4.1 Article

Comparison of aerobic conjunctival bacterial flora in pregnant, reproductive-aged and postmenopausal women

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages 731-736

Publisher

IJO PRESS
DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2012.06.15

Keywords

aerobic conjunctival flora; coagulase-negative Staphylococcus; menopause; pregnancy; reproductive-aged

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To evaluate the effect of hormonal status on aerobic conjunctival flora in women. METHODS: One hundred fifty-eight women [reproductive-aged (n=55), pregnant (n=51), and postmenopausal (n=52)] who admitted to outpatient dinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of Denizli State Hospital were enrolled. Age, body-mass index (BMI), obstetric history, cigarette smoking, drug usage, presence of systemic disease, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded for each patient. The samples were taken from the lower fornix with two culture swabs and directly incubated in culture containing 5% sheep blood, eosin-methylene blue and chocolate agar. The other swab specimen was Gram stained. All growths and microscopic results were analyzed. RESULTS: The coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was the predominant organism isolated in the conjunctival samples in both three groups. The aerobic microorganism growth rate for all isolated aerobic organisms revealed no significant change in the three groups (P>0.05). The conjunctival culture positivity rates were similar in the three groups (49% in reproductive-aged, 57% in pregnant and 58% in postmenopausal women) (P>0.05). Age, IOP, BMI, gravidity, parity, cigarette smoking, drug usage, and presence of systemic diseases did not have an effect on culture positivity in three groups. CONCLUSION: Results of this study showed that conjunctival aerobic flora and bacterial colonization did not differ between reproductive-aged, pregnant and postmenopausal women.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available