4.5 Article

Acute mastoiditis in children: 10 years experience in a French tertiary university referral center

期刊

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
卷 269, 期 2, 页码 455-460

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-011-1667-y

关键词

Acute mastoiditis; Subperiosteal abscess; Streptococcus pneumoniae; Mastoidectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute mastoiditis have been increasingly reported in the last decade, with bacteriologic modifications and new therapeutic guidelines. This study is a retrospective review of 36 children hospitalized for acute mastoiditis in a French tertiary university referral center from 1999 to 2009, to assess incidence, bacteriology of pathogens and management. There were 10 periosteitis and 26 subperiosteal abscesses. There was a trend toward increased incidence over the past 10 years. The mean age of the patients was 31.8 months. A total of 63.2% children received 7.2 days antibiotic prior to hospitalization for acute otitis media, with sensitive pathogens in 80%. The pathogens were Streptococcus pneumoniae (36.1%), S. pyogenes A (13.9%), Staphylococcus coagulase-negative (13.9%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.3%), Fusobacterium necroforum (8.3%) and Haemophiluss influenzae (2.8%). Cultures were negative in 16.7%. All patients received intravenous antibiotics. Eleven patients underwent bilateral myringotomy with or without tympanostomy tubes. Mastoidectomy was performed in 24 patients. Decrease in the length of hospitalization and delay from admission to surgery were significantly correlated. We observed a trend in the increase of acute mastoiditis at our center. The pathogens were dominated by S. pneumoniae. F. necroforum and P. aerguginosae were pathogens found in children over 2 years of age. Mastoidectomy was performed in 92.3% of subperiostal abscesses. However, there has been a trend toward conservative nonsurgical treatment in recent reported studies and further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term sequelae.

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