Table 3.
Comparison of different studies dealing with microbiological profile of CNLDO.
| Study | Number of LDS | No growth (%) | Gram+ve (%) | Gram −ve (%) | Common pathogens | Risk for failure | Pathogen specific risk for failure | Success rate | Antibiotic sensitivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuchar et al. | 50 | 30 | 49.3 | 50.7 | Streptococcus pneumoniae (35.4%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | Yes (Bacitracin & Neomycin) |
| Hemophilus influenzae (19.6%) | |||||||||
| Usha et al. | 238 | 17 | 57 | 43 | Streptococcus pneumoniae (32.7%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | Yes (Ofloxacin) |
| Hemophilus influenzae (31.3%) | |||||||||
| Gerkowicz et al. | 81 | 25 | 70 | 28.8 | Staphylococcus epidermidis (28%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Staphylococcus aureus (22%). | |||||||||
| MacEwen et al. | 151 | 79 | 35 | 65 | Hemophilus influenzae (55%) | No | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Staphylococcus aureus (35%) | |||||||||
| Bareja and Ghose | 114 | 32.5 | 85.7 | 14.3 | Streptococcus pneumoniae (28.9%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | Yes (Cloxacillin) |
| Staphylococcus aureus (13.2%) | |||||||||
| Kim et al. | 50 | 36 | 56.2 | 43.8 | Staphylococcus aureus (25%) | No | N/A | Irrigation (96%) | Yes (Ciprofloxacin) |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15.6%) | Probing (84.6%) | ||||||||
| Al-Faky et al. | 181 | 12.1 | 49.1 | 50.9 | Streptococcus pneumoniae (48.1%) | No | Yes | Probing (76.6%) | Yes (Bacitracin & Neomycin) |
| Hemophilus influenzae (39.2%) | Intubation (82.1%) | ||||||||