Literature DB >> 28625021

Antibiotic prophylaxis for elective hysterectomy.

Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke1, Selma Mourad, Jane Marjoribanks, Karim A Calis, Vanessa Jordan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Elective hysterectomy is commonly performed for benign gynaecological conditions. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, with or without laparoscopic assistance. Antibiotic prophylaxis consists of administration of antibiotics to reduce the rate of postoperative infection, which otherwise affects 40%-50% of women after vaginal hysterectomy, and more than 20% after abdominal hysterectomy. No Cochrane review has systematically assessed evidence on this topic.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched electronic databases to November 2016 (including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as clinical trials registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of antibiotics versus placebo or other antibiotics as prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane standard methodological procedures. MAIN
RESULTS: We included in this review 37 RCTs, which performed 20 comparisons of various antibiotics versus placebo and versus one another (6079 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of study findings were risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, imprecision due to small samples and low event rates, and inadequate reporting of adverse effects. Any antibiotic versus placebo Vaginal hysterectomyModerate-quality evidence shows that women who received antibiotic prophylaxis had fewer total postoperative infections (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; five RCTs, N = 610; I2 = 85%), less urinary tract infection (UTI) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; eight RCTs, N = 1790; I2 = 44%), fewer pelvic infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.39; 11 RCTs, N = 2010; I2 = 57%), and fewer postoperative fevers (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.54; nine RCTs, N = 1879; I2 = 48%) than women who did not receive such prophylaxis. This suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 34% to 7% to 14%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; one RCT, N = 146; very low-quality evidence).Data were insufficient for comparison of adverse effects. Abdominal hysterectomyWomen who received antibiotic prophylaxis of any class had fewer total postoperative infections (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.38; one RCT, N = 345; low-quality evidence), abdominal wound infections (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; 11 RCTs, N = 2434; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), UTIs (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.51; 11 RCTs, N = 2547; I2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence), pelvic infections (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; 11 RCTs, N = 1883; I2 = 11%; moderate-quality evidence), and postoperative fevers (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.70; 11 RCTs, N = 2581; I2 = 51%; moderate-quality evidence) than women who did not receive prophylaxis, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 16% to 1% to 6%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.69; two RCTs, N = 476; I2 = 29%; very low-quality evidence).It is unclear whether rates of adverse effects differed between groups (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.18; two RCTs, N = 430; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Head-to-head comparisons between antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified four comparisons: cephalosporin versus penicillin (two RCTs, N = 470), cephalosporin versus tetracycline (one RCT, N = 51), antiprotozoal versus lincosamide (one RCT, N = 80), and cephalosporin versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes, except that fewer cases of total postoperative infection and postoperative fever were reported in women who received cephalosporin than in those who received antiprotozoal.Only one comparison (cephalosporin vs penicillin; two RCTs, N = 451) yielded data on adverse effects and showed no differences between groups. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified only one comparison: cephalosporin versus penicillin (N = 220). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes. Adverse effects were not reported. Combined antibiotics versus single antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified three comparisons: cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus cephalosporin (one RCT, N = 78), cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78), and penicillin plus antiprotozoal versus penicillin (one RCT, N = 230). Data were unavailable for most outcomes, including adverse effects. We found no evidence of differences between groups, except that fewer women receiving cephalosporin with antiprotozoal received a diagnosis of total postoperative infection, UTI, or postoperative fever compared with women receiving antiprotozoal. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified one comparison (penicillin plus antiprotozoal vs penicillin only; one RCT, N = 230). Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. Adverse effects were not reported. Comparison of cephalosporins in different regimensSingle small trials addressed dose comparisons and provided no data for most outcomes, including adverse effects. Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. No trials compared route of administration.The quality of evidence for all head-to-head and dose comparisons was very low owing to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias related to poor reporting of methods. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be effective in preventing postoperative infection in women undergoing elective vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy, regardless of the dose regimen. However, evidence is insufficient to show whether use of prophylactic antibiotics influences rates of adverse effects. Similarly, evidence is insufficient to show which (if any) individual antibiotic, dose regimen, or route of administration is safest and most effective. The most recent studies included in this review were 14 years old at the time of our search. Thus findings from included studies may not reflect current practice in perioperative and postoperative care and may not show locoregional antimicrobial resistance patterns.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28625021      PMCID: PMC6441670          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004637.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  151 in total

Review 1.  Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  Martin Brand; Damon Bizos; Peter O'Farrell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-10-06

2.  Guidelines for pre- and intra-operative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations--Part I.

Authors:  G Nelson; A D Altman; A Nick; L A Meyer; P T Ramirez; C Achtari; J Antrobus; J Huang; M Scott; L Wijk; N Acheson; O Ljungqvist; S C Dowdy
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Single-dose prophylaxis in patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy: cefamandole versus cefotaxime. The Multicenter Study Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 1997 through 2005.

Authors:  Ray M Merrill
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2008-01

5.  Impact of cephalosporin prophylaxis on conization-vaginal hysterectomy morbidity.

Authors:  J P Forney; C P Morrow; D E Townsend; P J Disaia
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1976-05-01       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Letter: Prophylactic antibiotics.

Authors:  R C Goodlin
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1974-08       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Multicenter trial of prophylaxis with clindamycin plus aztreonam or cefotaxime in gynecologic surgery.

Authors:  C Mangioni; L Bianchi; P F Bolis; A M Lomeo; F Mazzeo; L Ventriglia; S Scalambrino
Journal:  Rev Infect Dis       Date:  1991 May-Jun

8.  Cefazolin for hysterectomy prophylaxis.

Authors:  D L Hemsell; E R Johnson; P G Hemsell; B J Nobles; M C Heard
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 9.  Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Authors:  E P Dellinger; P A Gross; T L Barrett; P J Krause; W J Martone; J E McGowan; R L Sweet; R P Wenzel
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 9.079

10.  Cefoxitin sodium: double-blind vaginal hysterectomy prophylaxis in premenopausal patients.

Authors:  A Mickal; D Curole; C Lewis
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  9 in total

1.  Interventions to reduce morbidity from vault hematoma following vaginal hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Suneetha Rachaneni; Anupreet Dua
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  SIGIS-SIAMS-SIE position statement of gender affirming hormonal treatment in transgender and non-binary people.

Authors:  A D Fisher; G Senofonte; C Cocchetti; G Guercio; V Lingiardi; M C Meriggiola; M Mosconi; G Motta; J Ristori; A M Speranza; M Pierdominici; M Maggi; G Corona; F Lombardo
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2021-10-22       Impact factor: 4.256

Review 3.  AUGS-IUGA Joint clinical consensus statement on enhanced recovery after urogynecologic surgery.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-09-25       Impact factor: 1.932

4.  Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery.

Authors:  Michael Gallagher; Daniel J Jones; Sophie V Bell-Syer
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-09-26

5.  Trends in bacterial resistance among perioperative infections in patients with primary ovarian cancer: A retrospective 20-year study at an affiliated hospital in South China.

Authors:  Yanlin Zhou; Tingting Zhang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 1.671

6.  Symptomatic pelvic hematoma following hysterectomy: risk factors, bacterial pathogens and clinical outcome.

Authors:  Henry H Chill; Itshak Amsalem; Gilad Karavani; Sharon Amit; Abraham Benshushan; David Shveiky
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 2.809

7.  A randomized controlled trial to compare antibiotic prophylaxis in elective gynecological surgeries: Single dose of cefazolin versus single dose of cefazolin and tinidazole.

Authors:  Shivani Garg; Seema Chopra; Shalini Gainder; Rashmi Bagga; Nusrat Shafiq; Neelam Aggarwal
Journal:  Tzu Chi Med J       Date:  2021-10-05

8.  Impact of guidelines implementation for the rational use of prophylactic antibiotics in elective cesarean sections at Elqutainah Teaching Hospital.

Authors:  Sara M Suliman; Bashir A Yousef; Afrah A Hamadelnil
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2020-01-28

9.  Prophylactic antibiotic bundle compliance and surgical site infections: an artificial neural network analysis.

Authors:  Steven Walczak; Marbelly Davila; Vic Velanovich
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2019-12-07
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.