Single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing extended pelvic surgery for gynecologic malignancy

Evaluation of morbidity of suction drains after retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in gynecological tumors: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

The prophylactic use of closed suction drains after retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in the management of gynecologic tumors has been widely used to prevent collections of clots or lymph and to avoid infections and postoperative fistulas. The improvement of newer surgical techniques, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis, and the nonclosure of the peritoneum led to the need to reevaluate the use of drains. Retrospective, prospective, and randomized studies did not find differences in the postoperative morbidity between the use and nonuse of drains. Some studies even suggested worse morbidity with the use of drains.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the morbidity of the use of drains compared with no drains in a systematic literature review with aggregate effect measure (meta-analysis).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1966 and August 2007, 3 independent reviewers analyzed all studies that assessed the use of drains or no drains through a comprehensive literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Databases. Statistical analysis was carried out through the RevMan software.

RESULTS

Of the 285 studies initially reviewed, 11 were selected. Only 4 were considered adequate for group analysis, totaling 571 patients. When assessing outcomes altogether, namely, fever morbidity, symptomatic lymphocysts, deep vein thrombosis, pelvic infection, and fistulas, the relative risk was 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.01) and number necessary to harm was 12.2 referring to the use of drains.

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic use of continuous suction drains after retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in the management of gynecologic tumors should be avoided.

A prospective randomized study comparing retroperitoneal drainage with no drainage and no peritonization following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for invasive cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the postoperative morbidity and lymphocyst formation in invasive cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy (RHPL) with no drainage and no peritonization compared with retroperitoneal drainage and peritonization.

METHODS

Between July 1999 and May 2000, 100 patients with stage IA-IIA cervical cancer undergoing RHPL in Chiang Mai University Hospital were prospectively randomized to receive either no peritonization and no drainage (Group A = 48 cases) or retroperitoneal drainage and peritonization (Group B = 52 cases). Perioperative data and morbidity were recorded. Transabdominal and transvaginal sonography were performed at 4, 8 and 12 weeks postoperatively to detect lymphocyst formation.

RESULTS

Both groups were similar regarding age, size and gross appearance of tumor, tumor histology and stage. There was no difference between groups in respect of operative time, need for blood transfusion, intraoperative complications, hospital stay, number of nodes removed, nodal metastases, and need for adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy. Asymptomatic lymphocysts were sonographically detected at 4, 8 and 12 weeks postoperatively in 3 (6.8%), 2 (4.6%), and 3 (7.7%) of 44, 43, and 39 patients, respectively in Group A, whereas none was found in Group B (P = 0.2). No significant difference was found in term of postoperative morbidity in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Routine retroperitoneal drainage and peritonization after RHPL for invasive cervical cancer can be safely omitted.

Infectious diseases in gynecologic oncology: an overview

The increasing trend of a multimodal therapeutic approach in gynecologic oncology in the last few years has markedly changed the nature, frequency, and clinical presentation of infectious diseases. Despite the improved diagnostic tools, refined surgical technique, and routine use of prophylactic antibiotics, the morbidity and mortality of infectious complications remain significant. The rational use of available treatment resources, the recognition of risk factors, and increased awareness of host-cancer interactions should reduce the incidence of these serious infectious complications. The improved prevention and more efficient treatment of infections in the gynecologic oncology patient will not only improve prognosis but also have a significant economic impact as well.

Single- versus multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery is a widely accepted principle; recommendations have been based on laboratory studies and numerous clinical trials published in the last 25 years. In practice, single-dose prophylaxis has not been universally accepted and multiple-dose regimens are still used in some centres. Moreover, the principle has recently been challenged by the results of an Australian study of vascular surgery. The aim of this current systematic review is to determine the overall efficacy of single versus multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery and across surgical disciplines.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified in the medical literature using the MEDLINE database and other search strategies. Trials included in the review were prospective and randomized, had the same antimicrobial in each treatment arm and were published in English. Rates of postoperative surgical site infections (SSI) were extracted, 2 x 2 tables prepared and odds ratios (OR) [with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)] calculated. Data were then combined using fixed and random effects models to provide an overall figure. In this context, a high value for the combined OR, with 95% CI > 1.0, indicates superiority of multiple-dose regimens and a low OR, with 95% CI < 1.0, suggests the opposite. A combined OR close to 1.0, with narrow 95% CI straddling 1.0, indicates no clear advantage of one regimen over another. Further subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Combined OR by both fixed (1.06, 95% CI, 0.89-1.25) and random effects (1.04, 95% CI, 0.86-1.25) models indicated no clear advantage of either single or multiple-dose regimens in preventing SSI. Likewise, subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant differences associated with type of antimicrobial used (beta-lactam vs other), blinded wound assessment, length of the multiple-dose arm (> 24 h vs 24 h or less) or type of surgery (obstetric and gynaecological vs other).

CONCLUSIONS

Continued use of single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery is recommended. Further studies are required, especially in previously neglected surgical disciplines.

Radical hysterectomy: does the type of incision matter?

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to evaluate and compare aspects of operative accessibility and perioperative outcome after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy performed through a vertical, Pfannenstiel, or Maylard abdominal incision.

STUDY DESIGN

During an 8-year interval, 236 patients underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy as primary treatment for cervical cancer at the Watson Clinic. Patients were admitted under a standard perioperative protocol, and all procedures were performed by a gynecologic oncologist. All clinical data was recorded prospectively and updated regularly.

RESULTS

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy was completed through a vertical (n = 113), Pfannenstiel (n = 78), or Maylard (n = 45) incision. Although lesion size and depth of stromal invasion was not different between incision types, patients with a Pfannenstiel incision were younger (p < 0.001) and weighed less than those with a vertical (p = 0.001) or Maylard (p < 0.025) incision. The Pfannenstiel was associated with a shorter operative time (Pfannenstiel vs Maylard, p < 0.05; Pfannenstiel vs vertical, p < 0.001), less blood loss (Pfannenstiel vs Maylard, p < 0.025; Pfannenstiel vs vertical, p < 0.001), a lower risk of transfusion, and a shorter hospital stay (Pfannenstiel vs Maylard, p < 0.025; Pfannenstiel vs vertical, p < 0.001). These differences persisted when controlled for patient weight and surgical experience. There was no significant difference in the total number of nodes evaluated. No patient had a positive vaginal margin.

CONCLUSION

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy can be safely performed through a vertical, Maylard, or Pfannenstiel incision. In a selected population a Pfannenstiel incision offers the potential benefit of less abdominal wall trauma without compromising surgical exposure or increasing the risk of surgical complications.

[Antibiotic prophylaxis in gynecologic surgery]

Hysterectomies are contaminated procedures; surgical wound related sepsis ranges from 10 to 25%. Several randomised controlled studies demonstrated a significant benefit with prophylactic antibiotics. The study results were more controversial for abdominal hysterectomies. Ureidopenicillins, cephamycins and other antibacterial agents active on Gram negative rods and anaerobes can be recommended as a preoperative flash at anaesthesia induction, followed by a second injection whenever the procedure duration exceeds 3 hours. In case of extended hysterectomy for cancer, broad spectrum antibiotic prophylaxis is usual; some recent studies demonstrated the efficacy of a short duration antibacterial agent use. Mastectomies are at low risk for postoperative infection. Antibacterial prophylaxis is common, especially in plastic surgery.

Radical hysterectomy for treatment of cervical cancer: a prospective study of two methods of closed-suction drainage

Two closed-suction drainage methods were prospectively compared in 96 patients after radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy in stage IB cervical cancer. In group 1 (n = 49) two pelvic sidewall drains and a vaginal drain were used, and in group 2 (n = 47) only the vaginal drain was used. The groups were similar for mean age, preoperative weight, hemoglobin and serum albumin level, operating time, operative blood loss, and blood transfusions. The febrile morbidity rates and the operative site infection rates were similar in the two groups. Ninety vaginal drains were removed by day 3. By day 6 55% of patients in group 1 had at least one sidewall drain, with a mean drainage of 150 ml/day. The median postoperative stay was similar in both groups. A pelvic lymphocyst developed in one patient in each group. The single vaginal closed-suction drain is safe, efficient, more acceptable to patients, and more cost-effective.

Surgical aspects of cervical cancer

Surgery maintains an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of premalignant as well as early invasive and recurrent cervical cancer. Although the indications for and benefits of surgical staging remain to be determined, specific procedures frequently are necessary to manage treatment-related complications. The authors review the indications, morbidity, and outcome of these procedures.

Surgical staging of uterine cancer: an analysis of perioperative morbidity

Surgical staging documented extrauterine disease in 27.9% of 168 patients with apparent early-clinical-stage uterine cancer. An analysis of operative time (78 +/- 21 min), blood loss (332 +/- 160 cc), and surgical site infection risks (4.7%) indicated little additional risk of lymphadenectomy. The long-term risk of lymphocyst (1.3%) or lymphedema (0.7%) was small. The histologic information obtained from staging was utilized to rationally guide the need for adjunctive teletherapy. The overall risk of recurrence (median follow-up, 26 months) with surgical Stage I disease was 2.6%.