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
Table 4 Incidence and types of organisms during study period
| Type of organism | Enzymaticdetergent(samples, n) | Chlorhexidine(samples, n) | Total,n (%) |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 4 | 5 | 9 (60) |
| Klebsiella species | 1 | 1 | 2 (13.3) |
| Enterobacter species | 1 | 0 | 1 (6.7) |
| Acinetobacter baumanii | 0 | 1 | 1 (6.7) |
| Staphylococcus coagulase negative | 1 | 0 | 1 (6.7) |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 0 | 1 | 1 (6.7) |
| Total | 7 | 8 | 15 (100) |
- 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