4.3 Review

Management of common bacterial infections of the skin

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 122-128

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e3282f44c63

Keywords

cellulitis; erysipelas; folliculitis; furunculosis; impetigo; skin abscess

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review Bacterial skin infections commonly encountered in the community include impetigo, folliculitis/furunculosis, simple abscesses, erysipelas and other nonnecrotizing cellulitis. The review focuses on recent epidemiological, bacteriological and therapeutic advances. Recent findings Impetigo and erysipelas occur in about 20 and 1 person/1000/year, respectively. Main risk factors for erysipelas are toe-web intertrigo and lymphedema. The true incidence of furunculosis is unknown, whereas outbreaks in small communities are reported worldwide. Staphylococcus aureus is the predominant pathogen for impetigo and furunculosis, and methicillin-resistant strains play a growing role in both diseases. Erysipelas are mainly caused by streptococci, whereas local complications (i.e. abscesses or blisters) may be due to staphylococci, including methicillin-resistant strains in involved geographic areas. Recent trends for treating impetigo and furunculosis predate community-acquired methicillin-resistant S. aureus. For outbreaks of furunculosis, stringent clecolonization measures are showing promise, whereas there is no validated therapeutic regimen for chronic furunculosis. Current trends for erysipelas involve ambulatory treatments and reduced duration of antibiotics. Summary Despite better epidemiological or bacteriological knowledge of common bacterial skin infections, the exact role of methicillin-resistant staphylococci needs regular surveys in involved geographic areas. Antibiotic treatment must be active on staphylococci and, to a lesser degree, on streptococci.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available