Bacteriology of nontraumatic maxillary sinus mucoceles versus chronic sinusitis

18Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the bacteriology of maxillary sinus mucoceles to chronic sinusitis and understand the pathogenesis of nontraumatic maxillary sinus mucoceles (NTMSM). Study Design: Retrospective review. Methods: Review of intraoperative bacteriology culture results obtained in patients with NTMSM. Patients with history of facial trauma or previous paranasal sinus surgery were not included in the study. The results were compared to intraoperative cultures obtained from patients with chronic sinusitis (CS). Results: The study groups consisted of 16 patients with NTMSM (9 male and 7 female patients) and 211 patients with CS (86 male and 125 female patients). Cultures in the NTMSM group were positive in 7 of 16 patients (44%) (four cultures had more than one isolate). There was no growth in cultures of 9 patients (56%). On the other hand, cultures in 176 patients with CS (83%) grew organisms (42 cultures had more than one isolate); there was no growth in 35 of 211 patients (17%) (P = .0007). The cultures grew aerobic bacteria in 7 of 16 (44%) and 160 of 211 (76%) patients of the NTMSM and CS groups, respectively. Anaerobic bacteria were detected in cultures of 2 of 16 patients (12.5%) with NTMSM compared with 13 of 211 patients (6.2%) in the CS group (P = .286). The most common pathogenic aerobe in the NTMSM group was α-hemolytic Streptococcus, while Staphylococcus aureus was the most common in the CS group. Conclusion: The bacteriology of maxillary sinus mucoceles is different from that of CS. The majority of patients with mucoceles have sterile intraoperative cultures. The data do not support infection as the main origin of NTMSM.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Busaba, N. Y., Siegel, N., & Salman, S. D. (2000). Bacteriology of nontraumatic maxillary sinus mucoceles versus chronic sinusitis. Laryngoscope, 110(6), 969–971. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200006000-00016

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free