 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Omphalitis of newborn" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(November 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Omphalitis of newborn | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Specialty | Neonatology |
Omphalitis of newborn is the medical term for inflammation of theumbilical cord stump in theneonatal newborn period, most commonly attributed to a bacterial infection.[1] Typically immediately after an infant is born, the umbilical cord is cut with a small remnant (often referred to as the stump) left behind. Normally the stump separates from the skin within 3–45 days after birth.[2] A small amount of pus-like material is commonly seen at the base of the stump and can be controlled by keeping the stump open to air to dry.[3] Certain bacteria can grow and infect the stump during this process and as a result significant redness and swelling may develop, and in some cases the infection can then spread through theumbilical vessels to the rest of the body.[3] While currently an uncommon anatomical location forinfection in the newborn in theUnited States, it has caused significant morbidity and mortality both historically and in areas wherehealth care is less readily available. In general, when this type of infection is suspected or diagnosed, antibiotic treatment is given, and in cases of serious complications surgical management may be appropriate.[3]
Clinically,neonates with omphalitis present within the first two weeks of life with signs and symptoms of a skin infection (cellulitis) around the umbilical stump (redness, warmth, swelling, pain),pus from the umbilical stump,fever, fast heart rate (tachycardia), low blood pressure (hypotension),somnolence, poor feeding, and yellow skin (jaundice). Omphalitis can quickly progress tosepsis and presents a potentially life-threatening infection. In fact, even in cases of omphalitis without evidence of more serious infection such asnecrotizing fasciitis, mortality is high (in the 10% range).
Omphalitis is most commonly caused by bacteria. The culprits usually areStaphylococcus aureus,Streptococcus, andEscherichia coli.[2] The infection is typically caused by a combination of these organisms and is a mixedGram-positive andGram-negative infection.Anaerobic bacteria can also be involved.[4]
In a normal umbilical stump, you first see the umbilicus lose its characteristic bluish-white, moist appearance and become dry and black[2] After several days to weeks, the stump should fall off and leave a pink fleshy wound which continues to heal as it becomes a normal umbilicus.[2]
For an infected umbilical stump, diagnosis is usually made by the clinical appearance of the umbilical cord stump and the findings on history andphysical examination. There may be some confusion, however, if a well-appearing neonate simply has some redness around the umbilical stump. In fact, a mild degree is common, as is some bleeding at the stump site with detachment of the umbilical cord. The picture may be clouded even further ifcaustic agents have been used to clean the stump or ifsilver nitrate has been used tocauterizegranulomata of the umbilical stump.
During the 1950s there were outbreaks of omphalitis that then led to anti-bacterial treatment of the umbilical cord stump as the new standard of care.[5] It was later determined that in developed countries keeping the cord dry is sufficient, (known as "dry cord care") as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[2] The umbilical cord dries more quickly and separates more readily when exposed to air[2] However, eachhospital/birthing center has its own recommendations for care of theumbilical cord after delivery. Some recommend not using any medicinal washes on the cord. Other popular recommendations include triple dye,betadine,bacitracin, orsilver sulfadiazine. With regards to the medicinal treatments, there is little data to support any one treatment (or lack thereof) over another. However one recent review of many studies supported the use of chlorhexidine treatment as a way to reduce risk of death by 23% and risk of omphalitis by anywhere between 27 and 56% in community settings in underdeveloped countries.[6] This study also found that this treatment increased the time that it would take for the umbilical stump to separate or fall off by 1.7 days.[6] Lastly this large review also supported the notion that in hospital settings no medicinal type of cord care treatment was better at reducing infections compared to dry cord care.[6]
Treatment consists ofantibiotic therapy aimed at the typical bacterialpathogens in addition to supportive care for any complications which might result from the infection itself such ashypotension orrespiratory failure. A typical regimen will includeintravenousantibiotics such as from thepenicillin-group which is active againstStaphylococcus aureus and anaminoglycoside for activity against Gram-negative bacteria. For particularly invasive infections, antibiotics to cover anaerobic bacteria may be added (such asmetronidazole). Treatment is typically for two weeks and often necessitates insertion of acentral venous catheter orperipherally inserted central catheter.
The current incidence in the United States is somewhere around 0.5% per year; overall, the incidence rate for developed world falls between 0.2 and 0.7%. In developing countries, the incidence of omphalitis varies from 2 to 7 for 100 live births.[7] There does not appear to be any racial or ethnic predilection.
Like manybacterialinfections, omphalitis is more common in those patients who have a weakened or deficientimmune system or who are hospitalized and subject to invasive procedures. Therefore, infants who arepremature, sick with other infections such as blood infection (sepsis) orpneumonia, or who haveimmune deficiencies are at greater risk. Infants with normal immune systems are at risk if they have had a prolongedbirth, birth complicated by infection of the placenta (chorioamnionitis), or have had umbilicalcatheters.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)