INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Despite the lack of evidence, antibiotic prophylaxis has been recommended for midurethral sling procedures. The goal of this study was to evaluate the rate of infectious complications in women undergoing midurethral sling procedures without antibiotic prophylaxis. METHODS: We reviewed the baseline characteristics and postoperative infectious complications of 174 consecutive women who underwent midurethral sling procedures without prophylactic antibiotics from April 2005 to January 2010. Patients undergoing concomitant vaginal surgery were excluded. RESULTS: The average age, parity, and body mass index of were 51.3 ± 12.6 years, 2.4 ± 1.3, and 30.1 ± 7.4 kg/m(2), respectively. There were no wound infections, 2 (1.4%) vaginal mesh exposures and 12 (8%) cases of bacteriuria. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of infections is low when a midurethral sling is performed without antibiotic prophylaxis. Antibiotic prophylaxis does not appear to offer any benefit in midurethral sling procedures.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Despite the lack of evidence, antibiotic prophylaxis has been recommended for midurethral sling procedures. The goal of this study was to evaluate the rate of infectious complications in women undergoing midurethral sling procedures without antibiotic prophylaxis. METHODS: We reviewed the baseline characteristics and postoperative infectious complications of 174 consecutive women who underwent midurethral sling procedures without prophylactic antibiotics from April 2005 to January 2010. Patients undergoing concomitant vaginal surgery were excluded. RESULTS: The average age, parity, and body mass index of were 51.3 ± 12.6 years, 2.4 ± 1.3, and 30.1 ± 7.4 kg/m(2), respectively. There were no wound infections, 2 (1.4%) vaginal mesh exposures and 12 (8%) cases of bacteriuria. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of infections is low when a midurethral sling is performed without antibiotic prophylaxis. Antibiotic prophylaxis does not appear to offer any benefit in midurethral sling procedures.
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