4.5 Article

Risk Factors and Microbiology of Meningitis and/or Bacteremia After Transsphenoidal Surgery for Pituitary Adenoma

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 110, 期 -, 页码 E851-E863

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.11.125

关键词

Bacteremia; Meningitis; Microbiology; Risk factors; Transsphenoidal surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence, bacteriologic features, and risk factors of posttranssphenoidal surgery (post-TSS) meningitis and/or bacteremia. METHODS: This retrospective study included 3242 patients who underwent TSS for pituitary adenoma at the Department of Neurosurgery of Peking Union Medical College Hospital between January 2012 and December 2016. Clinical data for patients with and without post-TSS meningitis and/or bacteremia were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: Meningitis and bacteremia developed after 27 (0.8%) and 26 (0.8%) procedures, respectively, and 6 patients (0.2%) developed both. Gram-positive organisms (coagulase-negative staphylococci, Streptococcus pneumonia, and S viridans) predominated in meningitis, whereas gram-negative organisms (Klebsiella pneumonia, Enterobacter aerogenes, and Escherichia coli) predominated in bacteremia. All identified species were sensitive to amikacin, imipenem, and meropenem. Antibiotic treatment cured 52 patients (7 died). In a multivariate analysis, the risk of meningitis and/or bacteremia was independently associated with diabetes (P < 0.001; odds ratio [OR], 6.06), previous surgery at the same location (P < 0.001; OR, 4.23), intra-operative cerebrospinal fluid leakage (P < 0.001l; OR, 4.63), and an endoscopic approach (P = 0.001; OR, 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: Meningitis and/or bacteremia remain critical postoperative complications of TSS for pituitary adenoma. The pathogens with drug sensitivity to antibiotics differed between meningitis and bacteremia. Early blood and cerebrospinal fluid bacterial cultures, drug susceptibility analyses, and appropriate antibiotic treatment can help control the rate of infection.

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