↓ Skip to main content

In vitro comparison of epidural bacteria filters permeability and screening scanning electron microscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In vitro comparison of epidural bacteria filters permeability and screening scanning electron microscopy
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), November 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.bjane.2013.08.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aysin Sener, Yuksel Erkin, Alper Sener, Aydin Tasdogen, Esra Dokumaci, Zahide Elar

Abstract

Epidural catheter bacteria filters are barriers in the patient-controlled analgesia/anaesthesia for preventing contamination at the epidural insertion site. The efficiency of these filters varies according to pore sizes and materials. The bacterial adhesion capability of the two filters was measured in vitro experiment. Adhesion capacities for standard Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 25923) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 27853) strains of the two different filters (Portex and Rusch) which have the same pore size were examined. Bacterial suspension of 0.5 Mc Farland was placed in the patient-controlled analgesia pump, was filtered at a speed of 5mL/h. in continuous infusion for 48h and accumulated in bottle. The two filters were compared with colony counts of bacteria in the filters and bottles. At the same time, the filters and adhered bacteria were monitored by scanning electron microscope. Electron microscopic examination of filters showed that the Portex filter had a granular and the Rusch filter fibrillary structure. Colony counting from the catheter and bottle showed that both of the filters have significant bacterial adhesion capability (p<0.001). After the bacteria suspension infusion, colony countings showed that the Portex filter was more efficient (p<0.001). There was not any difference between S. aureus and P. aeruginosa bacteria adhesion. In the SEM monitoring after the infusion, it was physically shown that the bacteria were adhered efficiently by both of the filters. The granular structured filter was found statistically and significantly more successful than the fibrial. Although the pore sizes of the filters were same - of which structural differences shown by SEM were the same - it would not be right to attribute the changes in the efficiencies to only structural differences. Using microbiological and physical proofs with regard to efficiency at the same time has been another important aspect of this experiment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 30%
Other 3 30%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 20%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 2 20%
Engineering 2 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2015.
All research outputs
#17,729,864
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,188
of 295,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.0. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them