First Identification of a Patient with Prosthesis-Related Infection Caused by an MCR-1.1-Producing ST131 Escherichia coli After Rhinoplasty

Abstract

Background:The most common procedure of rhinoplasty is the implantation of a synthetic prosthesis. However, the complications, especially postoperative infection, could lead the suboptimal aesthetic outcome, economic losses and health threats. There is currently little literature providing an incidence of rhinoplasty infection and microbiological and antimicrobial resistance situations. Methods: Therefore, we performed a retrospective observational study which included 173 patients who received a rhinoplasty from 1 January 2015, to 31 December 2019, in the department of plastic surgery of a tertiary hospital in Guangzhou, China. The samples from the infection site were collected and performed the bacterial culture. The antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by VITEK and minimum inhibition concentration testing. The whole-genome sequencing was performed by Illumina Hiseq4000 platform. Results: We found that eight (4.6%) patients were infected by S. aureus (6), E. raffinosus (1) and E. coli (1), of which are susceptible to most antimicrobials. Remarkably, E. coli RS1231 was resistant to colistin and polymyxin B which conferred by mcr-1.1 locating on an IncI2 plasmid with 59,170-bp sequence length. Through sequence comparison, we speculate that the pRS1231S-MCR-1 was derived from animal sources. Besides, E. coli RS1231 belongs to ST131 O25:H4-fimH22 pandemic subclone and phylogroup B2, which can induce a broad variety of infections. Conclusion:Our study provided a rhinoplasty infection incidence, microbiological and antimicrobial resistance prevalence data, and revealed, to our knowledge, the first case of postoperative infection of rhinoplasty by mcr-1.1-positive, highly susceptible, and remarkably virulent E. coli isolate.

Colistin-Resistant mcr-1-Positive Escherichia coli ST131-H22 Carrying blaCTX–M–15 and qnrB19 in Agricultural Soil

“…In this context, the pandemic Escherichia coli sequence type 131 (ST131) carrying mcr-type genes has emerged causing extraintestinal infections (Liu et al, 2018;Mamani et al, 2019;Reid et al, 2019;Li et al, 2021). The complex subclonal structure of ST131 elucidated three major clades, each associated with a specific allele of the type 1 fimbrial adhesin gene (fimH), namely clade A with fimH41, clade B with fimH22, and clade C with fimH30 (Petty et al, 2014;Stoesser et al, 2016).…”

Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes and Satisfaction of Rhinoplasty with or without Smasectomy with the Aim of Thinning the Nasal Tip in Patients with Thick Nasal Skin

“…Infection is the most serious complication after rhinoplasty 6 . Processes such as, osteotomies, performed during rhinoplasty breach the periosteum or nasal mucosa, creating a potential route for the spread of infection, which can lead to unsuccessful plastic surgery 7 . The cause of bleeding during rhinoplasty is damage to the large vessels at the site of osteotomy, or damage to the small subdermal vessels during osteotomy 8 .…”

Complications and Treatments of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection After Rhinoplasty With Implants: A Clinical Study

“…However, the infection problem still cannot be ignored. Previous studies reported that the infection rate was about 2.5%, other studies reported the rate was ∼6% 8–10. The infection incidents may injure the emotion and health of patients, and gain additional economic burden.…”

“…Previous studies reported that the infection rate was about 2.5%, other studies reported the rate was ∼6%. [8][9][10] The infection incidents may injure the emotion and health of patients, and gain additional economic burden. The risk factors on infection after rhinoplasty with autologous costal cartilage transplantation include stacked grafts, revision cases, excessive skin stretching, and previous alloplast-related infections.…”

“…developmental characteristics of different patients and achieve better shape effects. 8 In addition to the dysplasia or defect of the orbitozygomatic bone, the soft tissue in the midface area also has hypoplasia to varying degrees in these patients, so simple reconstruction of the orbitozygomatic region sometimes does not bring significant results. Although some patients have orbitozygomatic dysplasia, the anterior one third of the zygomatic arch remains, the collapse of the orbitozygomatic region is not serious, so that the patient's midface can be significantly improved by temporal expansion flap 9 and autologous fat transplantation with reduced trauma.…”