RESUMO
We compared the odds of acquiring surgical site infection (SSI) for clean-contaminated colorectal surgeries between intravenous ß-lactam-based prophylaxis (BLP) versus alternative antimicrobial prophylaxis (AAP). We calculated the odds of acquiring an SSI using logistic regression; adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Increased odds of SSI were detected with AAP versus BLP (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.33-3.50; P = .002).
Assuntos
Anti-Infecciosos , Cirurgia Colorretal , Humanos , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/epidemiologia , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/prevenção & controle , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/tratamento farmacológico , beta-Lactamas/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Antibioticoprofilaxia , Cirurgia Colorretal/efeitos adversos , Anti-Infecciosos/uso terapêutico , Antibacterianos/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) is common in colorectal surgery patients and associated with morbidity and mortality. Guidelines recommend preoperative intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis with aerobic and anaerobic coverage to reduce SSI risk. Cephalosporin based prophylaxis (CBP) regimens are recommended as first-line prophylaxis, and non-cephalosporin based are recommended as alternative prophylaxis (AP). We evaluate the efficacy of CBP versus AP in preventing surgical site infections in colorectal surgery patients. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of studies published between 2005 and 2020 in MEDLINE and Web of Science. Studies were excluded if intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis was not administered, or if oral and intravenous prophylaxis were routinely co-administered. Heterogeneity was reported using the Q-statistic and I2-statistic. Publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Egger test for small study effects. Statistical significance was defined as a two-sided p < 0.05. RESULTS: 11 studies met inclusion criteria. AP was not associated with increased SSI risk at 30 days compared to CBP (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91, 1.13; OR < 1 favors AP). There was no effect size variability in subgroup analysis comparing higher-to lower-quality studies (I2 = 99%, P = 0.17). Subgroup analysis by publication year approached a significant difference in effect size between studies published prior to 2014 and later than 2014 (I2 = 99%, P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of 11 studies of SSI risk in adult colorectal surgery patients suggest that SSI risk is similar for patients receiving CBP or AP, subgroup analysis of studies published since 2014 suggest increased SSI risk with AP compared to CBP.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) enables enteral nutrition for patients with inadequate oral intake. Laparoscopic guidance of PEG insertion is used for high-risk populations, including in infants less than 5kg at insertion. This study aimed to assess complication rates with traditional PEG tube insertion in infants less than 5kg at a single tertiary care center. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients less than 5kg who underwent PEG insertion was conducted. PEG insertion-related complications, up to four years following insertion, were collected. Outcomes were reported as counts and percentages, or median with minimum and maximum values. RESULTS: 480 pediatric gastrostomy procedures between January 1, 2009 and February 1, 2017, were screened, with 129 included for analysis. Median weight at PEG insertion was 3800g. Superficial surgical site infection (SSI) occurred in 6 (4.7%) patients, and 1 (0.8%) required readmission for intravenous antibiotics. One (0.8%) required endoscopic management for retained foreign body, 1 (0.8%) required operative management for gastrocolic fistula, and 1 (0.8%) for persistent gastrocutaneous fistula. No deep space SSI, procedure-related hemorrhage requiring readmission or transfusion, buried bumper syndrome, or procedure-related mortality occurred. CONCLUSION: Traditional PEG tube insertion in infants less than 5kg results in complication rates comparable to pediatric literature standards. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, retrospective prognosis study.