INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to determine if prophylactic antibiotic use before midurethral sling procedures reduces infectious complications. METHODS: In this double-blinded randomized trial, we compared infectious complications between women who received cefazolin and placebobefore midurethral sling procedures. RESULTS: The study was halted due to low rate of infectious outcomes seen at the first scheduled interim analysis. We enrolled 29 women in the cefazolin group and 30 in the placebo group. Total follow-up was 6 months (3-24 months). The groups were similar at the baseline. There was no statistically significant difference between the cefazolin and placebo groups, respectively, with respect to wound infections [1 (3.3%) and 0 (0%)], mesh exposure [0 (0%) and 1 (3.5%)], and bacteriuria [3 (10%) and 1 (3.5%)]. CONCLUSION: Because infection rates are low in both cefazolin and placebo groups, omitting preoperative antibiotics for midurethral slings may be justified.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to determine if prophylactic antibiotic use before midurethral sling procedures reduces infectious complications. METHODS: In this double-blinded randomized trial, we compared infectious complications between women who received cefazolin and placebo before midurethral sling procedures. RESULTS: The study was halted due to low rate of infectious outcomes seen at the first scheduled interim analysis. We enrolled 29 women in the cefazolin group and 30 in the placebo group. Total follow-up was 6 months (3-24 months). The groups were similar at the baseline. There was no statistically significant difference between the cefazolin and placebo groups, respectively, with respect to wound infections [1 (3.3%) and 0 (0%)], mesh exposure [0 (0%) and 1 (3.5%)], and bacteriuria [3 (10%) and 1 (3.5%)]. CONCLUSION: Because infection rates are low in both cefazolin and placebo groups, omitting preoperative antibiotics for midurethral slings may be justified.
Authors: J Stuart Wolf; Carol J Bennett; Roger R Dmochowski; Brent K Hollenbeck; Margaret S Pearle; Anthony J Schaeffer Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: R Marijn Houwert; Jan Paul W R Roovers; Pieter L Venema; Hein W Bruinse; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Harry A M Vervest Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Mia Swartz; Christina Ching; Bradley Gill; Jianbo Li; Raymond Rackley; Sandip Vasavada; Howard B Goldman Journal: Urology Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Linda Brubaker; Toby C Chai; Alayne D Markland; Shawn A Menefee; Larry Sirls; Gary Sutkin; Phillipe Zimmern; Amy Arisco; Liyuan Huang; Sharon Tennstedt; Anne Stoddard Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Sue Ross; Magali Robert; Cheryl Swaby; Lorel Dederer; Doug Lier; Selphee Tang; Penny Brasher; Colin Birch; Dave Cenaiko; Tom Mainprize; Magnus Murphy; Kevin Carlson; Richard Baverstock; Philip Jacobs; Tyler Williamson Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Steven Kleeman; Mickey M Karram; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark D Walters; Sandip Vasavada; Mark Ellerkmann Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Margot E Cohen; Hojjat Salmasian; Jianhua Li; Jianfang Liu; Philip Zachariah; Jason D Wright; Daniel E Freedberg Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Oz Harmanli; Eun-Kyung Hong; Rachel Rubin; Keisha A Jones; Rebecca L Boyer; Stephen Metz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 2.894