Brian Nuyen1, Cherian K Kandathil1, Katri Laimi2, Shannon F Rudy1, Sam P Most1, Mikhail Saltychev2. 1. Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 2. Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Turku University Hospital, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Although antibiotic prophylaxis following rhinoplasty is widespread, the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis effectiveness and the superiority of particular administration regimens is controversial. To date, a meta-analysis on the topic has not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the association between use of preventive antibiotics and postoperative complications in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and quantify the review through meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Central (Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched with prospectively designed search phrases on February 16, 2018. All databases were searched from database inception. Key search terms included rhinoplasty, nasal valve repair, and antibacterial agent. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with adults (≥18 years) undergoing rhinoplasty and including systemic antibiotic medications administered in the absence of other reasons for use of an antibiotic (eg, localized or systemic infection), without restrictions on language or the time of publication, were included in the study. Interventions of interest were classified into 3 types: (1) single-dose systemic antibiotic administered within 24 hours before the first incision, (2) multidose systemic antibiotic treatment started within 24 hours before the first incision and continuing after the operation, and (3) systemic antibiotic therapy (single dose or multidose) started within 24 hours after the first incision. The following comparisons were made: for the interventions of type 1, no antibiotic; for the interventions of types 2 or 3, no antibiotic or an intervention of type 1. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was compliant with PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the remaining records at abstract and full-text stages. Meta-analysis pooled with random-effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Difference in infectious complication rate between groups. RESULTS: A total of 262 records were identified; of these, only 5 RCTs fulfilled predetermined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria. The pooled study sample consisted of 589 participants. No significant differences in outcome of preventive antibiotic therapy given either preoperatively or postoperatively were found, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43; P = .86). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study appears to be the first Cochrane-protocol systematic review and meta-analysis investigating preventive antibiotics in rhinoplasty. This study's results suggest that pooled evidence from the 5 RCTs does not support the use of preventive antibiotic therapy in rhinoplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
IMPORTANCE: Although antibiotic prophylaxis following rhinoplasty is widespread, the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis effectiveness and the superiority of particular administration regimens is controversial. To date, a meta-analysis on the topic has not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the association between use of preventive antibiotics and postoperative complications in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and quantify the review through meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Central (Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched with prospectively designed search phrases on February 16, 2018. All databases were searched from database inception. Key search terms included rhinoplasty, nasal valve repair, and antibacterial agent. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with adults (≥18 years) undergoing rhinoplasty and including systemic antibiotic medications administered in the absence of other reasons for use of an antibiotic (eg, localized or systemic infection), without restrictions on language or the time of publication, were included in the study. Interventions of interest were classified into 3 types: (1) single-dose systemic antibiotic administered within 24 hours before the first incision, (2) multidose systemic antibiotic treatment started within 24 hours before the first incision and continuing after the operation, and (3) systemic antibiotic therapy (single dose or multidose) started within 24 hours after the first incision. The following comparisons were made: for the interventions of type 1, no antibiotic; for the interventions of types 2 or 3, no antibiotic or an intervention of type 1. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was compliant with PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the remaining records at abstract and full-text stages. Meta-analysis pooled with random-effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Difference in infectious complication rate between groups. RESULTS: A total of 262 records were identified; of these, only 5 RCTs fulfilled predetermined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria. The pooled study sample consisted of 589 participants. No significant differences in outcome of preventive antibiotic therapy given either preoperatively or postoperatively were found, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43; P = .86). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study appears to be the first Cochrane-protocol systematic review and meta-analysis investigating preventive antibiotics in rhinoplasty. This study's results suggest that pooled evidence from the 5 RCTs does not support the use of preventive antibiotic therapy in rhinoplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
Authors: Lisa E Ishii; Travis T Tollefson; Gregory J Basura; Richard M Rosenfeld; Peter J Abramson; Scott R Chaiet; Kara S Davis; Karl Doghramji; Edward H Farrior; Sandra A Finestone; Stacey L Ishman; Robert X Murphy; John G Park; Michael Setzen; Deborah J Strike; Sandra A Walsh; Jeremy P Warner; Lorraine C Nnacheta Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Matthew T G Holden; Li-Yang Hsu; Kevin Kurt; Lucy A Weinert; Alison E Mather; Simon R Harris; Birgit Strommenger; Franziska Layer; Wolfgang Witte; Herminia de Lencastre; Robert Skov; Henrik Westh; Helena Zemlicková; Geoffrey Coombs; Angela M Kearns; Robert L R Hill; Jonathan Edgeworth; Ian Gould; Vanya Gant; Jonathan Cooke; Giles F Edwards; Paul R McAdam; Kate E Templeton; Angela McCann; Zhemin Zhou; Santiago Castillo-Ramírez; Edward J Feil; Lyndsey O Hudson; Mark C Enright; Francois Balloux; David M Aanensen; Brian G Spratt; J Ross Fitzgerald; Julian Parkhill; Mark Achtman; Stephen D Bentley; Ulrich Nübel Journal: Genome Res Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18