On 24 Oct 1994, BCapstone wrote:
> contaminated by urethral flora. After seeing this on gram stain I think
> that if Enterobacter Cloacae is really present as the pathogen, then the
> cultures are being overgrown by Staph as the cocci are so numerous in
> comparison. I would like to separate the rods out and culture them to see
> if I can give the patient a better chance.
I have tried to get this point across before, but again:
E. cloacae is not a difficult organism to grow. Rather than laser
manipulation, try a 30 cent MacConkey agar plate. No matter how much
staph is there, the Enterobacter will grow out pure and observable. In
truth, even a moderately observent microbiologist can see a single colony
of enteric like E cloacae on a plate =covered= in staph. The only way
micromanipulation is useful is if the rod you are seeing is not the E
cloacae but some other organism with similar growth requirements as the
staph and a much slower grower. In this case the connection between the E
cloacae sepsis and the prostatitis is bogus. Also since you have
recovered the cloacae, you already know its antibiogram, and can treat
accordingly.
So I ask more pointed: exactly what is the purpose of this exercise?
Bob Morrell
