Prophylactic antibiotics in aesthetic and reconstructive surgery

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Reduction Mammaplasty: A National Survey

BACKGROUND

Although there is limited evidence for regulating the use of prophylactic antibiotics in reduction mammaplasty, many plastic surgeons prescribe them, even in the postoperative period. This study aimed to conduct a national survey to investigate the antibiotic prophylaxis protocols followed by Brazilian plastic surgeons in reduction mammaplasty.

METHODS

An anonymous survey comprising 19 questions was sent to all 4864 active members of the Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery (SBCP). The surgeons electronically received the invitation to participate in the survey and the link to fill out the electronic form.

RESULTS

In total, 859 surgeons (17.7%) responded. Most respondents (77.8%) were men and aged 35-55 years (61.5%); 58.6% of them had 10-29 years of specialty training. Only a minor proportion of the respondents (0.5%) reported not prescribing antibiotics at any time (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0-0.9), 9.9% (95% CI: 7.9-11.9) prescribed them only preoperatively, and 14.6% (95% CI: 12.2-16.9) prescribed continued antibiotic use for 24 h. The majority of the respondents (75.1%; 95% CI: 72.1-77.9) prescribed antibiotics for additional days after discharge. There were significant associations between antibiotic prescription and the surgeons' age group (p = 0.015), time since graduation (p < 0.001), experience in the specialty practice (p = 0.003), SBCP membership (p < 0.001), and surgical site infection rates (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Most responding plastic surgeons affirmed that they prescribed prophylactic antibiotics for more than 24 h in reduction mammaplasty cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Postoperative Surgical Site Infection Rate in Patients with Diabetes following Mohs Micrographic Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) following Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) among patients with diabetes is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate diabetes as a potential SSI risk factor in MMS by comparing SSI incidence in a cohort of patients with and without diabetes.

METHODS

5-year retrospective review to determine SSI rate in patients with diabetes compared to patients without diabetes. SSI incidence in patients with diabetes was further compared by A1c, and the impact of antibiotics on SSI rate was also examined.

RESULTS

Overall rate of SSI was 1.47% (53/3,597 cases). SSI rate among patients with diabetes was 1.95% (14/719 cases) compared to 1.35% (39/2,878 cases) in patients without diabetes, with a non-significant odds ratio for SSI of 1.45 (95% CI = 0.78-2.68, p = 0.241). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed no difference in SSI. Stratification of diabetic patients by A1c into ≥7.0 and <7.0 compared to patients without diabetes yielded no statistically significant difference in SSI among all groups (p = 0.815). Whether an antibiotic was prescribed did not significantly impact SSI rate between groups.

CONCLUSION

No significant difference in postoperative SSI was found in patients with diabetes compared to patients without diabetes following MMS regardless of degree of glycemic control.

Analysis of Malpractice Claims Associated with Surgical Site Infection in the Field of Plastic Surgery

Postoperative infections are rare after plastic surgery; however, when present, they can affect the aesthetic outcome. Currently, many malpractice lawsuits are associated with surgical site infection. The present study aimed to analyze malpractice claims associated with surgical site infection in the field of plastic surgery through a review of Korean precedents. We analyzed the type of procedure, associated complications, and legal judgment in these cases. Most claimants were women, and claims were most often related to breast surgery. The common complications related to surgical site infection were deformity, scar, and asymmetry. Among the 40 cases, 34 were won by the plaintiff, and the mean claim settlement was 2,832,654 KRW (USD 2,636.6). The reasons for these judgements were as follows: 1) immediate bacterial culture tests were not performed and appropriate antibiotics were not used; 2) patients were not transferred to a high-level hospital or the infection control department was not consulted; 3) surgical site infection control measures were not appropriate; and 4) surgical procedures were performed without preoperative explanation about surgical site infection. The number of claims owing to surgical site infection after surgery is increasing. Infection handling was one of the key factors that influenced the judgement, and preoperative explanation about the possibility of infection is important. The findings will help surgeons achieve high patient satisfaction and reduce liability concerns.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in reduction mammaplasty: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The role of antibiotics in surgical procedures where the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) is low remains uncertain. There is, to date, no evidence to justify the routine use of antibiotics in postoperative reduction mammaplasty. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of postoperative antibiotic treatment on the occurrence of SSI after breast reduction surgery.

Methods

This is a double-blind randomized clinical trial with 124 breast hypertrophy patients allocated to two treatment groups: antibiotic (n = 62) and placebo (n = 62). All patients will undergo reduction mammoplasty, performed by the same surgical team. The surgeons will raise the nipple-areola complex by the superomedial pedicle technique. The patients will receive antibiotics intravenously during anesthetic induction and every 6 hours thereafter during their 24-hour hospital stay. During discharge from the hospital, each patient will receive a numbered package containing either cephalexin or placebo capsules and will be directed to take one capsule every 6 hours for 7 days. Neither the surgery team nor the patients will know the contents of the capsules. Patients will be monitored for the occurrence of SSI once weekly during the first 30 days following hospital discharge by a single surgeon who is blinded to their treatment group. SSI will be evaluated based on the definition adopted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Discussion

Due to the variety of risk factors for SSI and limited case studies, conclusions regarding the effect of antibiotics on the occurrence of SSIs following reduction mammaplasty are potentially biased. In recent studies, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis was effective in preventing infection and is therefore recommended in clinical practice. However, antibiotic use in the postoperative period still remains controversial.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02569866. Registered on 4 October 2015.

Infection in face-lift surgery: an evidence-based approach to infection prevention

BACKGROUND

Complications in face-lift surgery are rare but can present a difficult experience for the patient and surgeon. It is the objective of this review to evaluate the clinical efficacy of routine perioperative safety measures in preventing surgical-site infection in face-lift surgery.

METHODS

A review of the literature was performed to assess the correlation of preoperative decolonization, prophylactic antibiotic use, perioperative hypothermia, body mass index, and smoking status with the incidence of surgical-site infection in cosmetic surgery, especially pertaining to face-lift surgery.

RESULTS

Studies supporting safe practice in cosmetic surgery and "clean" procedures are analyzed and discussed.

CONCLUSION

This article provides the current evidence on perioperative safety measures and recommendations regarding the prevention of infection in cosmetic surgery, especially in face-lift surgery.

Efficacy and safety profile of antibiotic prophylaxis usage in clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus with regard to antibiotic prophylaxis usage in clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery. This meta-analysis sought to assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis and to determine appropriate duration of prophylaxis.

METHODS

An English language literature search was conducted using PubMed and the Cochrane Collaboration for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate the use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery. Data from intention-to-treat analyses were used where available. For the dichotomous data, results for each study were odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and combined for meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method or the DerSimonian and Laird method. Study quality was critically appraised by 2 reviewers using established criteria. STATA version 12 was used for meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 2395 patients were included, of which 8 trials were considered to be of high methodological quality. Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in plastic and reconstructive surgery was found favorable over placebo in SSI prevention (13 studies; 2449 participants; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < 0.01) and the other wound complication (OWC) prevention (9 studies; 1843 participants; OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.84; P < 0.02). Subgroup analysis performed according to surgical wound type or the duration of prophylaxis did not modify the results except for the OWC with short-term antibiotic treatment. Compared with short-term antibiotic prophylaxis, long-term administration showed no evidence of a difference in risk of SSI (7 studies; 1012 participants; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.63-1.55; P < 0.95), OWC (5 studies; 824 participants; OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.46-1.86; P < 0.82), and adverse event relative to antibiotic administration (3 studies; 653 participants; OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.01-4.92; P < 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of RCTs provides evidence supporting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduced postoperative SSI in clean plastic surgeries with high-risk factors and clean-contaminated plastic surgeries. Besides, a short-course administration regimen seemed to be of adequate efficacy and safety. High-quality prospective trials on larger scale are needed to further confirm these findings.

Once is not enough: withholding postoperative prophylactic antibiotics in prosthetic breast reconstruction is associated with an increased risk of infection

BACKGROUND

There has been a trend toward limiting perioperative prophylactic antibiotics, based on research not conducted in plastic surgery patients. The authors' university hospital instituted antibiotic prescribing guidelines based on the Surgical Care Improvement Project. An increased rate of surgical-site infections was noted in breast reconstruction patients. The authors sought to determine whether the change in antibiotic prophylaxis regimen affected rates of surgical-site infections.

METHODS

A retrospective study compared patients undergoing breast reconstruction who received preoperative and postoperative prophylactic antibiotics with a group who received only a single dose of preoperative antibiotic. Type of reconstruction and known risk factors for implant infection were noted.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty patients were included: 116 in the pre-Surgical Care Improvement Project group and 134 in the Surgical Care Improvement Project group. The overall rate of surgical-site infections increased from 18.1 percent to 34.3 percent (p = 0.004). Infections requiring reoperation increased from 4.3 percent to 16.4 percent (p = 0.002). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that patients in the Surgical Care Improvement group were 4.74 times more likely to develop a surgical-site infection requiring reoperation (95 percent CI, 1.69 to 13.80). Obesity, history of radiation therapy, and reconstruction with tissue expanders were associated with increased rates of surgical-site infection requiring reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Withholding postoperative prophylactic antibiotics in prosthetic breast reconstruction is associated with an increased risk of surgical-site infection, reoperation, and thus reconstructive failure. The optimal duration of postoperative prophylactic antibiotic use is the subject of future study.

Evaluating the role of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics in primary and secondary breast augmentation: a retrospective review

BACKGROUND

The use of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics following augmentation mammaplasty remains a controversial topic, with many surgeons opting for extended prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

The authors evaluate the role of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics in both primary and secondary cosmetic breast augmentation.

METHODS

A five-year retrospective chart review was performed on all patients undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation at a single institution from January 2005 to December 2009. The four attending physicians in this study utilized similar perioperative protocol and implant materials. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who had received three days of postoperative antibiotics (primarily cephalosporins) and those who had not. End points of particular interest included infection, capsular contracture (CC), and local wound complications. The mean follow-up time was 3.8 years.

RESULTS

A total of 605 implants were included over the five-year study period. The overall infection rate was 0.66%. For primary augmentation, 493 implants were studied, with 52% of those patients having received postoperative antibiotics. There was no statistically significant reduction in infection, CC, or total complication rate for those receiving postoperative antibiotics. Similarly, 112 implants were studied for secondary augmentation, and again, postoperative antibiotics were not associated with a reduction in complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that there was no reduction in the overall rate of total complications, infection, or CC with postoperative prophylactic antibiotics for either primary or secondary cosmetic breast augmentation. This study provides Level 3 evidence in support of discontinuing prophylactic postoperative antibiotics following cosmetic breast augmentation.

Prophylactic antibiotics in aesthetic surgery

Improvements in infection prevention practices over the past several decades have enhanced outcomes following aesthetic surgery. However, surgical site infections (SSI) continue to result in increased morbidity, mortality, and cost of care. The true incidence rate of SSI in aesthetic surgery is unknown due to the lack of a national surveillance system, but studies of SSI across surgical specialties have suggested that many of these infections are preventable. Patient-related factors-including obesity, glycemic control, and tobacco use-may contribute to the development of SSI following aesthetic surgery. In terms of SSI prevention, proper handwashing and surgical skin preparation are integral. Furthermore, the administration of prophylactic antibiotics has been shown to reduce SSI following many types of surgical procedures. Unfortunately, there are few large, randomized studies examining the role of prophylactic antibiotics in aesthetic surgery. The authors review the medical literature, discuss the risks of antibiotic overutilization, and detail nonpharmacological methods for reducing the risk of SSI.

Antibacterial prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery: an evidence-based review

Clean, non-contaminated skin surgery is associated with low rates of surgical site infection (SSI), bacterial endocarditis, and joint prosthesis infection. Hence, antibacterial prophylaxis, which may be associated with adverse effects, the emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens, and anaphylaxis, is generally not recommended in dermatologic surgery. Some body sites and surgical reconstructive procedures are associated with higher infection rates, and guidelines for SSI antibacterial prophylaxis have been proposed for these cases. Large prospective, controlled trials are needed to ascertain the role of oral SSI prophylaxis for these surgical sites and procedures especially in patients with diabetes mellitus who are intrinsically at greater risk of SSI. Topical antibacterial ointment and sterile paraffin appear to make no difference to healing or the incidence of SSIs in clean wounds. Although further research is needed, preliminary studies have shown that intraincisional antibacterials, which may be associated with fewer adverse effects and a lower risk of multidrug-resistant bacteria, could potentially be helpful for SSI prophylaxis. Trials using honey- and silver-impregnated dressings have found no advantage in the healing of chronic wounds. However, several case studies, which need corroboration in larger studies, suggest that these dressings may be helpful in preventing and treating SSIs. Bacterial endocarditis and joint prosthesis infection prophylaxis are not routinely recommended in cutaneous surgery. The updated 2007 American Heart Association guidelines now advocate bacterial endocarditis prophylaxis for high-risk cardiac patients having surgery involving the oral mucosa or infected skin. The latest American Dental Association/American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery guidelines recommend considering antibacterial prophylaxis for oral procedures where bleeding is anticipated and for surgery involving acute orofacial skin infections if the patient has had a total joint replacement within 2 years or is in a high-risk group and has had a joint replacement at any time.

Prospective evaluation of surgical site infection rate among patients with Mohs micrographic surgery without the use of prophylactic antibiotics

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics may be indiscriminately given to patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) for the prevention of surgical site infections, despite a low risk of infection in these patients.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the rate of wound infections among patients undergoing MMS without the use of prophylactic antibiotics.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 1000 consecutive patients undergoing MMS for nonmelanoma skin cancer or modified MMS/"slow Mohs" for lentigo maligna melanoma in situ.

RESULTS

The overall wound infection rate among 1000 patients with 1115 tumors was 0.7% (8/1115 tumors). Five (62.5%) of 8 infections occurred on the nose with an overall 1.7% (5/302) nose infection rate. Seven (87.5%) of 8 infections occurred after flap reconstruction with an overall 2.4% (7/296) flap closure infection rate. Four (50%) of 8 infections occurred in patients requiring more than one Mohs stage for tumor clearance with a 0.8% (4/487) overall infection rate in cases requiring multiple Mohs stages. Two (25%) of 8 infections had cultures positive for oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. No wound infections occurred in cases involving the lips or ears, skin-graft closures, or below-knee or modified MMS procedures.

LIMITATIONS

This was a prospective single institution uncontrolled study.

CONCLUSION

Rates of infections among patients undergoing MMS or modified MMS are exceedingly low. Indiscriminate use of antibiotics increases patient risk to adverse drug reactions and antibiotic resistance. Administration of antibiotics to patients undergoing MMS should be on a case-by-case basis according to the known risk factors combined with clinical judgment.

Prospective study of wound infections in dermatologic surgery in the absence of prophylactic antibiotics

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to identify wound sites/procedures where infection incidence was over 5%, such that these circumstances may warrant wound infection antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHOD

We undertook a 3-year prospective study of 5,091 lesions (predominantly nonmelanoma skin cancer) treated on 2,424 patients from July 2002 to June 2005. No patient was given prophylactic antibiotics, and no patient ceased warfarin or aspirin.

RESULTS

Overall infection incidence was 1.47%. Individual procedures had the following infection incidence: curettage 0.73% (3/412); skin flap repairs 2.94% (47/1601); simple excision and closure 0.54% (16/2974); skin grafts 8.70% (6/69); and wedge excision 8.57% (3/35). Analysis of regions of the body demonstrated that surgery below the knee (n = 448) had an infection incidence of 6.92% (31/448) (p < .0001). Subanalysis demonstrated that all regions below the knee were at high infection risk. Elsewhere, groin excisional surgery had an infection incidence of 10% (1/10) (p = .027). No other body site demonstrated an infection incidence beyond 5% of statistical significance. Procedures on the face demonstrated an infection incidence of 0.81% (18/2,209). Diabetic patients, those on warfarin and/or aspirin, and smokers showed no difference in infection incidence.

CONCLUSION

Based on a prediction of infection incidence over 5%, the following cutaneous oncologic procedures warrant consideration of oral antibiotic wound infection prophylaxis: all procedures below the knee, wedge excisions of lip and ear, all skin grafts, and lesions in the groin. Other than under these circumstances, surgery to the nose, ear, fingers, lips, skin flap surgery, and surgery on diabetics, smokers, and those on anticoagulants have previously been considered for wound infection prophylaxis but do not warrant such intervention based on our data. The authors have indicated no significant interest with commercial supporters.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Dermatologic Surgery: Updated Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery is poorly understood, and data on its use are lacking. Prophylaxis is indicated for the prevention of endocarditis and prosthesis infection, as well as surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVE

We review essential considerations for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery and provide clear guidelines for practical implementation.

METHODS

Guidelines were developed after review of the literature and consultation with infectious disease specialists and subspecialists in the areas of cardiac, orthopedic, and neurosurgical infectious disease at Mayo Clinic.

RESULTS

Three factors affect the decision to use prophylactic antibiotics in dermatologic surgery: (1) the underlying indication for prophylaxis (patient risk stratification), (2) the condition of the skin, and (3) the specific procedure planned. Thorough preoperative evaluation and surgical planning are critical in identifying and optimizing patient and environmental risk factors that may increase the risk of infection. Appropriate antibiotic selections with site-specific consideration and appropriate timing of antibiotic administration are key factors in providing effective prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Low rates of infection associated with dermatologic surgical procedures warrant selective use of antibiotic prophylaxis. The proposed guidelines reflect current standards of practice.