A Comparison of the Bacterial Culture Results of Maxillary Sinus Mucosa and Pus Collections for Chronic Maxillary Rhinosinusitis

Objective: Although maxillary antral taps are the standard for collecting pus for culture, they sometimes reveal no growth. Intraoperative mucosal cultures are another method to collect pathogen samples. This study compared aerobic bacterial cultures from mucosa and pus from chronic maxillary rhinosinusitis patients. Methods: A prospective study of 22 chronic maxillary rhinosinusitis patients was conducted. Antral pus and mucosa collected during endoscopic sinus surgery were immediately sent to a microbiological laboratory. The degree of concordance between maxillary sinus mucosa aerobic bacterial cultures and pus cultures was then analyzed. Results: Twenty-seven specimens were obtained for the cultures. The proportions of positive mucosal and pus cultures were 40.74% and 51.85%, respectively. The common aerobic pathogens from the two culture techniques were Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. A concordance between the pus and mucosal cultures was demonstrated by 19 out of 27 specimens (70.37%). Compared with the pus cultures, the mucosal cultures had a specificity of 84.62% (95% CI, 54.55%-98.08%), a sensitivity of 57.14% (95% CI, 28.86%-82.34%), a predictive value of a positive result of 80% (95% CI, 50.83%-93.93%), and a predictive value of a negative result of 64.71% (95% CI, 48.96%-77.80%). Conclusion: Similar pathogenic bacteria were recovered from the mucosa and pus. Given the high degree of similarity of the bacteria found, the good concordance rate, and the high specificity and positive predictive value of the mucosal cultures compared with the pus cultures, mucosal cultures should be a reference standard and an option when pus is unavailable, especially with immunocompromised patients

The Contribution of Outdoor Fine Particulate Matter to Indoor Air Quality in Bangkok Metropolitan Region, Thailand – Are Indoor Dwellers Safe?

Objective: This study aimed to analyze the relationship between indoor and outdoor fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations and to characterize factors that may contribute to domestic PM2.5 concentrations, including smoking, printer/copier, and cooking activities. Methods: We measured the ambient and indoor PM2.5 concentrations from 7 sampling sites in Bangkok Metropolitan and vicinity area, Thailand by using PM2.5 concentrations sensor (SN-GCHA1, Panasonic Photo & Lighting Co., Ltd). Real-time PM2.5 concentrations, temperature, and relative humidity (RH) measurements were recorded hourly for two consecutive days during February 20th to March 2nd, 2018. We collected real-time indoor and outdoor PM2.5 mass concentrations at the same time. Factors influencing domestic PM2.5 production in the indoor environment were recorded. Results: The mean indoor PM2.5 concentrations from each site ranged from 20.05-45.85 μg/m3 and the mean outdoor PM2.5 concentrations ranged from 9.42-56.56 μg/m3. The ambient and indoor PM2.5 mass concentrations curves tended to fluctuate in a similar trend. There was a significantly positive correlation between the average ambient and the average indoor PM2.5 mass concentrations in all studied places. The correlation coefficient (r) varied from 0.6 to 0.833. Five from seven sites demonstrated a strong correlation (r ≥ 0.7), whereas, two from seven sites demonstrated a moderate correlation (0.5 ≤ r < 0.7). The average indoor/ambient PM2.5 concentration ratio from each place ranged from 0.37 to 3.57. Conclusion: The indoor PM2.5 concentrations are correlated with the ambient PM2.5 concentrations. The concentrations of PM2.5 in most sampling sites were higher than the recommended threshold. Hence, indoor dwellers are still at risk for health impacts from PM2.5. Besides public management of the ambient PM2.5, the interventions dealing with the indoor PM2.5 should be promoted concurrently