Superficial fungal infections in the department of dermatology, University Hospital Jena: A 7-year retrospective study on 4556 samples from 2007 to 2013.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Superficial fungal infections are often seen in day-to-day clinical practice, and their prevalence continues to rise worldwide. Over the years, a change in the pattern of dermatophytoses has been noted.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to determine the epidemiologic profile of dermatophytes at the Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Jena, from 2007 to 2013.
METHODS
The retrospective study was carried out with a total of 4556 samples collected from 3607 patients suspected of superficial fungal infections during the 7-year study period.
RESULTS
Among the 3607 suspected patients, 1951 (54.09%) were men and 1656 (45.91%) were women. Of 4556 samples, 703 (15.43%) samples were positive for fungal culture, which included 585 (83.21%) dermatophytes and 118 (16.79%) non-dermatophytes. Trichophyton (T.) rubrum was the most common isolated pathogen in 73.33% of the dermatophyte cases. Among dermatophyte-infected patients, men were most likely to be affected (63.48%) as well as those of higher age (61 to 80). The most commonly affected areas were nails (33.16%) and feet (33%). T rubrum was recurrently isolated in several regions with exception of the scalp where M canis (58.33%) was the most frequently isolated pathogen. About 16.04% of cases had a history of treatment taken prior to sampling. The majority of the affected individuals did not have any prior animal contact (77.26%). T benhamiae was exclusively associated with contact to guinea pigs.
CONCLUSION
Trichophyton rubrum was the most frequently isolated pathogen in several regions except the scalp. New dermatophyte species emerged with time especially T benhamiae.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.