RESUMO
Although prophylactic antibiotic use following autologous breast reconstruction post-mastectomy is a common practice, there is no consensus in the literature regarding its duration. Antibiotic stewardship is important to minimise multi-resistant organisms as well as mitigate the associated side effects. Currently, there are no published guidelines regarding the duration of prophylactic antibiotics in autologous breast reconstruction surgery following mastectomy. The authors searched the online literature regarding the administration of antibiotics for autologous breast reconstruction surgery post-mastectomy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs). Three studies met the inclusion criteria and included a total of 1,400 patients. Overall, 101 (7.2%) SSIs were observed. There was no significant difference in the rate of SSIs when comparing the use of antibiotics for less than or longer than 24 hours postoperatively (odds ratio = 1.434, p = 0.124). There is no significant difference between SSIs with the use of antibiotics for longer than 24 hours when compared to less than 24 hours. Further studies in the form of randomised controlled trials are required to assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotic duration in autologous breast reconstruction following mastectomy.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study conducted in the University Hospital of North Tees, UK were to: (i) Identify if the current hip arthroplasty documentation met good compliance with the Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) hip arthroplasty guidance (ii) Improve current documentation with a transition from hand-written notes to an online typed personalised operative hip arthroplasty template (iii) Improve the quality of documentation and adherence to GIRFT guidance in hip arthroplasty. METHODS: We led a team of 7 doctors to review University Hospital of North Tees compliance against 24 criteria laid out by GIRFT. After examining 20 operative records retrospectively at random from a spread of orthopaedic consultants in the department, it was shown that there was poor compliance against GIRFT guidelines. We proposed a pragmatic solution of incorporating a pre-populated hip arthroplasty online template adhering to GIRFT guidance into our local 'Trackcare' system. Following that, we closed the audit loop by prospectively reviewing 20 operative notes. RESULTS: Our initial results showed that poor compliance ranging 0%-100% over the 24 criteria. The findings of the 24 criteria with the online hip arthroplasty template in place showed a significant improvement between 80 and 100% compliance over the 24 criteria. CONCLUSION: The majority of the issues identified are modifiable risks factors which were amenable to some simple pragmatic solutions. A review of a single surgeon template has shown that it is simple to use, has excellent compliance (has pre-populated 24 criteria), takes 6-7 min to complete the operative notes, easily auditable and thus appears promising in minimising medico-legal claims for surgeons and the Trust.