Keene William E, Markum Amy C, Samadpour Mansour
Acute and Communicable Disease Program, Oregon Department of Human Services, Portland 97232, USA.
JAMA. 2004 Feb 25;291(8):981-5. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.8.981.
Sporadic infections following ear piercing are well documented, but common-source outbreaks are rarely recognized.
To investigate reports of auricular chondritis subsequent to commercial ear piercing.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: Outbreak investigation by Oregon public health agencies, including cohort study of persons pierced at a jewelry kiosk in August-September 2000, environmental sampling, and molecular subtyping of isolates. Confirmed cases had Pseudomonas aeruginosa cultured from ear wounds. Suspected cases had signs and symptoms of external ear infection, including drainage of pus or blood for at least 14 days.
Risk factors for infection and comparison of bacterial isolates by molecular subtyping.
From 186 piercings in 118 individuals, we identified 7 confirmed P aeruginosa infections and 18 suspected infections. Confirmed cases were 10 to 19 years old. Most were initially treated with antibiotics ineffective against Pseudomonas. Four were hospitalized, 4 underwent incision and drainage surgeries (1 as an outpatient), and several were cosmetically deformed. Upper ear cartilage piercing was more likely to result in either confirmed or suspected infection than was lobe piercing (confirmed: RR undefined, P<.001; suspected: RR, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-8.5). All persons with confirmed infections had their ear cartilage pierced with an open, spring-loaded piercing gun. Patient isolates were indistinguishable by molecular subtyping, and matching isolates were recovered from a disinfectant bottle and nearby sink. At least 1 worker admitted sometimes spraying the disinfectant on the ear studs before piercing.
Ear cartilage piercing is inherently more risky than lobe piercing. Clinicians should respond aggressively to potential auricular chondritis and consider Pseudomonas a possible cause pending culture results.
耳部穿孔后散发性感染已有充分记录,但很少认识到共同来源的暴发。
调查商业性耳部穿孔后耳软骨炎的报告。
设计、地点和研究对象:俄勒冈州公共卫生机构进行的暴发调查,包括对2000年8月至9月在一家珠宝亭穿孔者的队列研究、环境采样以及分离株的分子分型。确诊病例的耳部伤口培养出铜绿假单胞菌。疑似病例有外耳感染的体征和症状,包括至少14天的脓性或血性分泌物。
感染的危险因素以及通过分子分型对细菌分离株进行比较。
在118名个体的186次穿孔中,我们确定了7例确诊的铜绿假单胞菌感染和18例疑似感染。确诊病例年龄在10至19岁之间。大多数最初用对铜绿假单胞菌无效的抗生素治疗。4人住院,4人接受了切开引流手术(1人作为门诊病人),还有几人出现了美容变形。与耳垂穿孔相比,耳廓上部软骨穿孔更有可能导致确诊或疑似感染(确诊:相对危险度未定义,P<0.001;疑似:相对危险度,3.6;95%可信区间,1.5-8.5)。所有确诊感染的人都是用开放式弹簧加载穿孔枪进行耳廓软骨穿孔的。通过分子分型,患者分离株无法区分,并且在一个消毒瓶和附近水槽中回收了匹配的分离株。至少有1名工作人员承认有时在穿孔前将消毒剂喷在耳钉上。
耳廓软骨穿孔本质上比耳垂穿孔风险更大。临床医生应积极应对潜在的耳软骨炎,并在培养结果出来之前考虑铜绿假单胞菌可能是病因。