Effectiveness of Single vs Multiple Doses of Prophylactic Intravenous Antibiotics in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for reducing capsular contracture in prosthesis-based breast surgery: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Antibiotics Prophylaxis to prevent capsular contracture in prosthesis-based breast surgery is common in clinical practice. However, there is currently a dearth of high-quality evidence concerning the effectiveness of antibiotic usage in this field. To identify all pertinent studies prior to January 2023, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Medline databases. The extracted data was then subjected to meta-analysis. Fourteen studies were retained in the analysis. According to the results, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis did not reduce the risk of capsular contracture (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.82-1.59, p = 0.55) or surgical-site infection (RD 0.01, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.03, p = 0.59) compared to nonantibiotic prophylaxis. There was no statistically significant difference between extended antibiotic prophylaxis and perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in terms of preventing capsular contracture, whether calculated by patient numbers (RD 0.01, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.02, p = 0.87) or by total procedures (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.00 to 0.01, p = 0.88), or controlling surgical-site infection (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77-1.44, p = 0.27). Additionally, topical antibiotic irrigation did not decrease the risk of infection (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34-1.08, p = 0.29) and capsular contracture, regardless of patient number (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.63, p = 0.18) or total number of procedures (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73-2.28, p < 0.01). Current evidence revealed that both systemic and topical antibiotic prophylaxis may not provide benefits in preventing capsular contracture in prosthesis-based breast surgery. When the occurrence of surgical-site infections is minimized to the greatest extent, the administration of additional antibiotics for reducing capsular contracture should be carefully and judiciously considered.

Efficacy of 24 hours versus 5 days of prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of surgical site infection in outpatient elective facial plastic surgery

Background

The discovery of penicillin marked a paradigm shift in medicine with the ability to treat previously life-threatening infections. Increasing antibiotic resistance as well as the risk of adverse reactions to antibiotics, however, creates pressures for judicious use. There continues to be debate about the role of prophylactic antibiotics in facial plastic surgery. This study explores the role of prophylactic antibiotic administration in elective outpatient facial plastic surgery by comparing 5 days versus 24 hours of antibiotic prophylaxis.

Method

A retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients undergoing cosmetic procedures at an outpatient facial plastic surgical center who received either 5 days or 24 hours of prophylactic antibiotics was performed. The primary outcome was the need for postoperative antibiotics within 6 weeks of surgery.

Results

204 patients met the inclusion criteria: 104 in the 5-day group and 100 in the 24-hour prophylaxis group. The overall infection rate was 3.4%: 3% in the 24-hour group and 3.8% in the 5-day group (p = 0.77). Subgroup analysis of clean-contaminated cases (n = 85) showed the rate of postoperative infections was 4.3%, all within the 5-day group. In clean cases (n = 119), the rate of postoperative infections was 4.2% (n = 5): 4.8% (n = 3) in the 24-hour group versus 3.5% (n = 2) in the 5-day group.

Conclusions

The results show that decreasing the duration of antibiotics was not associated with an increased risk of postoperative infection. Given that antibiotics are an increasingly precious commodity with rising rates of resistance, this study supports the use of decreasing postoperative antibiotics to 24 hours.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

For preference sensitive treatments, such as breast reconstructions, there are barriers to conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary aims of this systematic review were to investigate what type of research questions are explored by RCTs in breast reconstruction, where have they been performed and where have they been published, and to thematise the research questions and thus create an overview of the state of the research field.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials investigating any aspect of breast reconstructions were included. The PubMed database was searched with a pre-defined search string. Inclusion and data abstraction was performed in a pre-defined standardised fashion. For the purpose of this study, we defined key issues as comparison of categories of breast reconstruction and comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, when the thematisation was done.

RESULTS

A total of 419 abstracts were retrieved from the search. Of the 419, 310 were excluded as they were not RCTs concerning some aspect of breast reconstruction, which left us with 110 abstracts to be included in the study. The research questions of the included studies could more or less be divided into seven different themes inclusive of 2 key issues: Other issues - comparison of different categories of breast reconstruction, comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, surgical details within a category of breast reconstruction, surgical details valid for several categories of breast reconstruction, donor site management, anaesthetics, and non-surgical details. Only five studies compared key issues, and they all illustrate the challenges with RCTs in breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 110 publications based on RCTs in breast reconstruction have been published. Seven themes of research questions could be identified. Only five studies have explored the key issues. Better scientific evidence is needed for the key issues in breast reconstruction, for example by implementing a new study design in the field.

Effect of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis on the occurrence of surgical site wound infection after instant breast reconstruction: A meta-analysis

The purpose of the meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the effects of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis on the occurrence of surgical site wound infection after instant breast reconstruction. The results of this meta-analysis were analysed, and the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using dichotomous or contentious random- or fixed-effect models. For the current meta-analysis, 18 examinations spanning from 2009 to 2023 were included, encompassing 19 301 females with instant breast reconstruction. Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis had a significantly lower surgical site wound infection rate (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98, p = 0.02) compared with the standard of care after instant breast reconstruction in females. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis had a significantly lower surgical site wound infection rate (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.52, p < 0.001) compared with the standard of care after instant breast reconstruction in females. The examined data revealed that systemic and topical antibiotic prophylaxis had a significantly lower surgical site wound infection rate compared with the standard of care after instant breast reconstruction in females. However, given that several examinations had a small sample size, consideration should be given to their values.

What Is the Ideal Duration for Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis?

Background: Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis practice became common in the 1970s and has since become almost universal. The earliest articles used three doses over 12 hours with the first being administered before the start of the operation. Conclusions: The duration of prophylaxis has varied widely in practice over time, but an increasing body of evidence has supported shorter durations, most recently with recommendations in influential guidelines to avoid administration after the incision is closed.

Management of complications following implant-based breast reconstruction: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Complications associated with implant-based reconstruction have a spectrum of severity with sequelae ranging from mild aesthetic deformities to additional surgery, reconstructive failure and systemic illness. The purpose of this narrative review of the literature is to provide updated evidence-based information on the management of complications in implant-based reconstruction.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, OVID MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify common complications associated with implant-based breast reconstruction, incidences of occurrence as well as preventative and management strategies.

Key Content and Findings

Pertinent short and long-term complications of implant-based breast reconstruction include hematoma, implant infection, seroma, skin envelope necrosis, capsular contracture, rupture, malposition, animation and contour deformities, implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and breast implant illness. Important preventative measures for short term complications include meticulous sterile technique and antibiotic irrigation, adequate drainage and critical evaluation of mastectomy flaps. Management of short-term complications requires early recognition and aggressive treatment to prevent reconstructive failure as well as long-term complications such as capsular contracture. Important technological advances include dual-port expanders for seroma drainage, indocyanine green angiography for mastectomy flap perfusion evaluation, cohesive form-stable implants for treatment of rippling, and various biologic and synthetic mesh products for pocket control and correction.

Conclusions

Important principles in management of short-term complications in implant-based reconstruction include aggressive and early intervention to maximize the chance of reconstructive salvage. Contemporary technological advances have played an important role in both prevention and treatment of complications. Over-arching principles in management of implant-based reconstruction complications focus on preventative techniques and preoperative patient counseling on potential risks, their likelihood, and necessary treatments to allow for informed and shared decision-making.

Antibiotics for preventing infection at the surgical site: Single dose vs. multiple doses

Background

Surgical site infections are common and expensive infections that can cause fatalities or poor patient outcomes. To prevent these infections, antibiotic prophylaxis is used. However, excessive antibiotic use is related to higher costs and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

Objectives

The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of a single dosage versus several doses of antibiotics in preventing the development of surgical site infections.

Methods

PubMed was used to find clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of a single dosage versus several doses of antibiotics in avoiding the development of surgical site infections. The study included trials that were published between 1984 and 2022. Seventy-four clinical trials were included in the analysis. Odds ratios were used to compare groups with 95% confidence intervals. The data were displayed using OR to generate a forest plot. Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4) was used to do the meta-analysis.

Results

Regarding clean operations, there were 389 surgical site infections out of 5,634 patients in a single dose group (6.90%) and 349 surgical site infections out of 5,621 patients in multiple doses group (6.21%) (OR = 1.11, lower CI = 0.95, upper CI = 1.30). Regarding clean-contaminated operations, there were 137 surgical site infections out of 2,715 patients in a single dose group (5.05%) and 137 surgical site infections out of 2,355 patients in multiple doses group (5.82%) (OR = 0.87, lower CI = 0.68, upper CI = 1.11). Regarding contaminated operations, there were 302 surgical site infections out of 3,262 patients in a single dose group (9.26%) and 276 surgical site infections out of 3,212 patients in multiple doses group (8.59%) (OR = 1.11, lower CI = 0.84, upper CI = 1.47). In general, there were 828 surgical site infections out of 11,611 patients in a single dose group (7.13%) and 762 surgical site infections out of 11,188 patients in multiple doses group (6.81%) (OR = 1.05, lower CI = 0.93, upper CI = 1.20). The difference between groups was not significant.

Conclusion

The present study showed that using a single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis was equally effective as using multiple doses of antibiotics in decreasing surgical site infections.

Using antibiotics wisely

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will describe role of shorter antibiotic therapies, early switch from intravenous to oral therapy, and artificial intelligence in infectious diseases.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is evidence that shorter courses of antibiotics are noninferior to standard durations of therapy. This has been demonstrated with Enterobacterales bacteremia that can be treated with 7 days of therapy, community acquired pneumonia with 3 days and ventilator associated pneumonia with just 7 days of antibiotic therapy. The conversion from intravenous to oral therapy in treating bacteremia, endocarditis and bone and joint infections is safe and effective and reduces line complications and costs. Also, for clean surgical procedures only one dose of antibiotic is needed, but it should be the most effective antibiotic which is cefazolin. This means avoiding clindamycin, removing penicillin allergies where possible for improved outcomes. Finally, the role of artificial intelligence to incorporate into using antibiotics wisely is rapidly emerging but is still in early stages.

SUMMARY

In using antibiotics wisely, targeting such as durations of therapy and conversion from intravenous antibiotic therapy to oral are low hanging fruit. The future of artificial intelligence could automate a lot of this work and is exciting but needs to be proven.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/COID/A50.

Impact of Postoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Surgical Site Infections Rates After Mastectomy with Drains but Without Immediate Reconstruction: A Multicenter, Double-Blinded, Randomized Control Superiority Trial

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the use of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) after mastectomy with indwelling drains. We explored the utility of continued PAP in reducing surgical site infection (SSI) rates after mastectomy without immediate reconstruction and with indwelling drains.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicenter, two-armed, randomized control superiority trial was conducted in Pakistan. We enrolled all consenting adult patients undergoing mastectomy without immediate reconstruction. All patients received a single preoperative dose of cephalexin within 60 min of incision, and postoperatively were randomized to receive either continued PAP using cephalexin (intervention) or a placebo (control) for the duration of indwelling, closed-suction drains. The primary outcome was the development of SSI within 30 days and 90 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included study-drug-associated adverse events. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed using multivariable Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 369 patients, 180 (48.8%) in the intervention group and 189 (51.2%) in the control group, were included in the final analysis. Overall cumulative SSI rates were 3.5% at 30 days and 4.6% at 90 days postoperatively. PAP was not associated with SSI reduction at 30 (hazard ratio, HR 1.666 [95% confidence interval CI 0.515-5.385]) or 90 (1.575 [0.558-4.448]) days postoperatively, or with study-drug-associated adverse effects (0.529 [0.196-1.428]).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuing antibiotic prophylaxis for the duration of indwelling drains after mastectomy without immediate reconstruction offers no additional benefit in terms of SSI reduction. There is a need to update existing guidelines to provide clearer recommendations regarding use of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis after mastectomy in the setting of indwelling drains.

Infections of Tumor Prostheses: An Updated Review on Risk Factors, Microbiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment Strategies

Several causes contribute to the high infection rate in tumor prostheses, including extensive tissue dissection and patients' immunosuppression due to the neoplastic disease. Most of these infections develop within the first 2 years following surgery with 70% of them occurring during the first year, while they are often associated with a low pathogen burden. The pathogenesis of infections in tumor prostheses is linked to bacteria developing in biofilms. Approximately half of them are caused by Staphylococcus spp., followed by Streptococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., and Enterobacteriaceae spp., while multiple pathogens may be isolated in up to 25% of the cases, with coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS) and Enterococccus spp. being the most frequent pair. Although early detection and timely management are essential for complete resolution of these challenging infections, prompt diagnosis is problematic due to the highly varying clinical symptoms and the lack of specific preoperative and intraoperative diagnostic tests. Surgical management with one- or two-stage revision surgery is the mainstay for successful eradication of these infections. The recent advances in laboratory diagnostics and the development of biofilm-resistant prostheses over the past years have been areas of great interest, as research is now focused on prevention strategies. The aim of this study is to review and consolidate the current knowledge regarding the epidemiology, risk factors, microbiology, and diagnosis of infections of tumor prostheses, and to review the current concepts for their treatment and outcomes.

Can the Future of ID Escape the Inertial Dogma of Its Past? The Exemplars of Shorter Is Better and Oral Is the New IV

Like all fields of medicine, Infectious Diseases is rife with dogma that underpins much clinical practice. In this study, we discuss 2 specific examples of historical practice that have been overturned recently by numerous prospective studies: traditional durations of antimicrobial therapy and the necessity of intravenous (IV)-only therapy for specific infectious syndromes. These dogmas are based on uncontrolled case series from >50 years ago, amplified by the opinions of eminent experts. In contrast, more than 120 modern, randomized controlled trials have established that shorter durations of therapy are equally effective for many infections. Furthermore, 21 concordant randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that oral antibiotic therapy is at least as effective as IV-only therapy for osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis. Nevertheless, practitioners in many clinical settings remain refractory to adopting these changes. It is time for Infectious Diseases to move beyond its history of eminent opinion-based medicine and truly into the era of evidenced-based medicine.