Comparison of oral penicillin G and clindamycin as prophylactic antibiotics in oral surgery

Is clindamycin effective in preventing infectious complications after oral surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of clindamycin in the prevention of infection after oral surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA statement, the PICO-framework and included only randomized controlled clinical trials. In all studies clindamycin was administered to prevent infections in patients who underwent oral surgery. Two independent researchers conducted the search, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Included studies were classified by the type of oral surgery. Besides, data of patients, procedures and outcome variables were collected. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by using Mantel-Haenszel model and the number needed to treat (NNT). Finally, any potential sources of heterogeneity were estimated.

RESULTS

Seven trials of 540 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Four articles assessing the effect of oral clindamycin in third molar surgery were quantitatively analyzed. The overall RR was 0.66 (95% CI = 0.38-1.16), being non-statistically significant (p = 0.15). There was no heterogeneity between the studies I² = 0, p = 0.44. The NNT was 29 (95% CI = 12- -57).

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of clindamycin could not be evaluated except in third molar extraction. Oral clindamycin is ineffective in preventing infection in third molar surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

There is a lack of high-quality evidence supporting the prescription of clindamycin to prevent infections after oral surgery, despite being frequently prescribed as an alternative for penicillin-allergic patients. Oral clindamycin has not been shown to be effective after third molar extractions.

Surgical Site Infections Following Bimaxillary Orthognathic, Osseous Genioplasty, and Intranasal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Frequency estimates of surgical site infection (SSI) after orthognathic surgery vary considerably. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and site of SSIs and associated risk factors after bimaxillary orthognathic, osseous genioplasty, and intranasal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors executed a retrospective cohort study of patients with a bimaxillary developmental dentofacial deformity (DFD) and symptomatic chronic obstructive nasal breathing. All patients underwent at a minimum Le Fort I osteotomy, bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomies (SROs), septoplasty, inferior turbinate reduction, and osseous genioplasty. The primary outcome variable studied was the incidence and site of SSI. Predictor variables were type and extent of prophylactic antibiotic used, demographic (age and gender), and anatomic (pattern of DFD, surgical site, and presence of third molar).

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-two patients met the inclusion criteria. Their average age at surgery was 25 years (range, 13 to 63 yr) and there were 134 female patients (51%). The major presenting patterns of DFD included long face (30%) and maxillary deficiency (25%). Forty percent of patients undergoing an SRO and 47% of those undergoing a Le Fort I osteotomy underwent simultaneous removal of a third molar. Ninety percent of patients received cefazolin or cephalexin antibiotics. Overall, 5 of 1,048 (0.5%) osteotomy sites sustained an infection, including 1 chin and 4 ramus SSIs. There were no delays in bone healing. Fixation hardware removal was not required in any patient who developed an infection. Two of the 25 patients (8%) given clindamycin prophylaxis developed an SSI, whereas 3 of 237 patients (1%) receiving cefazolin did. Three of the 4 patients who developed an SRO SSI underwent simultaneous removal of an erupted or partially erupted mandibular third molar (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the incidence of SSI was limited to 1% of patients who were given cefazolin or cephalexin extended for 5 days. The removal of an erupted or partially erupted mandibular third molar in conjunction with an SRO was associated with risk of SSI, but the incidence remains low.

Cross-infection from contaminated anaesthetic equipment. A real hazard?

A definite relationship between the use of contaminated anaesthetic equipment and subsequent pulmonary infection remains to be established. There is however indirect and circumstantial evidence suggesting that cross-infection may occur, and further an increased susceptibility of surgical patients to pulmonary infections has been demonstrated. Decontamination should be recommended before the equipment is re-used. Pasteurisation may prove sufficient and this can be obtained employing a specially designed dish-washing machine.

Infected total hip replacement after dental procedures

Three cases are reported in which there was a worrisome association between dental work and an infected total hip replacement. The patients had long asymptomatic intervals subsequent to implantation of prosthetic hip joints. After dental procedures, infections became apparent in these hips. Such infections carry an enormous and crippling morbidity. The potential complications of transient bacteremia in the patient with a cardiac valvular prosthesis are appreciated and the importance of prophylactic antibodies for dental work in such patients is well known. Although we emphasize that there is no proof that the infections in our patients were metastatic from the mouth, the sequence of events is suggestive. We recommend prophylactic antibiotics for dental work in the patient with a total hip replacement.