Copyright
©2006 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 14, 2006; 12(26): 4199-4202
Published online Jul 14, 2006. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i26.4199
Published online Jul 14, 2006. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i26.4199
Enzymaticdetergent(n = 130) | Chlorhexidine(n = 130) | P | |
Type of endoscope (Olympus:Pentax) | 60:70 | 60:70 | |
Positive culture (> 200 cfu/mL) | 6 (4.6%) | 4 (3.1%) | 0.747a |
Single organism | 5 (3.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 0.213b |
Mixed organism | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.3%) | 0.622b |
Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 4 (3.1%) | 5 (3.8%) | 1.000b |
Non Pseudomonas spp. | 3 (2.3%) | 3 (2.3%) | 1.000b |
- Citation: Rerknimitr R, Eakthunyasakul S, Nunthapisud P, Kongkam P. Results of gastroscope bacterial decontamination by enzymatic detergent compared to chlorhexidine. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12(26): 4199-4202
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v12/i26/4199.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v12.i26.4199