Microbiological Analyses and Sensitivities of Germs to Antibacterials in Dacryocystitis at the IOTA University Hospital, Bamako
Résumé fourni par la source
Introduction: Dacryocystitis is an inflammation, most often infectious, of the lacrimal sac, linked to an intra-saccular stasis of tears related to a stenosis of the vertical portion of the lacrimal pathways, most often the nasolacrimal duct. Methodology: This was a prospective, descriptive and analytical study, running from April 1 to September 30, 2024. Results: We collected 32 cases, representing a frequency of 0.15%. The mean age was 23.78 years, with a range from 3 months to 67 years. The male-to-female ratio was 1.13. The majority of dacryocystitis cases were infectious (90.62%). Gram-positive bacteria (59%) predominated over Gram-negative bacteria (41%). Staphylococcus aureus (41.37%) were the most represented among Gram-positive bacteria, while among Gram-negative bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13.79%) predominated. Amikacin, imipenem, levofloxacin, netilmicin, quinipristine, and tobramycin were the antibiotics with the highest susceptibility. Gram-negative bacteria were more susceptible to amikacin, while Gram-positive bacteria were more susceptible to amikacin, netilmicin, quinipristine, tobramycin, and vancomycin. Conclusion: The present study has shown that the germs in patients with dacryocystitis were diverse in terms of distribution, prevalence and pattern of resistance and/or sensitivity to antimicrobials. Keywords: Dacryocystitis, microbiology, Antibiogram.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Microbiological Analyses and Sensitivities of Germs to Antibacterials in Dacryocystitis at the IOTA University Hospital, Bamako
- Date Crossref
- 29/11/2025
- Éditeur
- JACCRAfrica
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.