Evaluation of culture techniques and bacterial cultures from uroliths

The association between urolithiasis and growth of bacteria in the urine or urolith has not been recently evaluated in the past 15 years, and the effects of antimicrobial administration on urolith cultures have not been reported. As well, laboratory techniques for urolith cultures have not been crit...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation 2013-03, Vol.25 (2), p.199-202
Hauptverfasser: Perry, Leigh A., Kass, Philip H., Johnson, Dee L., Ruby, Annette L., Shiraki, Ryoji, Westropp, Jodi L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 202
container_issue 2
container_start_page 199
container_title Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation
container_volume 25
creator Perry, Leigh A.
Kass, Philip H.
Johnson, Dee L.
Ruby, Annette L.
Shiraki, Ryoji
Westropp, Jodi L.
description The association between urolithiasis and growth of bacteria in the urine or urolith has not been recently evaluated in the past 15 years, and the effects of antimicrobial administration on urolith cultures have not been reported. As well, laboratory techniques for urolith cultures have not been critically evaluated. The objectives of the current study were to 1) report bacterial isolates from uroliths and their association with signalment, urolith composition, antimicrobial use, and urine cultures and 2) evaluate laboratory techniques for urolith cultures. For the first objective, a retrospective search of bacterial isolates cultured from uroliths submitted to the laboratory as well as the signalment, urine culture results, and antimicrobial use were recorded. For the second objective, 50 urolith pairs were cultured by washing each urolith either 1or 4 times and culturing the core. Five hundred twenty canine and 168 feline uroliths were reviewed. Struvite-containing uroliths had an increased prevalence of a positive culture compared to nonstruvite-containing uroliths (P < 0.0001, odds ratio [OR] = 5.4), as did uroliths from female dogs (P < 0.0001, OR = 2.9). No significant difference between culture results and previous antimicrobial administration was found (P = 0.41). Eighteen percent of cases with negative urine cultures had positive urolith cultures. There was no significant difference in core culture results whether the urolith was washed 1 or 4 times (P = 0.07). Urolith culture outcome was not always influenced by previous antimicrobial administration, and bacterial culture of a urolith may not yield the same results as those obtained from the urine. The modified protocol, which requires less time and expense for urolith cultures, may be an acceptable alternative.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/1040638713476866
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1551641485</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1040638713476866</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1318689439</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-fecc4469d4206d8537fe0a037cb29607371120d56362c0934023130a77ec94763</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQhi0EolDYmVBGlsCd7djxiKryIVVigTlyHYemSuJix0j8e1y1ZUBCTHfSPffq7iHkCuEWUco7BA6ClRIZl6IU4oicoeIs54qJ49Sncb6dT8h5CGuAghYST8mEMg6cl3hG5vNP3UU9tm7IXJOZ2I3R22y0ZjW0H9GGTA91ttRmtL7V3QEIWeNdn0XvunZchQty0ugu2Mt9nZK3h_nr7ClfvDw-z-4XueFIx7yxxnAuVM0piLosmGwsaGDSLKkSIJlEpFAXgglqQKUjKUMGWkprVPqQTcnNLnfj3fa4serbYGzX6cG6GCosChQceYr-F2VYijLJUgmFHWq8C8Hbptr4ttf-q0Kotp6r357TyvU-PS57W_8sHMQmIN8BQb_bau2iH5KYvwO_AST4gtw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1318689439</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of culture techniques and bacterial cultures from uroliths</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Perry, Leigh A. ; Kass, Philip H. ; Johnson, Dee L. ; Ruby, Annette L. ; Shiraki, Ryoji ; Westropp, Jodi L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Perry, Leigh A. ; Kass, Philip H. ; Johnson, Dee L. ; Ruby, Annette L. ; Shiraki, Ryoji ; Westropp, Jodi L.</creatorcontrib><description>The association between urolithiasis and growth of bacteria in the urine or urolith has not been recently evaluated in the past 15 years, and the effects of antimicrobial administration on urolith cultures have not been reported. As well, laboratory techniques for urolith cultures have not been critically evaluated. The objectives of the current study were to 1) report bacterial isolates from uroliths and their association with signalment, urolith composition, antimicrobial use, and urine cultures and 2) evaluate laboratory techniques for urolith cultures. For the first objective, a retrospective search of bacterial isolates cultured from uroliths submitted to the laboratory as well as the signalment, urine culture results, and antimicrobial use were recorded. For the second objective, 50 urolith pairs were cultured by washing each urolith either 1or 4 times and culturing the core. Five hundred twenty canine and 168 feline uroliths were reviewed. Struvite-containing uroliths had an increased prevalence of a positive culture compared to nonstruvite-containing uroliths (P &lt; 0.0001, odds ratio [OR] = 5.4), as did uroliths from female dogs (P &lt; 0.0001, OR = 2.9). No significant difference between culture results and previous antimicrobial administration was found (P = 0.41). Eighteen percent of cases with negative urine cultures had positive urolith cultures. There was no significant difference in core culture results whether the urolith was washed 1 or 4 times (P = 0.07). Urolith culture outcome was not always influenced by previous antimicrobial administration, and bacterial culture of a urolith may not yield the same results as those obtained from the urine. The modified protocol, which requires less time and expense for urolith cultures, may be an acceptable alternative.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1040-6387</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-4936</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1040638713476866</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23404481</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Animals ; Bacteria ; Bacteria - classification ; Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification ; Bacteriological Techniques - standards ; Bacteriological Techniques - veterinary ; Cat Diseases - microbiology ; Cats ; Dog Diseases - microbiology ; Dogs ; Female ; Male ; Odds Ratio ; Urolithiasis - microbiology ; Urolithiasis - veterinary</subject><ispartof>Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation, 2013-03, Vol.25 (2), p.199-202</ispartof><rights>2013 The Author(s)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-fecc4469d4206d8537fe0a037cb29607371120d56362c0934023130a77ec94763</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-fecc4469d4206d8537fe0a037cb29607371120d56362c0934023130a77ec94763</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1040638713476866$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1040638713476866$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23404481$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Perry, Leigh A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kass, Philip H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Dee L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruby, Annette L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shiraki, Ryoji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westropp, Jodi L.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of culture techniques and bacterial cultures from uroliths</title><title>Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation</title><addtitle>J Vet Diagn Invest</addtitle><description>The association between urolithiasis and growth of bacteria in the urine or urolith has not been recently evaluated in the past 15 years, and the effects of antimicrobial administration on urolith cultures have not been reported. As well, laboratory techniques for urolith cultures have not been critically evaluated. The objectives of the current study were to 1) report bacterial isolates from uroliths and their association with signalment, urolith composition, antimicrobial use, and urine cultures and 2) evaluate laboratory techniques for urolith cultures. For the first objective, a retrospective search of bacterial isolates cultured from uroliths submitted to the laboratory as well as the signalment, urine culture results, and antimicrobial use were recorded. For the second objective, 50 urolith pairs were cultured by washing each urolith either 1or 4 times and culturing the core. Five hundred twenty canine and 168 feline uroliths were reviewed. Struvite-containing uroliths had an increased prevalence of a positive culture compared to nonstruvite-containing uroliths (P &lt; 0.0001, odds ratio [OR] = 5.4), as did uroliths from female dogs (P &lt; 0.0001, OR = 2.9). No significant difference between culture results and previous antimicrobial administration was found (P = 0.41). Eighteen percent of cases with negative urine cultures had positive urolith cultures. There was no significant difference in core culture results whether the urolith was washed 1 or 4 times (P = 0.07). Urolith culture outcome was not always influenced by previous antimicrobial administration, and bacterial culture of a urolith may not yield the same results as those obtained from the urine. The modified protocol, which requires less time and expense for urolith cultures, may be an acceptable alternative.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Bacteria - classification</subject><subject>Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Bacteriological Techniques - standards</subject><subject>Bacteriological Techniques - veterinary</subject><subject>Cat Diseases - microbiology</subject><subject>Cats</subject><subject>Dog Diseases - microbiology</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>Urolithiasis - microbiology</subject><subject>Urolithiasis - veterinary</subject><issn>1040-6387</issn><issn>1943-4936</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQhi0EolDYmVBGlsCd7djxiKryIVVigTlyHYemSuJix0j8e1y1ZUBCTHfSPffq7iHkCuEWUco7BA6ClRIZl6IU4oicoeIs54qJ49Sncb6dT8h5CGuAghYST8mEMg6cl3hG5vNP3UU9tm7IXJOZ2I3R22y0ZjW0H9GGTA91ttRmtL7V3QEIWeNdn0XvunZchQty0ugu2Mt9nZK3h_nr7ClfvDw-z-4XueFIx7yxxnAuVM0piLosmGwsaGDSLKkSIJlEpFAXgglqQKUjKUMGWkprVPqQTcnNLnfj3fa4serbYGzX6cG6GCosChQceYr-F2VYijLJUgmFHWq8C8Hbptr4ttf-q0Kotp6r357TyvU-PS57W_8sHMQmIN8BQb_bau2iH5KYvwO_AST4gtw</recordid><startdate>201303</startdate><enddate>201303</enddate><creator>Perry, Leigh A.</creator><creator>Kass, Philip H.</creator><creator>Johnson, Dee L.</creator><creator>Ruby, Annette L.</creator><creator>Shiraki, Ryoji</creator><creator>Westropp, Jodi L.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201303</creationdate><title>Evaluation of culture techniques and bacterial cultures from uroliths</title><author>Perry, Leigh A. ; Kass, Philip H. ; Johnson, Dee L. ; Ruby, Annette L. ; Shiraki, Ryoji ; Westropp, Jodi L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-fecc4469d4206d8537fe0a037cb29607371120d56362c0934023130a77ec94763</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Bacteria - classification</topic><topic>Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Bacteriological Techniques - standards</topic><topic>Bacteriological Techniques - veterinary</topic><topic>Cat Diseases - microbiology</topic><topic>Cats</topic><topic>Dog Diseases - microbiology</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>Urolithiasis - microbiology</topic><topic>Urolithiasis - veterinary</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Perry, Leigh A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kass, Philip H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Dee L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruby, Annette L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shiraki, Ryoji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westropp, Jodi L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Perry, Leigh A.</au><au>Kass, Philip H.</au><au>Johnson, Dee L.</au><au>Ruby, Annette L.</au><au>Shiraki, Ryoji</au><au>Westropp, Jodi L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of culture techniques and bacterial cultures from uroliths</atitle><jtitle>Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation</jtitle><addtitle>J Vet Diagn Invest</addtitle><date>2013-03</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>199</spage><epage>202</epage><pages>199-202</pages><issn>1040-6387</issn><eissn>1943-4936</eissn><abstract>The association between urolithiasis and growth of bacteria in the urine or urolith has not been recently evaluated in the past 15 years, and the effects of antimicrobial administration on urolith cultures have not been reported. As well, laboratory techniques for urolith cultures have not been critically evaluated. The objectives of the current study were to 1) report bacterial isolates from uroliths and their association with signalment, urolith composition, antimicrobial use, and urine cultures and 2) evaluate laboratory techniques for urolith cultures. For the first objective, a retrospective search of bacterial isolates cultured from uroliths submitted to the laboratory as well as the signalment, urine culture results, and antimicrobial use were recorded. For the second objective, 50 urolith pairs were cultured by washing each urolith either 1or 4 times and culturing the core. Five hundred twenty canine and 168 feline uroliths were reviewed. Struvite-containing uroliths had an increased prevalence of a positive culture compared to nonstruvite-containing uroliths (P &lt; 0.0001, odds ratio [OR] = 5.4), as did uroliths from female dogs (P &lt; 0.0001, OR = 2.9). No significant difference between culture results and previous antimicrobial administration was found (P = 0.41). Eighteen percent of cases with negative urine cultures had positive urolith cultures. There was no significant difference in core culture results whether the urolith was washed 1 or 4 times (P = 0.07). Urolith culture outcome was not always influenced by previous antimicrobial administration, and bacterial culture of a urolith may not yield the same results as those obtained from the urine. The modified protocol, which requires less time and expense for urolith cultures, may be an acceptable alternative.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>23404481</pmid><doi>10.1177/1040638713476866</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1040-6387
ispartof Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation, 2013-03, Vol.25 (2), p.199-202
issn 1040-6387
1943-4936
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1551641485
source Access via SAGE; MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Animals
Bacteria
Bacteria - classification
Bacteria - isolation & purification
Bacteriological Techniques - standards
Bacteriological Techniques - veterinary
Cat Diseases - microbiology
Cats
Dog Diseases - microbiology
Dogs
Female
Male
Odds Ratio
Urolithiasis - microbiology
Urolithiasis - veterinary
title Evaluation of culture techniques and bacterial cultures from uroliths
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T19%3A45%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20culture%20techniques%20and%20bacterial%20cultures%20from%20uroliths&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20veterinary%20diagnostic%20investigation&rft.au=Perry,%20Leigh%20A.&rft.date=2013-03&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=199&rft.epage=202&rft.pages=199-202&rft.issn=1040-6387&rft.eissn=1943-4936&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1040638713476866&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1318689439%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1318689439&rft_id=info:pmid/23404481&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1040638713476866&rfr_iscdi=true