Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and antibiotic use in septorhinoplasty: case report and review of literature

An examination of antibiotic administration in septorhinoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Septoplasty and rhinoplasty are common otolaryngological procedures, often combined as septorhinoplasty (SRP), offering aesthetic and functional benefits. These surgeries are believed to potentially risk postoperative infections due to natural bacterial flora in the nares. This study evaluates the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in reducing post-surgical infection complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, focusing on antibiotic use in septoplasty, rhinoplasty, and SRP. The study included randomized control trials, single/double-blind studies, retrospective chart reviews, and prospective cohort studies, excluding pediatric, non-human research, or studies with inaccessible data. Postoperative infection rates were analyzed utilizing R software as a form of Statistic.

RESULTS

From 697 articles, 15 studies were chosen for meta-analysis, involving 2225 patients, with 1274 receiving prophylactic antibiotics and 951 as controls. The meta-analysis indicated an odds ratio of 0.65 (95 % CI: [0.23, 1.89]), showing no significant protective effect of prophylactic antibiotics.

DISCUSSION

The study found no significant infection rate reduction with prophylactic antibiotic use. Notable were inconsistencies in study designs, antibiotic administration timing, and varied surgical practices. Antibiotic use risks were considered. Study limitations include potential biases and the retrospective nature of many studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review and meta-analysis found no substantial evidence supporting prophylactic antibiotics' effectiveness in reducing postoperative infection rates in septoplasty, rhinoplasty, and SRP, indicating a need to reevaluate practices and develop evidence-based guidelines. Future research should focus on comprehensive, randomized control studies, covering both preoperative and postoperative stages.

Analysis of pathogen distribution and antimicrobial resistance at infected sites in plastic surgery

OBJECTIVE

By analyzing the distribution and drug resistance of common pathogen in different sites in plastic surgery to provide reference for clinicians to choose the best antibacterial treatment plan.

METHODS

Pathogens of postoperative infection in plastic surgery from January 2011 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed to determine the species and quantity, and to access the trend of each pathogen's detection rate. The antibiotic sensitivity and distribution characteristics of common pathogens were studied in conjunction with the site of infection.

RESULTS

A total of 1709 bacterial strains were detected, including 1244 gram-positive bacterial strains and 465 gram-negative bacterial strains. The main pathogen of perineum was Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa), while Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) was the most common pathogen in the other infected sites. The detection rate of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococcus (MRCNS) was on the rise from 2011 to 2021. No S. aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococcus (CoNS) strains were resistant to vancomycin. The sensitive rate of S. aureus from all parts and CoNS from all sites except lower limbs and mandible was higher than 80% to linezolid. The resistance rate of S. aureus and CoNS in all parts to penicillin, clindamycin, and erythromycin was high. The susceptibility rate of CoNS in lower mandible was high to gentamicin.

CONCLUSIONS

Staphylococcus aureus was the primary pathogen of gram-positive bacteria in all site of plastic surgery except perineum, followed by CoNS. The distribution and drug resistance of pathogen in different infection sites were different. We should formulate more accurate and reasonable antibacterial programs according to drug resistance results of various parts to reduce the emergence of resistant strains and effectively prevent and control infection.

Incidence and Predisposing Factors of Postoperative Infection after Rhinoplasty: A Single Surgeon's 16-Year Experience with 2630 Cases in an East Asian Population

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the incidence and clinical characteristics of postoperative infection following rhinoplasty.

METHODS

This article is a retrospective review of 2630 East Asian rhinoplasty cases performed by a single surgeon (Y.J.J.), from July of 2003 to June of 2018. There were 1595 male patients (69.9 percent) and 687 female patients (30.1 percent), and the median age was 31 years. The incidence of infection was compared between primary and revision cases and analyzed according to the materials used. The authors evaluated the organisms cultured and the timeframe of infection development and intervention.

RESULTS

There were 2134 primary and 496 revision cases. Materials included autologous costal cartilage (413 cases), conchal cartilage (572 cases), homologous fascia lata (829 cases), homologous costal cartilage (102 cases), Gore-Tex (373 cases), and silicone (32 cases). The authors identified 22 cases (0.84 percent) of postoperative infection, 18 of which were revision. Revision surgery had a 19-fold greater infection rate than primary surgery (3.63 percent versus 0.19 percent). Women were 3.6 times as likely to develop an infection ( p = 0.002). The infection rate using autologous costal cartilage was 3.39 percent, and that for simultaneous correction of a septal perforation was 8.57 percent. In 11 cases (50 percent), infection developed within 1 month after surgery (12 ± 7 days). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was cultured in eight cases. Infection manifested at the nasal tip in 45 percent and the caudal septum/columella in 32 percent of cases. Twenty cases (90.9 percent) underwent surgical débridement.

CONCLUSION

Revision rhinoplasty in women, requiring the use of costal cartilage or simultaneous correction of septal perforation, showed a higher risk of postrhinoplasty infection, which usually manifested at the nasal tip and caudal septum/columella and needed to be managed by surgical débridement.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Evaluation of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Although antibiotic prophylaxis following rhinoplasty is widespread, the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis effectiveness and the superiority of particular administration regimens is controversial. To date, a meta-analysis on the topic has not been performed.

Objective

To systematically review the association between use of preventive antibiotics and postoperative complications in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and quantify the review through meta-analysis.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Central (Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched with prospectively designed search phrases on February 16, 2018. All databases were searched from database inception. Key search terms included rhinoplasty, nasal valve repair, and antibacterial agent.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with adults (≥18 years) undergoing rhinoplasty and including systemic antibiotic medications administered in the absence of other reasons for use of an antibiotic (eg, localized or systemic infection), without restrictions on language or the time of publication, were included in the study. Interventions of interest were classified into 3 types: (1) single-dose systemic antibiotic administered within 24 hours before the first incision, (2) multidose systemic antibiotic treatment started within 24 hours before the first incision and continuing after the operation, and (3) systemic antibiotic therapy (single dose or multidose) started within 24 hours after the first incision. The following comparisons were made: for the interventions of type 1, no antibiotic; for the interventions of types 2 or 3, no antibiotic or an intervention of type 1.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data extraction was compliant with PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the remaining records at abstract and full-text stages. Meta-analysis pooled with random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Difference in infectious complication rate between groups.

Results

A total of 262 records were identified; of these, only 5 RCTs fulfilled predetermined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria. The pooled study sample consisted of 589 participants. No significant differences in outcome of preventive antibiotic therapy given either preoperatively or postoperatively were found, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43; P = .86).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study appears to be the first Cochrane-protocol systematic review and meta-analysis investigating preventive antibiotics in rhinoplasty. This study's results suggest that pooled evidence from the 5 RCTs does not support the use of preventive antibiotic therapy in rhinoplasty.

Level of Evidence

1.

Intranasal Septal Splints: Prophylactic Antibiotics and Nasal Microbiology

OBJECTIVES

Intranasal septal splints are often used in nasal septal surgeries. Routine use of postoperative antibiotics is an accepted practice, although data regarding its efficacy in preventing postsurgical complications are limited. This study aimed to examine bacterial colonization on septal splints following prophylactic antibiotic therapy and the association with postoperative infections.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients underwent septoplasty by a single surgeon between March 2015 and April 2016. All had intranasal septal splints and were given antibiotic prophylaxis for 7 days until removal of splints. Nasal cultures were taken before surgery, and septal splints were examined for bacterial colonization following their removal.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients (65%) had positive nasal culture prior to surgery. The most common isolates were Staphylococcus aureus (30%) and Enterobacteriaceae species (66%). All these patients had postoperative bacterial colonization on septal splints. In 15 patients with negative preoperative cultures, bacteria were isolated postoperatively. An increased resistance profile was documented postoperatively in 9 patients (16%), including two with multidrug resistance. In two of these patients preoperative wild-type strains acquired antibiotic resistance postoperatively. No adverse drug reactions to antibiotics were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased bacterial growth and emergence of resistant strains were observed on intranasal septal splints despite prophylactic antibiotic treatment. Nonetheless, this did not translate into clinical infection. Thus, considering antibiotics overuse and increasing bacterial resistance, further research is needed to determine the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in the setting of intranasal splints.