4.5 Article

Bacterial findings in optimised sampling and characterisation of S-aureus in chronic rhinosinusitis

期刊

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
卷 274, 期 1, 页码 311-319

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-016-4239-3

关键词

Staphylococcus aureus; Sinusitis; Nasal polyps; Sampling studies; Bacterial typing

资金

  1. Research Committee of Orebro County Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bacterial spectrum in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is clinically relevant. This study aimed to compare two sampling techniques and to characterise Staphylococcus aureus isolated from CRS patients. Bacterial specimens were collected from the nares and maxillary sinus in 42 CRS patients and from the nares in 57 healthy controls. Maxillary sinus sampling was performed in two ways in each patient: with a cotton-tipped aluminium swab through the enlarged sinus ostium, and with a protected brush. S. aureus was characterised by DNA-sequencing of the repeat region of the S. aureus protein A gene, spa typing. The protected brush technique was superior to the cotton-tipped aluminium swab in reducing contamination rate. However, the two sampling methods were consistent in terms of clinically relevant bacterial findings, and the easy-to-handle cotton-tipped swab can still be recommended when culturing the maxillary sinus. Patients showed a significantly higher presence of S. aureus in the nares compared with healthy controls, and healthy controls showed a significantly higher presence of coagulase-negative staphylococci in the nares compared with patients. The spa types were identical for the nares and maxillary sinus in all patients except one. The sampling techniques showed equivalent results, indicating a low risk of unnecessary antibiotic treatment when using the easy-to-handle cotton-tipped aluminium swab. The high rate of identical spa types of S. aureus isolated from the nares and maxillary sinus of CRS patients might indicate colonisation of the maxillary sinus from the nares.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据