Single‐dose orally administered quinolone appears to be sufficient antibiotic prophylaxis for radical retropubic prostatectomy

Comparison of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and conventional approach after laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: a retrospective analysis

Background

Although open radical prostatectomy has been used in the treatment of localized prostate cancer for a long time, minimally invasive surgical approaches such as laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy have recently gained importance in order to improve postoperative results and shorten hospital stay. Although the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol was first defined for gastrointestinal surgeries in 2001, it has now been used in gynecological, orthopedic, thoracic and urological surgeries. In our study, we aimed to compare the results of the ERAS protocol with the conventional approach in patients who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Methods

There is a retrospective analysis of 70 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at Kayseri City Hospital between May 2018 and January 2021. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows, version 25.0 (IBM SPSS, Armonk, NY, USA). Seventy patients were included in the study. While 48 patients who underwent perioperative care with the traditional approach were included in the conventional group, 22 patients were included in the ERAS group. Age, comorbidities, preoperative PSA level, digital rectal examination findings, preoperative imaging, extra prostatic spread and lymph node involvement, location of tumors, time between biopsy and surgery, lymphadenectomy status, and histopathological findings of transrectal ultrasound biopsy and prostatectomy specimens were recorded for each patient. Initiation of enteral feeding, time to first defecation, duration of antibiotic use, ileus development rate and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared for both groups.

Results

The mean age of 48 patients in the conventional group was 63.37 ± 7.01 years, while the mean age of 22 patients in the ERAS group was 66.36 ± 5.31 years (p = 0.080). Although the first defecation time was shorter in the ERAS group (4.75 ± 3.21 vs. 3.73 ± 2.12 days, p = 0.179), there was no statistically significant difference. Ileus developed in 10 (20.8%) patients in the conventional group and 2 (9.1%) in the ERAS group. Use of antibiotics in the postoperative period in the conventional group (5.83 ± 3.62 vs. 3.18 ± 2.42 days, p = 0.003) and LOS (7.92 ± 3.26 vs. 5.91 ± 2, 15 days, p = 0.011) were statistically significantly longer.

Conclusion

In summary, ERAS protocol is associated with short LOS, time to initiation of enteral feeding and duration of antibiotics use. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of ileus and time to first defecation between the two groups. Randomized prospective studies on heterogeneous and larger patient groups are needed to confirm our findings.

Vesicourethral Anastomotic Stenosis After Open or Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Retropubic Prostatectomy-Results from the Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open Trial

BACKGROUND

Vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis is a well-known late complication after open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) with previously reported incidences of 2.7-15%. There are few reports of the incidence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) compared with RRP.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare the risk of developing symptomatic stenosis after RRP and RALP, and to explore potential risk factors and the influence of stenosis on the risk of urinary incontinence.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Between 2008 and 2011, 4003 men were included in a prospective trial comparing RRP and RALP at 14 Swedish centres. Clinical data and patient questionnaires were collected before, during, and after surgery.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Stenosis was identified by either patients' reports in questionnaires or case report forms. The primary endpoint is reported as unadjusted as well as adjusted relative risks (RRs), calculated with log-binomial regression models. Data on incontinence were analysed by means of a log-binomial regression model, with stenosis as an independent and incontinence as a dependent variable.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Symptomatic stenosis developed in 1.9% of 3706 evaluable men within 24 mo. The risk was 2.2 times higher after RRP than after RALP (RR 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38-3.53). Overall, urinary incontinence was twice as common in patients who had stenosis (RR 2.01, 95% CI 1.43-2.64).

CONCLUSIONS

This large prospective study found an overall low rate of vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis after radical prostatectomy, but the rate was significantly lower after robot-assisted prostatectomy. The risk of stenosis seems to be associated with the number of sutures/takes in the anastomosis, but this was statistically significant only in the RALP group.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We investigated the risk of developing vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis after open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. We found that the risk was generally lower than previously reported and lower after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy than after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urinary incontinence was twice as common in patients with stenosis.

POLYSEROSITIS AND SEVERE SEPSIS AFTER OPEN SUPRAPUBIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: A CASE REPORT

- Infections are well-known complications of radical prostatectomy. In the United States and Europe, the rates of surgical site infections are generally less than 1% and of other infections up to 3%. We report a case of a 62-year-old man who developed severe sepsis with renal insufficiency, paralytic ileus and polyserositis after radical prostatectomy, as a consequence of probable quinolone-resistant bacterial infection. Computed tomography of the abdomen and chest showed polyserositis with bilateral pleural and peritoneal effusions. Treatment with meropenem and other supportive measures resulted in good clinical outcome. This case suggested that severe sepsis with exudative polyserositis was probably caused by mobilization of an infective agent (bacterium) during bladder neck dissection as part of open radical prostatectomy.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of 2-Day and More than 2-Day Prophylaxis

The efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy (RP) remains to be established. We retrospectively compared the occurrence of perioperative infections after RP between the 2 different antibiotic protocols. This study involved 428 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). After excluding patients who had no perioperative urine culture data, 313 consecutive patients who underwent LRP for prostate carcinoma were classified into 2 groups according to the duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis. To group 1 (153 patients), a second-generation cephalosporin was administered for less than 2 days, whilst the remaining 160 patients in group 2 were administered the drug for more than 2 days. The overall incidence of postoperative bacteriuria was 50.8%, being significantly higher in group 1 (56.9%) than in group 2 (45%). The incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) was significantly higher in group 1 (5.2%) than in group 2 (0.6%). Multivariate analysis revealed that old age, duration of antibiotics for more than 2 days, and duration of Foley catheter placement were independently associated with postoperative infectious complications (all, P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that duration of antibiotics for more than 2 days, duration of Foley catheter placement, and duration of surgical drain placement were independently associated with postoperative SSI (all, P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative bacteriuria and SSI were higher in patients who received antibiotics for a short duration. Based on our results, we demonstrated that the outcome of postoperative infectious complications is dependent on old age, short antibiotic administration duration, and prolonged Foley catheterization. Prolonged drain placement is associated with SSI, whilst a longer duration of antibiotics use and prolonged Foley catheterization are associated with a decrease in the incidence of SSI.

[Antibiotic prophylaxis in urology]

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is used to minimize infectious complications resulting from interventions. Due to high rates of development of bacterial resistance and side effects, the use of antibiotics must be weighed on the basis of high levels of evidence. The main endpoints of urology AP are the prevention of symptomatic urogenital infections, urosepsis and wound infections. The purpose of this review is to bring objectives, principles and recommendations on urology AP according to the latest scientific evidence.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library using keywords such as AP, prophylaxis, antibiotics, urological surgery, urogenital surgery and the names of the urologic procedures. The results of studies on the AP for each procedure were classified according to the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation from the European Association of Urology.

RESULTS

There are a number of good quality studies on AP about endoscopic resection of the prostate (TURP), urodynamic studies and transrectal prostate biopsies (trPB). The majority of the studies about other procedures have several limitations (sample size, consistency of definitions, statistics and trial design). Lack of consistency in the definitions of infectious complications does not allow comparison between different studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The AP is evidence-based is indicated only for TURP and trPB. It is desirable to perform randomized, prospective and controlled trials in order to rationalize the use of antibiotics, improve the cost/benefit ratio and reduce bacterial antibiotic resistances.

Aetiology and antibiotic resistance issues regarding urological procedures

There are specific indications in urological procedures [transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB), endoscopic procedures, and all interventions classified as contaminated or dirty] requiring antibiotic prophylaxis. Most postoperative infections are caused by enterococci of the Gram-positive strains and Enterobacteriaceae of the Gram-negative ones. As reported by the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), there are increasing numbers of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Most Enterococcus faecium strains are ampicillin-resistant and the Enterobacteriaceae have a high prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers, for which the cephalosporins and penicillins are not drugs of choice. In recent years, there are also increasing numbers of Gram-negative strains that are able to produce carbapenemases and for which the only therapeutic options are gentamicin, tigecycline and colistin. An alternative to these drugs, from a prophylactic point of view, is fosfomycin, an old antibiotic that maintains bactericidal activity against both enterococci and multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Available in an oral formulation as trometamol salt, fosfomycin reaches high plasma and urine concentrations, and is therefore a possible alternative to other drugs both for therapy and urological prophylaxis.

A prospective Korean multicenter study for infectious complications in patients undergoing prostate surgery: risk factors and efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis

This multicenter study was undertaken to determine the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and identify the risk factors for infectious complications after prostate surgery in Korean patients. A total of 424 patients who underwent surgery of the prostate were reviewed. All patients underwent urinalysis and urine culture preoperatively and postoperatively. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and risk factors for infectious complications were investigated. Infectious complications were observed in 34.9% of all patients. Factors independently associated with infectious complications were diabetes mellitus (adjusted OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.09-3.65, P=0.025) and operation time (adjusted OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13, P=0.004). Clinicians should be aware of the high risk of infectious complications in patients with diabetes and those who undergo a prolonged operation time. Neither the type nor duration of prophylactic antibiotics resulted in differences in infectious complications.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy: 1-day versus 4-day treatments

OBJECTIVE

The standard protocol of antibiotic prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy remains to be established. We retrospectively compared the occurrence of perioperative infections following radical prostatectomy between two different protocols of antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHODS

This study included 106 cases of radical retropubic prostatectomy managed on the clinical pathways. Two different protocols of antibiotic prophylaxis were used in otherwise identical pathways. Between January and December 2004, 50 patients received a second generation cephem, cefotiam, for 4 days, beginning 30 min before surgery (4-day group), whilst between December 2004 and July 2005, only two doses of cefotiam were given on the day of operation in 56 patients (1-day group). The incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and remote infection (RI) was retrospectively investigated.

RESULTS

Superficial incisional SSI occurred in one (1.8%) patient in the 1-day group, whereas no patient in the 4-day group developed SSI. No RI was observed in either the 1-day or 4-day group. Intravenous antibiotics were administered besides the pathway in a patient in the 1-day group because unexplained fever more than 38 degrees C continued postoperative day (POD) 2 through POD 4 without signs of SSI or RI. Excluding this case, postoperative more than 38 degrees C was rare and transient after POD 2.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of SSI and RI was low and not significantly different between the 1-day and 4-day groups. Therefore, the 1-day protocol of prophylactic antibiotic treatment seems adequate for preventing perioperative infections in radical prostatectomy.