Gentamicin Ointment versus Petrolatum for Management of Auricular Wounds:

Effect of topical antibiotics on the prevention and management of wound infections: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis research was implemented to appraise the effect of topical antibiotics (TAs) on the prevention and management of wound infections (WIs). Inclusive literature research was performed until April 2023, and 765 interconnected researches were reviewed. The 11 selected researches included 6500 persons with uncomplicated wounds at the starting point of the research: 2724 of them were utilising TAs, 3318 were utilising placebo and 458 were utilising antiseptics. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilised to appraise the consequence of TAs on the prevention and management of WIs by the dichotomous approach and a fixed or random model. TAs had significantly lower WI compared with placebo (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92, p = 0.02) and compared with antiseptics (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.88, p = 0.01) in persons with uncomplicated wounds (UWs). TAs had significantly lower WIs compared with placebo and antiseptics in persons with UWs. However, caution needs to be taken when interacting with their values because of the low sample size of some of the chosen researches and low number of researches found for the comparisons in the meta-analysis.

Intra-soft tissue and intramedullary antibiotic perfusion in combination with negative pressure wound therapy

OBJECTIVE

Intra-soft tissue and intramedullary antibiotic perfusion (iSAP and iMAP), which combine continuous administration of antibiotic solution to the wound and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), have been reported to be a useful management approach for hard-to-heal ulcers in the field of orthopaedic surgery. We report the efficacy of this treatment and discuss the key points.

METHOD

The recipients of this treatment had contaminated fresh severe trauma with a high risk of infection, or hard-to-heal ulcers which were expected to be difficult to manage with conventional NPWT alone. Continuous administration of 1200µg/ml of gentamicin (GM) solution to the wound was performed along with NPWT. The GM solution was administered subcutaneously using a small catheter for iSAP, while intramedullary administration used a bone marrow needle for iMAP.

RESULTS

iSAP was employed in all 10 patients who took part, and iMAP in three of these patients. The average treatment time was 13.6 days with iSAP and 9.3 days with iMAP. The mean serum GM level during the therapy was 1.02µg/ml. Moderate GM-induced acute kidney injury was suspected in one case, but resolved spontaneously after GM administration was stopped. Favourable wound bed preparation was achieved in all cases without recurrence of infection.

CONCLUSION

Combination with continuous suction by NPWT is able to keep the local concentration of antibiotic above the minimum inhibitory concentration of biofilm-coated bacteria within the wound. We have referred to this treatment as continuous local antibiotic perfusion. Further investigation of local pharmacodynamics in the wound and side-effects of this treatment are warranted.

State of the Evidence for Facial Skin Cancer Reconstruction

This review provides a comprehensive presentation of the evidence available in facial reconstruction post-Mohs micrographic surgery. Given the large diversity in post-Mohs reconstruction, there are limited guidelines in the management of defects. The aim of the present work is to provide a review of the best evidence as it pertains to several considerations in facial reconstruction. Data suggests that Mohs micrographic surgery and many reconstructive procedures can be performed as outpatient procedures under local anesthesia, with narcotic pain medication only given in certain patient populations following a minority of reconstructive procedures. Perioperative and topical antibiotics are generally not indicated. Aspirin and warfarin can generally be continued for most reconstructive procedures, but clopidogrel and novel anticoagulants may predispose to increased bleeding complications. Delayed reconstruction appears to be safe, although data are discordant on this topic. No specific wound closure technique or suture choice appears to be consistently superior. Given the lack of robust comparative studies, consistent methodology, and variable defect sizes/locations, no robust evidence-based guidelines can be generated for reconstruction techniques of facial subsites.

How to Promote Skin Repair? In-Depth Look at Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Strategies

Skin repair encompasses epidermal barrier repair and wound healing which involves multiple cellular and molecular stages. Therefore, many skin repair strategies have been proposed. In order to characterize the usage frequency of skin repair ingredients in cosmetics, medicines, and medical devices, commercialized in Portuguese pharmacies and parapharmacies, a comprehensive analysis of the products' composition was performed. A total of 120 cosmetic products, collected from national pharmacies online platforms, 21 topical medicines, and 46 medical devices, collected from INFARMED database, were included in the study, revealing the top 10 most used skin repair ingredients in these categories. A critical review regarding the effectiveness of the top ingredients was performed and an in-depth analysis focused on the top three skin repair ingredients pursued. Results demonstrated that top three most used cosmetic ingredients were metal salts and oxides (78.3%), vitamin E and its derivatives (54.2%), and Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. extract and actives (35.8%). Regarding medicines, metal salts and oxides were also the most used (47.4%) followed by vitamin B5 and derivatives (23.8%), and vitamin A and derivatives (26.3%). Silicones and derivatives were the most common skin repair ingredients in medical devices (33%), followed by petrolatum and derivatives (22%) and alginate (15%). This work provides an overview of the most used skin repair ingredients, highlighting their different mechanisms of action, aiming to provide an up-to-date tool to support health professionals' decisions.

Strategies to Minimize Surgical Scarring: Translation of Lessons Learned from Bedside to Bench and Back

Significance: An understanding of the physiology of wound healing and scarring is necessary to minimize surgical scar formation. By reducing tension across the healing wound, eliminating excess inflammation and infection, and encouraging perfusion to healing areas, surgeons can support healing and minimize scarring. Recent Advances: Preoperatively, newer techniques focused on incision placement to minimize tension, skin sterilization to minimize infection and inflammation, and control of comorbid factors to promote a healing process with minimal scarring are constantly evolving. Intraoperatively, measures like layered closure, undermining, and tissue expansion can be taken to relieve tension across the healing wound. Appropriate suture technique and selection should be considered, and finally, there are new surgical technologies available to reduce tension across the closure. Postoperatively, the healing process can be supported as proliferation and remodeling take place within the wound. A balance of moisture control, tension reduction, and infection prevention can be achieved with dressings, ointments, and silicone. Vitamins and corticosteroids can also affect the scarring process by modulating the cellular factors involved in healing. Critical Issues: Healing with no or minimal scarring is the ultimate goal of wound healing research. Understanding how mechanical tension, inflammation and infection, and perfusion and hypoxia impact profibrotic pathways allows for the development of therapies that can modulate cytokine response and the wound extracellular microenvironment to reduce fibrosis and scarring. Future Directions: New tension-off loading topical treatments, laser, and dermabrasion devices are under development, and small molecule therapeutics have demonstrated scarless wound healing in animal models, providing a promising new direction for future research aimed to minimize surgical scarring.

Comparing the use of a novel antibiotic-free film-forming topical wound dressing versus a topical triple antibiotic in dermatologic surgical procedures including Mohs micrographic surgery

Background

There is no universally accepted protocol of topical wound care after cutaneous surgical procedures. The current practice is to use petrolatum‐based products, commonly containing topical antibiotics. The rise in antibiotic‐resistant bacteria and increased risk of allergic and contact dermatitis due to the use of topical antibiotics is well established.

Objective

To compare the prevalence of contact dermatitis, the infection rate and the subjective measures of healing of a novel, antibiotic‐free, film‐forming silicone‐based wound dressing to a topical triple antibiotic petrolatum‐based ointment in patients undergoing invasive dermatological interventions in two arms: (1) Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) and (2) a combination of various routine dermatologic surgical procedures.

Design

The 231 patients were enrolled in this open‐label, randomized, single‐blinded study. Patients applied the products immediately after surgery and daily afterwards. Clinicians evaluated the surgical site for infection or contact dermatitis at all follow‐up visits. Acute wound healing progression was assessed using a rating scale against clinical experience and expected results from −4 (much worse) to +4 (much better).

Results

Contact dermatitis was significantly decreased in the wound dressing group compared to the topical antibiotic group (0 vs 15.9%, P < 0.001). There was no difference between the study arms (Mohs vs. non‐Mohs, P = 0.242). Infection rate was not significantly different between the groups (P > 0.05) and between the study arms (P > 0.05). Assessor‐rated secondary outcomes like healing time, healing quality, erythema and new tissue quality were significantly better in the wound dressing group, while comfort and perceived overall satisfaction were better in the antibiotic group. Patient‐rated outcomes did not show any difference between groups and between study arms.

Conclusion

The wound dressing used in this study is a topical silicone gel preparation and presents a viable alternative to topical antibiotics for postoperative wound care without enhancing the risk of infection.

Variability in Wound Care Recommendations Following Dermatologic Procedures

BACKGROUND

Dermatologists routinely perform office-based surgical procedures that result in cutaneous wounds. Wound care instructions are an important resource for postoperative patients. As there is no consensus on the ideal wound care regimen after dermatologic procedures, recommendations may vary.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current recommendations for wound care following dermatologic procedures.

METHODS

The authors conducted a cross-sectional assessment of dermatology wound care handouts available online. The handouts were evaluated based on predefined parameters: topical agent recommendations for wound healing, caution against topical antibiotic use, and discussion of scarring, infection, bleeding, analgesia, and lifestyle considerations.

RESULTS

A total of 169 handouts were evaluated. The majority (84%) recommended the application of petrolatum-based products, specifically Vaseline (75%) and Aquaphor (43%). Nearly half (43%) recommended the use of topical antibiotics, whereas 24% advised patients to avoid antibiotic ointments. Handouts variably addressed scarring (36%), infection (72%), bleeding (69%), pain (66%), and lifestyle modifications (64%).

CONCLUSION

The instructions provided in dermatology patient handouts are highly variable, with various topical agents being recommended for wound healing. Topical antibiotics are not indicated for prophylaxis in clean dermatologic procedures but are still widely used. Greater efforts should be made to ensure that patients receive consistent and evidence-based wound care guidance.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in skin graft surgery: A protocol

Introduction

There is little evidence-based guidance on the use of prophylactic antibiotics in skin surgery; whilst antibiotics may protect against surgical site infections (SSI), they have associated side effects, increase the risk of adverse events, and can propagate antibiotic resistance. We present a protocol for a systematic review to establish whether the benefit of prophylactic antibiotics overrides the risk, for patients undergoing autograft surgery.

Methods

The systematic review will be registered a priori on researchregistry.com and will be conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). A search strategy will be devised to investigate 'skin graft surgery and use of antibiotics'. The following electronic databases will be searched, 1979-2018: PubMed, MEDLINE®, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SciELO, The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (DARE), the Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Databases and Cochrane Groups, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials Database, the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, UpToDate.com, NHS Evidence and the York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Grey literature will be searched. All comparative study designs reporting on the use of antibiotics in skin graft surgery will be considered for inclusion, namely randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two trained independent teams will screen all titles and abstracts, followed by relevant full texts, for eligibility. Data will be extracted under standardized extraction fields into a preformatted database. Note will be made of the indication for skin graft surgery (traumatic, congenital, malignant, benign), the graft site (head & neck, trunk, upper extremities, lower extremities), type of skin graft (split thickness, full-thickness). The primary outcome will be occurrence of SSI at the donor and/or recipient sites. Secondary outcomes, if reported, will include: length of hospital stay, revision surgery required, cost of medical care, time to wound healing and cosmetic outcome.

Ethics and dissemination

The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international meetings within fields of plastic, reconstructive, and aesthetic surgery. The work will be disseminated electronically and in print. Brief reports of the review and findings will be disseminated to interested parties through email and direct communication. The review aims to guide healthcare practice and policy.

Addressing Practice Gaps in Cutaneous Surgery: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment

Importance

Cutaneous surgery is performed by otolaryngologists, plastic surgeons, oculoplastic surgeons, dermatologic surgeons, and some primary care physicians. Practice gaps exist among cutaneous surgeons, as do differences in how different physicians approach preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative decision-making.

Objective

To present the newest and best evidence to close common practice gaps in cutaneous surgery.

Evidence Review

We performed a detailed search of peer-reviewed publications that were identified through a search of PubMed/MEDLINE (January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2016) using the literature search terms "cutaneous surgery," "Mohs micrographic surgery," "plastic surgery," in combination with "safety," "cost," "anesthesia," "anti-coagulation," "bleeding," "pain," "analgesia," "anxiety," or "infection," among others. Bibliographies from these references, as well as meta-analyses, were also reviewed.

Findings

A total of 73 peer-reviewed studies, including randomized clinical trials, were selected to support the conclusions of the article. Levels of evidence were analyzed for selected studies using recommendations from the American Association of Plastic Surgeons based on guidelines from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Large cutaneous surgical resections can be done effectively and safely, taking steps to assure patient comfort under local anesthesia. Medically necessary anticoagulant and antiplatelet medication should be continued during cutaneous surgery. In preparation for surgery, patient anxiety and pain must be addressed. Music and anxiolytics limit anxiety, prevent cardiovascular compromise, and improve patient satisfaction. Cutaneous surgeons and support staff should carefully consider the dose and injection angle of local anesthetic. Postoperative opioids and topical antibiotics might cause harm to patients and should be avoided. Acetaminophen and ibuprofen provide adequate pain control with fewer adverse effects than opioid medications.

Conclusions and Relevance

Clinicians performing cutaneous surgery should understand the importance of patient safety and comfort, as guided by recent evidence.

Topical antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing by primary intention

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI) can delay wound healing, impair cosmetic outcome and increase healthcare costs. Topical antibiotics are sometimes used to reduce microbial contaminant exposure following surgical procedures, with the aim of reducing SSIs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to determine whether the application of topical antibiotics to surgical wounds that are healing by primary intention reduces the incidence of SSI and whether it increases the incidence of adverse outcomes (allergic contact dermatitis, infections with patterns of antibiotic resistance and anaphylaxis).

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction of language, date of study or setting. The search was repeated in May 2016 to ensure currency of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials that assessed the effects of topical antibiotics (any formulation, including impregnated dressings) in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and independently extracted data. Two authors then assessed the studies for risk of bias. Risk ratios were calculated for dichotomous variables, and when a sufficient number of comparable trials were available, trials were pooled in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 10 RCTs and four quasi-randomised trials with 6466 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six studies involved minor procedures conducted in an outpatient or emergency department setting; eight studies involved major surgery conducted in theatre. Nine different topical antibiotics were included. We included two three-arm trials, two four-arm trials and 10 two-arm trials. The control groups comprised; an alternative topical antibiotic (two studies), topical antiseptic (six studies) and no topical antibiotic (10 studies), which comprised inert ointment (five studies) no treatment (four studies) and one study with one arm of each.The risk of bias of the 14 studies varied. Seven studies were at high risk of bias, five at unclear risk of bias and two at low risk of bias. Most risk of bias concerned risk of selection bias.Twelve of the studies (6259 participants) reported infection rates, although we could not extract the data for this outcome from one study. Four studies (3334 participants) measured allergic contact dermatitis as an outcome. Four studies measured positive wound swabs for patterns of antimicrobial resistance, for which there were no outcomes reported. No episodes of anaphylaxis were reported. Topical antibiotic versus no topical antibioticWe pooled the results of eight trials (5427 participants) for the outcome of SSI. Topical antibiotics probably reduce the risk of SSI in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention compared with no topical antibiotic (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.87; moderate-quality evidence downgraded once for risk of bias). This equates to 20 fewer SSIs per 1000 patients treated with topical antibiotics (95% CI 7 to 29) and a number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) (i.e. prevention of one SSI) of 50.We pooled the results of three trials (3012 participants) for the outcome of allergic contact dermatitis, however this comparison was underpowered, and it is unclear whether topical antibiotics affect the risk of allergic contact dermatitis (RR 3.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 34.00; very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for imprecision). Topical antibiotic versus antiseptic We pooled the results of five trials (1299 participants) for the outcome of SSI. Topical antibiotics probably reduce the risk of SSI in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention compared with using topical antiseptics (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence downgraded once for risk of bias). This equates to 43 fewer SSIs per 1000 patients treated with topical antibiotics instead of antiseptics (95% CI 17 to 59) and an NNTB of 24.We pooled the results of two trials (541 participants) for the outcome of allergic contact dermatitis; there was no clear difference in the risk of dermatitis between topical antibiotics and antiseptics, however this comparison was underpowered and a difference cannot be ruled out (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.82; very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of bias and once for imprecision). Topical antibiotic versus topical antibioticOne study (99 participants) compared mupirocin ointment with a combination ointment of neomycin/polymyxin B/bacitracin zinc for the outcome of SSI. There was no clear difference in the risk of SSI, however this comparison was underpowered (very low-quality evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for imprecision).A four-arm trial involved two antibiotic arms (neomycin sulfate/bacitracin zinc/polymyxin B sulphate combination ointment versus bacitracin zinc, 219 participants). There was no clear difference in risk of SSI between the combination ointment and the bacitracin zinc ointment. The quality of evidence for this outcome was low, downgraded once for risk of bias, and once for imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical antibiotics applied to surgical wounds healing by primary intention probably reduce the risk of SSI relative to no antibiotic, and relative to topical antiseptics (moderate quality evidence). We are unable to draw conclusions regarding the effects of topical antibiotics on adverse outcomes such as allergic contact dermatitis due to lack of statistical power (small sample sizes). We are also unable to draw conclusions regarding the impact of increasing topical antibiotic use on antibiotic resistance. The relative effects of different topical antibiotics are unclear.

Stoma care products represent a common and previously underreported source of peristomal contact dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Peristomal dermatitis is a common complication for the >700 000 patients in the United States with an ostomy. The role of stoma skin care products in peristomal dermatitis is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate stoma skin care products as a cause of peristomal dermatitis.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients with peristomal dermatitis at four academic hospitals from January 2010 to March 2014 was performed. Patient demographics, clinical information and use test and patch test results were documented.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients identified as having peristomal dermatitis were tested. Twelve of these had peristomal contact dermatitis. We identified numerous stoma skin care products as triggers of irritant and/or allergic contact dermatitis. The most common stoma skin care product used and/or involved in dermatitis was Cavilon™ No Sting Barrier Film.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support a paradigm shift whereby healthcare workers treating patients with peristomal dermatitis, which is currently considered to be a reaction mainly to bodily fluids, must consider those products used to protect the skin as potential triggers for this disease. Therefore, patients with peristomal dermatitis should be tested with their stoma skin care agents to determine the need for removal or change of these products. Additionally, full ingredient labelling by manufacturers would help identify new allergens and irritants.

Wound healing and treating wounds: Chronic wound care and management

In the United States, chronic ulcers--including decubitus, vascular, inflammatory, and rheumatologic subtypes--affect >6 million people, with increasing numbers anticipated in our growing elderly and diabetic populations. These wounds cause significant morbidity and mortality and lead to significant medical costs. Preventative and treatment measures include disease-specific approaches and the use of moisture retentive dressings and adjunctive topical therapies to promote healing. In this article, we discuss recent advances in wound care technology and current management guidelines for the treatment of wounds and ulcers.

Surgical site infections in dermatologic surgery: etiology, pathogenesis, and current preventative measures

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) after dermatologic surgery continue to represent undesirable complications that affect patients in several aspects. The etiology and pathogenesis of SSIs are not completely understood, and as a result, current preventative measures are debatable.

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarize the current available literature specific to SSIs in dermatologic surgery. The pathogenesis of SSIs, factors contributing to SSIs, current preventative guidelines, and evidence supporting their use are explored.

METHODS

A review of the medical literature.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Most measures used to prevent SSIs in dermatologic surgery are based on studies of wounds in general surgery. Evidence specific to dermatologic surgery is scarce. More research related to the pathogenesis of SSIs is needed to establish effective preventative measures that are key to reducing incidences of SSIs.

Prophylactic antibiotics in dermatological surgery

This is a review of the common pathogens of surgical site infections, antibiotic coverage for particular anatomical sites, mechanisms by which surgical site infections occur and the latest data and recommendations for prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of surgical site infections, infective endocarditis and haematogenous joint infections. Recent evidence-based guidelines on surgical prophylaxis is for restricted indications and a shorter duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in situations where no clinical benefit of prolonged therapy has been proven, in order to minimise the potential adverse ecological and clinical effects associated with antibiotic therapy. This review recommends the cautious use of prophylactic antibiotics in dermatological surgery to help prevent the growing problem of bacterial resistance as well as other morbidity and health-care costs.

Retrospective Clinical Trial of Fusidic Acid versus Petrolatum in the Postprocedure Care of Clean Dermatologic Procedures

BACKGROUND

Clean dermatologic procedures create wounds with a low risk of infection (usually up to 5%). Whether the use of topical antibiotics is advocated, with regard to its efficacy and safety issues such as antibiotic resistance and sensitizing potential, is controversial. Fusidic acid, a topical antibiotic against gram-positive bacteria, is a rare sensitizer and commonly used in postprocedure care in Korea.

OBJECTIVE

This is a retrospective study aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety between fusidic acid and petrolatum for the postprocedure care of clean dermatologic procedures.

METHODS

Patients were treated with either fusidic acid or petrolatum ointment, applied on the wound created during clean dermatologic procedures such as biopsy of the punch, incisional, excisional, and shave types. The efficacy, adverse events, and subjective level of satisfaction were retrieved from medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 414 patients with a total of 429 wounds were enrolled. The overall rate of adverse events was 0.9%, and the rates of adverse events in the fusidic acid group and the petrolatum group were 1.4% and 0.5%, respectively (p=0.370). There was no wound discharge, pain, tenderness, swelling, induration, or dehiscence in both groups. The patients' self-assessment of the wound was not significantly different between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the hypothesis that the routine prophylactic use of topical antibiotics is not indicated for clean dermatologic procedures. We recommend the use of petrolatum in the postoperative care of clean dermatologic procedures because of its equivalent efficacy and superior safety profiles.

Topical antibiotic trends from 1993 to 2007: use of topical antibiotics for non-evidence-based indications

BACKGROUND

Systemic antibiotic use has become more conservative with the emergence of drug resistance. Topical antibiotics are employed for a variety of indications, although there are only a few evidence-based indications.

OBJECTIVE

To examine topical antibiotics use in the outpatient setting.

METHODS

Topical antibiotic use was characterized using data from the 1993 to 2007 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Visits were identified at which a topical antibiotic was used and analyzed according to patient demographics, diagnoses, procedures, concomitant medications, and provider specialty. Topical antibiotic use over time was analyzed using linear regression.

RESULTS

The most frequent diagnoses associated with topical antibiotic use were benign or malignant neoplasm of skin, impetigo, insect bite, and cellulitis. Data revealed a significant downward trend in topical antibiotics associated with dermatologic surgery (p<.001) and a nonsignificant downward trend in use in conjunction with skin biopsies (p=.09). Topical antibiotic use by dermatologists was noted to be decreasing over time, whereas among non dermatologists, it was noted to be increasing, although neither of these trends was statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Topical antibiotics continue to be used for non-evidence-based indications, despite data that suggest that such use may be detrimental for patients and represents significant costs to the health care system. The authors have indicated no significant interest with commercial supporters.

Evaluation of LHP® (1% hydrogen peroxide) cream versus petrolatum and untreated controls in open wounds in healthy horses: a randomized, blinded control study

Background

Treatment and protection of wounds in horses can be challenging; protecting bandages may be difficult to apply on the proximal extremities and the body. Unprotected wounds carry an increased risk of bacterial contamination and subsequent infection which can lead to delayed wound healing. Topical treatment with antimicrobials is one possibility to prevent bacterial colonization or infection, but the frequent use of antimicrobials ultimately leads to development of bacterial resistance which is an increasing concern in both human and veterinary medicine.

Methods

Standardized wounds were created in 10 Standardbred mares. Three wounds were made in each horse. Two wounds were randomly treated with LHP^® or petrolatum and the third wound served as untreated control. All wounds were assessed daily until complete epithelization. Protocol data were recorded on day 2, 6, 11, 16, 21 and 28. Data included clinical scores for inflammation and healing, photoplanimetry for calculating wound areas and swab cytology to assess bacterial colonization and inflammation. Bacterial cultures were obtained on day 2, 6 and 16.

Results

Mean time to complete healing for LHP^® treated wounds was 32 days (95%CI = 26.9-37.7). Mean time to complete healing for petrolatum and untreated control wounds were 41.6 days (95%CI = 36.2-47.0) and 44.0 days (95%CI = 38.6-49.4) respectively. Wound healing occurred significantly faster in LHP^® wounds compared to both petrolatum (p = 0.0004) and untreated controls (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in time for healing between petrolatum and untreated controls. Total scores for bacteria and neutrophils were significantly (p < 0.0001) lower for LHP^® treated wounds compared to petrolatum from day 16 and onwards. Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus zooepidemicus were only found in cultures from petrolatum treated wounds and untreated controls.

Conclusions

Treatment with LHP^® reduced bacterial colonization and was associated with earlier complete wound healing. LHP^® cream appears to be safe and effective for topical wound treatment or wound protection.

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.

Is levofloxacin necessary to prevent postoperative infections of auricular second-intention wounds?

BACKGROUND

Surgeons may prescribe oral quinolones after auricular procedures to prevent postoperative infections, especially those caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the efficacy of levofloxacin and local wound care to local wound care alone in preventing postoperative infection of auricular second-intention wounds.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized trial of 84 consecutive patients (82 in the final analysis) who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery for an auricular neoplasm and had a wound left to heal by second intention. After surgery, patients were randomly assigned to receive either local wound care or local wound care with concurrent 500 mg of levofloxacin by mouth daily.

RESULTS

Overall, 85.4% of patients had no complications. Complications included 12.2% of patients with inflammatory chondritis and 2.4% of patients with infection. No infections with P. aeruginosa were observed. No statistical significance was observed between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Levofloxacin is not necessary to prevent postoperative infections of auricular second-intention wounds after Mohs surgery.