4.7 Article

Infectious olecranon and patellar bursitis: short-course adjuvant antibiotic therapy is not a risk factor for recurrence in adult hospitalized patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 65, 期 5, 页码 1008-1014

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkq043

关键词

bursectomy; parenteral; septic bursitis

资金

  1. Laboratory of Bacteriology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

No evidence-based recommendations exist for the management of infectious bursitis. We examined epidemiology and risk factors for recurrence of septic bursitis. Specifically, we compared outcome in patients receiving bursectomy plus short-course adjuvant antibiotic therapy (< 7 days) with that of patients receiving bursectomy plus longer-course antibiotic therapy (> 7 days). Retrospective study of adult patients with infectious olecranon and patellar bursitis requiring hospitalization at Geneva University Hospital from January 1996 to March 2009. We identified 343 episodes of infectious bursitis (237 olecranon and 106 patellar). Staphylococcus aureus predominated among the 256 cases with an identifiable pathogen (85%). Three hundred and twelve cases (91%) were treated surgically; 142 (41%) with one-stage bursectomy and closure and 146 with two-stage bursectomy. All received antibiotics for a median duration of 13 days with a median intravenous component of 3 days. Cure was achieved in 293 (85%) episodes. Total duration of antibiotic therapy [odds ratio (OR) 0.9; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.8-1.1] showed no association with cure. In multivariate analysis, only immunosuppression was linked to recurrence (OR 5.6; 95% CI 1.9-18.4). Compared with < 7 days, 8-14 days of antibiotic treatment (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.1-2.9) or > 14 days of antibiotic treatment (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.1-10.7) was equivalent, as was the intravenous component (OR 1.1; 95% CI 1.0-1.3). In severe infectious bursitis requiring hospitalization, adjuvant antibiotic therapy might be limited to 7 days in non-immunosuppressed patients.

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

4.7
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