Is antibiotic prophylaxis generally safe and effective in surgical and nonsurgical scenarios? Evidence from an umbrella review of randomized controlled trials

A single-centre, retrospective study on the impact of omitting preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis on wound infections in minor orthopedic implant removals

BACKGROUND

The use of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (POAP) in elective implant removal (IR) is controversial due to a lack of evidence-based recommendations. First-generation cephalosporins, which are commonly used in orthopedic IR, are believed to reduce wound infection risks. However, the potential for serious side effects had raised concerns about their necessity. This study was intended to evaluate whether omitting POAP in small IR increases the risk of wound infections.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-centre cohort study was conducted at a level I trauma centre in Switzerland, including patients who underwent IR between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. The IR procedures involved the upper extremities (UEs), such as the clavicle, olecranon, radius and ulna, as well as the lower extremities (LEs), such as the patella, tibia, fibula, (bi)malleolar and foot. Postoperative follow-up included clinical and radiological evaluations 6 weeks after surgery. The outcomes assessed were deep wound infections, wound healing complications, refractures, persistent pain, bleeding, neurovascular injuries and muscle hernias.

RESULTS

Of the 273 patients (mean age: 42.1 ± 14.5; 44% female), 117 (42.9%) received POAP. In the LE group (n = 141), 51.1% received POAP; in the UE group (n = 132), 34.1% received POAP. Eleven (4.0%) wound-healing disorders were documented, with five (4.3%) in the POAP group and six (3.8%) in the non-POAP group (p = 1). No deep wound infections were observed.

CONCLUSION

Withholding POAP in elective IR procedures does not significantly increase wound infection rates, suggesting it may be unnecessary in uncomplicated cases.