Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-22T04:31:09.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliability of conventional ear swabs in tubotympanic CSOM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

K. G. S. Raju ,
P. Unnykrishnan ,
R. C. Nayar ,
S. Dutt  and
R. Macaden
K. G. S. Raju
Affiliation:
From Department of ENT and Microbiology, St.John' Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore, India.
P. Unnykrishnan
Affiliation:
From Department of ENT and Microbiology, St.John' Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore, India.
R. C. Nayar*
Affiliation:
From Department of ENT and Microbiology, St.John' Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore, India.
S. Dutt
Affiliation:
From Department of ENT and Microbiology, St.John' Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore, India.
R. Macaden
Affiliation:
From Department of ENT and Microbiology, St.John' Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore, India.
*
Dr Ravi C. Nayar, Assistant Professor of ENT, St John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore—560 034, India.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional external ear swab cultures were compared with cultures obtained from the middle ear, in 25 cases of tubotympanic type (‘safe’), chronic suppurative otitis media. These cultures were identical in 22 of the 25 cases.

Anaerobic organisms were isolated in only one case. Mixed infections of both gram-positive and gramnegative organisms were seen in nine cases (36 per cent).

Staphylococcus aureus was the commonest single agent isolated (16 cases). Multidrug resistance was seen in 12 of these isolates.

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 104 , Issue 6 , June 1990 , pp. 460 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brook, I., Finegold, S. M. (1979) ‘Bacteriology of chronic otitis media’, Journal of American Medical Association. 241:5: 487–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dowell, V. R., Hawkins, J. M. (1981) In CDC Laboratory Manual for Anaerobic Bacteriology Centre for Disease Control, 1st edition Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
Fairbanks, D. N. F. (1981) ‘Antimicrobial therapy for chronic suppurative otitis media’. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology. 90:84: 58–62.Google Scholar
Finegold, S. M., Baron, E. J. (1986). In. Bailey and Scott's Diagnostic Microbiology, Seventh edition, C. V. Mosby Company, Missouri.Google Scholar
Finegold, S. M., Sutter, V. L., Atteberry, H. R., Rosenblatt, S. E. (1985) In Manual of Clinical Microbiology (Eds. Lennette, E. H., Spaulding, E. H., Tralant, J. P.) 4th Edition American Society of Microbiology, Washington.Google Scholar
Friedmann, I. (1952) ‘Bacteriological studies in otitis media’. Journal oj Larynlogy and Otology. 66: 175–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, L. A., Koontz, F. P. (1977) In Cholesteatoma, First International Conference (Eds. McCabe, B. F., Sade, J.) 1st Edition p 264–267. Aesculapius, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Papastavros, T., Giamarellou, H., Varledjides, S. (1980) ‘Role of aerobic and anaerobic micro-organisms in chronic suppurative otitis media’. Laryngoscope 96: 438–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papastavros, T., Giamarellou, H., Varledjides, S. (1985) ‘How I do it: Obtaining specimens of discharge from the middle ear for cultures’. Laryngoscope. 95: 1413–1414.Google Scholar
Shenoi, P. M. (1987) In Scott Brown's Text Book of Otolaryngology. 5th Edition Vol 3, (Booth, J. B., Kerr, A. G. eds.) p 218. Butterworth: London.Google Scholar
Stokes, E. J., Ridgway, G. L. (1980) In Clinical Bacteriology; Fifth Eds p 200–205 Edward Arnold; London.Google Scholar
Sweeney, G., Picozzi, G. L., Browning, G. (1982) ‘A quantitative study of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in chronic suppurative otitis media’. Journal of Infection. 5: 47–55.Google Scholar