These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Assessment of a protocol for prophylactic antibiotics to prevent perioperative infection in urological surgery: a preliminary study.
    Author: Kanamaru S, Terai A, Ishitoya S, Kunishima Y, Nishiyama H, Segawa T, Nakamura E, Kinoshita H, Moroi S, Ito N, Kamoto T, Okuno H, Habuchi T, Senda K, Ichiyama S, Ogawa O, Yamamoto S.
    Journal: Int J Urol; 2004 Jun; 11(6):355-63. PubMed ID: 15157202.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to assess the usability and efficacy of our new protocol of prophylactic antibiotic use to prevent perioperative infection in urological surgery. METHODS: We prospectively investigated 339 cases of typical urological surgery in our department between April 2001 and March 2002 (group I). We classified surgical procedures into four categories by invasiveness and contamination levels: category A, clean less invasive or endoscopic surgery; category B, clean invasive or clean contaminated surgery; category C, urinary tract diversion using the intestine; and category D, infected surgery. Antibiotics were administrated intravenously according to our protocol: category A, first or second generation cephems or penicillins during the operative day only; category B, first and second generation cephems or penicillins for 3 days; and category C, second or third generation cephems for 4 days. Category D was excluded from the analysis. To judge perioperative infections, the wound condition and general conditions were evaluated in terms of the surgical site infection (SSI) as well as remote infection (RI) up to postoperative day (POD) 14. We retrospectively reviewed 308 patients who underwent urological surgery between April 2000 and March 2001 (group II) as reference cases that were administered antibiotics without any restriction. RESULTS: Perioperative infection rates (SSI + RI) in group I and group II were 25 of 339 (7.4%) and 35 of 308 (11.4%), respectively. Surgical site infection rates of categories A, B, and C in group I were 1.8%, 7.6%, and 30.0%, respectively, while those in group II were 2.0%, 7.4%, and 46.2%, respectively. There was no significant difference in infection rates in terms of RI and SSI between group I and group II. The amounts, as well as the prices, for intravenously administrated antibiotics and oral antibiotics decreased to approximately half and one-fifth, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our protocol effectively decreased the amount of antibiotics used without increasing perioperative infection rates. Thus, our protocol of prophylactic antibiotic therapy would be recommended as an appropriate method for preventing perioperative infection in urological surgery.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]