Antibiotic Prophylaxis in the Management of Open Fractures: A Systematic Survey of Current Practice and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Evidence with regard to antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with open fractures of the extremities is limited. We therefore conducted a systematic survey addressing current practice and recommendations. METHODS: We included publications from January 2007 to June 2017. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for clinical studies and surveys of surgeons; WorldCat for textbooks; and web sites for guidelines and institutional protocols. RESULTS: We identified 223 eligible publications that reported 100 clinical practice patterns and 276 recommendations with regard to systemic antibiotic administration, and 3 recommendations regarding local antibiotic administration alone. Most publications of clinical practice patterns used regimens with both gram-positive and gram-negative coverage and continued the administration for 2 to 3 days. Most publications recommended prophylactic systemic antibiotics. Most recommendations suggested gram-positive coverage for less severe injuries and administration duration of 3 days or less. For more severe injuries, most recommendations suggested broad antimicrobial coverage continued for 2 to 3 days. Most publications reported intravenous administration of antibiotics immediately. CONCLUSIONS: Current practice and recommendations strongly support early systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with open fractures of the extremities. Differences in antibiotic regimens, doses, and durations of administration remain in both practice and recommendations. Consensus with regard to optimal practice will likely require well-designed randomized controlled trials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current survey of literature systematically provides surgeons' practice and the available expert recommendations from 2007 to 2017 on the use of prophylactic antibiotics in the management of open fractures of extremities.

Attitudes toward the Canadian Guideline for Safe and Effective Use of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) refers to all pain disorders, not due to cancer, that persist for ≥3 months. The point prevalence of CNCP in the general population of Western countries is between 19 and 33 percent. Opioids are commonly prescribed for CNCP and are associated with both benefits and harms. The Canadian Guideline for Safe and Effective Use of Opioids for CNCP was published in 2010 to provide guidance for optimal opioid prescribing in patients with CNCP. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the attitudes toward, and use of, the Canadian Opioids Guideline among pain physicians. DESIGN: A qualitative study using one-on-one, semistructured interviews with 12 pain physicians in Ontario, Canada, and thematic analysis of verbatim transcripts. RESULTS: Major themes that emerged from interviews included: (1) generally positive attitudes toward the 2010 Canadian Opioids Guideline, but limited use-half (six of 12) reported they did not use the guideline in practice; (2) strongly contrasting views regarding the 200 mg/d morphine equivalent watchful dose; (3) recognition of gaps in the guideline, especially recommendations for urine drug screening and pain severity-specific therapy; (4) the guideline is excessively long and the format suboptimal; and (5) improved dissemination and education are needed to enhance guideline uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its merits, the Canadian Opioids Guideline suffers from information gaps and from limited uptake, at least in part due to suboptimal format and suboptimal dissemination.

Effects of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Patients with Open Fracture of the Extremities: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of alternative antibiotic regimens-including (A) antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis, (B) longer versus shorter duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, and (C) alternative drugs-for patients with open fracture of the extremities. METHODS: Data sources included CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews from 1965 to December 2013. All randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with open fracture of the extremities were eligible. RESULTS: We identified 329 potentially eligible articles, of which seventeen proved to be eligible. In four randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients, we found a significantly lower infection rate in patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis compared with those not receiving antibiotic prophylaxis (risk ratio = 0.37 [95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.66]; absolute risk reduction = 9.6% [95% confidence interval, 5.2% to 12.1%]). In three studies involving 1104 patients, we found no difference in the infection rate when a longer duration of antibiotics (three to five days) was compared with a shorter duration (one day) (risk ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.37). Confidence in the estimates for both questions was low to moderate. Individual comparisons of alternative drugs yielded estimates warranting only low to very low confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Results of randomized controlled trials performed to date provide evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces subsequent infection and that courses as short as one day are as effective as courses of three to five days, although the evidence warrants only low to moderate confidence. Given current practice, a large, multicenter, low risk of bias, randomized controlled trial enrolling representative populations and addressing the duration of antibiotics may be the next optimum step in investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.