OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic prophylaxis is used to minimize infectious complications resulting from interventions. Side-effects and development of microbial resistance patterns are risks of the use of antibiotics. Therefore, the use should be well considered and based on high levels of evidence. In this review, all available evidence on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in urology is gathered, assessed, and presented in order to make choices in the use of antibiotic prophylaxis on the best evidence currently available. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted, searching Medline, Embase (1980-2006), the Cochrane Library, and reference lists for relevant studies. All selected articles were reviewed independently by two, and, in case of discordance, three, reviewers. RESULTS: Only the transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and prostate biopsy are well studied and have a high and moderate to high level of evidence in favour of using antibiotic prophylaxis. Other urologic interventions are not well studied. The moderate to low evidence suggests no need for antibiotic prophylaxis in cystoscopy, urodynamic investigation, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, whereas for therapeutic ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy, the low evidence favours the use of antibiotic prophylaxis. Urologic open and laparoscopic interventions were classified according to surgical wound classification, since no studies were identified. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not advised in clean surgery, but is advised in clean-contaminated and prosthetic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Except for the TURP and prostate biopsy, there is a lack of well-performed studies investigating the need for antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic interventions.
OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic prophylaxis is used to minimize infectious complications resulting from interventions. Side-effects and development of microbial resistance patterns are risks of the use of antibiotics. Therefore, the use should be well considered and based on high levels of evidence. In this review, all available evidence on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in urology is gathered, assessed, and presented in order to make choices in the use of antibiotic prophylaxis on the best evidence currently available. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted, searching Medline, Embase (1980-2006), the Cochrane Library, and reference lists for relevant studies. All selected articles were reviewed independently by two, and, in case of discordance, three, reviewers. RESULTS: Only the transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and prostate biopsy are well studied and have a high and moderate to high level of evidence in favour of using antibiotic prophylaxis. Other urologic interventions are not well studied. The moderate to low evidence suggests no need for antibiotic prophylaxis in cystoscopy, urodynamic investigation, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, whereas for therapeutic ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy, the low evidence favours the use of antibiotic prophylaxis. Urologic open and laparoscopic interventions were classified according to surgical wound classification, since no studies were identified. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not advised in clean surgery, but is advised in clean-contaminated and prosthetic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Except for the TURP and prostate biopsy, there is a lack of well-performed studies investigating the need for antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic interventions.
Authors: T Enzmann; T Tokas; K Korte; M Ritter; P Hammerer; L Franzaring; H Heynemann; H-W Gottfried; H Bertermann; M Meyer-Schwickerath; B Wirth; A Pelzer; T Loch Journal: Urologe A Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Daniel A Wollin; Adrian D Joyce; Mantu Gupta; Michael Y C Wong; Pilar Laguna; Stavros Gravas; Jorge Gutierrez; Luigi Cormio; Kunjie Wang; Glenn M Preminger Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jorge Panach-Navarrete; Lorena Valls-González; Eduardo Sánchez-Cano; María Medina-González; Ana Castelló-Porcar; José María Martínez-Jabaloyas Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 1.862