Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Orthopaedic Implant Removal : What Does the Evidence Say?
Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epubbenthamscience.net..
Orthopaedic implant removal is considered a sterile procedure, but the current literature suggests it is associated with around a 20% Surgical Site Infection (SSI) rate. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis is still ambiguous and contentious. Taking into consideration this issue we conducted a meta-analysis for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopaedic implant removal surgery.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not antibiotic prophylaxis benefits orthopaedic implant removal surgeries.
METHODS: Electronic and printed sources were searched up to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using antibiotic prophylaxis and a control group. Data from eligible studies were pooled for the following outcomes: overall, superficial, and deep surgical site infection (SSI). Pooled odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Mantel Haenszel fixed-effect model preferentially.
RESULTS: Two studies, including 766 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was not statistically significant between the studies. There was no significant difference in the incidence of overall SSI in cefazolin and normal saline (NS) groups (Pooled OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.53- 1.17). In subgroup analysis, antibiotic prophylaxis showed statistically significant improvement for deep SSI (Pooled OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.06-0.70).
CONCLUSION: Overall incidence of SSI is not reduced after the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis one hour before removal of orthopaedic implants.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:18 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Current drug safety - 18(2023), 1 vom: 16., Seite 116-120 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Rather, Imran Ibni Gani [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 08.02.2023 Date Revised 08.02.2023 published: Print Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.2174/1574886317666220429081207 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM352581964 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM352581964 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226054045.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.2174/1574886317666220429081207 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1175.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM352581964 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36748234 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Rather, Imran Ibni Gani |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Orthopaedic Implant Removal |b What Does the Evidence Say? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 08.02.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 08.02.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epubbenthamscience.net. | ||
| 520 | |a Orthopaedic implant removal is considered a sterile procedure, but the current literature suggests it is associated with around a 20% Surgical Site Infection (SSI) rate. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis is still ambiguous and contentious. Taking into consideration this issue we conducted a meta-analysis for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopaedic implant removal surgery | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not antibiotic prophylaxis benefits orthopaedic implant removal surgeries | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: Electronic and printed sources were searched up to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using antibiotic prophylaxis and a control group. Data from eligible studies were pooled for the following outcomes: overall, superficial, and deep surgical site infection (SSI). Pooled odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Mantel Haenszel fixed-effect model preferentially | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Two studies, including 766 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was not statistically significant between the studies. There was no significant difference in the incidence of overall SSI in cefazolin and normal saline (NS) groups (Pooled OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.53- 1.17). In subgroup analysis, antibiotic prophylaxis showed statistically significant improvement for deep SSI (Pooled OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.06-0.70) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: Overall incidence of SSI is not reduced after the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis one hour before removal of orthopaedic implants | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Antibiotic prophylaxis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a deep-seated surgical site infection | |
| 650 | 4 | |a fractures | |
| 650 | 4 | |a orthopaedic implant | |
| 650 | 4 | |a superficial surgical site infection | |
| 650 | 4 | |a surgical site infection | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Anti-Bacterial Agents |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Cefazolin |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a IHS69L0Y4T |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shafiq, Nusrat |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pandey, Avaneesh Kumar |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bhandari, Ritika Kondel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Malhotra, Samir |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chouhan, Devinder Kumar |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Current drug safety |d 2006 |g 18(2023), 1 vom: 16., Seite 116-120 |w (DE-627)NLM181475790 |x 2212-3911 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2023 |g number:1 |g day:16 |g pages:116-120 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1574886317666220429081207 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2023 |e 1 |b 16 |h 116-120 | ||