Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28233041›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2017

[Enterococci and surgical site infections : Causal agent or harmless commensals?]

J Pochhammer, A Kramer, M Schäffer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Surgical Revision Promotes Presence of Enterococcus spp. in Abdominal Superficial Surgical Site Infections.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022
    Article
  4. Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J PochhammerKlinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Thoraxchirurgie, Marienhospital Stuttgart, Vinzenz von Paul Kliniken, Böheimstr. 39, 70199, Stuttgart, Deutschland. julius.pochhammer@vinzenz.de.
A KramerInstitut für Hygiene und Umweltmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Deutschland.
M SchäfferKlinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Thoraxchirurgie, Marienhospital Stuttgart, Vinzenz von Paul Kliniken, Böheimstr. 39, 70199, Stuttgart, Deutschland.
Marienhospital Stuttgart · DEInstitut für Hygiene und Umwelt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of enterococci in the context of peritonitis and surgical site infections (SSI) has not yet been definitively clarified but enterococci are being detected more frequently. Numerous resistances reduce the available antibiotic options.

objectiveThis article gives an overview of the pathogenic importance of enterococci and of current recommendations for therapy and prophylaxis. On the basis of our own data we discuss the relevance of enterococci for SSI. MATERIAL AND

methodsAll colorectal resections carried out between January 2008 and September 2016 were retrospectively documented. Revision surgery, SSI and intra-abdominally or subcutaneously detected pathogens were recorded.

resultsA total of 2713 interventions were evaluated with 28.3% having primary peritonitis. In 587 patients (21.6%) SSI followed, and pathogen determination was possible in 431 cases (73.4%). Enterococci were frequently found in re-operations (58.4%) and SSI (46.1%), with E. faecalis and E. faecium in approximately equal proportions. If intra-abdominal enterococci were detectable in patients with primary peritonitis, it was more common to develop SSI and enterococci were more frequently detected subcutaneously. Enterococci in SSI were found to be significantly more frequent in left hemicolectomies as well as in pre-existing renal insufficiency.

conclusionIt can be inferred that enterococci are not adequately covered by commonly used perioperative antibiotic therapy or preoperative prophylaxis, which increases the risk for SSI by enterococci. This could be favored by selection of these pathogens due to the use of antibiotics without enterococcal efficacy (e. g. cephalosporins). The consideration in the choice of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis by the additional administration of ampicillin or vancomycin could be advantageous.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEnterococcus faecalisEnterococcus faeciumGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsHumansPeritonitisReoperationRisk FactorsSurgical Wound InfectionVirulenceAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic therapyColorectal surgeryPeritonitisProphylaxisSurgical site infection

Identifiers

PMID28233041
OpenAlexW2603647599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.