Antibiotic prophylaxis in hernia repair and breast surgery: a prospective randomized study comparing piperacillin/tazobactam versus placebo

Antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of postoperative wound infection in adults undergoing open elective inguinal or femoral hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Inguinal or femoral hernia is a tissue protrusion in the groin region and has a cumulative incidence of 27% in adult men and of 3% in adult women. As most hernias become symptomatic over time, groin hernia repair is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide. This type of surgery is considered 'clean' surgery with wound infection rates expected to be lower than 5%. For clean surgical procedures, antibiotic prophylaxis is not generally recommended. However after the introduction of mesh-based hernia repair and the publication of studies that have high wound infection rates the debate as to whether antibiotic prophylaxis is required to prevent postoperative wound infections started again.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing postoperative (superficial and deep) wound infections in elective open inguinal and femoral hernia repair.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched several electronic databases: Cochrane Registry of Studies Online, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Scopus and Science Citation Index (search performed on 12 November 2019). We also searched two trial registers and the reference list of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing any type of antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo or no treatment for preventing postoperative wound infections in adults undergoing inguinal or femoral open hernia repair surgery (tissue repair and mesh repair).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We separately analysed results for two different surgical methods (herniorrhaphy and hernioplasty). Several studies revealed infection rates that were higher than the expected 5% for clean surgery and we therefore divided studies into two subgroups: high infection risk environments (≥ 5% infection rate); and low infection risk environments (< 5% infection rate). We performed meta-analyses with random-effects models. We analysed three outcomes: superficial surgical site infections (SSSI); deep surgical site infections (DSSI); and all postoperative wound infections (SSSI + DSSI).

MAIN RESULTS

In this review update we identified and included 10 new studies. In total, we included 27 studies with 8308 participants in this review. It is uncertain whether antibiotic prophylaxis as compared to placebo (or no treatment) prevents all types of postoperative wound infections after herniorrhaphy surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.33; 5 studies, 1865 participants; very low quality evidence). Subgroup analysis did not change these results. We could not perform meta-analyses for SSSI or DSSI as these outcomes were not reported separately. Twenty-two studies related to hernioplasty surgery (total of 6443 participants) and we analysed three outcomes: SSSI; DSSI; SSSI + DSSI. Within the low infection risk environment subgroup, antibiotic prophylaxis as compared to placebo probably makes little or no difference for the outcomes 'prevention of all wound infections' (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence) and 'prevention of SSSI' (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.17, moderate-quality evidence). Within the high infection risk environment subgroup it is uncertain whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces all types of wound infections (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77, very low quality evidence) or SSSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77, very low quality evidence). When combining participants from both subgroups, antibiotic prophylaxis as compared to placebo probably reduces the risk of all types of wound infections (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78) and SSSI (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78; moderate-quality evidence). Antibiotic prophylaxis as compared to placebo probably makes little or no difference in reducing the risk of postoperative DSSI (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.65; moderate-quality evidence), both in a low infection risk environment (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.13; moderate-quality evidence) and in the high infection risk environment (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.89; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of very low quality shows that it is uncertain whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the risk of postoperative wound infections after herniorrhaphy surgery. Evidence of moderate quality shows that antibiotic prophylaxis probably makes little or no difference in preventing wound infections (i.e. all wound infections, SSSI or DSSI) after hernioplasty surgery in a low infection risk environment. Evidence of low quality shows that antibiotic prophylaxis in a high-risk environment may reduce the risk of all wound infections and SSSI, while evidence of very low quality shows that it is uncertain whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces DSSI after hernioplasty surgery.

Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery has been used as part of breast cancer treatment for centuries; however any surgical procedure has the potential risk of infection. Infection rates for surgical treatment of breast cancer are documented at between 3% and 15%, higher than average for a clean surgical procedure. Pre- and perioperative antibiotics have been found to be useful in lowering infection rates in other surgical groups, yet there is no consensus on the use of prophylactic antibiotics for breast cancer surgery. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of prophylactic (pre- or perioperative) antibiotics on the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after breast cancer surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this fourth update, in August 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of pre- and perioperative antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. Primary outcomes were rates of surgical site infection (SSI) and adverse reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently examined the title and abstracts of all studies identified by the search strategy, then assessed study quality and extracted data from those that met the inclusion criteria. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 11 randomised controlled trials (2867 participants) were included in the review. No new studies were identified in this update. All studies included breast cancer patients and were based in the hospital setting. Ten studies evaluated preoperative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic or placebo. One study evaluated perioperative antibiotic compared with placebo or no antibiotic. Pooling of the results demonstrated that prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively probably reduce the incidence of SSI for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery without reconstruction (pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.85; moderate certainty evidence). Anticipated absolute effects were calculated for the outcome incidence of SSI; 105 per 1000 for the none or placebo group and 71 per 1000 (95% CI 56 to 89) for the preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis group. Analysis of the single study comparing perioperative antibiotic with no antibiotic was inconclusive for incidence of SSI (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.95; very low certainty evidence). No studies presented separate data for patients who underwent reconstructive surgery at the time of removal of the breast tumour.Secondary outcomes were not consistently included in the studies investigating preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in incidence of adverse events between the treatment and no treatment or placebo groups (10 studies, 2818 participants); very low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious risk of bias, one level for serious inconsistency and one level for serious imprecision. It is unclear whether there is a difference in time to onset of infection between the treatment and no treatment or placebo groups (4 studies, 1450 participants); low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious risk of bias and one level for serious inconsistency. It is unclear whether there is a difference in rates of readmission to hospital between the treatment and placebo groups (3 studies, 784 participants); low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious inconsistency and one level for serious risk of bias. It is unclear whether there is a difference in cost of care between the treatment and no treatment or placebo groups (2 studies, 510 participants); low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious risk of bias and one level for serious inconsistency. No analysable secondary outcome data were reported for the single study evaluating perioperative antibiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively probably reduce the risk of SSI in patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. However, it is very uncertain whether there is an effect on incidence of adverse events. Furthermore, the effects on time to onset of infection, readmission to hospital and cost of care remain unclear. Further studies are required to establish the best protocols for clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety profile of antibiotic prophylaxis usage in clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus with regard to antibiotic prophylaxis usage in clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery. This meta-analysis sought to assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis and to determine appropriate duration of prophylaxis.

METHODS

An English language literature search was conducted using PubMed and the Cochrane Collaboration for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate the use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery. Data from intention-to-treat analyses were used where available. For the dichotomous data, results for each study were odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and combined for meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method or the DerSimonian and Laird method. Study quality was critically appraised by 2 reviewers using established criteria. STATA version 12 was used for meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 2395 patients were included, of which 8 trials were considered to be of high methodological quality. Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in plastic and reconstructive surgery was found favorable over placebo in SSI prevention (13 studies; 2449 participants; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < 0.01) and the other wound complication (OWC) prevention (9 studies; 1843 participants; OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.84; P < 0.02). Subgroup analysis performed according to surgical wound type or the duration of prophylaxis did not modify the results except for the OWC with short-term antibiotic treatment. Compared with short-term antibiotic prophylaxis, long-term administration showed no evidence of a difference in risk of SSI (7 studies; 1012 participants; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.63-1.55; P < 0.95), OWC (5 studies; 824 participants; OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.46-1.86; P < 0.82), and adverse event relative to antibiotic administration (3 studies; 653 participants; OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.01-4.92; P < 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of RCTs provides evidence supporting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduced postoperative SSI in clean plastic surgeries with high-risk factors and clean-contaminated plastic surgeries. Besides, a short-course administration regimen seemed to be of adequate efficacy and safety. High-quality prospective trials on larger scale are needed to further confirm these findings.

Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery has been used as part of breast cancer treatment for centuries; however any surgical procedure has the potential risk of infection. Infection rates for surgical treatment of breast cancer are documented at between 3% and 15%, higher than average for a clean surgical procedure. Pre- and perioperative antibiotics have been found to be useful in lowering infection rates in other surgical groups, yet there is no consensus on the use of prophylactic antibiotics for breast cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of prophylactic (pre- or perioperative) antibiotics on the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after breast cancer surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this third update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (5 December 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We applied no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of pre- and perioperative antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer were included. Primary outcomes were rates of surgical site infection (SSI) and adverse reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently examined the title and abstracts of all studies identified by the search strategy, then assessed study quality and extracted data from those that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of eleven studies (2867 participants) were included in the review. Ten studies evaluated preoperative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic or placebo. One study evaluated perioperative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic. Pooling of the results demonstrated that prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively significantly reduce the incidence of SSI for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery without reconstruction (pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.85). Analysis of the single study comparing perioperative antibiotic with no antibiotic found no statistically significant effect of antibiotics on the incidence of SSI (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.95). No studies presented separate data for patients who underwent reconstructive surgery at the time of removal of the breast tumour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively reduce the risk of SSI in patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. Further studies involving patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction are needed as studies have identified this group as being at higher risk of infection than those who do not undergo immediate breast reconstruction.

Short- and long-term outcomes of open inguinal hernia repair: comparison of the Prolene Hernia System and the Mesh Plug method

PURPOSE

Tension-free mesh repair of adult inguinal hernias has become a standard procedure, but there have been few comparisons of the postoperative outcome after hernia repair using the Prolene Hernia System (PHS) vs. the Mesh Plug (MP) method in a large number of patients from a single institution.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of patients to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of the different types of hernia repair. Late symptoms were evaluated by questionnaire. A total of 1,141 repairs performed from 1999 to 2008 (PHS in 957 and MP in 184 repairs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 93 early postoperative complications (8.2%). A subcutaneous hematoma was found more frequently after MP repair compared with after PHS repair (3.8 vs. 1.3%, P = 0.013). Seven hundred and ten patients (62.2%) could be followed up for more than 2 years. Recurrence was detected in 14 patients with PHS repair and two patients with MP repair (1.5 vs. 1.1%, P = 0.956). Wound infections occurred in three patients (0.3%) with PHS repair vs. none with MP repair (P > 0.999). Patients with PHS and MP repair showed no significant differences in the long-term wound pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The recurrence and wound infection rates were similar after hernia repair using the PHS and MP methods. Patients undergoing PHS repair developed fewer subcutaneous hematomas. An older age (≥65 years) was a significant independent risk factor for recurrence.

The role of hydroxyethyl starch in preventing surgical-site infections and nipple necrosis in patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty: a prospective case-control study of 334 patients

BACKGROUND

Surgical-site infections after reduction mammaplasty are associated with poor cosmetic results. This study investigated the postoperative antiinflammatory influence of hydroxyethyl starch and its effect on surgical-site infections after breast reduction.

METHODS

In this prospective case-control study, 334 patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty were prospectively assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 2 × 250 ml of hydroxyethyl starch 6 % or saline solution 0.9 % for 3 days postoperatively. Patient follow-up evaluation was at least 1 month. Using uni- and multivariate analyses, this study aimed to identify risk factors for surgical-site infections and nipple necrosis.

RESULTS

Surgical-site infections occurred in 6.6 % of the hydroxyethyl starch group and in 3.6 % of the control group (p = 0.704). Hydroxyethyl starch had no effect of reducing surgical-site infections [p = 0.212; odds ratio (OR), 0.317; confidence interval (CI), 0.052-1.925]. According to univariate analyses, hydroxyethyl starch reduced the occurrence of postoperative fever (p = 0.085; OR 0.608; CI 0.345-1.072), and fever was associated with increased infection rates (p = 0.033; OR 2.335; CI 1.071-5.089). Additional risk factors for postoperative infections were diabetes (p = 0.051; OR 4.051; CI 0.997-16.463) and obesity (normal weight vs grade ≥2: p = 0.003; OR 7.612; CI 2.031-28.529). Multivariate analysis showed no independent predictors for surgical-site infections. Nipple necrosis were equally observed in the two groups (p = 0.458; OR 1.643; CI 0.443-6.097).

CONCLUSION

The antiinflammatory approach of hydroxyethyl starch did not lead to a decrease in infections or nipple necrosis. No difference in surgical-site infections was observed between aesthetic and oncologic procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Antibiotic prophylaxis for hernia repair

BACKGROUND

The use of antibiotic prophylaxis for hernia repair is currently a controversial issue given the disparity among study results in this area.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to clarify the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing postoperative wound infection rates in elective open inguinal hernia repair.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialized register, by crossing the terms herni* and inguinal or groin and the terms antimicr* or antibiot* , as free text and MeSH terms. A similar search were performed in Medline using the following terms: #1 antibiotic* OR antimicrob* OR anti infecti* OR antiinfecti*; #2 prophyla* OR prevent*; #3 #1 AND #2; #4 clean AND (surgery OR tech* OR proced*); #5 herni*; #6 (wound infection) AND #4; #7 #3 AND (#4 or #5 or #6). National Research Register, ISI-Web, DARE, Scirus, TRIPDATABASE, NHS EED, reference list of the included studies and web of clinical trials register (www.controlled-trials.com and clinicaltrials.gov) were checked to identify further studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In the present review, we searched for eligible trials in October 2011. This revealed four new included trials, so seventeen trials are included in the meta-analysis. Eleven of them used prosthetic material for hernia repair (hernioplasty) whereas the remaining studies did not (herniorrhaphy). Pooled and subgroup analysis were conducted depending on whether prosthetic material was or not used. A fixed effects model was used in the analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

The total number of patients included was 7843 (prophylaxis group: 4703, control group: 3140). Overall infection rates were 3.1% and 4.5% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 - 0.82). The subgroup of patients with herniorrhaphy had infection rates of 3.5% and 4.9% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 - 1.00). The subgroup of patients with hernioplasty had infection rates of 2.4% and 4.2% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38 - 0.81).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this systematic review the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for elective inguinal hernia repair cannot be universally recommended. Neither can the administration be recommended against when high rates of wound infection are observed.

Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery has been used as part of breast cancer treatment for centuries; however any surgical procedure has the potential risk of infection. Infection rates for surgical treatment of breast cancer are documented at between 3% and 15%, higher than average for a clean surgical procedure. Pre- and perioperative antibiotics have been found to be useful in lowering infection rates in other surgical groups, yet there is no consensus on the use of prophylactic antibiotics for breast cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of prophylactic (pre- or perioperative) antibiotics on the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after breast cancer surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 31 August 2011); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE (2008 to August Week 3 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 30 August 2011); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 34); and EBSCO CINAHL (2008 to 25 August 2011). We applied no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of pre- and perioperative antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer were included. Primary outcomes were rates of surgical site infection (SSI) and adverse reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently examined the title and abstracts of all studies identified by the search strategy, then assessed study quality and extracted data from those that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of nine studies (2260 participants) is included in the review. Eight studies evaluated preoperative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic or placebo. One study evaluated perioperative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic. Pooling of the results demonstrated that prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively significantly reduce the incidence of SSI for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery without reconstruction (pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.94). Analysis of the single study comparing perioperative antibiotic with no antibiotic found no statistically significant effect of antibiotics on the incidence of SSI (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.95). No studies presented separate data for patients who underwent reconstructive surgery at the time of removal of the breast tumour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively reduce the risk of SSI in patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. Further studies involving patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction are needed as studies have identified this group as being at higher risk of infection than those who do not undergo immediate breast reconstruction.

Randomized clinical trial of co-amoxiclav versus no antibiotic prophylaxis in varicose vein surgery

Background

Wound infection rates of up to 16 per cent are reported following varicose vein surgery and the value of antibiotic prophylaxis in clean surgery remains unclear.

Methods

Some 443 patients undergoing varicose vein surgery randomly received a single prophylactic dose of 1·2 g co-amoxiclav (219 patients) or no antibiotic (224). Patients completed a wound diary on postoperative days 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 using an adapted ASEPSIS method of wound assessment, and were reviewed after 14 days.

Results

Patients who had prophylaxis had lower ASEPSIS wound scores on days 3, 5 and 7 (P = 0·043, P = 0·032 and P = 0·003 respectively), and lower total ASEPSIS scores (median (interquartile range) 3 (0–9) versus 6 (0–15); P = 0·013). They were less likely to consult their general practitioner (16.0 versus 24·3 per cent; P = 0·040) or to receive postoperative antibiotics (4·7 versus 13·5 per cent; P = 0·002) for wound-related problems. Wound outcomes were worse with higher body mass index (odds ratio (OR) 0·92 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0·87 to 0·97); P = 0·005) and current smoking (OR 0·5 (0·3 to 0·9); P = 0·033). Prophylactic antibiotics conferred satisfactory wound healing (OR 2·2 (95 per cent c.i. 1·3 to 3·6); P = 0·003).

Conclusion

Antibiotic prophylaxis reduced wound-related problems after varicose vein surgery. Registration number ISRCTN12467340 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).