No offense, but they’re not. The NIH article lists various types of aspiration pneumonia. To quote directly from my textbook, “Robbins Basic Pathology”:
“Although it is commonly assumed that anaerobic bacteria predominate, recent studies implicate aerobes more commonly than anaerobes”.
(Reliability of the source: “Robbins Patholgy” is like the Grey’s Anatomy of pathology. Robbins Basic Pathology is the mildly abridged version.)
(According to my professor, this was just assumed, but there weren’t any studies supporting that assumption.)
I’m not a doctor, but I would think that aspiration pneumonia would be from inhaling a foreign body, and anaerobic pneumonia would occur in the absence of oxygen.
Does the NIH claim that aspiration causes anaerobic pneumonia? It’s listed as a subtitle, but not in the content.
It’s the same thing.
No offense, but they’re not. The NIH article lists various types of aspiration pneumonia. To quote directly from my textbook, “Robbins Basic Pathology”:
“Although it is commonly assumed that anaerobic bacteria predominate, recent studies implicate aerobes more commonly than anaerobes”.
(Reliability of the source: “Robbins Patholgy” is like the Grey’s Anatomy of pathology. Robbins Basic Pathology is the mildly abridged version.)
(According to my professor, this was just assumed, but there weren’t any studies supporting that assumption.)
I’m not a doctor, but I would think that aspiration pneumonia would be from inhaling a foreign body, and anaerobic pneumonia would occur in the absence of oxygen.