International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2015
Odontogenic and rhinogenic chronic sinusitis: a modern microbiological comparison.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Saibene Alberto Maria, Vassena Christian, Pipolo Carlotta, Trimboli Mariele, De Vecchi Elena, Felisati Giovanni, Drago Lorenzo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Odontogenic sinusitis and sinonasal complications of dental disease or treatment (SCDDT) play a relevant, often underappreciated role in paranasal sinus infections. Treating SCDDT patients requires tailored medical and surgical approaches in order to achieve acceptable success rates. These approaches differ from common rhinogenic sinusitis treatment protocols mostly because of the different etiopathogenesis. Our study comprehensively evaluated microbiology and antibiotic resistance in SCDDT patients and compared findings with a control group of patients affected by rhinogenic sinusitis.
METHODS: We performed microbiological sampling during surgery on 28 patients with SCDDT and 16 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Colonies were isolated, Gram-stained, and the species identified using classic biochemical methods. These results were confirmed by DNA pyrosequencing, and then the resistance profile of each SCDDT isolate to various antibiotics was tested.
RESULTS: Microbial growth was observed in all SCDDT patients, whereas samples from 60% of patients in the control group failed to yield any bacterial growth (p < 0.001). Anaerobes grew in 14% of SCDDT patients as compared to 7% of CRSwNP patients (p = 0.42). Of the isolates from SCDDT patients, 70% were susceptible to amoxicillin/clavulanate, whereas all isolates were susceptible to levofloxacin, teicoplanin, and vancomycin. Of the staphylococci identified, 80% were capable of producing beta-lactamase.
CONCLUSION: Given the extent of microbiological contamination within the maxillary sinus of SCDDT patients, these infections should be regarded as a different class of conditions from rhinogenic sinusitis. Our findings support the need for different approaches in the treatment of SCDDT patients.
METHODS: We performed microbiological sampling during surgery on 28 patients with SCDDT and 16 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Colonies were isolated, Gram-stained, and the species identified using classic biochemical methods. These results were confirmed by DNA pyrosequencing, and then the resistance profile of each SCDDT isolate to various antibiotics was tested.
RESULTS: Microbial growth was observed in all SCDDT patients, whereas samples from 60% of patients in the control group failed to yield any bacterial growth (p < 0.001). Anaerobes grew in 14% of SCDDT patients as compared to 7% of CRSwNP patients (p = 0.42). Of the isolates from SCDDT patients, 70% were susceptible to amoxicillin/clavulanate, whereas all isolates were susceptible to levofloxacin, teicoplanin, and vancomycin. Of the staphylococci identified, 80% were capable of producing beta-lactamase.
CONCLUSION: Given the extent of microbiological contamination within the maxillary sinus of SCDDT patients, these infections should be regarded as a different class of conditions from rhinogenic sinusitis. Our findings support the need for different approaches in the treatment of SCDDT patients.