Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the use of prophylactic antibiotics in hand trauma surgery.

BACKGROUND: The use of prophylactic antibiotics in surgery is contentious. With the rise in antimicrobial resistance, evidence-based antibiotic use should be followed. This systematic review and network meta-analysis will assess the effectiveness of different antibiotics on the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) following hand trauma surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The databases Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be searched. Abstracts will be screened by two persons independently to identify eligible studies. This systematic review will include both randomised and non-randomised prospective comparative studies in participants with hand and/or wrist injuries requiring surgery; bite injuries will be excluded. The network meta-analysis will compare the use of different prophylactic antibiotics against each other, placebo and/or no antibiotics on the development of SSI within 30 days of surgery (or 90 days if there is an implanted device). The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 will be used to assess the risk of methodological bias in randomised controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottowa scale (NOS) will be used to assess the risk of bias in non-randomised studies. A random-effects network meta-analysis will be conducted along with subgroup analyses looking at antibiotic timing, injury type, and operation location. Sensitivity analyses including only low risk-of-bias studies will be conducted, and the confidence in the results will be assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINEMA). DISCUSSION: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to provide an up-to-date synthesis of the studies assessing the use of antibiotics following hand and wrist trauma to enable evidence-based peri-operative prescribing. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023429618.

A 'Real Life' Service Evaluation Model for Multidisciplinary Thyroid Eye Services.

Background/Aims: There is no universal consensus on the practical implementation and evaluation of the Amsterdam Declaration on Graves Orbitopathy in a Multidisciplinary Thyroid Eye Disease (MDTED) pathway. Recent recommendations from the UK TEAMeD-5 and BOPSS initiative highlight the importance of prevention, screening, and prompt referral of patients with moderate to severe and sight-threatening thyroid eye disease to multidisciplinary (MDTED) clinics and recommends annual auditing. We propose a practical service evaluation model with Key Performance Indicators (KPI) that are achievable and could be implemented across most TED pathways. Material and Methods: We conducted a service evaluation from an integrated TED pathway in London with three MDTED clinics. Data was collected retrospectively from consecutive TED patients included: 1) Patient demographics, 2) Referral to first appointment time, 3) Documented smoking cessation and selenium supplementation advice, 4) Presenting disease activity and severity, 5) Investigations and treatments, including radio-iodine, 6) Time from decision to treatment initiation, 7) Initial and subsequent thyroid status. Results: The median age was 49.0 yrs, 77.5% (183/236) were female and 49.5% (101/204) Afro-Caribbean or Asian. At their first clinic attendance, 47.6% (110/231) were biochemically euthyroid and 76.7% (79/103) at discharge. All 23.1% (52/225) current smokers received smoking cessation advice and 64.8% (153/236) received selenium supplementation advice. Intravenous methylprednisolone was given to 33.9% (80/236) patients and 12.7% (30/236) received second-line immunosuppression. All 7.2% (17/236) patients with sight-threatening disease received treatment within two weeks of diagnosis. Conclusions: This study forms a waymark for other units using TEAMeD-5 and BOPSS audit criteria. Dedicated electronic patient records with ongoing data capture, including quality of life assessments, and diagnostic coding would significantly aid future auditing, improve patient care, and facilitate a national audit of TED management. A future survey when the TED standards have become embedded would be instructive to see whether this has improved TED care.