Bir üçüncü basamak hastanesindeki kronik dakriyosistit hastalarının kültür sonuçlarının klinik ve mikrobiyolojik değerlendirmesi

Year 2016, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 34 - 42, 30.04.2016

Murat Gümüşsoy , İbrahim Çukurova Gülfem Ece Erdem Atalay Çetinkaya

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the isolated strains from the patients with chronic dacryocystitis and the relationship between different anatomical areas and their antibiotic susceptibilities.

Methods: Fifty patients diagnosed with chronic dacryocystitis were included. Fifty patients underwent endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy from March 2013 to April 2014. Swab samples were obtained from conjunctiva and inferior nasal meatus before surgery, obtained from lacrimal sac during surgery. Identification and antibiotic susceptibility of the isolated strains were performed by automated Vitek version 2.0 systems (BioMeriuex Inc., Marcy-l'Étoile, France).

Results: A total of 39 (78%) female and 11 (22%) male patients were operated and 150 swab samples were evaluated. Bacterial growth was detected in 136 (90.6%) culture samples. A single (n=125; 91.9%) or two different (n=11; 9.1%) microorganisms were grown on culture media. The distribution of gram-positive strains (n=91) and gram-negative strains (n=56) were 61.90% and (38.10%), respectively. The most frequently isolated gram-positive isolate was Staphylococcus. Gram-negative isolates were susceptible to third-generation cephalosporins, cefepime and carbapenems while gram-positive isolates were susceptible to vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolide.

Conclusion: For methicillin-sensitive coagulase-negative Staphylococci and methicillin-resistance coagulase-negative Staphylococci, bacterial growth demonstrated similarities among three different compartments (conjunctiva, lacrimal sac and inferior meatus). In other words, growth of these microorganisms in one location points to their proliferation in the other location or vice versa. This data can be used to guide antimicrobial therapy for these cases; but further studies are required.

Keywords

Chronic dacryocystitis, conjunctival flora, lacrimal sac, culture

References

• 1. Hartikainen J, Lehtonen OP, Saari KM. Bacteriology of lacrimal duct obstruction in adults. Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81:37–40.
• 2. Bartley GB. Acquired lacrimal drainage obstruction: an etiologic classification system, case reports and a review of the literature. Part 1. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;8:237–42.
• 3. Coden DJ, Hornblass A, Haas BD. Clinical bacteriology of dacryocystitis in adults. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;9: 125–31.
• 4. Mills DM, Bodman MG, Meyer DR, Morton AD 3rd; ASOPRS Dacryocystitis Study Group. The microbiologic spectrum of dacryocystitis: a national study of acute versus chronic infection. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;23:302–6.
• 5. Çukurova I, Caner Mercan G, Çetinkaya E, Gümüsssoy M, Söken H. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: outcomes using mucosal flap preserving technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:1661–6.
• 6. Blicker JA, Buffam FV. Lacrimal sac, conjunctival and nasal culture results in dacryocystorhinostomy patients. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;9:43–6.
• 7. Brook I, Frazier EH. Aerobic and anaerobic microbiology of dacryocystitis. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:552–4.
• 8. Kubo M, Sakuraba T, Arai Y, Nakazawa M. Dacryocystorhinostomy for dacryocystitis caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: report of four cases. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2002;46:177–82.
• 9. Sun X, Liang Q, Luo S, Wang Z, Li R, Jin X. Microbiological analysis of chronic dacryocystitis. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005; 25:261–3.
• 10. Chaudhry IA, Shamsi FA, Al-Rashed W. Bacteriology of chronic dacryocystitis in a tertiary eye care center. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;21:207–10.
• 11. Das JK, Deka AC, Kuri GC, Bhattacharjee K, Das D, Gogoi K. Bacteriology of chronic dacryocystitis in adult population of northeast India. Orbit 2008;27:243–7.
• 12. Bharathi MJ, Ramakrishnan R, Maneksha V, Shivakumar C, Nithya V, Mittal S. Comparative bacteriology of acute and chronic dacryocystitis. Eye (Lond) 2008;22:953–60.
• 13. Razavi ME, Ansari-Astaneh MR, Farzadnia M, Rahmaniyan H, Moghiman T. Bacteriological evaluation of adult dacryocystitis in Iran. Orbit 2010;29:286–90.
• 14. Kim SE, Lee SJ, Lee SY, Yoon JS. Clinical significance of microbial growth on the surfaces of silicone tubes removed from dacryocystorhinostomy patients. Am J Ophthalmol 2012;153: 253–7.
• 15. Kuchar A, Lukas J, Steinkogler FJ. Bacteriology and antibiotic therapy in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2000;78:694–8.
• 16. Kato T, Hayasaka S. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci from conjunctivas of preoperative patients. Jpn J Ophthalmol 1998;42: 461–5.
• 17. Singh Bhinder G, Singh Bhinder H. Repeated probing results in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Eur J Ophthalmol 2004;14:185–92.
• 18. Pinar-Sueiro S, Fernández-Hermida RV, Gibelalde A, Martínez- Indart L. Study on the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in external dacryocystorhinostomy: a review of 697 cases. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;26:467–72.