Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:40:42.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Lifesaving Streptococcus bovis Surgical Site Infection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2018

Walter Woznick
Affiliation:
Internal Medicine Department, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio
Jessica Woznick
Affiliation:
Family Medicine Department, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio.
Hari Polenakovik*
Affiliation:
Internal Medicine Department, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio
*
Address correspondence to Dr Hari Polenakovik, 128 East Apple Street, Weber CHE 2nd floor, Dayton, Ohio 45409 (hari.polenakovik@wright.edu).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letters to the Editor
Copyright
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

To the Editor—Surgical site infections (SSIs) are undesired and serious complications following spinal surgery.Reference Talbot 1 , Reference Manian 2 However, despite full adherence to various protocols for the reduction of SSI, they continue to occur.Reference Talbot 1 , Reference Manian 2 We report a case of nonpreventable SSI, which certainly complicated the patient’s medical management; however, it ultimately saved his life from invasive, metastatic cancer.

This patient was a 54-year-old diabetic male with a 40 pack-year smoking history and chronic low back pain. He underwent decompression and fusion of L4–L5, with pedicle screws, intervertebral body fusion, and graft placement 3 weeks earlier. He was discharged to home with good early postoperative healing. Three week later, he noted a “pimple-like” lesion at the surgical site that spontaneously drained with worsening of his back pain. He was admitted to the hospital with normal vital signs, white blood cell count (WBC) of 9,000 mL/mm3 with neutrophilic predominance and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 109 mm per hour. A magnetic resonance image (MRI) demonstrated fluid collection within subcutaneous tissues (measuring 2.1×1.7×8.5 cm) and deeper tissues at the L3–S1 level, extending into the spinal canal without compression and evidence of L4–L5 acute discitis and osteomyelitis. The patient underwent debridement from a posterior approach, which revealed a purulent subcutaneous fluid pocket. Cultures yielded growth of Streptococcus spp later identified as S. bovis. Due to the well-known association with colon cancer, the patient underwent colonoscopy, which revealed well-differentiated adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis was negative for metastatic lesions, and a transthoracic echocardiogram was normal. He underwent an open sigmoid colectomy demonstrating clear margins and negative lymph nodes. Further speciation of S. bovis revealed that it was S. gallolyticus subsp pasteurianus. The patient was treated with 4 weeks of ceftriaxone followed by 4 weeks of amoxicillin. He made a full recovery from both the colectomy and the spinal surgeries with no apparent long-term consequences 3 years later.

Streptococcus bovis is a gram-positive coccus and forms part of the normal intestinal flora of ~10% of healthy adults.Reference Arias and Murray 3 , Reference Dekker and Lau 4 This species underwent extensive taxonomic change in 2003.Reference Arias and Murray 3 , Reference Dekker and Lau 4 Currently, 7 different strains represent the S. bovis/S. equinus complex: S. equinus, S. infantarius subsp coli (biotype II/1), S. infantarius subsp infantarius (biotype II/1), S. alactolyticus, S. gallolyticus subsp gallolyticus (biotype I), S. gallolyticus subsp pasteurianus (biotype II/ 2), and S. gallolyticus subsp macedonicus.Reference Dekker and Lau 4 , Reference Ben-Chetrit, Wiener-Well, Kashat, Yinnon and Assous 5 However, the published literature does not distinguish S. bovis isolates to the subspecies level consistently, which often requires sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene for accurate identification.Reference Arias and Murray 3 Reference Ben-Chetrit, Wiener-Well, Kashat, Yinnon and Assous 5 This nomenclature change has created confusion among clinicians because the link between infections with this microbe and colorectal neoplasms may be missed due to a lack of awareness of the new species names.Reference Arias and Murray 3 , Reference Dekker and Lau 4 In general, evaluation by colonoscopy and echocardiography is recommended for all patients who develop S. bovis infection.Reference Arias and Murray 3 Reference García-País, Rabuñal and Armesto 6 An important property of this microbe is its ability to adhere to various proteins of the extracellular matrix, such as collagen, fibronectin, and fibrin, which is a mechanism thought to be important in the pathogenesis of endocarditis, as well as dissemination to prosthetic material, as in our case.Reference Arias and Murray 3 Reference García-País, Rabuñal and Armesto 6 Treatment of S. bovis infection typically consists of a β-lactam (penicillin G, ampicillin, or ceftriaxone) with or without aminoglycoside, with vancomycin reserved for patients unable to tolerate the β-lactams for minimum of 4 or 6 weeks.Reference Arias and Murray 3 , Reference García-País, Rabuñal and Armesto 6

Our patient was found to have bacterial invasion of his recent lumbar surgery site with S. bovis. It is not clear whether he had asymptomatic bacteremia with this organism prior to surgery or the bacteremia developed after the surgery. Nevertheless, this SSI was nonpreventable despite adherence to the established guidelines for prevention of SSI. To the best of our knowledge, no previous case of early (<30 days) spinal or prosthetic joint SSI due to S. bovis has been reported. Similar to the central-line–associated bloodstream infection list of mucosal barrier injury pathogens, we propose adding a category of SSI caused by such organisms because current infection prevention measures are unlikely to be effective in these types of SSIs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Financial support: No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Potential conflicts of interest: All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

REFERENCES

1. Talbot, TR. Surgical site infections and antimicrobial prophylaxis. In: Bennett JE, Dolin R, Blaser MJ, eds. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 8 th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Saunders; 2015:34923504.Google Scholar
2. Manian, FA. The role of postoperative factors in surgical site infections: time to take notice. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59:12721276.Google Scholar
3. Arias, CA, Murray, BE. Enterococcus species, Streptococcus gallolyticus Group, and Leuconostoc species. In: Bennett JE, Dolin R, Blaser MJ, eds. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 8 th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Saunders; 2015:2238.Google Scholar
4. Dekker, JP, Lau, AF. An update on the Streptococcus bovis group: classification, identification, and disease associations. J Clin Microbiol 2016;54:16941699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Ben-Chetrit, E, Wiener-Well, Y, Kashat, L, Yinnon, AM, Assous, MV. Streptococcus bovis new taxonomy: does subspecies distinction matter? Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2017;36:387393.Google Scholar
6. García-País, MJ, Rabuñal, R, Armesto, V, et al. Streptococcus bovis septic arthritis and osteomyelitis: A report of 21 cases and a literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2016;45:738746.Google Scholar