Cited by 16Milk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusBreast Lesions and Carcinomas

Puerperal mastitis in the past decade: results of a single institution analysis

Lukassek, J., Ignatov, A., Faerber, J., Costa, S. D., Eggemann, H.·2019·Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Abstract

Purpose Although puerperal mastitis is a common disease, published data are poor. Increasing rates of community-acquired MRSA (CA-MRSA) cases are reported in the USA. However, information about common pathogens and CA-MRSA in Germany is still insufficient. The aim of this study was to investigate the most common pathogens of puerperal mastitis in the last decade, its therapy, resistance rate and the effectiveness of the current treatment strategies. Methods The pathogens, the respective antibiograms and the treatment strategies of patients treated for puerperal mastits at the University Clinic Magdeburg (Germany) between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 21. Results In our series, 59 cases with puerperal mastitis were reviewed, 26 (44.1%) of these developed a breast abscess. In 37 of 59 (67.3%) cases the symptoms occurred in the first 8 weeks postpartum. The most common pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (64.9%) and Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (13.5%). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was found in one case. Of the 19 cases with Staphylococcus aureus, 17 were resistant to Penicillin. Conservative management was mainly performed with Flucloxacillin (60%), which was successful in most cases. Sixteen of 26 (61.5%) women with abscesses underwent ultrasound (US)-guided needle aspiration. Conclusion In this cohort, MRSA was not a main pathogen responsible for breast abscesses. Conservative tre…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00404-019-05333-3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Lukassek, J., Ignatov, A., Faerber, J., Costa, S. D., & Eggemann, H.
Affiliations
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Lukassek, J.
Venue
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Published
2019-10-20
Volume
300
Issue
6
Pages
1637-1644
ISSN
  • 0003-9128 (ISSN-L)
  • 0932-0067
  • 1432-0711
OpenAlex
W2980366841
Cited by
16
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Milk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
Keywords
puerperal mastitis, breast abscess, Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, antibiotic resistance, flucloxacillin, ultrasound-guided aspiration, conservative treatment, postpartum infection, Germany
MeSH terms
Abscess, Adult, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Female, Humans, Mastitis, Puerperal Disorders, Retrospective Studies, Staphylococcus aureus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review