Dataset Information

Clinical features and recurrence of Corynebacterium kroppenstedtii infection in patients with mastitis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Few studies have investigated the differences in clinical features of patients with mastitis following Corynebacterium kroppenstedtii infection, and most focused on the bacterial antimicrobial susceptibility, detection methods and therapy.

Methodology

There were 133 patients with mastitis infected by C. kroppenstedtii between August 2016 and September 2019. C. kroppenstedtii was identified using mass spectrometry. The demographics, clinical diagnosis, laboratory test results of different types of mastitis combined with bacillus infection, and the effects of different treatments in reducing recurrence were compared.

Results

The incidence of pus following C. kroppenstedtii infection was higher in patients with non-granulomatous lobular mastitis (NGLM; 56.6%) than in those with granulomatous lobular mastitis (GLM; 33.3%; χ² = 7.072, p = 0.008). While C-reactive protein (CRP) was higher in the GLM group (12.50 mg/L) than in the NGLM group (6.05 mg/L; Z = - 2.187, p = 0.029). Treatment with local lavage (triamcinolone acetonide) and antibiotics (cefuroxime) showed a recurrent rate of 25.9% in C. kroppenstedtii infection.

Conclusion

Increased pus, large masses, and an elevated CRP level may occur in patients with mastitis infected by C.kroppenstedtii. These clinical features may guide the determination of the bacterial infection in patients with mastitis. Combining an antibiotic with a triamcinolone acetonide lavage, preferably cefuroxime, may reduce the recurrence.

SUBMITTER: Zeng W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9258122 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE: To describe the radiological and clinical features of adult non-puerperal mastitis and to determine the most accurate method of preventing unnecessary surgical procedures. METHODS: Clinical and imaging findings were retrospectively reviewed in 51 females with non-puerperal mastitis, which was confirmed by biopsy/surgical pathology. All 51 patients had pre-operative MRI; 45 patients also had sonograms and 25 also had mammograms, pre-operatively. RESULTS: Of the 51 cases with non-puerperal mastitis, 94.1% (48/51) were confirmed as having acute or chronic inflammation, and the other 3 had plasma cell mastitis; areola papillaris inflammation was found in 39.2% (20/51) of the cases. Overall, 6 of the 25 cases that were examined with mammography and 2 of the 45 cases that were examined with sonography appeared normal, but all 51 lesions were positively identified on MRI. Asymmetrical density (12/25) on mammograms and solitary or separated/contiguous, clustered, hypoechoic mass-like lesions (31/45) on ultrasound were the most common signs of non-puerperal mastitis. On enhanced MRI, 90.2% (46/51) of patients showed non-mass-like enhanced lesions. Multiple regional enhancements in the pattern of distribution (32/46) and separated or contiguous, clustered, rim-like enhancements in the pattern of internal enhancement (29/46) were the most common manifestations in non-mass-like enhanced lesions. Of the 51 patients, mastitis Type 1 and Type 2 in the time-signal intensity curve were detected in 47.1% and 51.0% of the patients, respectively. The breast imaging reporting and data system categories with the highest number of patients were Category 0 (9/25) on mammography, Category 4a on sonography (18/45) and Category 4a on MRI (29/51). CONCLUSION: The findings from mammography and ultrasound are non-specific; therefore, using MR can be helpful in the diagnosis, especially in the presence of non-mass-like enhancements that are multiple, regional, separated, or contiguous, clustered and rim-like. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Mastitis is often neglected because of the lack of typical clinical signs and symptoms. This study has assessed and described the clinical features and imaging findings of adult non-puerperal mastitis on mammograms, sonograms and MRI and found that MRI is more specific in the diagnosis of disease.