Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review.
Falkensammer, Eva; Erenler, Ece; Johansen, Truls E Bjerklund; Tzelves, Lazaros; Schneidewind, Laila; Yuan, Yuhong; Cai, Tommaso; Koves, Bela; Tandogdu, Zafer.
Afiliação
  • Falkensammer E; Department of Urology, Klinikum Wels-Grieskirchen, 4600 Wels, Austria.
  • Erenler E; Department of Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital Salzburg, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.
  • Johansen TEB; School of Medicine, Koc University, Istanbul 34450, Turkey.
  • Tzelves L; Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, 0424 Oslo, Norway.
  • Schneidewind L; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Aarhus, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Yuan Y; Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Sismanogleio General Hospital, 11527 Athens, Greece.
  • Cai T; Department of Urology, University Greifswald, 17487 Greifswald, Germany.
  • Koves B; Department of Medicine, London Health Science Centre, London, ON N6A 5W9, Canada.
  • Tandogdu Z; Department of Medicine, Health Sciences Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON N6A 5W9, Canada.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 12(12)2023 Dec 16.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38136777
ABSTRACT
It remains unclear whether antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) should be recommended or discouraged in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) for prostate cancer (PCa). The development of microbial resistance and side effects are risks of antibiotic use. This systematic review (SR) investigates the evidence base for AP in RALP. A systematic literature search was conducted until 12 January 2023, using Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane CDSR (via Ovid) and CINAHL for studies reporting the effect of AP on postoperative infectious complications in RALP. Of 436 screened publications, 8 studies comprising 6378 RALP procedures met the inclusion criteria. There was no evidence of a difference in the rate and severity of infective complications within 30 days after RALP surgery between different AP protocols. No studies omitted AP. For patients who received AP, the overall occurrence of postoperative infectious complications varied between 0.6% and 6.6%. The reported urinary tract infection (UTI) rates varied from 0.16% (4/2500) to 8.9% (15/169). Wound infections were reported in 0.46% (4/865) to 1.12% (1/89). Sepsis/bacteraemia and hyperpyrexia were registered in 0.1% (1/1084) and 1.6% (5/317), respectively. Infected lymphoceles (iLC) rates were 0.9% (3 of 317) in a RALP cohort that included 88.6% pelvic lymph node dissections (PLND), and 3% (26 of 865) in a RALP cohort where all patients underwent PLND. Our findings underscore that AP is being administered in RALP procedures without scientifically proven evidence. Prospective studies that apply consistent and uniform criteria for measuring infectious complications and antibiotic-related side effects are needed to ensure the comparability of results and guidance on AP in RALP.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Antibiotics (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Áustria

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Antibiotics (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Áustria