Bergin Erhan GENÇOSMANOĞLU, Ayşe Nur BARDAK, Selahattin YAMAN, Mehtap TURFAN, Murat HANCI, Hürriyet YILMAZ

Spinal kord lezyonlarında bası yaraları ve bu yaraların aerobik bakteriyel kontaminasyonları

Bası yarası komplikasyonu görülen spinal kord lezyonlu (SKL) toplam 55 olgunun özellikleri ve bu olgulardan elde edilen aerobik yara kültürleri ile yaraların özellikleri irdelenmiştir. Mikrobiyolojik incelemede toplam 16 Staphylococcus aureus, 3 Escherichia coli, 6 Proteus mirabilis, 3 Klebsiella spp., 3 Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 3 Enterobacter aerogenes, 2 Difteroid basil izole edilmiştir. Dört olgudan alınan materyalde üreme olmazken, 9 olguda birden çok bakteriyel kontaminasyon saptanmıştır. Bası yaralarının oluşumu ile nörolojik seviyenin yüksekliği ve ağırlığı arasında pozitif korelasyon saptanırken inkontinansın varlığı önemli bir predispozan faktör olarak karşımıza çıkmıştır. %93 olguda bası yaralarında kontaminasyon saptanması sepsis gibi ikincil komplikasyon riskini akılda tutmamız gerektiğini göstermektedir.

This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of 55 spinal cord injury patients with pressure sores and aerobic bacterial colonisation. Bacterial contamination of the sores was as follows: S. Aureus (16), E.coli (3), Proteus mirabilis (6), Klebsiella spp (3), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (3), Enterobacter aerogenes (3) and difteroid basilli (2). In four cases, no bacterial strains were isolated, and in nine cases, more than one bacterial strain was isolated. There was a strong relationship between completeness of the lesion, incontinence and pressure sore formation. As most of the sores (93%) were contaminated, secondary complications due to pressure sores such as sepsis must be kept in mind.

PDF

___

1. Brovvn DL, Smith DJ. Bacterial colonization/infecti-on and the surgical manegement of pressure ulcers. OstomyAVound Management 1999; 45:109S-118S.
2. Stotts NA, Hunt TK. Managing bacterial colonizati-on and infection. Clin Geriatr Med 1997; 13:565-73.
3. Robson MC, Mannari RJ, Smith PD, Payne WG. Ma-intenance of vvound bacterial balance. Am J. Surg 1999; 178:399-402
4. Moss RJ, LaPuma J. Pressure sores: more than meets the eye. J Clin Ethics. 1990; 1: 304-305.
5. VVhiteneck GG et al. Mortality, morbidity and psychosocial outcomes of persons spinal cord injured more than 20 years ago. Paraplegia 1992; 30:617-630.
6. Young JS, Bums PE. Pressure sores and spinal cord injured: Part II. Model systems. SCI Digest 1981; 3:11-26.
7. Mavvson AR et al. Risk factors for early occuring pressure ulcers follovving spinal cord injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1988; 67:123-127.
8. Fuhrer MJ et al. Pressure ulcers in community resi-dent persons with spinal cord injury: prevalen-ce and risk factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74:1172-1177.
9. Reuler JB, Cooney TG. The pressure sore: Pathophy-siology and principles of management. Ann In-tern Med 1981; 94:661-666.
10. Dinsdale SM. Decubitus ulcers: role of pressure and friction in causation. Arch Phys Med Reha-bil 1974; 55:147-152.
11. Kertesz D, Chow AW. Infected pressure and diabe-tic ulcers. Clin Geriatr Med 1992; 8:838-852
12. Xakellis GC, Frantz R. The cost of healing pressure ulcers across multipl health care settings. Adv VVound Care 1996; 9:18-22
13. Donovan DH, Dinh TA, Carber SL et al. Pressure ulcers. İn Delisa JA, Gans BM(eds), Rehabilita-tion Medicine 2nc' editionJB Lippincott Com-pany, Philadelphia, 1993: 716-732.
14. NCCLS: Performance standards for antimicrobial disk suspectibility tests, 5^ edition. Approved Standart Document. 1993; M2-A5(1 3):14.
15. Byrne DW, Salzberg CA. Majör risk factors for pressure ulcers in the spinal cord disabled: a li-teratüre revievv. Spinal Cord 1996; 34: 255-264.
16. Salzberg CA et al. A nevv pressure ulcer risk assess-ment scale for individuals vvith spinal cord in-jury.. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 75:96-104
17. Yarkony GM. Pressure ulcers: a revievv. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75:908-917.