Urology · 2001
Pathologic significance of Staphylococcus saprophyticus in complicated urinary tract infections.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ishihara S, Yokoi S, Ito M, Kobayashi S, Deguchi T
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine the pathologic significance of Staphylococcus saprophyticus in complicated urinary tract infections.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of specimens demonstrating this organism based on a survey of 9980 urine specimens cultured in our clinic during an 11-year period. Forty-two specimens from 34 patients were positive for S. saprophyticus.
RESULTS: S. saprophyticus was isolated in 13 women without underlying urologic disease, and their symptoms were compatible with acute cystitis or acute pyelonephritis. S. saprophyticus was isolated from 7 men and 14 women with underlying urologic disease. In most of these 21 patients, S. saprophyticus was thought not to be a true uropathogen but rather a colonizer, because the isolated organism was usually low in numbers and found with a low degree of pyuria, and the hosts were usually asymptomatic. However, 2 patients demonstrating S. saprophyticus colonization developed sepsis after urologic surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Although this organism is pathogenic in certain circumstances, suggesting the necessity of preoperative antimicrobial elimination, it is usually a colonizer in complicated urinary tract infections.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of specimens demonstrating this organism based on a survey of 9980 urine specimens cultured in our clinic during an 11-year period. Forty-two specimens from 34 patients were positive for S. saprophyticus.
RESULTS: S. saprophyticus was isolated in 13 women without underlying urologic disease, and their symptoms were compatible with acute cystitis or acute pyelonephritis. S. saprophyticus was isolated from 7 men and 14 women with underlying urologic disease. In most of these 21 patients, S. saprophyticus was thought not to be a true uropathogen but rather a colonizer, because the isolated organism was usually low in numbers and found with a low degree of pyuria, and the hosts were usually asymptomatic. However, 2 patients demonstrating S. saprophyticus colonization developed sepsis after urologic surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Although this organism is pathogenic in certain circumstances, suggesting the necessity of preoperative antimicrobial elimination, it is usually a colonizer in complicated urinary tract infections.