Smith ME, Robinowitz N, Chaulk P, Johnson K, et al.
British journal of community nursing. Date of publication 2014 Sep 1;volume Suppl():S22-6.
1. Br J Community Nurs. 2014 Sep;Suppl:S22-6. doi: 10.12968/bjcn.2014.19.Sup9.S22.
Comparison of chronic wound culture techniques: swab versus curetted tissue for
microbial recovery.
Smith ME(1), Robinowitz N, Chaulk P, Johnson K.
Author information:
(1)Research Assistant, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases,
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland.
Health-care professionals are increasingly relying on wound cultures as part of
their clinical assessment. Tissue viability nurses in the UK use wound swabbing
as the standard specimen-taking technique, but others are used globally and there
is no worldwide standard. This study compares two wound culture techniques in
uninfected chronic wounds of active and former injection drug users seeking care
through a civic needle exchange mobile wound clinic. For each wound, two sampling
approaches were applied during the same visit: swab culture and curetted tissue
culture. A total of 12 chronic wounds were assessed among 9 patients, including
19 swab cultures and 19 tissue cultures. These 38 cultures grew a total of 157
individually identified bacterial organisms, including 27 anaerobic organisms
(17.2%), 63 Gram-positive species (40.1%), and 67 Gram-negative species (42.7%).
The swab technique yielded a greater percentage recovery rate of anaerobic
(55.6%), Gram-positive (52.4%), and all species (51.6%) compared to tissue
culture (P>0.05). Recovery of common wound species, such as methicillin-sensitive
Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the same using either method (50.0%). Swab and
curetted tissue cultures yielded similar recovery rates for common wound
bacteria. Therefore, swabs (including a vacuum transport container) may offer an
advantage in the recovery of anaerobes. Based upon this analysis, the swabbased
culture method for chronic wounds currently used in the UK is reasonable.
DOI: 10.12968/bjcn.2014.19.Sup9.S22
PMCID: PMC4267254
PMID: 25192558 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
