4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

The microbiology and antimicrobial resistance patterns in chronic rhinosinusitis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 323-328

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2004.03.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to review the microbiology of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and comment on antimicrobial resistance trends. Methods: A retrospective review of 101 patients undergoing ESS during the period of 1997 to 2001 was performed. Patients were divided into groups based on their surgical history. Fifty-five patients without prior ESS history were placed in the primary group; 46 patients who had undergone prior ESS were placed in the revision group. Intraoperative microbiology culture data were reviewed and antimicrobial resistance data analyzed. Results: Data on 101 patients were analyzed. There were 182 total cultures sent, yielding 257 isolates. The most common isolates were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (SCN) (45% of cultures), gram-negative rods (25% of cultures), and Staphylococcus aureus (24% of cultures). Pseudomonas aeruginosa was isolated in 9% of cultures. When comparing the 2 patient groups, we did not find consistent trends in the differences in the prevalence of these isolates. Antimicrobial resistance for SCN (P = .01) and S aureus (P < .001) was greater in the revision surgery. Overall, 62% of patients were found to have at least 1 isolate with decreased antibiotic sensitivity. Conclusion: The most prevalent microorganisms in patients with CRS are SCN, S aureus, and gram-negative rods. Perhaps more importantly, the antimicrobial sensitivities of these microorganisms appear to be a growing problem. These findings suggest increased antimicrobial resistance in patients undergoing revision ESS when compared with patients undergoing surgery for the first time. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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