Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Hand Surgeries in Colombia.

Valladales-Restrepo LF ，Oyuela-Gutiérrez MC ，Delgado-Araujo AC ，Sabogal-Ortiz A ，Machado-Alba JE ... -  《-》

Perioperative Antibiotics for Clean Hand Surgery: A National Study.

Given that surgical site infections remain a common performance metric in assessing the quality of health care, we hypothesized that prophylactic antibiotics are overutilized in soft tissue hand surgery when antimicrobials are not indicated. We studied insurance claims from the Truven MarketScan Databases to identify patients who underwent 1 of 5 outpatient hand surgery procedures: open or endoscopic carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, de Quervain release, and wrist ganglion excision between 2009 and 2015 (n = 305,946). Hospital payment claims for preoperative intravenous antibiotics and prescriptions filled for postoperative oral antibiotics were analyzed. We examined the rate and temporal trend of prophylactic antibiotics use and identified risk factors using multivariable logistic regression. We also calculated health care expenditures related to prophylaxis. Prior to surgery, 13.6% (2009-2015) of patients received prophylactic intravenous antibiotics and trend analysis showed a statistically significant increase from 2009 (10.6%) to 2015 (18.3%), an increase of 72.5%. Preoperative prophylaxis was used most often prior to trigger finger release (17.5%) and least often prior to endoscopic carpal tunnel release (11.2%). Younger age, male sex, lower income, and obese patients had higher odds of receiving antibiotics. The total charge of prophylactic antibiotics medication used in this study equaled $1.6 million. In 2015, prophylactic intravenous antibiotics were administered to nearly 1 in 5 patients prior to clean soft tissue hand surgery. Although consensus guidelines indicate prophylaxis is not indicated, their use has increased steadily in the United States from 2009 to 2015. Therapeutic II.

Johnson SP ，Zhong L ，Chung KC ，Waljee JF ... -  《-》

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.

Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics may be prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear. This is an update of a review last published in 2017. To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum or forceps delivery, or both. For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. All randomised controlled trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium). Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Two review authors extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all review authors. We assessed methodological quality of the two included studies using the GRADE approach. Two studies, involving 3813 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, were included. One study involving 393 women compared the antibiotic intravenous cefotetan after cord clamping compared with no treatment. The other study involving 3420 women compared a single dose of intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid with placebo using 20 mL of intravenous sterile 0.9% saline. The evidence suggests that prophylactic antibiotics reduce superficial perineal wound infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence), deep perineal wound infection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence) and probably reduce wound breakdown (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; women = 2593; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). We are unclear about the effect on organ or space perineal wound infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.05; women = 3420; 1 study) and endometritis (average RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.64; 15/1907 versus 30/1906; women = 3813; 2 studies) based on low-certainty evidence with wide CIs that include no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics probably lower serious infectious complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). They also have an important effect on reduction of confirmed or suspected maternal infection. The two included studies did not report on fever or urinary tract infection. It is unclear, based on low-certainty evidence, whether prophylactic antibiotics have any impact on maternal adverse reactions (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.05; women = 2593; 1 study) and maternal length of stay (MD 0.09 days, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41; women = 393; 1 study) as the CIs were wide and included no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain and probably reduce costs. Prophylactic antibiotics did not have an important effect on dyspareunia (difficult or painful sexual intercourse) or breastfeeding at six weeks. Antibiotic prophylaxis may slightly improve maternal hospital re-admission and maternal health-related quality of life. Neonatal adverse reactions were not reported in any included trials. Prophylactic intravenous antibiotics are effective in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in terms of superficial and deep perineal wound infection or serious infectious complications in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries without clinical indications for antibiotic administration after delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain, probably reduce the costs, and may slightly reduce the maternal hospital re-admission and health-related quality of life. However, the effect on reduction of endometritis, organ or space perineal wound infection, maternal adverse reactions and maternal length of stay is unclear due to low-certainty evidence. As the evidence was mainly derived from a single multi-centre study conducted in a high-income setting, future well-designed randomised trials in other settings, particularly in low- and middle-income settings, are required to confirm the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.

Liabsuetrakul T ，Choobun T ，Peeyananjarassri K ，Islam QM ... -  《-》

Effectiveness of Preoperative Antibiotics in Preventing Surgical Site Infection After Common Soft Tissue Procedures of the Hand.

Li K ，Sambare TD ，Jiang SY ，Shearer EJ ，Douglass NP ，Kamal RN ... -  《-》

Assessing the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in outpatient elective hand surgery: a single-center, retrospective review of 8,850 cases.

Prophylactic antibiotics have been shown to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) after some gastrointestinal, orthopedic, and plastic surgical procedures, but their efficacy in clean, elective hand surgery is unclear. Our aims were to assess the efficacy of preoperative antibiotics in preventing SSI after clean, elective hand surgery, and to identify potential risk factors for SSI. We queried the database from an outpatient surgical center by Current Procedural Terminology code to identify patients who underwent elective hand surgery. For each medical record, we collected patient demographics and characteristics along with preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative management details. The primary outcome of this study was SSI, and secondary outcomes were wound dehiscence and suture granuloma. From October 2000 through October 2008, 8,850 patient records met our inclusion criteria. The overall SSI rate was 0.35%, with an average patient follow-up duration of 79 days. The SSI rates did not significantly differ between patients receiving antibiotics (0.54%; 2,755 patients) and those who did not (0.26%; 6,095 patients). Surgical site infection was associated with smoking status, diabetes mellitus, and longer procedure length irrespective of antibiotic use. Subgroup analysis revealed that prophylactic antibiotics did not prevent SSI in male patients, smokers, or diabetics, or for procedure length less than 30 minutes, 30 to 60 minutes, and greater than 60 minutes. Prophylactic antibiotic administration does not reduce the incidence of SSI after clean, elective hand surgery in an outpatient population. Moreover, subgroup analysis revealed that prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the frequency of SSI among patients who were found to be at higher risk in this study. We identified 3 factors associated with the development of SSI in our study: diabetes mellitus status, procedure length, and smoking status. Given the potential harmful complications associated with antibiotic use and the lack of evidence that prophylactic antibiotics prevent SSIs, we conclude that antibiotics should not be routinely administered to patients who undergo clean, elective hand surgery. Therapeutic III.

Bykowski MR ，Sivak WN ，Cray J ，Buterbaugh G ，Imbriglia JE ，Lee WP ... -  《-》