PEDIATRICS Vol. 24 No. 6 December 1959, pp. 983-991
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pryles, C. V.
Right arrow Articles by Welch, K. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pryles, C. V.
Right arrow Articles by Welch, K. J.

COMPARATIVE BACTERIOLOGIC STUDY OF URINE OBTAINED FROM CHILDREN BY PERCUTANEOUS SUPRAPUBIC ASPIRATION OF THE BLADDER AND BY CATHETER

Charles V. Pryles M.D.1, Mark D. Atkin B.S.1, Thomas S. Morse M.D.1, and Kenneth J. Welch M.D.1

1 Medical and Surgical Pediatric Services, Boston City Hospital, and the Department of Pediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine

A comparative bacteriologic study of urine obtained by catheter and by suprapubic aspiration was performed in a group of 42 children who were presumed free from clinical infection of the urinary tract, and who were undergoing elective surgery for conditions that did not involve manipulation of the urinary tract.

There was complete diagnostic correlation between urine obtained by suprapubic aspiration and the clinical impression. There was a 92.8% diagnostic correlation between the first few milliliters of urine obtained by catheter (C1) and the specimens obtained by suprapubic aspiration, and there was a 97.5% diagnostic correlation between the second few milliliters of urine obtained by catheter (C2) and the suprapubic specimens.

Three patients had significant bacterial counts in specimens obtained by catheter, and on this basis alone, a diagnosis of pyelonephritis might have been made erroneously. However, the C2 specimens showed a significant count in only one of the three patients, pointing up the importance of discarding the initial few milliliters of urine obtained by catheterization. In this one patient, the suprapubic specimen was sterile, the C2 specimen grew out 3,100 colonies of E. coli/ml of urine, while a subsequent clean voided specimen did not exhibit significant growth. The patient remained in good health and, in view of the sterile specimen obtained by suprapubic aspiration, we believe that the organisms grown in the C2 specimen were due to contamination. Gram stains of all specimens were negative for organisms.

The entire group was followed from 1 to 5 months postoperatively, both in the outpatient department and by questionnaire. Sixteen children returned to the clinic for follow-up examination of clean voided specimens and further study, if indicated. All patients in the study were free from infection of the urinary tract within a period of 4 to 6 months after catheterization. Thus, while organisms were introduced into the urine of children during the procedure of catheterization and in apparently significant quantities, these organisms were not responsible for the initiation of a urinary tract infection in this admittedly small group of patients. It is imperative, however, that all specimens obtained by catheter be collected by the physician-in-charge or under his direct supervision, employing acceptable aseptic techniques.

It is our opinion that while properly collected clean voided specimens may be used in most instances for making the diagnosis of true bacteriuria in children, catheterization, when properly done, should not be withheld for fear of producing infection of the urinary tract. It must remain a necessary procedure in the diagnosis and management of infections of the urinary tract in certain cases, notably the following:

a) Where there is urinary retention.

b) Where repeated study of clean voided specimens yields borderline or doubtful results.

c) Where the patient is so acutely ill that there is a need for immediate antimicrobial therapy and no time for multiple specimens to be obtained.

d) Where the patient is unable or unwilling to cooperate.

Submitted on March 24, 1959
Accepted on May 12, 1959




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Trop PediatrHome page
E. Long and J. Vince
Evidence behind the WHO guidelines: Hospital Care for Children: What are appropriate methods of urine collection in UTI?
J Trop Pediatr, August 1, 2007; 53(4): 221 - 224.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
Committee on Quality Improvement, Subcommittee on
Practice Parameter: The Diagnosis, Treatment, and Evaluation of the Initial Urinary Tract Infection in Febrile Infants and Young Children
Pediatrics, April 1, 1999; 103(4): 843 - 852.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
S. M. Downs
Technical Report: Urinary Tract Infections in Febrile Infants and Young Children
Pediatrics, April 1, 1999; 103(4): 54e - 54.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 CLIN PEDIATRHome page
J. F. Redman and N. K. Bissada
Direct Bladder Catheterization in Infant Females and Young Girls: Description of an Effective and Painless Procedure
Clinical Pediatrics, November 1, 1976; 15(11): 1060 - 1061.
[PDF]