Prophylaxis of infection after appendicectomy: a survey of current surgical practice.

IF 93.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL British Medical Journal Pub Date : 1980-12-13 DOI:10.1136/bmj.281.6255.1597
W B Campbell
{"title":"Prophylaxis of infection after appendicectomy: a survey of current surgical practice.","authors":"W B Campbell","doi":"10.1136/bmj.281.6255.1597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Two hundred and eighty questionnaires were sent to junior surgical staff throughout England inquiring about their use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, topical antibacterial agents, and surgical drainage in appendicectomy. One hundred and seventy-five (63%) replies were received from 81 of the 87 hospitals included in the survey. Prophylactic systemic antibiotics were used by 78 surgeons (46%) when operating on a normal appendix but by 168 (99%) when the organ had perforated. Most surgeons started antibiotics before operation, but proportionately fewer did so when the appendix was gangrenous or perforated. Patients with severe contamination tended to receive longer courses of antibiotics, although the duration of administration varied considerably. Metronidazole was included in over 95% of all the prophylactic regimens and was often combined with other drugs when the appendix was gangrenous and perforated. Topical antibacterial agents were applied to the wound routinely by only 45 surgeons (26%), although 106 (61%) used them sometimes. Povidone-iodine was the agent most commonly used. Only 98 surgeons (56%) ever drained appendicectomy wounds, while 135 (77%) sometimes drained the peritoneal cavity. Evidence suggests that present methods of giving systemic antibiotic prophylaxis should continue, but that topical agents and surgical drainage are perhaps unnecessary when surgeons are confident of the efficacy of the systemic treatment used.</p>","PeriodicalId":9321,"journal":{"name":"British Medical Journal","volume":"281 6255","pages":"1597-600"},"PeriodicalIF":93.6000,"publicationDate":"1980-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmj.281.6255.1597","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.281.6255.1597","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

Two hundred and eighty questionnaires were sent to junior surgical staff throughout England inquiring about their use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, topical antibacterial agents, and surgical drainage in appendicectomy. One hundred and seventy-five (63%) replies were received from 81 of the 87 hospitals included in the survey. Prophylactic systemic antibiotics were used by 78 surgeons (46%) when operating on a normal appendix but by 168 (99%) when the organ had perforated. Most surgeons started antibiotics before operation, but proportionately fewer did so when the appendix was gangrenous or perforated. Patients with severe contamination tended to receive longer courses of antibiotics, although the duration of administration varied considerably. Metronidazole was included in over 95% of all the prophylactic regimens and was often combined with other drugs when the appendix was gangrenous and perforated. Topical antibacterial agents were applied to the wound routinely by only 45 surgeons (26%), although 106 (61%) used them sometimes. Povidone-iodine was the agent most commonly used. Only 98 surgeons (56%) ever drained appendicectomy wounds, while 135 (77%) sometimes drained the peritoneal cavity. Evidence suggests that present methods of giving systemic antibiotic prophylaxis should continue, but that topical agents and surgical drainage are perhaps unnecessary when surgeons are confident of the efficacy of the systemic treatment used.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阑尾切除术后感染的预防:目前手术实践的调查。
向全英格兰的初级外科医生发送了280份调查问卷,询问他们在阑尾切除术中使用全身性抗生素预防、局部抗菌药物和手术引流的情况。在参与调查的87家医院中,有81家医院回复了175份(63%)。78名外科医生(46%)在对正常阑尾进行手术时使用预防性全身抗生素,而168名(99%)在阑尾穿孔时使用预防性全身抗生素。大多数外科医生在手术前开始使用抗生素,但当阑尾坏疽或穿孔时,使用抗生素的比例更低。严重污染的患者往往接受较长的抗生素疗程,尽管给药时间差异很大。甲硝唑在所有预防方案中占95%以上,当阑尾出现坏疽和穿孔时,甲硝唑常与其他药物联合使用。只有45名外科医生(26%)在创面常规使用局部抗菌药物,106名外科医生(61%)有时使用。聚维酮碘是最常用的药剂。只有98名外科医生(56%)曾对阑尾切除伤口进行引流,而135名外科医生(77%)有时对腹腔进行引流。有证据表明,目前给予全身抗生素预防的方法应该继续,但当外科医生对所使用的全身治疗的疗效有信心时,局部药物和手术引流可能是不必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
British Medical Journal
British Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
1.78
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: The BMJ (British Medical Journal) is an international peer reviewed medical journal and a fully “online first” publication. Our publishing model—”continuous publication”— means that all articles appear on bmj.com before being included in an issue of the print journal. The website is updated daily with the BMJ’s latest original research, education, news, and comment articles, as well as podcasts, videos, and blogs.
期刊最新文献
Male procreative superiority index (MPSI): the missing coefficient in African anthropogenetics. Chlorosis, anaemia, and anorexia nervosa. The Hamadryad Hospital Ship for Seamen, 1866-1905. Nature of Samuel Pepys's "wind colic". Unquiet sleep.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1