4.2 Article

Does removal of CU-IUD in patients with biofilm forming candida really maintain regression of clinical symptoms?

期刊

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 600-603

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/01443615.2014.986442

关键词

Biofilm; fertility control; general obstetrics; intrauterine device; vulvovaginal candidiasis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate whether symptoms and recurrence would differ with and without Cu-IUD removal in patients with concomitant biofilm forming Candida spp. Methods : The data of 270 consecutive patients wearing TCu380A Cu-IUD were evaluated. Among these patients, 100/270 were found to have Candida spp. isolated from the tail of Cu-IUD or vaginal samples. These patients were investigated in four groups: Group 1 (n = 24; Biofi lm (+), Cu-IUD removed), Group 2 (n = 14; Biofi lm (+), Cu-IUD not removed), Group 3 (n = 29; Biofi lm (-), Cu-IUD removed), Group 4 (n = 33; Biofi lm (-), Cu-IUD not removed). Patients in each group were followed for clinical signs and symptoms for 8-16 months and compared to each other. Results : Symptoms, physical findings and candida positivity have decreased statistically significantly in Group 1 one year after removal of Cu-IUD (95.8% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.01; 95.8% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.01; 100% vs. 8.3%, p < 0.01 respectively). In Group 2, symptoms, physical findings and candida positivity have decreased after follow-up, but without a statistical significance. In Group 3, all the parameters have decreased, but only decrease in candida positivity has reached statistical significance (100% vs. 48.3%, p < 0.01). In Group 4-as in Group 1-symptoms, physical findings and candida positivity have decreased statistically significantly (48.5% vs. 18.2%, p = 0.01; 72.7% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.05; 100% vs. 51.5%, p < 0.01 respectively). Conclusion : Biofi lm forming microorganisms should be considered in the management of vaginal infections or symptoms for safer use of intrauterine devices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据