4.3 Review

Ureaplasma urealyticum, Mycoplasma hominis and adverse pregnancy outcomes

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 231-240

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e328360db58

关键词

chorioamnionitis; Mycoplasma; neonatal infections; prematurity; preterm premature rupture of fetal membranes; Ureaplasma

资金

  1. 'Fondation Leenaards' through the 'Bourse pour la releve academique'
  2. 'Societe Academique Vaudoise' through the 'Paul Blanc' grant
  3. SICPA Foundation
  4. Air Canada Travel Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review Mycoplasma hominis and Ureaplasma urealyticum may colonize the human genital tract and have been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Chorioamnionitis, spontaneous preterm labour and preterm premature rupture of membranes are significant contributors to neonatal morbidity and mortality. However, as these bacteria can reside in the normal vaginal flora, there are controversies regarding their true role during pregnancy and thus the need to treat these organisms. Recent findings We review here the recent data on the epidemiology of mycoplasmas and their clinical role during pregnancy. The association of these organisms with preterm labour has been suggested by many observational studies, but proof of causality remains limited. PCR is an excellent alternative to culture to detect the presence of these organisms, but culture allows antibiotic susceptibility testing. Whether antimicrobial treatment of mycoplasma-colonized pregnant patients can effectively reduce the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes warrants further investigations. Summary The role of Mycoplasma spp. and U. urealyticum in adverse pregnancy outcomes is increasingly accepted. However, sole presence of these microorganisms in the vaginal flora might be insufficient to cause pathological issues, but their combination with other factors such as bacterial vaginosis or cervical incompetence may be additionally needed to induce preterm birth.

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

4.3
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