Probact system自动化细菌分离培养系统的性能评价
| 作者: |
1丁宸,
1邵婧,
1徐萍萍
1 徐州市中心医院检验科，江苏 徐州 221009 |
| 通讯: |
丁宸
Email: dingchen765@sina.com |
| DOI: | 10.3978/j.issn.2095-6959.2015.12.036 |
摘要
目的：对Probact system自动化细菌分离培养系统进行常见标本接种的效果进行评价。方法：从住院 的临床病例中按照随机数表法取500份标本，其中呼吸道标本200份，尿液标本、无菌体液标本与血 培养阳性标本各100份，同时运用Probact system自动化细菌分离培养系统和传统手工划线接种法(其 中血琼脂采用90 mm培养皿)进行微生物培养，在培养时间分别为15、20、24、48 h时观察菌落生长 情况，从培养检出率、菌落分离效果和阳性结果出现时间几方面比较仪器法接种与手工接种效果的 差异。结果：500份标本培养24 h后仪器法分离到226株病原菌，阳性率45.2%；手工法分离到195株 病原菌，阳性率39.0%；仪器法阳性率高于手工法(P<0.05)，具有统计学意义。接种培养24 h后观察 分离效果，仪器法分离到的226株病原菌可直接上机鉴定的菌株207株，其中尿液标本41株(89.1%)、 无菌体液标本24株(88.9%)、血培养阳性标本94株(98.9%)，呼吸道标本48株(82.8%)。手工法分离 到的195株病原菌可直接上机鉴定的菌株171株，其中尿液标本37株(88.1%)、无菌体液标本19株 (86.4%)、血培养阳性标本87株(96.7%)、呼吸道标本28株(66.7%)。仪器法接种对尿液、无菌体液和 血培养阳性标本的分离效果与手工法相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)，呼吸道标本中需二次分离的 标本所占比例明显低于手工法(P<0.05)，差异有统计学意义。仪器法培养在15、20、24、48 h时显示 阳性株数分别为181、212、226、243株，15 h培养阳性菌株数(181)已经占培养24 h阳性株数(226)的 80.1%。而手工法培养在15、20、24、48 h显示阳性结果株数分别为127、176、195、209株，与仪器 法的80.1%相比，15/24 h的阳性结果比例仅为65.1%，差异有统计学意义。结论：Probact system自动 化细菌分离培养系统在培养检出率、菌落分离效果和阳性结果出现时间几方面均优于传统手工划线 接种法，具有检出率高、需时短、优化单个菌落分离效果等优点，并可确保操作人员的生物安全。
关键词：
Probact system自动化细菌分离培养系统
90 mm血琼脂培养皿
细菌培养
培养检出率
菌落分离效果
阳性结果出现时间
Performance evaluation of Probact automatic isolation and culture system
CorrespondingAuthor: Ding Chen Email: dingchen765@sina.com
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2095-6959.2015.12.036
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the inoculation effect of Probact automatic isolation and culture system for common clinical specimens. Methods: A total of 500 randomly clinical specimens were selected according to the random number tables, including 200 respiratory specimens, 100 urine specimens, 100 body fluid specimens and 100 blood culture positive specimens, were inoculated by Probact automatic isolation system and traditional manual inoculation method (the diameter of the blood agar medium is 90 millimeter), simultaneously. The growth of colonies was observed after 15, 20, 24, 48 h. The differences of the positive rate, the effect separation of the colonies and the time to positive results were compared between Probact system and manual method. Results: In a total of 500 clinical specimens, 226 strains were isolated by instrumental method after 24 h, the positive rate was 45.2%; 195 strains were isolated by manual method, the positive rate was 39.0%; which was lower than that of instrumental method (P<0.05). 207 strains can be directly identified after 24 h by instrumental method, of which 41 urine specimens (89.1%), body fluid specimens 24 (88.9%), blood culture positive specimens 94 (98.9%), respiratory specimens 48 (82.8%). 171 strains can be directly identified by manual method, of which 37 urine specimens (88.1%), body fluid specimens 19 (86.4%), blood culture positive specimens 87 (96.7%), respiratory specimens 28 (66.7%). There was no significant difference compared (P>0.05) between instrumental method and manual method of urine, body fluids and blood culture positive specimens. The proportion of respiratory specimens need to be separated for the second time was significantly lower than the manual method part (P<0.05). Positive number of instrumental method at 15, 20, 24, 48 h were 181, 212, 226, 243, respectively. The positive results accounted for 80.1% of the 24 h positive number within 15 h. In contrast, the positive number of manual method at 15, 20, 24, 48 h were 127, 176, 195, 209 within 15 h positive results accounted for only 65.1% of the 24 h positive number, comparing with the 80.1% by Probact system, and the differences were statistical significance. Conclusion: Probact automatic isolation and culture system contributes to improve the positive rate, the effective separation of the colonies, insurance of the operator’s biosafety, and the time to positive results would be significantly shortened.