摘要
目的比较液体和新型固体培养方法,找到最佳测定支原体方法。方法检测患者2 106例,统计2种方法的优缺点。结果将967份液体培养法初筛阳性标本,新型固体培养法阳性712份,其中单独Uu感染448份(62.92%),单独感染Mh 33份(4.63%),Uu+Mh联合感染231份(32.44%)。假阳性255例,占26.37%。2种培养法结果比较差异有统计学意义(χ~2=1 267.0,P<0.01)。念珠菌诊断率增高13.81%。967例支原体阳性,分泌物清洁度≥Ⅱ度,Ⅱ度占12.97%。结论液体培养法用于初筛,假阳性率高;新型固体培养法可用于鉴定和确证试验;液-固培养基联合检测简单,诊疗精准,监测药敏,降低成本。有阴道炎症状,建议检测支原体。
Objective To compare the liquid culture method with new solid culture method, so as to find the best detection method of Mycoplasma. Methods A total of 2 106 patients were detected, and the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods were statistically analyzed. Results Among the 967 positive samples, 712 were positive by the new solid culture method. 448(62.92%) were infected by Uu alone, 33(4.63%) by Mh alone, and 231(32.44%) by Uu+Mh combined infection. 255 cases were false positive, accounting for 26.37%. The difference between the two methods was statistically significant(χ~2=1 267.0, P<0.01). The diagnostic rate of Candida increased by 13.81%. In 967 cases of positive Mycoplasma, secretion cleanliness was greater than or equal to grade II, accounted for 12.97%. Conclusion Liquid culture method has high false positive rate for primary screening, new solid culture method can be used for identification and confirmation test, liquid-solid medium combined detection is simple, accurate, sensitive and low-cost. It is recommended to detect Mycoplasma for patients with vaginitis symptoms.
引文
[1] 曹玉璞, 叶元康. 支原体与支原体病[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2000: 121-138.
[2] 庞伟鸿, 刘红杏, 许景宁, 等. 精液中支原体衣原体及抗精子抗体的检测及评价[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2010, 7(5): 393-394.
[3] 黄秀荣, 张群先, 刘爱菊, 等. 支原体固体培养与液体培养在支原体感染诊断中的应用效果比较[J]. 广西医学, 2016, 38(10): 1455-1457.
[4] Cao X, Wang Y, Flu, et al. Real-time Taq Man polymerase chmn re-action assays for quantitative detection and diferentiation ofUreaplasmureairticunl and Urenplosma parvum[J]. D iagm Microbial Infect Dis, 2007, 57(4): 373-378.
[5] Yoshida T, Deguchi T, Meda S, et al. Quantitative detection of Unvaplasma parvum and Ureaplasma urealyticum in urine specimens from men with and without urethritis by real-time polymerase chain reaction[J]. Sex Transm Dis, 2007, 34(6): 416-419.
[6] 顾可粱, 洪因之, 王根芬, 等. 解脲和人型支原体选择性固体培养基与液体培养基比较[J]. 浙江预防医学, 2007, 19(3): 95-96.
[7] 盂冬娅, 薛文成, 马晓博, 等. 两种接种固体培养基方法检测泌尿生殖道分泌物中支原体[J]. 现代检验医学杂志, 2007, 22(3): 74-75.
[8] 代莉, 吴鸿君, 司志霖. 两种培养方法联合检测在女性生殖道支原体感染中的应用[J]. 国际检验医学杂志, 2015, 36(17): 2570-2572.
[9] 曹爱国. 济宁地区女性泌尿生殖道解脲脲原体基因分型与耐药初探[J]. 中国现代医生, 2011, 49(3): 69-71.
[10] 周运恒. 两种培养方法检测解脲脲原体及其菌落形态学的比较研究[J]. 检验医学, 2013, 28(5): 362-365.
[11] 孟冬娅. 不同培养法检测泌尿生殖道分泌物支原体结果分析及评价[J]. 中华实用诊断与治疗杂志, 2008, 22(11): 415-417.
[12] 林茂锐, 周旋, 李明友, 等. 液体培养法、固液结合培养法和PCR法在支原体检测中的应用[J]. 中国临床研究, 2018, 31(2): 248-251.
[13] 吴磊, 周运恒, 陈向明, 等. 泌尿生殖道支原体感染的优化检测方案研究[J]. 检验医学, 2015, 30(12): 1214-1218.
[14] 邝兆威, 陈艳清, 贾建, 等. 固体培养法和液体培养法检测在支原体感染诊断中效果分析[J]. 中国实用医药, 2018, 31(16): 194-195.
[15] 蒲清泉, 吴文耀, 杜丽, 等. 液体培养法检测泌尿生殖道支原体感染的准确性评价[J].检验医学与临床, 2017, 14(18): 2694-2697.
