评估清洁伤口普外科手术的术前抗生素预防:一家地区医院的倾向评分匹配队列研究。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY BMC Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1186/s12893-024-02616-8
Mai Charernsuk, Suppadech Tunruttanakul, Leenawat Jamjumrat, Borirak Chareonsil
{"title":"评估清洁伤口普外科手术的术前抗生素预防:一家地区医院的倾向评分匹配队列研究。","authors":"Mai Charernsuk, Suppadech Tunruttanakul, Leenawat Jamjumrat, Borirak Chareonsil","doi":"10.1186/s12893-024-02616-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for clean-wound surgeries is controversial among surgeons, despite guidelines suggesting its use. This study aimed to evaluate its effectiveness in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in clean-wound surgeries within a regional setting with varied practices regarding prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included four types of common general surgeries performed from March 2021 to February 2023 at a tertiary regional hospital in Thailand. The surgeries included skin/subcutaneous excision, thyroidectomy, inguinal hernia repair, and breast surgeries, all of which required regional or general anesthesia. Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered at the discretion of the attending surgeons. SSI diagnosis followed standard diagnostic criteria, involving reviewing medical records and the records of the infection control unit. Infection risk factors were examined. The primary outcome comparison used inverse probability treatment weighting of propensity scores, with covariate balance evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 501 surgeries identified, 84 were excluded, leaving 417 eligible for analysis. Among these patients, 233 received prophylactic antibiotics, for an SSI rate of 1.3%, while 184 did not receive antibiotics, for an SSI rate of 2.2%. A comparative analysis using propensity score weighting revealed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of SSI between the groups (risk ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.54 (0.11, 2.50), p = 0.427).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this practical setting, with the given study size, antibiotic prophylaxis in common general surgeries involving clean wounds did not significantly prevent SSIs. Routine use recommendations should be re-evaluated.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable as this study is a retrospective cohort study and not a clinical trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"24 1","pages":"294"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457344/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in clean-wound general surgery procedures: a propensity score-matched cohort study at a regional hospital.\",\"authors\":\"Mai Charernsuk, Suppadech Tunruttanakul, Leenawat Jamjumrat, Borirak Chareonsil\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12893-024-02616-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for clean-wound surgeries is controversial among surgeons, despite guidelines suggesting its use. This study aimed to evaluate its effectiveness in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in clean-wound surgeries within a regional setting with varied practices regarding prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included four types of common general surgeries performed from March 2021 to February 2023 at a tertiary regional hospital in Thailand. The surgeries included skin/subcutaneous excision, thyroidectomy, inguinal hernia repair, and breast surgeries, all of which required regional or general anesthesia. Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered at the discretion of the attending surgeons. SSI diagnosis followed standard diagnostic criteria, involving reviewing medical records and the records of the infection control unit. Infection risk factors were examined. The primary outcome comparison used inverse probability treatment weighting of propensity scores, with covariate balance evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 501 surgeries identified, 84 were excluded, leaving 417 eligible for analysis. Among these patients, 233 received prophylactic antibiotics, for an SSI rate of 1.3%, while 184 did not receive antibiotics, for an SSI rate of 2.2%. A comparative analysis using propensity score weighting revealed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of SSI between the groups (risk ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.54 (0.11, 2.50), p = 0.427).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this practical setting, with the given study size, antibiotic prophylaxis in common general surgeries involving clean wounds did not significantly prevent SSIs. Routine use recommendations should be re-evaluated.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable as this study is a retrospective cohort study and not a clinical trial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"294\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457344/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02616-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02616-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管相关指南建议在清洁伤口手术中使用抗生素预防,但外科医生对其使用仍存在争议。本研究旨在评估抗生素预防措施在预防清洁伤口手术(SSI)中的有效性:这项回顾性队列研究包括 2021 年 3 月至 2023 年 2 月期间在泰国一家三级地区医院进行的四种常见普通外科手术。这些手术包括皮肤/皮下切除术、甲状腺切除术、腹股沟疝修补术和乳房手术,所有这些手术都需要区域或全身麻醉。抗生素预防由主治医生决定。SSI 诊断遵循标准诊断标准,包括审查医疗记录和感染控制部门的记录。对感染风险因素进行了研究。主要结果比较采用了倾向得分的反概率治疗加权法,并对协变量平衡进行了评估:在确定的 501 例手术中,有 84 例被排除,剩下 417 例符合分析条件。在这些患者中,233 人接受了预防性抗生素治疗,SSI 感染率为 1.3%;184 人未接受抗生素治疗,SSI 感染率为 2.2%。使用倾向得分加权法进行的比较分析表明,两组的 SSI 发生率在统计学上没有显著差异(风险比 [95% 置信区间]:0.54(0.11,0.12,0.13)):结论:结论:在这一实际环境中,在特定的研究规模下,在涉及清洁伤口的普通外科手术中使用抗生素预防并不能显著预防 SSI。应重新评估常规使用建议:不适用,因为本研究是一项回顾性队列研究,而非临床试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluation of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in clean-wound general surgery procedures: a propensity score-matched cohort study at a regional hospital.

Background: The administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for clean-wound surgeries is controversial among surgeons, despite guidelines suggesting its use. This study aimed to evaluate its effectiveness in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in clean-wound surgeries within a regional setting with varied practices regarding prophylaxis.

Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study included four types of common general surgeries performed from March 2021 to February 2023 at a tertiary regional hospital in Thailand. The surgeries included skin/subcutaneous excision, thyroidectomy, inguinal hernia repair, and breast surgeries, all of which required regional or general anesthesia. Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered at the discretion of the attending surgeons. SSI diagnosis followed standard diagnostic criteria, involving reviewing medical records and the records of the infection control unit. Infection risk factors were examined. The primary outcome comparison used inverse probability treatment weighting of propensity scores, with covariate balance evaluated.

Results: Of the 501 surgeries identified, 84 were excluded, leaving 417 eligible for analysis. Among these patients, 233 received prophylactic antibiotics, for an SSI rate of 1.3%, while 184 did not receive antibiotics, for an SSI rate of 2.2%. A comparative analysis using propensity score weighting revealed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of SSI between the groups (risk ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.54 (0.11, 2.50), p = 0.427).

Conclusion: In this practical setting, with the given study size, antibiotic prophylaxis in common general surgeries involving clean wounds did not significantly prevent SSIs. Routine use recommendations should be re-evaluated.

Trial registration: Not applicable as this study is a retrospective cohort study and not a clinical trial.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
期刊最新文献
Evolution of minimally invasive cholecystectomy: a narrative review. The impact of qualitative [18F]FDG PET/CT in predicting clinical outcomes of post-surgical differentiated thyroid cancer patients with elevated thyroglobulin and negative radioiodine whole-body scan. Application of RhBMP-2 in Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Cumulative sum analysis for evaluating learning curve of endoscopic lateral neck dissection. Influence of the ligation sequence of the inferior mesenteric artery and vein on circulating tumor cells in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a prospective pilot study.
×
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