Now for some minutia. Feel free to stop reading. I think I remember reading in a journal that someone did a study where they took urine specimens during surgery and did cultures on it to see if it was indeed sterile. The urine cultures grew nothing. But then they took the urine and did DNA tests on it to see if there was bacterial DNA present. I think they did find some DNA in some patients but I could be wrong about that. So what does it mean, in the real world, if there is bacterial DNA present but you can't get it to grow any actual bacteria in a culture? Who knows. Maybe some bacteria traveled up the urethra and made it into the bladder and were destroyed by the immune system. I can't say for sure but that would be my initial thought. In my mind, bacterial DNA present in urine, but no bacteria growing once it hits a culture means that the bacteria were dead, or there was some error in the study somewhere. It happens. One little teeny tiny error in handling a specimen during DNA studies can be compounded massively. Unfortunately I have first hand experience with how difficult those studies can be to execute. Either way, if the urine from the bladder won't grow bacteria in a culture, I can't see how it would cause a wound infection. Science is a tricky thing. Maybe someone will actually research that. Or maybe they have and I just haven't seen the paper because I'm too busy with other things. Another quick point - if I take a beaker and make a slurry of poop and water and put it in an autoclave, it will be sterile when the autoclave is done. There will be bacterial DNA and other DNA present in the beaker, but nothing is going to grow in culture because there are no living organisms. Does this make sense?
.