap on bacterial contamination rate while collecting specimens.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was done in 600 patients aged 15-45 years, equally divided into three groups. The first group was given sterile container and instructed to collect midstream clean catch urine (MSU) after urogenital cleaning with provided piece of paper soap. The second group was given sterile container and strictly instructed to collect the MSU sample after urogenital cleansing by tap water only. The third group was given the sterile container and asked for midstream urine. Collected specimens were inoculated in CLED media, incubated aerobically for overnight at 37°C. Reporting of culture was done according to the guideline of American Society of Microbiology.

Results: The contamination rate in the three groups were 6.0%, 13.0%, and 27.5%, respectively (P value < 0.05), which was statistically significant.

Conclusions: Contamination rate was significantly lower in group who provided urine specimen after urogenital cleaning with paper soap. Thus, cleaning the urogenital area may reduce the need of the repeat sample to rule out actual contamination and prevent from the unnecessary antibiotic treatment.

Key words:

Contamination - paper soap - urine culture


Publication History

Article published online:
07 April 2020

© 2013.

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Stamm WE, Norrby SR. Urinary tract infections: Disease panorama and challenges. J Infect Dis 2001;183:S1-4.
  • 2 Gibly RL. Infections of the urinary tract and male genitalia. In: Infectious Disease in Emergency Medicine. In: Brillman JC, Quenzer RW, editors. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998. p. 601-29.
  • 3 Stamm WE. Urinary Tract Infection and Pyelonephritis. Harrison's principle of internal medicine: 16th ed. USA: McGraw-Hill; 2005. p. 1715-21.
  • 4 Jackson SR, Dryden M, Gillett P, Kearney P, Weatherall R. A novel midstream urine-collection device reduces contamination rates in urine cultures amongst women. BJU Int 2005;96:360-4.
  • 5 Saez-Llorens X, Umana MA, Odio CM, Lohr JA. Bacterial contamination rates for non-clean-catch and clean-catch midstream urine collections in uncircumcised boys. J Pediatr 1989;114:93-5.
  • 6 6. MacDonald NE, Collison S, Wolfish N, McLaine PN, Mackenzie AM. Efficacy of chlorhexadine cleansing in reducing contamination of bagged urine specimens. Can Med Assoc J 1985;133:1211-3.
  • 7 Valenstein P, Meier F. Urine culture contamination, A Collage Of American Pathologist Q-Probes study of Contaminated Urine Culture in 906 institution. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;122:123-9.
  • 8 Baerheim A, Digranes A, Hunskaar S. Evaluation of urine sampling technique; bacterial contamination of samples from women students. Br J Gen Pract 1992;42:241-3.
  • 9 Fuls JL, Rodgers ND, Fischler GE, Howard JM, Patel M, Weidner PL, et al. Alternative hand contamination technique to compare the activities of antimicrobial and nonantimicrobial soaps under different test conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008;74:3739-44.
  • 10 Church DL. Urine culture (Aerobic Bacteriology). In: Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook. 2nd ed. USA: ASM; 2007:3.12.1-4.
  • 11 Lohr JA, Donowitz LG, Dudley SM. Bacterial contamination rates for non-clean-catch and clean-catch midstream urine collections in boys. J Pediatr 1986;109:659-60.
  • 12 Hindman R, Tronic B, Bartlett R. Effect of delay on culture of urine. J Clin Microbiol 1976;4:102-3.
  • 13 Lohr JA, Donowitz LG, Dudley SM. Bacterial contamination rates in voided urine collections in girls. J Pediatr 1989;114:91-3.
  • 14 Vaillancourt S, McGillvray D, Zhang X, Kramer MS. To clean or not to clean: Effect on contamination rates in midstream urine collections in toilet-trained children. Pediatrics 2007;119:e1288-93.
  • 15 Lifshitz E, Kramer L. Outpatient urine culture: Does collection technique matter? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:2537-40.