medigraphic.com

2010, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Enf Infec Microbiol 2010; 30 (2)

Chlamydial cervico-vaginitis in women attended in a Hospital in Puebla

Vallejos MC, Enríquez GMA, López VMR, Valdez GJA, Pría KPP

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 49-52
PDF size: 72.10 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Chlamydia trachomatis is a major public health problem and is considered one of the most important pathogens that cause sexually transmitted diseases. The aim of this study was estimate the prevalence and characteristics of Chlamydia trachomatis cervical vaginitis in patients attending at a gynecology department.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. We performed an observational, retrospective and cross-sectional review of medical records of patients treated at Hospital de Acatlan de Osorio from January to December 2008. Chlamydia infection was detected by ELISA and and inclusion bodies flakes.
RESULTS. There were attended 1 210 patients. Out of them, 127 (10.49%) had cervicovaginitis, six (4.72%), Chlamydia trachomatis cervicitis. Prevalence was 0.49%. Average age: 28 years (range 16 to 49 years-old). Average age of onset of sexual life: 18 years (range from 12 to 29). Symptoms: cervix with purulent discharge (100%), yellowish flow (66.6%), dyspareunia (66.6%), dysuria (16.6%), and postcoital bleeding (16.6%). Of six patients, three (50%) didn’t use family planning method; one (16.6%) used IUDs; one (16.6%), oral contraceptives; and another one (16.6%), condom. Of the six cases, four (66.6%) have more than one sexual partner.
CONCLUSION. In about 5% of patients with cervicovaginitis, Chlamydia trachomatis was the etiologic agent. Women with sexual activity and unprotected sex with multiple partners had the major frequency.


REFERENCES

  1. 1.Cruz C, Vázquez R. “Prevalencia de Chlamydia trachoma-tis en población con prácticas de riesgo. Un estudio de tres años”. Enferm Infecc Microbiol 2003; 18: 40-44.

  2. 2.Díaz HJ. “Chlamydia trachomatis cervical. Incidencia en población mexicana de alto riesgo”. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2000; 8: 211-213.

  3. 3.Haddad NG. “The value of Chlamydia trachomatis antibody testing as parto of Soutine infertility investiga-tions”. Hum Reprod 2003; 15: 179-182.

  4. 4.Medina S, Miranda CG. “Evaluation of an indirect immu-nofluorescence essay for detecting Chlamydia tracho-matis as a method for diagnosis tubal factor infertility in Mexican women”. Int J Fertil 2003; 8:74-76.

  5. 5.Guerra FM. “Papel de los anticuerpos en el desarrollo de la infección por Chlamydia trachomatis y su utilidad en el diagnóstico”. Perinatol Reprod Hum 2002; 26: 139-141.

  6. 6.García E, Martínez M et al. “Prevalencia de anticuerpos anti-Chlamydia trachomatis y anti-Neisseria gonorrhoeae en grupos de individuos de la población mexicana”. Sa-lud Pública Méx 2003; 45(supl. 5): S681-S684.

  7. 7.Gutiérrez G. “La medición de la desigualdad en la aten-ción médica. Una estrategia metodológica. Análisis de las características socioeconómicas de las muestras”. Arch Invest Med 2004; 19: 351-355.

  8. 8.Andersen B, Olesen JK et al. “Population-based stra-tegies foroutreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: A randomized, controlled trial”. J Infect Dis 2002; 18: 252-254.

  9. 9.Nelson HD, Helfand M. “Screening for chlamydial infec-tion”. Am J Prev Med 2001; 20: 95-97.

  10. 10.Gatica MR. “Prevalencia de infección cérvico-vaginal por Chlamydia trachomatis en población femenina de la ciudad de Cuernavaca, Morelos, México”. Salud Pú-blica Méx 2004; 34: 301-307.

  11. 11.Black CM. “Current methods of laboratory diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections”. Clin Microbiol Rev 2003; 7: 160-164.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com