Assessment of vaginal lactobacillary flora in wet mount and fresh or delayed gram's stain.

Objective:The assessmentofthevaginallactobacillary florahelps to directfurtherdiagnostic microbiologic investigations in genital infectious disease and seems to represent a powerful tool in predicting infectious morbidity and preterm labor during pregnancy. In the absence of a "gold standard," we studied the variations in assessing lactobacillary morphotypes according to the method used. Methods: The lactobacillary flora from 183 pregnant women was classified according to 3 groups: normal, intermediate, and abnormal. This grading of lactobacilli was appled to vaginal and cervical specimensbymeans of 1) immediate wet-smearmicroscopy, 2) Gram’s stainon a fresh, air-dried specimen, and 3)delayed Gram’s stain after specimen transportation in Stuart’s growth medium for 3-6 h. Results: The assignment of intermediate or abnormal flora (grade II or grade III) showed high concordance rates among the differentpreparatory techniques, butthe assignmentofgrade I (normal flora) did not. Fewer lactobacilli were found 2.6 times more often after Gram’s stains of fresh specimens [Relative Risk (RR) 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-4.1] and 6 times more often when the Gram’s stain was performed in a delayed examination after transport than in a fresh wet-mount specimen (RR 6.2, 95% CI 2.5-15.6). Disturbed lactobacillary grades were also found more frequently in specimens from the cervixthan thosefrom the vagina(RR 4.0, 95% CI, 1.5-10.4). Conclusions: There are discrepancies in the diagnosis of lactobacillary grades between gramstained and fresh vaginal specimens. The evidence is ambiguous as to which of the 2 methods is responsible. If an evaluation is to be done on a gram-stained specimen, then the storage of the sample in Stuart transport medium before staining should be avoided. (C) 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

[1]  D. Taylor-Robinson,et al.  Abnormal bacterial colonisation of the genital tract and subsequent preterm delivery and late miscarriage , 1994, BMJ.

[2]  J. Desmyter,et al.  Lactobacilli in Papanicolaou Smears, Genital Infections, and Pregnancy , 1993, American journal of perinatology.

[3]  M. Krohn,et al.  Characteristics of three vaginal flora patterns assessed Gram stain among pregnant women , 1992 .

[4]  C. Påhlson,et al.  The ecologically wrong vaginal lactobacilli. , 1991, Medical hypotheses.

[5]  J. Costerton,et al.  The human vagina: normal flora considered as an in situ tissue-associated, adherent biofilm. , 1991, Genitourinary medicine.

[6]  K. Holmes,et al.  Prevalence of hydrogen peroxide-producing Lactobacillus species in normal women and women with bacterial vaginosis , 1989, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[7]  K. Holmes,et al.  Relationships of Vaginal Lactobacillus species, Cervical Chlamydia trachomatis, and Bacterial Vaginosis to Preterm Birth , 1988, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  K. Holmes,et al.  Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by direct gram stain of vaginal fluid , 1983, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[9]  J. Sobel,et al.  Adherence of bacteria to vaginal epithelial cells at various times in the menstrual cycle , 1981, Infection and immunity.

[10]  E. Beachey,et al.  Mannose Binding and Epithelial Cell Adherence of Escherichia coli , 1978, Infection and immunity.

[11]  P. Mårdh,et al.  Adherence of bacterial to vaginal epithelial cells , 1976, Infection and immunity.

[12]  L. Gray,et al.  VAGINITIS IN WOMEN, DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT. , 1965, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  W. E. Dunkelberg DIAGNOSIS OF HEMOPHILUS VAGINALIS VAGINITIS BY GRAM-STAINED SMEARS. , 1965, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  K. R. Long,et al.  A study of the microbiological flora of the vagina. , 1958, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  H. L. Gardner,et al.  Haemophilus vaginalis vaginitis: a newly defined specific infection previously classified non-specific vaginitis. , 1955, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.