PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Antibiotic Prophylaxis”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Elective inguinal hernia repair with mesh: is there a need for antibiotic prophylaxis?--A review.

Although it is widely accepted that antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated in elective mesh repair of inguinal hernia, the evidence for its value has been controversial. A recent Cochrane meta-analysis showed that there is insufficient data overall to demonstrate a clear advantage of prophylaxis and illustrated the classic problem in evidence-based medicine where a lack of evidence in support of an intervention may be interpreted as a reason not to implement it. This review of the literature evaluates the evidence for the effectiveness of intravenous antibiotics as prophylaxis in inguinal hernia repair with mesh. Pubmed and Embase searches revealed seven trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in mesh repair of inguinal hernia. The quality of the evidence and the limitations of the seven trials are discussed. Analysis of these seven trials adds to the Cochrane meta-analysis of Sanchez-Manuel and Seco-Gil. Only two of the trials support the use of antibiotic prophylaxis, and those were the only double-blind randomized controlled trials reviewed. In evidence-based medicine the absence of evidence in clear support of an intervention (as in this review, where only two of the seven trials support the use of antibiotic prophylaxis) may be taken as reason not to implement the intervention. It is possible, however, that what is needed to clarify the issue are further randomized controlled trials, rigorously performed and recruiting significantly larger numbers of patients.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Antibiotic prophylaxis in gastroduodenal surgery.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In a retrospective process quality control trial, proper use of antimicrobial prophylaxis in gastroduodenal operations according to the standard guidelines was studied. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 132 consecutive adult patients (pts), who underwent gastroduodenal surgery in a University Hospital, were enrolled to this study protocol. There were 88 males and 44 females of with mean (+/-SD) age of 58.7 (+/-9.1) years old. The patients were divided into 4 groups based on surgical antibiotic prophylaxis policy. Group A consisted of surgical pts receiving appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis (a 2nd generation cephalosporin) when there was indication. Group B consisted of pts without indication who did not receive prophylaxis, Group C pts who, although antibiotic prophylaxis was indicated, were not given prophylaxis, and Group D pts without indication who received prophylaxis. RESULTS: Of 132 pts examined, appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis was received by 28 pts (21%) (Group A). In 62 pts (47%), antibiotic prophylaxis was not indicated and not administered (Group B). On the contrary, in 42 pts (32%), although antibiotic prophylaxis was indicated, it was not given (Group C). No patient received prophylaxis without indication. The following infections were found: wound infection (n = 10), pneumonia (n = 6), severe sepsis (n = 2), urinary tract infection (n = 2), and fever of unknown origin (n = 2). Where correct antibiotic prophylaxis policy was followed (Groups A and B), 6 post-operative infections occurred (6.7%), with a mean (+/-SD) hospital length of stay 14.4 (+/-3.2) days. In contrast, in the group with incorrect antibiotic prophylaxis policy (group D), 16 infectious complications occurred (38%) (p = 0.001), with a mean (+/-SD) hospital length of stay 22.5 (+/-4.4) days (p = 0.001). Total hospitalization costs were much higher in this group compared with Groups A and B (p = 0.01). Mortality rate was 9.5% in Group D, while no deaths occurred in the other groups (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Antimicrobial prophylaxis policy is an important issue, targeting lower morbidity or avoidable costs.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Cardiac murmurs: echocardiography in the assessment of patients requiring antibiotic prophylaxis for dental treatment.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally patients who indicate that they have a heart murmur or who indicate that they have had rheumatic fever are given antibiotic prophylaxis for dental treatment. This is commonly done without further assessment of the patient's actual endocarditis risk. Echocardiography is a non-invasive method of assessing cardiac valve function and haemodynamics. METHODS: Consecutive patients who were referred to a private practice oral and maxillofacial surgeon for dentoalveolar surgery and indicated that they had a cardiac problem and usually had antibiotic prophylaxis, were evaluated. Those with a clear indication for prophylaxis, for example had prosthetic heart valves or previous infective endocarditis, received antibiotic prophylaxis. Where there was uncertainty, they were referred for an echocardiogram, and if abnormal, a formal cardiology review. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy patients out of approximately 20 000 (1.85 per cent) indicated that they had a cardiac murmur and usually received antibiotic prophylaxis for dental treatment between 1 February 1997 and 1 February 2005. Two hundred and sixty-two (71 per cent) were female and 108 (29 per cent) were male; age range 0.7 to 98 years, average 37.6 years. Two hundred and seventy (72 per cent) had normal hearts with no indication for antibiotic prophylaxis. Of the 100 (28 per cent) patients with abnormal findings, they were on average older; 49.5 years, range 0.7 to 87 years. Of these, 50 (14 per cent) met current indications for antibiotic prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Patients who present for dental treatment indicating that they require antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiac condition need to be fully evaluated. In this study only 50 of 370 patients (14 per cent) required antibiotic prophylaxis. The remaining 320 (86 per cent) would have no benefit but a risk of adverse reaction to the antibiotic.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

[Follow-up of a procedure of antibiotic prophylaxis in cesarean section].

In order to assess the quality of the treatment given in our department, we studied the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in cases of cesarean section in relation to the implementation of a standard protocol. The records of 606 patients who underwent a cesarean section in 1989 and 1992 were studied retrospectively with regard to risk factors for postoperative infection, antibiotic prophylaxis and infections during hospitalisation. While the use of the antibiotic prophylaxis increased from 1989 to 1992, the number of postoperative infections remained relatively stable, 17% in 1989 and 14% in 1992. 55% of patients who were regarded as candidates for prophylaxis in this study were given antibiotic prophylaxis in 1992 (93 of 169 patients). 49 (53%) of these patients received an antibiotic prophylaxis in accordance with the protocol, whereas 44 (47%) were given other antibiotic regimens. The effect of treatment, as assessed by the number of postoperative infections, remained unchanged, while the use of antibiotic prophylaxis increased in the period after the protocol was implemented. The protocol was not followed as intended.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis before percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to review the published literature on the value of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of wound infection that occurs after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. We also sought by meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing wound infection. METHODS: We performed a fully recursive literature search for randomized, controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis against wound infection occurring after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Relative and absolute risk reductions and the numbers needed to treat were derived for individual trials and pooled data. RESULTS: We identified seven trials, two of which did not find a statistically significant benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis. After pooling, antibiotic prophylaxis was found to reduce the relative and absolute risk of wound infection by 73% and 17.5%, respectively. The number needed to treat to prevent one wound infection was 5.7 (95% confidence interval = 4.4-8.0). CONCLUSION: A single intravenous dose of a broad-spectrum antibiotic, given approximately 30 min before percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is effective in reducing the incidence of peristomal wound infections.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed2004

A randomized and prospective study on the value of antibiotic prophylaxis administration in transurethral resection of the prostate.

CONTEXT: Antibiotic prophylaxis in transurethral resection of the prostate is a regular practice in urology. However, its prophylactic effect can be questioned when the antiseptic surgical technique is used. Nonetheless, urine culture-oriented antibiotic therapy is the gold standard for avoiding improper medication usage and bacterial resistance. OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy of antibiotic usage in patients with negative urine cultures, who were submitted to transurethral resection of the prostate. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective open labeled study. SETTING: Tertiary care referral hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 124 consecutive patients, who were randomly divided into two groups to receive antibiotic prophylaxis or not. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Cultures from meatus, urine, irrigation and antiseptic fluid, and prostate tissue chips, were compared and analyzed for bacterial sensitivity to the antibiotic used, according to the surgeon's personal criteria. McLennan's test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference regarding clinical evolution was found between the groups that received or antibiotics or not. Statistical significance was found regarding the occurrence of positive urine cultures during the postoperative period for those not receiving antibiotics, but not in relation to fever, prostate chip culture or bacteremic episodes. Sixty-eight subjects (57.1%) presented positive prostatic tissue culture. There was no specific correlation between the recovered bacteria from the meatus, prostatic tissue chip and urine and the spectrum of the administered antibiotic. Six cases showed the same bacteria in the urine and prostatic tissue chip. Only fifteen cases (25%) in the antibiotic group showed the desired sensitivity directed to the collected bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients whose urine is sterile is debatable in patients who are candidates for transurethral resection of the prostate. Most of the time, the antibiotic agent used is not specific for any of the bacteria recovered from the various sources analyzed.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: is antibiotic prophylaxis necessary?

The aim of this study was to assess infectious complications in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB), comparing two groups of patients: one group with antibiotic prophylaxis and the other without prophylaxis. A total of 1,018 TRUSPBs were performed from April 1996 to July 2003. No antibiotic prophylaxis was given in the first 614; the remaining 404 procedures were performed under antibiotic prophylaxis. Biopsy complications were assessed at outpatient urologist visits after the procedure in the 212 first biopsies and by telephone interview in the remaining 806. A total of 78 infectious complications were found. Major infectious complications (n=41) were septic shock (n=3), sepsis (n=3), Fournier gangrene (n=1), urinary tract infection (n=2), and fever requiring hospital admission (n=32). Minor infectious complications were fever that did not require admission (n=29), prostatitis (n=6), and epididymitis (n=2). Infectious complications occurred in 63 of 614 (10.3%) procedures without antibiotic prophylaxis and in 15 of 404 (3.7%) of those with antibiotic prophylaxis (P=0.0001). Of the 41 major infectious complications, 31 (75.6%) occurred in procedures without antibiotic prophylaxis (n=583) versus ten (24.4%) in those with prophylaxis (n=394) (P=0.0410). In conclusion, transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate has a statistically significant higher risk of infectious complications when performed without antibiotic prophylaxis.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Modeling the optimum duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in an anthrax outbreak.

A critical consideration in effective and measured public health responses to an outbreak of inhalational anthrax is the optimum duration of antibiotic prophylaxis. We develop a competing-risks model to address the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and the incubation period that accounts for the risks of spore germination and spore clearance. The model predicts the incubation period distribution, which is confirmed by empirical data. The optimum duration of antibiotic prophylaxis depends critically on the dose of inhaled spores. At high doses, we show that exposed persons would need to remain on antibiotic prophylaxis for at least 4 months, and considerable morbidity would likely occur before antibiotic prophylaxis could even be initiated. At very low doses, 60 days of antibiotic prophylaxis is adequate. Exposure doses can be estimated from the cumulative attack rate up to the point antibiotic prophylaxis begins. The model explains that whereas < or =60 days of antibiotics were enough to protect persons in the 2001 U.S. outbreak, because doses were very low, at moderate or high doses considerably longer durations would be necessary to adequately protect exposed populations.

Anthrax↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Current dental concepts in antibiotic prophylaxis for total joint replacement patients.

The subject of antibiotic prophylaxis has evoked controversy and much debate over the validity of such practice. In July 1997, the American Dental Association and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons issued an advisory statement concerning the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with total joint replacements. A historical perspective of the subject is presented, with a review of the recommendation for total joint replacement antibiotic prophylaxis, a discussion of the new decision-making responsibility for the dentist, and medicolegal ramifications of this change.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in prevention of wound infection after mesh repair of abdominal wall hernia.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to determine whether systemic antibiotic prophylaxis prevented wound infection after repair of abdominal wall hernia with mesh. METHODS: This was a systematic review of the available literature identified from multiple databases using the terms 'hernia' and 'antibiotic prophylaxis'. Randomized placebo-controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal wall mesh hernia repair with explicitly defined wound infection criteria and a minimum follow-up of 1 month were included. After independent quality assessment and data extraction, data were pooled for meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The search process identified eight relevant trials. Two papers on umbilical, incisional or laparoscopic hernias, and six concerning inguinal and femoral (groin) hernias were suitable for meta-analysis. The incidence of infection after groin hernia repair was 38 (3.0 per cent) of 1277 in the placebo group and 18 (1.5 per cent) of 1230 in the antibiotic group. Antibiotic prophylaxis did not significantly reduce the incidence of infection: odds ratio 0.54 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.24 to 1.21); number needed to treat was 74. The number of deep infections was six (0.6 per cent) in the placebo group and three (0.3 per cent) in the antibiotic prophylaxis group: odds ratio 0.50 (95 per cent c.i. 0.12 to 2.09). CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis did not prevent the occurrence of wound infection after groin hernia surgery. More trials are needed for complete evidence in other areas of abdominal wall hernia.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed2006

Concordance of antibiotic prophylaxis, direct Gram staining and protected brush specimen culture results for postoperative patients with suspected pneumonia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Antibiotic therapy alters the diagnostic value of protected brush specimens. With protected brush specimens alone, diagnosing pneumonia requires 24 or 48 h. Addition of direct Gram staining shortens this delay. Antibiotic prophylaxis, recommended after major surgery, may influence the contribution of Gram staining to diagnosing postoperative pneumonia. METHODS: During a 1-yr period, we retrospectively studied all patients on mechanical ventilation suspected of having postoperative pneumonia who had undergone fibreoptic bronchoscopy with protected brush specimens. Postoperative pneumonia was diagnosed when quantitative protected brush specimens culture results yielded 103 colony-forming units mL-1. RESULTS: Fifty patients were clinically suspected of having postoperative pneumonia after cardiac (n=42), vascular (n=5) or thoracic (n=3) surgery. Eleven (22%) samples were obtained during antibiotic prophylaxis. Twenty-two (44%) episodes were microbiologically proven. Gram-stain sensitivity was 95.5%, with 82.1% specificity, 80.7% positive-predictive value and 95.8% negative-predictive value. Concordance between direct Gram-stain-identified pathogens and Gram stain of cultured pathogens was significantly less frequent during antibiotic prophylaxis (63.6%) than afterwards (94.9%) (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis diminished the diagnostic value of Gram staining of protected brush specimens. When protected brush specimens was performed during antibiotic prophylaxis, Gram staining accurately enabled early exclusion of postoperative pneumonia because of its excellent negative-predictive value. After antibiotic prophylaxis, Gram staining permitted early diagnosis of postoperative pneumonia identification of the responsible pathogen.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

Antibiotic prophylaxis in clean surgery: breast surgery and hernia repair.

Use of prophylactic antibiotics in clean surgery is still controversial. We reviewed the literature of the last 10 years to identify the best way to approach clean surgery. The question is more important for patients undergoing breast surgery. The presence of an infected breast wound delays the beginning of postoperative adjuvant anticancer therapy: there is good evidence to suggest that delayed adjuvant therapy compromises the outcome for patients in terms of both local control and survival. There are several clinical trials that have addressed the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics for patients undergoing breast surgery and hernia repair. Platt et al assessed the efficacy of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in a clinical trial of 1218 patients undergoing clean surgery with an absolute reduction rate of 39% in wound infections. Gupta et al reported no influence on the incidence of infective complications by antibiotic prophylaxis in 357 patients undergoing elective breast surgery. Like breast surgery, use of prophylaxis in hernia repair is not clear: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of 619 patients assessed no benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis. On the other hand Lewis et al reported a 75% reduction of infections in low-risk patients when a single dose of cefotaxime was used in clean operations. A particularly interesting point is the use of prosthetic mesh in hernia repair and primary reconstructive surgery in breast surgery. Amland et al reported a significant reduction of the incidence of wound infections in a group of patients undergoing reconstructive breast surgery, receiving azithromycin vs placebo (5% vs 20%). In hernia repair we stress the need to prevent wound infections: currently Liechtestein's technique is widely performed all over the world. Mesh infection is an unpleasant event that requires prosthesis removal. The lack of conclusive studies about antibiotic prophylaxis in clean surgery suggests that a single-dose of cephalosporin at the induction of anesthesia may be prudent. This procedure is certainly inexpensive and safe and, more importantly, probably does not have an impact on antibiotic resistance.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2006

Current use of antibiotic prophylaxis in breast surgery: a nationwide survey.

There is currently no consensus regarding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in breast surgery. This postal survey aimed to establish the current practice in perioperative antibiotic use for breast surgery in the United Kingdom. Questionnaires were sent to 406 breast surgeons, enquiring about antibiotic use for common breast procedures. A total of 266 completed questionnaires were returned (65.5%). Over 80% of surgeons who performed breast augmentations, myocutaneous flap reconstructions and implant reconstructions used antibiotic prophylaxis. Up to 33% used antibiotic prophylaxis for wide local excisions (WLEs), mastectomies and axillary surgery for breast cancer, while 62% and 45% used antibiotics for breast reductions and duct excisions, respectively. The most common antibiotic used was co-amoxiclav. The variation in practice regarding antibiotic prophylaxis in breast surgery reflects the lack of reliable evidence for its efficacy. Further randomised controlled trials are required, taking into consideration specific risk factors affecting postoperative infection rate for breast surgery.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed1998

A cost analysis of long term antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a cost analysis of different strategies of long term antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. The study involved a cost analysis using a decision analysis model and patients with cirrhosis and ascites who are at risk for developing SBP. METHODS: Two different strategies of antibiotic prophylaxis were compared with a "no prophylaxis" strategy in patients with cirrhosis and ascites using a decision analysis model. In strategy I, antibiotic prophylaxis was administered in all patients with cirrhosis and ascites and in strategy II, patients were stratified into a low risk and a high risk group on the basis of serum bilirubin and ascitic fluid protein levels; only patients in the high risk group received antibiotic prophylaxis. The cost per patient treated for 1 yr was the outcome measure compared in the different strategies. Clinical input probabilities and ranges used were obtained by searching the MEDLINE database for English language articles. Cost estimates were obtained from a university hospital setting. Cost analysis was done with a societal perspective, and only direct costs were taken into account. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of variations in the key clinical probabilities and cost estimates ranging from a best case to a worst case scenario on the outcome measure. RESULTS: The estimated cost per patient treated in strategy I, strategy II, and strategy III (the strategy of "no prophylaxis") were $1311, $1123, and $3509, respectively. Over a broad range of clinical and cost variables, the strategy of risk stratification and restriction of antibiotic prophylaxis to the subgroup of patients with cirrhosis and ascites who were at high risk for SBP (as identified by serum bilirubin >2.5 mg/dl and ascitic fluid protein <1 g/dl) was the most favored strategy. However, when the cost of prophylaxis was low or the probability of a primary episode of SBP was at the lower end of the range reported in the literature, administering antibiotic prophylaxis to all patients with cirrhosis and ascites was the least costly strategy. CONCLUSION: This cost analysis indicates that antibiotic prophylaxis particularly when restricted to a subgroup of patients who, by simple laboratory parameters, are identified to be at high risk for SBP, is very cost-effective in the prevention of SBP in patients with cirrhosis and ascites.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed2004

Antibiotic prophylaxis for hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The use of antibiotic prophylaxis for hernia repair is currently a controversial issue given the disparity among study results in this area. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to clarify the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing postoperative wound infection rates in elective open inguinal hernia repair. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches in the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialized register were conducted crossing the terms herni* and inguinal or groin and the terms antimicr* or antibiot* , as free text and MeSH terms. A similar search in Medline (WebSPIRS from Silver Platter, January/1966 to March/2004) and Embase (1976 to December/2003) was conducted using the following terms: #1 antibiotic* or antimicrob* or anti infecti* or antiinfecti*; #2 prophyla* or prevent*; #3 #1 and #2; #4 clean and (surgery or tech* or proced*); #5 herni*; #6 (wound infection) and #4; #7 #3 and (#4 or #5 or #6). Reference lists of the included studies were checked to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomized clinical trials were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eight randomized clinical trials were identified. Three of them used prosthetic material for hernia repair (hernioplasty) whereas the remaining studies did not (herniorraphy). Pooled and subgroup analysis were conducted depending on whether prosthetic material was or not used. A random effects model was used in the analysis. MAIN RESULTS: The total number of patients included was 2907 (treatment group: 1421, control group: 1486). Overall infection rates were 2.88% and 4.3% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.35 - 1.21). The subgroup of patients with herniorrhaphy had infection rates of 3.78% and 4.87% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.84, 95%CI 0.53 - 1.34). The subgroup of patients with hernioplasty had infection rates of 1.2% and 3,3% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.02 - 3.14). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, there was no clear evidence that routine administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for elective inguinal hernia repair reduced infection rates.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed1997

[Current antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery].

Over a one-year period (November 1996 to November 1997), in the Emergency Surgery Clinic perioperative parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis during colorectal operations is performed in a series of 32 patients, admitted on an emergency and deferred urgency basis, or for routine operative treatment. Of them 30 present malignant processes involving colon and rectum, and two--inflammatory diseases. All patients receive single i.v. injections with Cephalothin/Cefazolin at dose 2.0 g and Metronidazole 0.5 g immediately after anesthesia induction. In nine cases additional early treatment is necessitated--within 24 hours after the operative intervention--by administration of the same drug combination 4 times at 6-hour intervals, and in another two prophylaxis is substituted for continuous 5-day treatment using the same therapeutic scheme. In 30 patients the postoperative period runs a course free of noteworthy complications. In two instances there is evidence of operative wound suppuration, and in further two--urinary tract infection development unrelated to the antibiotic prophylaxis applied. The specific features characterizing the application of antibiotic prophylaxis during colorectal surgery are discussed, and appropriate drug therapy schemes are recommended, consistent with worldwide and Bulgarian experience along this line, as well as with the concrete hospital and economical conditions in this country. Special emphasis is laid on two aspects: optimization of the timing of antibiotic agent/agents injection, and reaching peak serum and tissue bactericidal concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the surgical incision; optimization of the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis on the ground of well established indications for the application of antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery in compliance with the dynamic patterns of intra- and postoperative septic risk. The modest number of patients subjected to updated parenteral perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis does not warrant a definitive interpretation of the data from the comparative clinical and pharmaco-economical analyses performed. Nevertheless, the preliminary results point to the economical expedience of the therapeutic approach suggested.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Antibiotic prophylaxis for hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The use of antibiotic prophylaxis for hernia repair is currently a controversial issue given the disparity among study results in this area. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to clarify the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing postoperative wound infection rates in elective open inguinal hernia repair. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches in the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialized register were conducted crossing the terms herni* and inguinal or groin and the terms antimicr* or antibiot*, as free text and MeSH terms. A similar search in Medline (WebSPIRS from Silver Platter, January/1966 to November/2002) and Embase (1976 to December/2002) were conducted using the following terms: #1 antibiotic* or antimicrob* or anti infecti* or antiinfecti*; #2 prophyla* or prevent*; #3 #1 and #2; #4 clean and (surgery or tech* or proced*); #5 herni*; #6 (wound infection) and #4; #7 #3 and (#4 or #5 or #6). Reference lists of the included studies were checked to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomized clinical trials were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seven randomized clinical trials were identified. Two of them used prosthetic material for hernia repair (hernioplasty) whereas the remaining studies did not (herniorraphy). Pooled and subgroup analysis were conducted depending on whether prosthetic material was or not used. A random effects model was used in the analysis. MAIN RESULTS: The total number of patients included was 2660 (treatment group: 1297, control group: 1363). Overall infection rates were 3.08% and 4.69% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.32 - 1.17). The number of patients who need to be treated with prophylaxis (NNT) to prevent one infection in at least 30 days was 50 (95%CI 25 to infinite). The subgroup of patients with herniorrhaphy had infection rates of 3.78% and 4.87% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.84, 95%CI 0.53 - 1.34). NNT was 100 (95%CI 34 - infinite). The subgroup of patients with hernioplasty had infection rates of 1.3% and 4.2% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.02 - 3.14). NNT is 25 (IC95% NNH 25 to NNT 8). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, there was no clear evidence that routine administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for elective inguinal hernia repair reduced infection rates.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗