4.2 Article

Bugs Behind the Bulging Eyeball: Microbiology and Antibiotic Management in Orbital Cellulitis With or Without Subperiosteal Abscess

Journal

CLINICAL PEDIATRICS
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/00099228231202158

Keywords

orbital; cellulitis; microbiology; MRSA; antibiotics

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate and describe the causative pathogens and current antibiotic management in hospitalized children with orbital cellulitis. The most common pathogens identified in this retrospective study were Streptococcus anginosus group and Streptococcus pyogenes. The median duration of intravenous antibiotics was 4 days, with a median total duration of 17 days. Empiric antibiotic regimens often included two antibiotics to ensure coverage for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
The objective of this study is to describe causative pathogens and current antibiotic management among hospitalized children with orbital cellulitis. This retrospective study, performed at a tertiary care children's health system, included patients up to 18 years old who presented with radiographic evidence of orbital cellulitis from 2012 to 2019. Of the 298 patients included in the study, 103 had surgery and an intraoperative culture obtained. A pathogen was recovered in 86 cultures (83.5%). The most common pathogens were Streptococcus anginosus group (26.2%), Streptococcus pyogenes (11.7%), methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (10.7%), and Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.7%). Only 8/194 (4.1%) blood cultures returned positive. Median duration of intravenous antibiotics was 4 days and median total duration was 17 days. The most common empiric regimen prescribed was ceftriaxone and clindamycin (64.1%). Despite low incidence of methicillin-resistant S aureus, empiric antibiotics often consisted of 2 antibiotics to ensure coverage for this bacterium.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available