Antibiotic susceptibility of orofacial infections in Bratislava: a 10-year retrospective study

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Objectives Aim of this study was to analyse causal microbiological agents and their bacterial resistance in orofacial infections requiring hospital admission. Materials and methods Presented is a 10-year retrospective study of patients hospitalised at a single department in 2014–2023. 744 patients were involved. In the statistical analysis, following data was evaluated: causal microbes and their resistance to Penicillin, Amoxicillin-Clavulanate, Clindamycin and Metronidazole. Results Most frequent aetiology was odontogenic with causal tooth in socket (n = 468; 62,9%), followed by odontogenic – post extraction (n = 152; 20.4%), jaw fracture (n = 41; 5.5%), sialadenitis n = 31 (4.2%), osteonecrosis n = 22 (3.0%), oncological diagnosis in head and neck (n = 17; 2.3%), unknown (n = 10; 1.3%) and multiple factors (n = 3; 0.4%). 408 patients (54.8%) underwent extraoral abscess revision, 336 patients (45.2%) patients were treated locally without extraoral revision. In odontogenic group with tooth still present, superior CRP (m = 145.8 mg/l; SD = 117.7) and leukocyte values (m = 13.6*109l; SD = 6.6) were observed in comparison to other groups. There were 698 cultivated bacteria in 362 patients. Most frequent bacteria were Streptococci (n = 162; 23.2%), Prevotella (n = 83; 11.2%) and Parvimonas (n = 65; 9.3%). Clindamycin resistance was highest (n = 180 resistant bacteria; 25.8%), followed by Metronidazole (n = 178; 25.5%), Penicillin (n = 107; 15.3%) and Amoxicillin-Clavulanate (n = 34; 4.9%). Conclusions Orofacial infections in head and neck region are mostly of odontogenic origin with causal tooth still in socket. Causal bacteria show a high antibiotic resistance rate, especially to Clindamycin and Metronidazole. Clinical Relevance Acquired data will be used to determine guidelines for empirical antibiotic prescription in cases of orofacial infections.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.