Maria Isabel Fischer1, Cícero Dias2, Airtontetelbom Stein3, Nelson Guardiola Meinhardt4, Isabela Heineck5. 1. Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto AlegreRS, Brazil, Fellow PhD degree, Postgraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre-RS, Brazil. Conception of the study, acquisition and interpretation of data, manuscript writing. 2. Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Department of Basic Health Sciences, Porto AlegreRS, Brazil, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Basic Health Sciences, Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), Porto Alegre-RS, Brazil. Acquisition and interpretation of data, manuscript writing. 3. UFCSPA, Department of Public Health, Porto AlegreRS, Brazil, PhD, Chairman, Full Professor, Department of Public Health, UFCSPA, Lutheran University of Brazil(ULBRA), Porto Alegre-RS, Brazil. CNPq PQ2 Conception of the study, critical revision. 4. Conceição Hospital, Porto AlegreRS, Brazil, Head, Division of the Class III Obesity Care Center, Conceição Hospital, Porto Alegre-RS, Brazil. Conception of the study, critical revision. 5. Obesity Care Center, Department of Drug Production and Control and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Porto AlegreRS, Brazil, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Drug Production and Control and Pharmaceutical Sciences, UFRGS, Porto Alegre-RS, Brazil. Conception of the study, critical revision.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the use of cefazolin in prophylaxis of surgical wound infection (SSI) in bariatric surgery (BS). METHODS: A systematic review was performed from October to November, 2013 using the following databases: The Cochrane Library, Medline, LILACS, and EMBASE. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials and observational studies that were evaluated by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Nine hundred and sixty one titles were recovered after preliminary analysis (title and abstract), seven studies remained for final analysis. There were three clinical trials (one with SSI, and two with antibiotic levels as the outcome), and four were observational studies (three cohorts and one case-control, all had SSI as the outcome). After administration of 1g or 2 g, levels of cefazolin in serum and tissue were suboptimal according to two studies. Results from observational studies indicated that different antibiotics were used for prophylaxis of SSI in BS and that use of other drugs may be associated with higher rates of SSI. CONCLUSION: The use of cefazolin for surgical wound infection prophylaxis in bariatric surgery is recommended, however further studies are needed in order to refine parameters as initial dose, redose, moment of administration and lasting of prophylaxis.
PURPOSE: To review the use of cefazolin in prophylaxis of surgical wound infection (SSI) in bariatric surgery (BS). METHODS: A systematic review was performed from October to November, 2013 using the following databases: The Cochrane Library, Medline, LILACS, and EMBASE. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials and observational studies that were evaluated by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Nine hundred and sixty one titles were recovered after preliminary analysis (title and abstract), seven studies remained for final analysis. There were three clinical trials (one with SSI, and two with antibiotic levels as the outcome), and four were observational studies (three cohorts and one case-control, all had SSI as the outcome). After administration of 1g or 2 g, levels of cefazolin in serum and tissue were suboptimal according to two studies. Results from observational studies indicated that different antibiotics were used for prophylaxis of SSI in BS and that use of other drugs may be associated with higher rates of SSI. CONCLUSION: The use of cefazolin for surgical wound infection prophylaxis in bariatric surgery is recommended, however further studies are needed in order to refine parameters as initial dose, redose, moment of administration and lasting of prophylaxis.
Authors: Mathias Wittau; Stephan Paschke; Max Kurlbaum; Jan Scheele; Neang S Ly; Evelyn Hemper; Marko Kornmann; Doris Henne-Bruns; Jürgen B Bulitta Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Xing Chen; Collin E M Brathwaite; Alexander Barkan; Keneth Hall; Gloria Chu; Patricia Cherasard; Shan Wang; David P Nicolau; Shahidul Islam; Burke A Cunha Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Eduardo Celia Palma; Nelson Guardiola Meinhardt; Airton Tetelbom Stein; Isabela Heineck; Maria Isabel Fischer; BibianaVerlindo de Araújo; Teresa Dalla Costa Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2018-04-11 Impact factor: 4.200