الفهرس 
BiofilmOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 163 |  |  |
| | | from | 163 | | |
Abstract
This study aimed at studying susceptibility of Staphylococcal biofilm compared to susceptibility of planktonic Staphylococci, and studying the Staphylococcal biofilm susceptibility using different methods to select the most applicable .
In this study 90 Staphylococcal spp. isolates were subjected to confirmation by conventional microbiological methods, detection of biofilm formation using static MTP method , and susceptibility to VAN and AK by MIC detection.
For the 30 strains, biofilm forming and susceptible to VAN & AK , susceptibility of their biofilm to VAN & AK were detected using three methods to determine ( MBIC, MBEC, MRC).
It was found that: In the ninety isolates , the most prevalent isolated spp., were S.aureus 53(58.9%), most of the isolates were non biofilm forming 52 (57.8%) and all the biofilm forming isolates 38(100%) were sensitive to VAN and only 30(79%) were sensitive to AK.
In the thirty biofilm forming susceptible isolates to AK and VAN, weak biofilm formers 22(24.5%) were the most prevalent and strong biofilm formers 4(4.4%) were the least prevalent and , all the strong forming isolates were S.aureus.
The relation between degree of biofilm formation and spp type was statistically non significant.
Staphylococcal strains that were sensitive to VAN and AK shows variable susceptibility pattern in the biofilm mode of growth using different methods and about 82% ,80% of the strains became resistant to VAN, AK respectively.
All the strong biofilm forming strains were resistant to both ABs, and all the sensitive strains were weak biofilm forming (except one moderate biofilm forming strain) .When measured by the three methods this finding was statistically non significant except for MBIC and AK were highly significant .
Biofilm showed higher resistance than planktonic form which was statistically highly significant by the three methods.
Amikacin was shown to be effective than VAN against biofilm but was statistically non significant.
There were fair categorical agreement between biofilm susceptibility measured as MBIC & MBEC for both ABs and poor categorical agreement between biofilm susceptibility measured as MBIC & MRC for both ABs in contrary to the better essential agreement between biofilm susceptibility measured as MBIC & MRC for both ABs than between biofilm susceptibility measured as MBIC & MBEC for both ABs.