Open Access

Risk factors for mortality in patients with bacterial meningitis following a neurosurgical procedure: A meta‑analysis

  • Authors:
    • Wihasto Suryaningtyas
    • Rizki Meizikri
    • Muhammad Arifin Parenrengi
    • Budi Utomo
    • Asra Al Fauzi
    • Abdul Hafid Bajamal
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: August 21, 2024     https://doi.org/10.3892/wasj.2024.274
  • Article Number: 59
  • Copyright : © Suryaningtyas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License [CC BY 4.0].

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The treatment of post‑operative bacterial meningitis (POBM) poses challenges due to multiple factors, including a broader spectrum of pathogens, compromised neurological status or comorbidities at baseline, and concurrent conditions that can lead to delayed diagnosis. Studies examining risk factors for mortality in patients with POBM remain insufficient. The present study conducted a meta‑analysis investigating various determinants considered to affect the mortality rates of patients with POBM. The key factors examined included age, comorbidity, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) lactate levels, CSF glucose levels, initial Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score and the presence of Gram‑negative bacteria. Relevant literature was identified through searches on the PubMed, Science Direct, The Cochrane Library, and the Directory of Open Access Journals databases. The present meta‑analysis adhered to the guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses (PRISMA), employing specific inclusion criteria. A total of 82 publications met the inclusion criteria. The mortality rate due to POBM was found to be 28% [with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 23‑32%]. The presence of comorbidity had a mortality risk ratio of 1.97 (with a 95% CI of 1.58‑2.46). The mean difference for age was 4.65 years (with a 95% CI of 1.78‑7.52). The pooled mean for CSF lactate was 52.88 mg/dl (with a 95% CI of 38.14‑67.62). The mean difference for CSF glucose was ‑13.55 (with a 95% CI of ‑20.95 to ‑6.15). The mean difference for GCS was ‑1.69 (with a 95% CI of ‑2.51 to ‑0.86). There was no significant difference in the mortality risk between those with Gram‑negative bacteria and those with Gram‑positive bacteria. On the whole, these outcomes suggest that among survivors and non‑survivors of POBM, there are no significant differences in age or initial GCS scores. However, the presence of comorbidities increases the risk of mortality, and non‑survivors of POBM have lower CSF glucose levels.

Introduction

Meningitis is particularly devastating due to its potential to cause severe neurological complications (1). Despite worldwide efforts made for the prevention and treatment of meningitis, the mortality rate associated with the disease remains unacceptably high (2,3). The management and outcomes of patients with meningitis are complicated by various factors, including the post-neurosurgical condition (4,5).

Post-operative bacterial meningitis (POBM) is defined as meningitis that occurs following a neurosurgical procedure. Despite the reported rate of only 10% (6,7), POBM is associated with considerable mortality rates ranging from 20 to 50% (8). Overall, there are no substantial differences in the clinical characteristics of patients with POBM and those with community-acquired meningitis (9). While there is extensive knowledge about the factors affecting the outcomes of patients with bacterial meningitis, POBM remains relatively underexplored.

Several publications have noted that the outcomes of patients with bacterial meningitis are affected by factors, such as comorbidities, initial Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score and an advanced age (10-13). Conversely, the majority of studies addressing the mortality rates of patients with POBM have concentrated on surgical issues, such as the volume of intraoperative bleeding, the duration of surgery and post-operative care, including the use of mechanical ventilation (8,14). However, numerous other factors contribute to the complexity of the disease. Gram-negative bacteria, which are more common in POBM compared to community-acquired cases, are considered to be more resistant to treatment (11,12,15-17). Patients with underlying neurosurgical conditions may have more severe baseline health or additional comorbidities, rendering their condition more difficult to treat compared to community-acquired cases (18). Certain cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) parameters, specifically glucose and lactate levels, indicate the severity of inflammation and may thus be associated with increased mortality rates (19).

Existing knowledge about the effects of age, presenting GCS scores, comorbidities, bacterial types and CSF parameters on infectious cases prompted the authors to investigate the effects of these factors on POBM. The present meta-analysis aimed to determine whether these factors significantly contribute to the mortality rate of patients with POBM.

Data and methods

Search strategy

A comprehensive literature search was performed on the PubMed, ScienceDirect, The Cochrane Library and the Directory of Open Access Journals databases to identify relevant studies. Stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and the processes of research selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted meticulously. Potential sources of heterogeneity were extensively examined using subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Types of studies and participants

The present meta-analysis encompasses clinical trials, prospective studies, retrospective studies and case-control studies. Case series with more than two cases were also included. The included studies would have to present data on patients who had undergone neurosurgery or neurosurgical interventions. Studies involving patients who developed meningitis due to an underlying neurological or neurosurgical condition, but were treated conservatively were excluded. To be included in the analysis, studies would have to provide data on at least one of the specified factors.

Types of outcome measures. The primary objective of the present study was to measure the difference between survivors and non-survivors of POBM in terms of the following: i) Risk ratio of mortality as regards the presence of comorbidities; ii) mean difference in age; iii) mean difference of presenting GCS scores; iv) mean difference of CSF lactate levels; v) mean difference of CSF glucose levels; vi) risk ratio of mortality as regards the Gram staining status. The secondary objective of the present study was to conduct a pooled analysis to determine the mortality rate of patients with POBM.

Search methods for the identification of studies

The sampling method utilized in this research involved an online literature search following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Searches were conducted on the PubMed, Cochrane, the Directory of Open Access Journals and ScienceDirect databases. The detailed search strategy is outlined in Table I.

Table I

Search strategy used in the present study.

Table I

Search strategy used in the present study.

Key words
1Neurosurgery
2Spine surgery
3Neurosurgical procedure
4EVD
5CSF shunt
6CSF diversion
7Post-neurosurgical meningitis
8Post-neurosurgery meningitis
9Post-craniotomy meningitis
10EVD-related meningitis
11Nosocomial meningitis
12Post-operative meningitis
Combination
13(#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6)
14(#7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11)
15#13 AND #14

[i] EVD, external ventricular drainage.

Selection of studies

The search results were initially filtered based on the relevance of their titles, followed by the relevance of their abstracts. Non-English publications were automatically excluded. Full-text articles were then evaluated by all authors to identify potentially eligible studies. The reasons for exclusion were documented and reported.

Data extraction and management

The present meta-analysis aimed to examine the clinical, laboratory and microbiological factors affecting the mortality rates of patients with POBM. The clinical factors considered include age, comorbidities and the presenting GCS scores. Laboratory factors encompassed CSF lactate and glucose levels, while microbiological factors involved the Gram staining status of the CSF. Data were extracted and presented in a table. In the case that studies reported the median and range or median and interquartile range for age, GCS, CSF lactate and CSF glucose, these data were converted to the mean and standard deviation using the mathematical methods described in the study by Wan et al (20).

Assessment of risk of bias

All authors evaluated the risk of bias. The biases assessed were those outlined in the Cochrane Collaboration Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials, published in 2011(21). Studies that were not clinical trials were evaluated using Cochrane's ROBINS-I tool (22).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 and STATA, with the results presented as forest plots. Confidence intervals (CI) and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated automatically using the same software. The assessment of heterogeneity was performed using the I2 value during the construction of forest plots with RevMan 5.4 and STATA. In the case that the I2 value was ≥50%, indicating significant heterogeneity, the statistical model was adjusted to a random effects model (21).

Results

Results of the search

The exclusion process, following the PRISMA guidelines, is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Included studies

A total of 80 studies (14,23-101) were incorporated into at least one analysis within the present meta-analysis. Among these, 79 were non-randomized studies, consisting of 61 retrospective studies, nine prospective studies, one propensity-matched cohort, seven case series and three cross-sectional studies. Additionally, there was one clinical trial. The detailed data from each of the included studies are provided in Table II.

Table II

Summary of the findings of the present meta-analysis.

Table II

Summary of the findings of the present meta-analysis.

First author, year of publicationGroup, no. of patientsCSF lactate levels (mg/dl)CSF glucose levels (mg/dl)No. of patients with Gramnegative bacteriaAge (years)No. of patients with comorbiditiesGCS score(Refs.)
Mian, 2023Total, 18  2   (24)
 Survivors, 18       
 Non-survivors, 0       
Stevens, 2023Total, 41      (25)
 Survivors, 36       
 Non-survivors, 5       
Theofanopoulos, 2023Total, 3 40.17±60349.7±14.57  (26)
 Survivors, 1       
 Non-survivors, 2       
Ye, 2023Total, 53 28.8±9.5 55.7±17.09  (23)
 Survivors, n/a       
 Non-survivors, n/a       
Kar, 2022Total, 96 46.89±34.71 30.31±16.85 12.2±3.02(27)
 Survivors, 73       
 Non-survivors, 23       
Pilmis, 2022Total, 82 35.4±46.188248.3±21.5831 (28)
 Survivors, 66       
 Non-survivors, 16       
Pautova, 2022Total, 30 1376±1700 33.8±29.96  (29)
 Survivors, 28       
 Non-survivors, 2       
Solo-Peleteiro, 2022Total, 91  49   (30)
 Survivors, 68       
 Non-survivors, 23       
Zeinalizadeh, 2022Total, 44      (31)
 Survivors, 36       
 Non-survivors, 8  6    
 Gram-negative, 25 494±2004 40.69±15.89 13.54±3.07 
 Gram-positive, 19 117±100 41.56±15.96 14.67±1.41 
Zheng, 2022Total, 207  20736.3±14.834 (32)
 Survivors, 178  17835.9±15.222  
 Non-survivors, 29  2937.9±15.312  
Zheng, 2022Total, 90  9046±25.3625 (33)
 Survivors, 62   46.3±24.4914  
 Non-survivors, 28   46.3±22.711  
Goktas, 2021Total, 2114.7±31.0964.7±101.7 46.14±14.93  (34)
 Survivors, n/a       
 Non-survivors, n/a       
Khan, 2021Total, 12 49.7±29.8 38.4±10.9  (35)
 Survivors, 12       
 Non-survivors, 0       
Li, 2021Total, 25  2544.0±15.77 (36)
 Survivors, 19  1942.1±16.34  
 Non-survivors, 6  650.2±13.23  
Chen, 2020Total, 40      (37)
 Survivors, 29 36.72±18.92920,5±20912.55±2.41 
 Non-survivors, 11 12.96±181120±19,839.45±4.55 
Khan, 2020Total, 8 2.51±1.13831.7±26.3  (38)
 Survivors, n/a       
 Non-survivors, n/a       
Khanum, 2020Total, 6  627.5±30.9  (39)
 Survivors, 6  627.5±30.9   
 Non-survivors, 0  0    
Kul, 2020Total, 3953.13±42.3453.9±29.19  10.9±4.3(40)
 Survivors, 25       
 Non-survivors, 14       
Rodríguez-Lucas, 2020Total, 51   50±18  (41)
 Survivors, 34 32.54±19.9 49±18   
 Non-survivors, 17 29.84±17.6 53±17   
Shi, 2020Total, 164   40.1±15.4207.7±3.8(42)
 Survivors, 126   39.5±15.098.6±3.5 
 Non-survivors, 38   42.0±16.9115.8±3.8 
Ye, 2020Total, 5 13.28±19.42   9±5.09(43)
 Survivors, 4       
 Non-survivors, 1       
Zheng, 2020Total, 58 58.26±24.9040.7±13.69 (44)
 Survivors, n/a       
 Non-survivors, n/a       
Lotfi, 2019Total, 3252.48±34.2727±30.7 45.3±25.6  (45)
 Survivors, 29       
 Non-survivors, 3       
Nisson, 2019Total, 180      (46)
 Survivors, 170   39.3±21.6   
 Non-survivors, 10   42.8±20   
Chusri, 2018Total, 33    14 (47)
 Survivors, 14   41.7±1459.7±2.47 
 Non-survivors, 19   48±28.897.7±2.4 
Jin, 2018Total, 58   41.8+13.9  (48)
 Survivors, 7       
 Non-survivors, 51       
Kammoun, 2018Total, 9 Survivors, 0  548.5±15.8  (49)
 Non-survivors, 9       
Sam, 2018Total, 45    12 (50)
 Survivors, 23  1648.52±15.688.17±3.143 
 Non-survivors, 22  1952.82±16.1747.68±3.198 
Sipahi, 2018Total, 17   52.6±16.85 12.58±3.16(51)
 Survivors, 12   52.75±16.79 12.25±3.64 
 Non-survivors, 5   52.4±18.9 13.4±1.5 
Bari, 2017Total, 66      (52)
 Survivors, 56  2236.1±22.6 11.6±3.84 
 Non-survivors, 10  748.1±20 10.2±4.78 
Hoogmoed, 2017Total, 11 48.6±27.5 50.2±5.93  (53)
 Survivors, n/a       
 Non-survivors, n/a       
Kurtaran, 2017Total, 134      (54)
 Survivors, 81       
 Non-survivors, 53       
 Gram-positive, 586.8±3.453.1±29.7     
 Gram-negative, 768.8±5.544±38.4     
Ortiz, 2018Total, 15443.8±14.944.7±23.42 53±14.2  (55)
 Survivors, n/a       
 Non-survivors, n/a       
Pagliano, 2017Total, 7 15.14±15.3 42.67±13.12  (56)
 Survivors, 5 19±16.95 40.8±5.9   
 Non-survivors, 2 5.5±0.7 62.5±14.84   
Sun, 2018Total, 12   44.5±14.25  (57)
 Survivors, 11   42.2±11.34   
 Non-survivors, 1   72±n/a   
Fotakopoulos, 2016Total, 34      (58)
 Survivors, 23   52.7±2.9   
 Non-survivors, 11   44±4.9   
Li, 2016Total, 132      (59)
 Survivors, 101   43.9±1.5 7.75±0.99 
 Non-survivors, 31   45.7±3.4 6.75±1.21 
Neuberger, 2016Total, 135      (60)
 Survivors, 73 43.25±13.26649.5±17.719  
 Non-survivors, 42 19.5±12.44254.5±17.521  
Shofty, 2016Total, 95      (61)
 IT/IV, 36 153±314,23648.8±15.2   
 Systemic 59 67.3±118.55951.6±19   
Soavi, 2016Total, 65     26(62)
 Survivors, 51       
 Non-survivors, 14       
 EVD, 23   49.3±45.88  
 LD, 12   52.7±44.453  
 Others, 30   50.17±48.2614  
Zhang, 2017Total, 82 43.2±28.8 43.4±13.1  (63)
 Survivors       
 Non-survivors       
Chidambaram, 2015Total, 71   40.25±14.1  (64)
 Survivors, 60       
 Non-survivors, 11       
Mounier, 2015Total, 32 32.7±35.54 50.7±6.2 11.75±1.69(65)
 Survivors, 24       
 Non-survivors, 8       
Muñoz-Gómez, 2015Total, 2263.23±40.9882.14±46.0722   (66)
 Survivors, n/a       
 Non-survivors, n/a       
Tian, 2015Total, 146  114   (67)
 Survivors, 142  n/a    
 Non-survivors, 4  4    
Khan, 2014Total, 8   45±12,98  (101)
 Survivors, 4   41.75±18.02   
 Non-survivors, 4   48.25±6.34   
Kourbeti, 2015Total, 16 48.7±15.4 42.7±29.2616 (14)
 Survivors, 11       
 Non-survivors, 5       
Li, 2015Total, 5054.3±57.7840.2±54.95 43.3±35.1  (68)
 Survivors, n/a       
 Non-survivors, n/a       
Wang, 2014Total, 109      (69)
 Survivors, n/a       
 Non-survivors, n/a       
 IV antibiotics, 9571.3±47.452.4±40.2 53.8±20.249  
 IV + IT, 1467.7±30.536.4±16.0 48.9±20.52  
Williamson, 2014Total, 43   46.7±14.957.5±2.7(70)
 Survivors, 33       
 Non-survivors, 10       
Huang, 2013Total, 1668.79±25.645.19±26.081650.5±11.6  (71)
 Survivors, n/a       
 Non-survivors, n/a       
Khan, 2013Total, 3 12.6±17.17340.3±11.51 (72)
 Survivors, 1    0  
 Non-survivors, 2    1  
Lai, 2013Total, 18   52.7±17.7  (73)
 Survivors, 1234.36±10.8150.76±40.3 53.75±14.32   
 Non-survivors, 628.8±27.7477.82±78.09 52±20.28   
Maskin, 2013Total, 3375.97±32.825.3±17.8 52.3±29.4 11.7±3.87(74)
 Survivors, 27       
 Non-survivors, 6       
Moon, 2013Total, 22 83.75±77.232253.75±16.49 6.75±2.88(75)
 Survivors, 9 29.5±28.7947±14.72 8.25±3.68 
 Non-survivors, 13 86.25±85.71357.25±15.24 6.25±3.28 
Khan, 2012Total, 6 27±8632.5±302 (76)
 Survivors, 5    2  
 Non-survivors, 1    0  
Pintado, 2012Total, 78 52.7±26.43 50.7±19.346 (77)
 Survivors, 58   50.9±18.6   
 Non-survivors, 20   52.8±21.2   
Huang, 2011Total, 21  1150±13.8  (78)
 Survivors, 14  754.14±9.65  
 Non-survivors, 7  447.9±15.46  
Sipahi, 2011Total, 23 40.5±14.692349.86±17.23 8.6±3,04(79)
 Survivors, 16 42.3±11.191646.46±16.37 9.5±2.98 
 Non-survivors, 7 36.57±21.25757.14±17.97 7.42±2.87 
van Mourik, 2011Total, 82 40.2±29.8 56.36±13.65  (80)
 Survivors, 71       
 Non-survivors, 11       
Chang, 2010Total, 6076.2±80.156.7±38.62456±15 10±4(82)
 Survivors, 51  2956±152411±3,4 
 Non-survivors, 9  758±1597.1±3.2 
Chang, 2010Total, 911.6±13.859.94±113.7948.9±20.063 (81)
 Survivors, 7   42.85±17.67   
 Non-survivors, 2   70±14.14   
Tuon, 2010Total, 22 29±28.92244.3±19.86  (83)
 Survivors, 6 46.16±24.7631.3±18.3   
 Non-survivors, 16 22.5±28.41649.18±18.64   
Guardado, 2008Total, 51       
 Survivors, 34 31.48±15.71 40±17  (84)
 Non-survivors, 17 23.24±13.36 50±11   
Metan, 2007Total, 28  2847.5±16.9  (85)
 Survivors, 8  830.5±11.1   
 Non-survivors, 20  2054.3±13.7   
Guardado, 2006Total, 20   55.1±19.5  (86)
 Survivors, 16 49±24 54.68±21.23   
 Non-survivors, 4 46±25 56.75±12.73   
Arda, 2005Total, 10 33±22 34.1±25.6  (87)
 Survivors, 9   30.7±24.01   
 Non-survivosr, 1   50±n/a   
Briggs, 2004Total, 29 46±19.9    (88)
 Survivors, 25       
 Non-survivors, 4       
Chang, 2002Total, 3 50.52±6.2 67.3±5.7  (89)
 Survivors, 2       
 Non-survivors, 1       
Huang, 2001Total, 798.8±10031.46±50.5757.4±12.8  (90)
 Survivors, 6    2  
 Non-survivors, 1    1  
Chang, 2000Total, 8112.7±122.6 747±21.26  (91)
 Survivors, 779.92±94.87 643.14±19.71   
 Non-survivors, 1309.5±n/a 174±n/a   
Lu, 2000Total, 81      (92)
 Survivors, 56       
 Non-survivors, 25       
Lu, 1999Total, 30  30   (93)
 Survivors, 1983±6834±34     
 Non-survivors, 1198±4643±58     
Jiménez-Mejías, 1997Total, 8 14±15849.37±15.31  (94)
 Survivors, 6 53.3±15.66    
 Non-survivors, 2 37.5±3.532    
Druel, 1996Total, 7 Survivors, 5 23.4±19.8 47±15  (95)
 Non-survivors, 2       
Tang, 1995Total, 8157.9±77.814.41±0.63845.18±20.153 (96)
 Survivors, 7    3  
 Non-survivors, 1    0  
Siegman-Igra, 1993Total, 24   44.23±21.9  (97)
 Survivors, 20   43.6±23.4   
 Non-survivors, 4   41.2±14.6   
Mancebo, 1986Total, 9  9   (98)
 Survivors, 6 84.24±29.16     
 Non-survivors, 3 32.94±8.1     
Mombelli, 1983Total, 15   45.3±15.7  (99)
 Survivors, 4   33.75±22.95   
 Non-survivors, 11   48.4±12.52   
Tacconelli, 2008Total, 176      (100)
 Vancomycin prophylaxis  1149±20   
 Cefazoline prophylaxis  854±18   

[i] EVD, external ventricular drainage; IV, intravenous; IT, intrathecal; LD, lumbar drainage.

Risk of bias of clinical trial

Of note, one study (100) was a clinical trial, and its risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane's ROBINS II tool. The blinding of outcome assessment was judged to be high-risk due to the failure of that study to adequately address this bias domain (Table III).

Table III

Risk of bias of clinical trial studies.

Table III

Risk of bias of clinical trial studies.

First author, year of publicationRandom sequence generationAllocation assessmentBlinding of concealment outcomeIncomplete outcomeSelective ReportingOther bias(Refs.)
Tacconelli, 2008LLHLLL(100)

[i] L, low; I, intermediate; H, high; NI, could not be determined.

The bias of the remaining studies was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. Several studies were identified as having a high risk of confounding bias, primarily as they presented data in median form rather than as the mean (14,23,26-29,33-35,38,45,47,53,55,59,61,62,64,65,70,72,74,77,80,81,88-90). As aforementioned, these data were mathematically transformed into mean values, which introduced a potential source of bias (20). Case series were inherently considered to carry a high risk. Of note, three studies were judged to have a high risk in the outcome domain due to incomplete data on the non-survivors (57), unusually large standard deviation (31), and incomplete reporting of GCS scores (58). Studies that presented a high risk in the selection domain typically focused solely on a specific bacterial species or procedure. This approach may not accurately represent the actual number of cases at the respective institutions of the authors (Table IV).

Table IV

Risk of bias of non-clinical trial studies.

Table IV

Risk of bias of non-clinical trial studies.

First author, year of publicationType of studyConfoundingSelectionInterventionDeviationMissing dataOutcomeReportingOverall classification(Refs.)
Mian, 2023RetrospectiveLHNINILLLI(24)
Stevens, 2023RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(25)
Theofanopoulos, 2023Case seriesHHNINILLLH(26)
Ye, 2023ProspectiveHLNINILLLI(23)
Kar, 2022RetrospectiveHHNINILLLH(27)
Pilmis, 2022RetrospectiveHHNINILLLH(28)
Pautova, 2022 Cross-sectionalHLNINILLHH(29)
Solo-Peleteiro, 2022RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(30)
Zenalizadeh, 2022RetrospectiveLHNINILHLH(31)
Zheng, 2022RetrospectiveHLNINILLLI(32)
Zheng, 2022RetrospectiveLHNINILLLI(33)
Goktas, 2021 Cross-sectionalHHNINILLLH(34)
Khan, 2021RetrospectiveHHNINILLLH(35)
Li, 2021ProspectiveLLNINILLHI(36)
Chen, 2020RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(37)
Khan, 2020RetrospectiveHLNINILLLI(38)
Khanum, 2020Case seriesHHNINILLLH(39)
Kul, 2020RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(40)
Rodríguez-Lucas, 2020RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(41)
Shi, 2020RetrospectiveLLNINIILLL(42)
Ye, 2020RetrospectiveLHNINILLLI(43)
Zheng, 2020Case-controlHLNINIILLI(44)
Lotfi, 2019ProspectiveHHNINILLLH(45)
Nisson, 2019RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(46)
Chusri, 2018RetrospectiveHLNINILLII(47)
Jin, 2018RetrospectiveLHNINILLLI(48)
Kammoun, 2018ProspectiveLLNINILLLL(49)
Sam, 2018RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(50)
Sipahi, 2018RetrospectiveLLNINILLHI(51)
Bari, 2017RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(52)
Hoogmoed, 2017RetrospectiveHHNINILLLH(53)
Kurtaran, 2017ProspectiveLLNINILLHI(54)
Ortiz, 2018 Cross-sectionalHLNINILLLI(55)
Pagliano, 2017RetrospectiveLLNINIHLLI(56)
Sun, 2018RetrospectiveLLNINILHLI(57)
Fotakopoulos, 2016RetrospectiveLLNINILHHH(58)
Li, 2016RetrospectiveHLNINILLLI(59)
Neuberger, 2016RetrospectiveHHNINILLLH(60)
Shofty, 2016Propensity-matched cohortHHHNIILLH(61)
Soavi, 2016RetrospectiveHHNINILLLH(62)
Zhang, 2017ProspectiveLLLLLLLL(63)
Chidambaram, 2015RetrospectiveHLNINILLLI(64)
Mounier, 2015RetrospectiveHHNINILLHH(65)
Muñoz-Gómez, 2015RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(66)
Tian, 2015RetrospectiveLLNINILLHI(67)
Khan, 2014RetrospectiveLLNINILLIL(101)
Kourbeti, 2015RetrospectiveHLNINILLLI(14)
Li, 2015RetrospectiveHLNINILLLI(68)
Wang, 2014RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(69)
Williamson, 2014RetrospectiveHLNINILLLI(70)
Huang, 2013RetrospectiveLLNINIHLLI(71)
Khan, 2013Case seriesHLNINILLLI(72)
Lai, 2013RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(73)
Maskin, 2013ProspectiveHLLLLLLI(74)
Moon 2013RetrospectiveLHNINIHLLH(75)
Khan, 2012RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(76)
Pintado, 2012RetrospectiveHLNINILLLI(77)
Huang, 2011RetrospectiveLLNINILLHI(78)
Sipahi, 2011RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(79)
van Mourik, 2011ProspectiveHHNINILLLH(80)
Chang, 2010RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(82)
Chang, 2010RetrospectiveHLNINILLHH(81)
Tuon, 2010RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(83)
Guardado, 2008RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(84)
Metan, 2007RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(85)
Guardado, 2006RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(86)
Arda, 2005RetrospectiveLHNINILLLI(87)
Briggs, 2004RetrospectiveHHNINILLLH(88)
Chang, 2002Case seriesHHNINILLLH(89)
Huang, 2001RetrospectiveLHNINIHLLH(90)
Chang, 2000RetrospectiveLLNINIILLL(91)
Lu, 2000RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(92)
Lu, 1999RetrospectiveLHNINIHLLH(93)
Jiménez-Mejías, 1997RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(94)
Druel, 1996ProspectiveLLLLLLLL(95)
Tang, 1995RetrospectiveLLNINIHLII(96)
Siegman-Igra, 1993RetrospectiveLHNINILLLI(97)
Mancebo, 1986RetrospectiveLLNINILLLL(98)
Mombelli, 1983RetrospectiveLLNINILLIL(99)

[i] L, low; I, intermediate; H, high; NI, could not be determined.

Mortality rate of patients with POBM

A total of 70 studies reported the number of non-survivors, allowing for a pooled analysis of the mortality rates of patients with POBM. These studies cumulatively included 3,235 POBM cases with 853 fatalities. The pooled analysis indicated a median mortality rate of 28% (95% CI, 23-32%). This analysis was considered homogenous (I²=36.19%) (Fig. 2).

Comorbidity and mortality

A total of 19 studies presented data on the presence of comorbidities in both survivors and non-survivors. These studies included 97 fatalities out of 235 cases with comorbidities and 129 fatalities out of 648 cases without comorbidities. The meta-analysis indicated a risk ratio of 1.97 (95% CI, 1.58-2.46), suggesting that patients with comorbidities have a higher risk of mortality (Fig. 3).

Age and mortality

A total of 32 studies reported the mean age of the patients with POBM who survived and those who did not, encompassing a total of 1,705 cases with 497 fatalities. The meta-analysis revealed a small mean age difference of 4.65 years (95% CI, 1.78-7.52) between survivors and non-survivors (Fig. 4). This analysis was deemed heterogeneous with an I² of 71% (Fig. 4).

CSF glucose and mortality

In total, 15 studies provided data on CSF glucose levels for both survivors and non-survivors, comprising a total of 164 non-survivors and 325 survivors. The meta-analysis indicated that the mean CSF glucose level in survivors is 13.55 mg/dl lower than that of non-survivors (95% CI, -20.95 to -6.15). This analysis revealed heterogeneity (I²=67%). The pooled analysis revealed that the mean CSF glucose level in survivors was 34.78 mg/dl (95% CI, 24.03-45.52 mg/dl) (I²=0%), while in non-survivors it was 27.29 mg/dl (95% CI, 12.96-41.63) (Fig. 5).

CSF lactate and mortality

A total of 15 studies provided information on CSF lactate levels, although none differentiated between survivors and non-survivors. Consequently, a mean difference analysis could not be conducted between these groups. Instead, a pooled analysis was performed to determine the average CSF lactate level in POBM cases, resulting in an average of 52.88 mg/dl (95% CI, 38.14-67.62) (Fig. 6).

Gram staining status and mortality

Only seven studies provided data on the Gram staining status of both survivors and non-survivors. These studies included 245 Gram-negative cases and 257 Gram-positive cases. The meta-analysis produced a risk ratio of 1.42 (95% CI, 0.96-2.10; I²=18%), indicating no significant difference in mortality risk between the two groups (Fig. 7).

GCS and mortality

Of note, 10 studies provided data on the presenting GCS scores of both survivors and non-survivors. These studies included a total of 442 survivors and 160 non-survivors. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between the two groups (mean difference, -1.69 years; 95% CI, -2.51 to -0.86) (Fig. 8).

Discussion

There is a lack of sufficient studies on the mortality rate of POBM. The present meta-analysis determined that more than one quarter of POBM cases result in mortality (28%; 95% CI, 23-32%). Chouhdari et al (8) reported mortality rate of 50% in their study, while others have reported a considerably lower number (0.3-10%) (4,102,103). This discrepancy may be attributed to the sometimes non-specific clinical presentation and CSF parameters of patients with POBM (104,105), which may cause underreporting.

The present meta-analysis determined that, on average, POBM non-survivors tend to be older. A similar pattern is evident in community-acquired meningitis, where the mortality rate is generally higher among elderly patients (106). In a previous retrospective study on bacterial meningitis, Sunwoo et al (107) discovered that the mortality risk for elderly patients did not differ significantly from that of younger individuals (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.0-1.06). This outcome contradicts the fundamental concept of aging and immunology. It is well-established that aging is associated with immunosenescence, particularly in individuals >60 years of age. Immunosenescence weakens both innate and adaptive immune responses, leading to more severe infections (108).

To the best of our knowledge, Shi et al (42) are the only researchers who have examined the impact of comorbidities on mortality risk in POBM cases. They discovered that patients with POBM with comorbidities were more susceptible to poor outcomes (42). Conversely, studies focusing on comorbidity and mortality in bacterial meningitis are more prevalent. Some of these studies have indicated that patients with comorbidities are >3-fold more likely to experience adverse outcomes (14,109). In a prospective cohort study, van Veen et al (11) concluded that individuals with diabetes had a higher likelihood of developing bacterial meningitis. The prognosis of patients with comorbidities is closely linked to their immune function. Patients with diabetes typically have elevated levels of circulating inflammatory cytokines, and hyperglycemia hinders the normal response of leukocytes to pathogens (110). Chronic kidney disease is known to elevate inflammatory factors in the bloodstream and impair leukocyte function (111).

CSF lactate levels in meningitis cases have been previously studied, with outcomes highlighting their diagnostic value (112,113). Lotfi et al (45) identified a threshold value of 4 mmol/l (equivalent to 36.04 mg/dl) for the diagnosis of POBM. In a previous study on tuberculous meningitis, Nuwagira et al (114) determined that CSF lactate was a crucial diagnostic test. However, it did not provide any predictive value for mortality within the first 2 weeks (114). There is a lack of studies comparing CSF lactate levels between POBM survivors and non-survivors, preventing any comparisons in the present meta-analysis. However, the pooled analysis performed herein indicated a CSF lactate value of 52.88 mg/dl (95% CI, 38.14-67.62).

CSF glucose levels in POBM cases have not been extensively studied; yet, they are frequently used as a diagnostic tool for bacterial meningitis. The present meta-analysis revealed that non-survivors tend to have lower average CSF glucose levels. Baud et al (19) found that higher levels of CSF inflammation were linked to low CSF glucose in bacterial meningitis. The notion of using CSF glucose as a prognostic marker is based on the understanding that microbes consume glucose for metabolism. Consequently, severe inflammation, which demands higher levels of glucose, would lead to more severe clinical symptoms and a poorer prognosis (19). The present meta-analysis revealed that non-survivors had reduced levels of CSF glucose.

Despite the established knowledge that Gram-negative bacteria are more virulent and resistant to antibiotics, the present study did not identify a higher risk of mortality for infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria compared to those caused by Gram-positive bacteria. This outcome contradicts previous concepts, which suggest that meningitis from Gram-negative bacteria typically results in higher mortality rates (12). Additionally, patients with POBM with Gram-negative infections are generally considered to be at a greater risk of treatment failure and adverse outcomes (32). In theory, Gram-negative bacteria are more difficult to treat due to their distinct characteristics, such as the presence of an outer membrane and several unique enzymes that aid in antibiotic resistance (115). The discrepancy between the outcomes of the present meta-analysis and previous knowledge of Gram-negative bacteria may stem from some studies reporting only specific types of bacteria (28,30-33,35-37,39,41-43,47,51,57,69,71,72,75-77,79,81,83-85,87,88,93,96-100). This selective reporting could lead to an unfair comparison between meningitis caused by Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria.

In summary, the present study has several limitations which should be mentioned: i) It did not include subgroup analyses for different types of comorbidities; ii) it lacks subgroup analyses for antibiotic usage; and iii) it did not categorize patients based on the type of surgical intervention. Thus, further research addressing these aspects is required in order to provide a clearer understanding of the prognostic factors for POBM.

In conclusion, the present meta-analysis provided critical insight into the factors affecting mortality in patients with POBM. The results presented herein can assist in clinical decision-making and direct future research in the field of surgical infectious complications. Based on these outcomes, the following conclusions can be drawn: i) There is no marked difference between POBM non-survivors and survivors in terms of age; ii) there is no marked difference between POBM non-survivors and survivors in terms of presenting GCS scores; iii) POBM non-survivors have an average CSF glucose of <30 mg/dl; iv) patients with POBM with comorbidities are at a higher risk of mortality; and v) more than one quarter of patients with POBM do not survive.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Funding: No funding was received.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' contributions

WS constructed the basic concept of the study, and was also involved in the editing and reviewing of the manuscript, as well as in data extraction and study supervision. RM constructed the basic concept of the study, and was also involved in the editing of the manuscript, in the literature search, data extraction and statistical analysis. MAP was involved in the reviewing and editing of the manuscript, in the conception of the study, in the literature search and in study supervision. BU was involved in data extraction, in the literature search and in the statistical analysis. AAF was involved in the reviewing of the manuscript, in the literature search, in the statistical analysis, and in study supervision. AHB was involved in the conception of the study, in the reviewing and editing of the manuscript and in study supervision. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. WS and RM confirm the authenticity of all the raw data.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1 

Jit M: The risk of sequelae due to pneumococcal meningitis in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect. 61:114–124. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

2 

Edmond K, Clark A, Korczak VS, Sanderson C, Griffiths UK and Rudan I: Global and regional risk of disabling sequelae from bacterial meningitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 10:317–328. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

3 

Stein-Zamir C, Shoob H, Sokolov I, Kunbar A, Abramson N and Zimmerman D: The clinical features and long-term sequelae of invasive meningococcal disease in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 33:777–779. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

4 

van de Beek D, Drake JM and Tunkel AR: Nosocomial bacterial meningitis. N Engl J Med. 362:146–154. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

5 

Tunkel AR, Hasbun R, Bhimraj A, Byers K, Kaplan SL, Scheld WM, van de Beek D, Bleck TP, Garton HJL and Zunt JR: 2017 Infectious Diseases Society of America's Clinical Practice Guidelines for Healthcare-Associated Ventriculitis and Meningitis. Clin Infect Dis. 64:e34–e65. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

6 

Kono Y, Prevedello DM, Snyderman CH, Gardner PA, Kassam AB, Carrau RL and Byers KE: One thousand endoscopic skull base surgical procedures demystifying the infection potential: Incidence and description of postoperative meningitis and brain abscesses. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 32:77–83. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

7 

McClelland S III and Hall WA: Postoperative central nervous system infection: Incidence and associated factors in 2111 neurosurgical procedures. Clin Infect Dis. 45:55–59. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

8 

Chouhdari A, Ebrahimzadeh K, Rezaei O, Samadian M, Sharifi G and Hajiesmaeili M: Investigating related factors with mortality rate in patients with postoperative meningitis: One longitudinal follow up study in Iran. Iran J Neurol. 17:82–85. 2018.PubMed/NCBI

9 

Lin TY, Chen WJ, Hsieh MK, Lu ML, Tsai TT, Lai PL, Fu TS, Niu CC and Chen LH: Postoperative meningitis after spinal surgery: A review of 21 cases from 20,178 patients. BMC Infect Dis. 14(220)2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

10 

Koopmans MM, Brouwer MC, Bijlsma MW, Bovenkerk S, Keijzers W, van der Ende A and van de Beek D: Listeria monocytogenes sequence type 6 and increased rate of unfavorable outcome in meningitis: Epidemiologic cohort study. Clin Infec Dis. 57:247–253. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

11 

van Veen KEB, Brouwer MC, van der Ende A and van de Beek D: Bacterial meningitis in diabetes patients: A population-based prospective study. Sci Rep. 6(36996)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

12 

Pomar V, de Benito N, Mauri A, Coll P, Gurguí M and Domingo P: Characteristics and outcome of spontaneous bacterial meningitis in patients with diabetes mellitus. BMC Infect Dis. 20(292)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

13 

Lucas MJ, Brouwer MC, van der Ende A and van de Beek D: Outcome in patients with bacterial meningitis presenting with a minimal Glasgow Coma Scale score. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 1(e9)2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

14 

Kourbeti IS, Vakis AF, Ziakas P, Karabetsos D, Potolidis E, Christou S and Samonis G: Infections in patients undergoing craniotomy: Risk factors associated with post-craniotomy meningitis. J Neurosurg. 122:1113–1119. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

15 

Dzupova O, Rozsypal H, Prochazka B and Benes J: Acute bacterial meningitis in adults: Predictors of outcome. Scand J Infect Dis. 41:348–354. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

16 

Brouwer MC, Tunkel AR and van de Beek D: Epidemiology, diagnosis, and antimicrobial treatment of acute bacterial meningitis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 23:467–492. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

17 

Pomar V, Benito N, López-Contreras J, Coll P, Gurguí M and Domingo P: Spontaneous gram-negative bacillary meningitis in adult patients: Characteristics and outcome. BMC Infect Dis. 13(451)2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

18 

Hussein K, Bitterman R, Shofty B, Paul M and Neuberger A: Management of post-neurosurgical meningitis: Narrative review. Clin Microbiol Infect. 23:621–628. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

19 

Baud MO, Vitt JR, Robbins NM, Wabl R, Wilson MR, Chow FC, Gelfand JM, Josephson SA and Miller S: Pleocytosis is not fully responsible for low CSF glucose in meningitis. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 5(e425)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

20 

Wan X, Wang W, Liu J and Tong T: Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 14(135)2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

21 

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, et al: The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 343(d5928)2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

22 

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, et al: ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 355(i4919)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

23 

Ye L, Ji X, Song Z, Guan L, Zhao L, Wang W and Du W: Clinical value of glycan changes in cerebrospinal fluid for evaluation of post-neurosurgical bacterial meningitis with hemorrhagic stroke patients. Diagnostics (Basel). 13(187)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

24 

Mian SY, Mancuso-Marcello M, Kandasamy J, Jamjoom AAB and Woodfield J: Comparison of external ventricular drains with ventricular access devices for the emergency management of adult hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg: Jun 26, 2023 (Epub ahead of print).

25 

Stevens AR, Gilbody H, Greig J, Usuah J, Alagbe B, Preece A, Soon WC, Chowdhury YA, Toman E, Chelvarajah R, et al: Cerebrospinal fluid diversion for refractory intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain Injury: A single center experience. World Neurosurg. 176:e265–e272. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

26 

Theofanopoulos A, Fermeli D, Vekios D, Bizos A, Marangos M, Constantoyannis C, Panagiotopoulos V and Assimakopoulos SF: Successful treatment of pan-drug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii nosocomial meningitis/ventriculitis by combined intravenous and intrathecal colistin-tigecycline administration: A case series. Infez Med. 31:103–107. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

27 

Kar M, Jamwal A, Dubey A, Sahu C and Patel SS: Bacterial Meningitis among Intracranial Surgery Patients at a University Hospital in Northern India. Indian J Crit Care Med. 26:1244–1252. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

28 

Pilmis B, Péan de Ponfilly G, Farfour E, Ranc AG, Fihman V, Bille E, Dortet L, Degand N, Morand P, Potron A, et al: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of Klebsiella spp. meningitis in France. Infect Dis Now. 52:82–86. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

29 

Pautova AK, Meglei AY, Chernevskaya EA, Alexandrova IA and Beloborodova NV: 4-Hydroxyphenyllactic Acid in Cerebrospinal Fluid as a Possible Marker of Post-Neurosurgical Meningitis: Retrospective Study. J Pers Med. 12(399)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

30 

Solo-Peleteiro A, Diéguez P, Pérez-Rodríguez MT, Galárraga RA, Pérez-Landeiro A and Álvarez-Fernández M: Cerebrospinal fluid drainage-related ventriculitis due to multidrug-resistant microorganisms. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin (Engl Ed). 40:322–325. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

31 

Zeinalizadeh M, Yazdani R, Feizabadi MM, Shadkam M, Seifi A, Dehghan Manshadi SA, Abdollahi A and Salehi M: Post-neurosurgical meningitis; gram negative bacilli vs. gram positive cocci. Caspian J Intern Med. 13:469–474. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

32 

Zheng G, Wang S, Lv H and Zhang G: Nomogram analysis of clinical characteristics and mortality risk factor of non-fermentative gram-negative bacteria-induced post-neurosurgical meningitis. Infect Drug Resist. 15:6379–6389. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

33 

Zheng G, Shi Y, Cao Y, Qian L, Lv H, Zhang L and Zhang G: Clinical feature, therapy, antimicrobial resistance gene distribution, and outcome of nosocomial meningitis induced by multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae-A longitudinal cohort study from Two Neurosurgical Centers in Northern China. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 12(839257)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

34 

Goktas SY, Oral AY, Yılmaz E, Akalın EH, Guvenc F, Ozkaya G, Kocaeli H, Dogan S, Yılmazlar S and Oral HB: Diagnostic value of cerebrospinal fluid levels of D-lactate, tumour necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6, -8, and -17 in suspected nosocomial meningitis. Singapore Med J. 65:430–437. 2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

35 

Khan FY: Adult coagulase-negative staphylococcal meningitis in qatar: Clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes. Asian J Neurosurg. 16:714–718. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

36 

Li Y, Hu D, Ma X, Li D, Tian D, Gong Y and Jiang X: Convergence of carbapenem resistance and hypervirulence leads to high mortality in patients with postoperative Klebsiella pneumoniae meningitis. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 27:95–100. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

37 

Chen Y, Li F, Zhu M, Liu L and Luo Y: Outcome and factors of patients with nosocomial meningitis by multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in a tertiary hospital in China: A retrospective study. Br J Neurosurg. 34:324–328. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

38 

Yousef Khan F: Enterococcal meningitis/ventriculitis in Qatar-Experience with eight patients. Qatar Med J. 2020(46)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

39 

Khanum I, Ilyas A and Ali F: Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Meningitis-A case series and review of the literature. Cureus. 12(e11221)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

40 

Kul G, Sencan I, Kul H, Korkmaz N and Altunay E: The role of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in the diagnosis of post-neurosurgical meningitis. Turk Neurosurg. 30:513–519. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

41 

Rodríguez-Lucas C, Fernández J, Martínez-Sela M, Álvarez-Vega M, Moran N, Garcia A, Menendez C, García-Prieto E and Rodríguez-Guardado A: Pseudomonas aeruginosa nosocomial meningitis in neurosurgical patients with intraventricular catheters: Therapeutic approach and review of the literature. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin (Engl Ed). 38:54–58. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar : (In English, Spanish).

42 

Shi YJ, Zheng GH, Qian LY, Qsman RA, Li GG and Zhang GJ: Longitudinal analysis of risk factors for clinical outcomes of enterobacteriaceae meningitis/encephalitis in post-neurosurgical patients: A comparative cohort study during 2014-2019. Infect Drug Resist. 13:2161–2170. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

43 

Ye J, Tan LH, Shen ZP, Yu YS, Lai DM, Fan J and Shu Q: Polymyxin for the treatment of intracranial infections of extensively drug-resistant bacteria in children after neurosurgical operation. World J Pediatr. 16:528–532. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

44 

Zheng G, Li S, Zhao M, Yang X, Zhang Y, Deng J, Luo Y, Lv H and Zhang G: Time to positive culture can differentiate post-neurosurgical coagulase-negative Staphylococci other than S epidermidis meningitis from contamination: A case-control observational study. J Clin Lab Anal. 24(e23447)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

45 

Lotfi R, Ines B, Aziz DM and Mohamed B: Cerebrospinal fluid lactate as an indicator for post-neurosurgical bacterial meningitis. Indian J Crit Care Med. 23:127–130. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

46 

Nisson PL, James WS, Gaub MB, Borgstrom M, Weinand M and Anton R: Peripheral white blood cell count as a screening tool for ventriculostomy-related infections. J Clin Neurosci. 67:52–58. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

47 

Chusri S, Sakarunchai I, Kositpantawong N, Panthuwong S, Santimaleeworagun W, Pattharachayakul S, Singkhamanan K and Doi Y: Outcomes of adjunctive therapy with intrathecal or intraventricular administration of colistin for post-neurosurgical meningitis and ventriculitis due to carbapenem-resistant acinetobacter baumannii. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 51:646–650. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

48 

Jin Y, Liu X, Gao L, Guo X, Wang Q, Bao X, Deng K, Yao Y, Feng M, Lian W, et al: Risk factors and microbiology of meningitis and/or bacteremia after transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma. World Neurosurg. 110:e851–e863. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

49 

Kammoun B, Kolsi F, Borni M, Abdelhedi A, Abdelmouleh S, Jarraya F, Bouhamed O, Kammoun O, Elleuch E and Boudawara MZ: Applicability, safety, and cost-effectiveness of improvised external ventricular drainage: An observational study of tunisian neurosurgery inpatients. World Neurosurg. 119:428–436. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

50 

Sam JE, Lim CL, Sharda P and Wahab NA: The organisms and factors affecting outcomes of external ventricular drainage catheter-related ventriculitis: A penang experience. Asian J Neurosurg. 13:250–257. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

51 

Sipahi OR, Mermer S, Demirdal T, Ulu AC, Fillatre P, Ozcem SB, Kaya Ş, Şener A, Bulut C, Tekin R, et al: Tigecycline in the treatment of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii meningitis: Results of the Ege study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 172:31–38. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

52 

Bari ME, Haider G, Malik K, Waqas M, Mahmood SF and Siddiqui M: Outcomes of post-neurosurgical ventriculostomy-associated infections. Surg Neurol Int. 8(124)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

53 

Hoogmoed J, van de Beek D, Coert BA, Horn J, Vandertop WP and Verbaan D: Clinical and laboratory characteristics for the diagnosis of bacterial ventriculitis after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 26:362–370. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

54 

Kurtaran B, Kuscu F, Ulu A, Inal AS, Komur S, Kibar F, Cetinalp NE, Ozsoy KM, Arslan YK, Yilmaz DM, et al: The causes of post-operative meningitis: The comparison of gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens. Turk Neurosurg. 28:589–596. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

55 

Hernández Ortiz OH, García García HI, Muñoz Ramírez F, Cardona Flórez JS, Gil Valencia BA, Medina Mantilla SE, Moreno Ochoa MJ, Sará Ochoa JE and Jaimes F: Development of a prediction rule for diagnosing postoperative meningitis: A cross-sectional study. J Neurosurg. 128:262–271. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

56 

Pagliano P, Caggiano C, Ascione T, Solari D, Di Flumeri G, Cavallo LM, Tortora F and Cappabianca P: Characteristics of meningitis following transsphenoidal endoscopic surgery: A case series and a systematic literature review. Infection. 45:841–848. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

57 

Sun L, Wang X and Li Z: Successful treatment of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii meningitis with ampicillin sulbactam in primary hospital. Br J Neurosurg. 32:642–645. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

58 

Fotakopoulos G, Makris D, Chatzi M, Tsimitrea E, Zakynthinos E and Fountas K: Outcomes in meningitis/ventriculitis treated with intravenous or intraventricular plus intravenous colistin. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 158:603–610. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

59 

Li Z, Wu X, Yu J, Wu X, Du Z, Sun Y, Yuan Q and Hu J: Empirical combination antibiotic therapy improves the outcome of nosocomial meningitis or ventriculitis in neuro-critical care unit patients. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 17:465–472. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

60 

Neuberger A, Shofty B, Bishop B, Naffaa ME, Binawi T, Babich T, Rappaport ZH, Zaaroor M, Sviri G, Yahav D and Paul M: Risk factors associated with death or neurological deterioration among patients with Gram-negative postneurosurgical meningitis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 22:573.e1–e4. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

61 

Shofty B, Neuberger A, Naffaa ME, Binawi T, Babitch T, Rappaport ZH, Zaaroor M, Sviri G and Paul M: Intrathecal or intraventricular therapy for post-neurosurgical Gram-negative meningitis: Matched cohort study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 22:66–70. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

62 

Soavi L, Rosina M, Stefini R, Fratianni A, Cadeo B, Magri S, Latronico N, Fontanella M and Signorini L: Post-neurosurgical meningitis: Management of cerebrospinal fluid drainage catheters influences the evolution of infection. Surg Neurol Int. 7 (Suppl 39):S927–S934. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

63 

Zhang Y, Zhang J, Chen Y, Yu J, Cao G, Wu X, Chen M, Wu J and Zhao X: Evaluation of meropenem penetration into cerebrospinal fluid in patients with meningitis after neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 98:525–531. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

64 

Chidambaram S, Nair MN, Krishnan SS, Cai L, Gu W and Vasudevan MC: Postoperative central nervous system infection after neurosurgery in a modernized, resource-limited tertiary Neurosurgical Center in South Asia. World Neurosurg. 84:1668–1673. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

65 

Mounier R, Lobo D, Cook F, Fratani A, Attias A, Martin M, Chedevergne K, Bardon J, Tazi S, Nebbad B, et al: Clinical, biological, and microbiological pattern associated with ventriculostomy-related infection: a retrospective longitudinal study. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 157:2209–2217; discussion 2217. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

66 

Muñoz-Gómez S, Wirkowski E and Cunha BA: Post craniotomy extra-ventricular drain (EVD) associated nosocomial meningitis: CSF diagnostic criteria. Heart Lung. 44:158–160. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

67 

Tian R, Hao S, Hou Z, Gao Z and Liu B: The characteristics of post-neurosurgical bacterial meningitis in elective neurosurgery in 2012: A single institute study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 139:41–45. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

68 

Li Y, Zhang G, Ma R, Du Y, Zhang L, Li F, Fang F, Lv H, Wang Q, Zhang Y and Kang X: The diagnostic value of cerebrospinal fluids procalcitonin and lactate for the differential diagnosis of post-neurosurgical bacterial meningitis and aseptic meningitis. Clin Biochem. 48:50–54. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

69 

Wang JH, Lin PC, Chou CH, Ho CM, Lin KH, Tsai CT, Wang JH, Chi CY and Ho MW: Intraventricular antimicrobial therapy in postneurosurgical Gram-negative bacillary meningitis or ventriculitis: A hospital-based retrospective study. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 47:204–210. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

70 

Williamson RA, Phillips-Bute BG, McDonagh DL, Gray MC, Zomorodi AR, Olson DM, Britz GW, Laskowitz DT and James ML: Predictors of extraventricular drain-associated bacterial ventriculitis. J Crit Care. 29:77–82. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

71 

Huang CR, Chen SF, Tsai NW, Chang CC, Lu CH, Chuang YC, Chien CC and Chang WN: Clinical characteristics of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia meningitis in adults: A high incidence in patients with a postneurosurgical state, long hospital staying and antibiotic use. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 115:1709–1715. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

72 

Khan FY, Abukhattab M and Anand D: Nosocomial Escherichia coli meningitis in adults: Report of four cases and literature review. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 4:349–351. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

73 

Lai WA, Lu CH and Chang WN: Mixed infection in adult post-neurosurgical bacterial meningitis: a hospital-based study. Biomed J. 36:295–303. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

74 

Maskin LP, Capparelli F, Mora A, Hlavnicka A, Orellana N, Díaz MF, Wainsztein N and Del Castillo M: Cerebrospinal fluid lactate in post-neurosurgical bacterial meningitis diagnosis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 115:1820–1825. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

75 

Moon C, Kwak YG, Kim BN, Kim ES and Lee CS: Implications of postneurosurgical meningitis caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. J Infect Chemother. 19:916–919. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

76 

Khan FY, Abukhattab M and Baager K: Nosocomial postneurosurgical Acinetobacter baumannii meningitis: A retrospective study of six cases admitted to Hamad General Hospital, Qatar. J Hosp Infect. 80:176–179. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

77 

Pintado V, Pazos R, Jiménez-Mejías ME, Rodríguez-Guardado A, Gil A, García-Lechuz JM, Cabellos C, Chaves F, Domingo P, Ramos A, et al: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus meningitis in adults: A multicenter study of 86 cases. Medicine (Baltimore). 91:10–17. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

78 

Huang CR, Chen SF, Lu CH, Chuang YC, Tsai NW, Chang CC, Wang HC, Chien CC and Chang WN: Clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes of nosocomial super-infection in adult bacterial meningitis. BMC Infect Dis. 11(133)2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

79 

Sipahi OR, Bardak S, Turhan T, Arda B, Pullukcu H, Ruksen M, Aydemir S, Dalbasti T, Yurtseven T, Zileli M and Ulusoy S: Linezolid in the treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal post-neurosurgical meningitis: A series of 17 cases. Scand J Infect Dis. 43:757–764. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

80 

van Mourik MS, Groenwold RH, Berkelbach van der Sprenkel JW, van Solinge WW, Troelstra A and Bonten MJ: Automated detection of external ventricular and lumbar drain-related meningitis using laboratory and microbiology results and medication data. PLoS One. 6(e22846)2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

81 

Chang WN, Lu CH, Huang CR, Chuang YC, Tsai NW, Chang CC, Chen SF, Wang HC, Yang TM, Hsieh MJ and Chien CC: Clinical characteristics of post-neurosurgical Klebsiella pneumoniae meningitis in adults and a clinical comparison to the spontaneous form in a Taiwanese population. J Clin Neurosci. 17:334–338. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

82 

Chang CJ, Ye JJ, Yang CC, Huang PY, Chiang PC and Lee MH: Influence of third-generation cephalosporin resistance on adult in-hospital mortality from post-neurosurgical bacterial meningitis. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 43:301–309. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

83 

Tuon FF, Penteado-Filho SR, Amarante D, Andrade MA and Borba LA: Mortality rate in patients with nosocomial Acinetobacter meningitis from a Brazilian hospital. Braz J Infect Dis. 14:437–440. 2010.PubMed/NCBI

84 

Rodríguez Guardado A, Blanco A, Asensi V, Pérez F, Rial JC, Pintado V, Bustillo E, Lantero M, Tenza E, Alvarez M, et al: Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter meningitis in neurosurgical patients with intraventricular catheters: Assessment of different treatments. J Antimicrob Chemother. 61:908–913. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

85 

Metan G, Alp E, Aygen B and Sumerkan B: Acinetobacter baumannii meningitis in post-neurosurgical patients: Clinical outcome and impact of carbapenem resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 60:197–199. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

86 

Guardado R, Asensi V, Torres JM, Pérez F, Blanco A, Maradona JA and Cartón JA: Post-surgical enterococcal meningitis: Clinical and epidemiological study of 20 cases. Scand J Infect Dis. 38:584–588. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

87 

Arda B, Yamazhan T, Sipahi OR, Islekel S, Buke C and Ulusoy S: Meningitis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): Review of 10 cases. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 25:414–418. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

88 

Briggs S, Ellis-Pegler R, Raymond N, Thomas M and Wilkinson L: Gram-negative bacillary meningitis after cranial surgery or trauma in adults. Scand J Infect Dis. 36:165–173. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

89 

Chang WN, Tsai YC, Chien CC, Huang CR and Lu CH: Frequent association with neurosurgical conditions in adult Proteus mirabilis meningitis: Report of five cases. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 104:121–124. 2002.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

90 

Huang CR, Lu CH and Chang WN: Adult Enterobacter meningitis: A high incidence of coinfection with other pathogens and frequent association with neurosurgical procedures. Infection. 29:75–79. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

91 

Chang WN, Lu CH, Huang CR and Chuang YC: Mixed infection in adult bacterial meningitis. Infection. 28:8–12. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

92 

Lu CH, Chang WN and Chang HW: Adult bacterial meningitis in Southern Taiwan: Epidemiologic trend and prognostic factors. J Neurol Sci. 182:36–44. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

93 

Lu CH, Chang WN, Chuang YC and Chang HW: Gram-negative bacillary meningitis in adult post-neurosurgical patients. Surg Neurol. 52:438–444. 1999.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

94 

Jiménez-Mejías ME, Pachón J, Becerril B, Palomino-Nicás J, Rodríguez-Cobacho A and Revuelta M: Treatment of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii meningitis with ampicillin/sulbactam. Clin Infect Dis. 24:932–935. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

95 

Druel B, Vandenesch F, Greenland T, Verneau V, Grando J, Salord F, Christen R and Etienne J: Aseptic meningitis after neurosurgery: A demonstration of bacterial involvement. Clin Microbiol Infect. 1:230–234. 1996.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

96 

Tang LM and Chen ST: Klebsiella oxytoca meningitis: Frequent association with neurosurgical procedures. Infection. 23:163–167. 1995.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

97 

Siegman-Igra Y, Bar-Yosef S, Gorea A and Avram J: Nosocomial acinetobacter meningitis secondary to invasive procedures: Report of 25 cases and review. Clin Infect Dis. 17:843–849. 1993.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

98 

Mancebo J, Domingo P, Blanch L, Coll P, Net A and Nolla J: Post-neurosurgical and spontaneous gram-negative bacillary meningitis in adults. Scand J Infect Dis. 18:533–538. 1986.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

99 

Mombelli G, Klastersky J, Coppens L, Daneau D and Nubourgh Y: Gram-negative bacillary meningitis in neurosurgical patients. J Neurosurg. 59:634–641. 1983.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

100 

Tacconelli E, Cataldo MA, Albanese A, Tumbarello M, Arduini E, Spanu T, Fadda G, Anile C, Maira G, Federico G and Cauda R: Vancomycin versus cefazolin prophylaxis for cerebrospinal shunt placement in a hospital with a high prevalence of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Hosp Infect. 69:337–344. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

101 

Khan FY, Abukhattab M, AbuKamar M and Anand D: Adult Klebsiella pneumoniae meningitis in Qatar: Clinical pattern of ten cases. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 4:669–672. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

102 

Alghamri MS, McClellan BL, Hartlage CS, Haase S, Faisal SM, Thalla R, Dabaja A, Banerjee K, Carney SV, Mujeeb AA, et al: Targeting neuroinflammation in brain cancer: Uncovering mechanisms, pharmacological targets, and neuropharmaceutical developments. Front Pharmacol. 12(680021)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

103 

Korinek AM, Baugnon T, Golmard JL, van Effenterre R, Coriat P and Puybasset L: Risk factors for adult nosocomial meningitis after craniotomy: role of antibiotic prophylaxis. Neurosurgery 62 Suppl. 2:532–539. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

104 

Zarrouk V, Vassor I, Bert F, Bouccara D, Kalamarides M, Bendersky N, Redondo A, Sterkers O and Fantin B: Evaluation of the management of postoperative aseptic meningitis. Clin Infect Dis. 44:1555–1559. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

105 

Tängdén T, Enblad P, Ullberg M and Sjölin J: Neurosurgical gram-negative bacillary ventriculitis and meningitis: A retrospective study evaluating the efficacy of intraventricular gentamicin therapy in 31 consecutive cases. Clin Infect Dis. 52:1310–1316. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

106 

Cabellos C, Verdaguer R, Olmo M, Fernández-Sabé N, Cisnal M, Ariza J, Gudiol F and Viladrich PF: Community-Acquired bacterial meningitis in elderly patients: Experience Over 30 Years. Medicine (Baltimore). 88:115–119. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

107 

Sunwoo JS, Shin HR, Lee HS, Moon J, Lee ST, Jung KH, Park KI, Jung KY, Kim M, Lee SK and Chu K: A hospital-based study on etiology and prognosis of bacterial meningitis in adults. Sci Rep. 11(6028)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

108 

Ponnappan S and Ponnappan U: Aging and immune function: Molecular mechanisms to interventions. Antioxid Redox Signal. 14:1551–1585. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

109 

Bekele F, Ahmed A, Kedir A and Sheleme T: Treatment outcome and associated factors of bacterial meningitis at pediatric wards of southwestern Ethiopian hospital: A prospective observational study. J Pharm Health Care Sci. 7(41)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

110 

Berbudi A, Rahmadika N, Tjahjadi AI and Ruslami R: Type 2 diabetes and its impact on the immune system. Curr Diabetes Rev. 16:442–449. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

111 

Betjes MGH: Immune cell dysfunction and inflammation in end-stage renal disease. Nat Rev Nephrol. 9:255–265. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

112 

Cunha BA: Distinguishing bacterial from viral meningitis: The critical importance of the CSF lactic acid levels. Intensive Care Med. 32:1272–1273; author reply 1274. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

113 

Huy NT, Thao NT, Diep DT, Kikuchi M, Zamora J and Hirayama K: Cerebrospinal fluid lactate concentration to distinguish bacterial from aseptic meningitis: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 14(R240)2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

114 

Nuwagira E, Huppler Hullsiek K, Jjunju S, Rutakingirwa M, Kasibante J, Tadeo KK, Kagimu E, Tugume L, Ssebambulidde K, Musubire AK, et al: Diagnostic and prognostic value of cerebrospinal fluid lactate and glucose in HIV-Associated tuberculosis meningitis. Microbiol Spectr. 10(e0161822)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

115 

Lee CR, Lee JH, Park M, Park KS, Bae IK, Kim YB, Cha CJ, Jeong BC and Lee SH: Biology of Acinetobacter baumannii: Pathogenesis, antibiotic resistance mechanisms, and prospective treatment options. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 7(55)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

Related Articles

Journal Cover

November-December 2024
Volume 6 Issue 6

Print ISSN: 2632-2900
Online ISSN:2632-2919

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Suryaningtyas W, Meizikri R, Parenrengi MA, Utomo B, Al Fauzi A and Bajamal AH: Risk factors for mortality in patients with bacterial meningitis following a neurosurgical procedure: A meta‑analysis. World Acad Sci J 6: 59, 2024.
APA
Suryaningtyas, W., Meizikri, R., Parenrengi, M.A., Utomo, B., Al Fauzi, A., & Bajamal, A.H. (2024). Risk factors for mortality in patients with bacterial meningitis following a neurosurgical procedure: A meta‑analysis. World Academy of Sciences Journal, 6, 59. https://doi.org/10.3892/wasj.2024.274
MLA
Suryaningtyas, W., Meizikri, R., Parenrengi, M. A., Utomo, B., Al Fauzi, A., Bajamal, A. H."Risk factors for mortality in patients with bacterial meningitis following a neurosurgical procedure: A meta‑analysis". World Academy of Sciences Journal 6.6 (2024): 59.
Chicago
Suryaningtyas, W., Meizikri, R., Parenrengi, M. A., Utomo, B., Al Fauzi, A., Bajamal, A. H."Risk factors for mortality in patients with bacterial meningitis following a neurosurgical procedure: A meta‑analysis". World Academy of Sciences Journal 6, no. 6 (2024): 59. https://doi.org/10.3892/wasj.2024.274