Antibiotic prophylaxis for major maxillocraniofacial surgery

Severity and long-term complications of surgical site infections after orthognathic surgery: a retrospective study

Surgical site infections (SSI) occur in 1.4% to 33.4% of cases after orthognathic surgery. This type of complication is a major concern to surgical teams, but there is no consensus for the prevention and treatment of SSI in orthognathic surgery. The purpose of this descriptive study was to evaluate the severity and the consequences of postoperative infections. The charts of all the patients operated on by the orthognathic surgery team between January 2015 and July 2017 were collected. All types of orthognathic procedures (Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy, bilateral sagittal split mandibular osteotomy, and genioplasty) were screened, and patients diagnosed with SSI were included. Demographic data, timing and severity of the infection, as well as long-term complications were recorded. Five hundred and twelve patients were screened. Forty-one patients (8%) presenting with SSI were included. There were 18 men and 23 women. The site of the infection was mandibular for 38 patients (92.7%) and maxillary for 3 patients (7.3%). The average time between surgery and infection was 31.5 days. Twenty-four patients received isolated oral antibiotics for inflammatory cellulitic reaction (58.8%), 15 patients had a localized collection treated by incision and drainage under local anesthesia (36.6%), and 2 patients had an extensive collection requiring surgical drainage under general anesthesia (4.9%). Five patients (12.2%) needed hardware removal for plate loosening, and 2 patients (4.9%) developed chronic osteomyelitis. Infection following orthognathic surgery is easily treated most of the time with no long-term complications. In cases of patients with potential risk factors for severe infection, antibiotics may be given with curative intents.

Rehabilitative considerations for dental implants in the diabetic patient

Diabetes is a serious illness that affects many people, and there are many new cases diagnosed every year in all populations around the world. Dental implant is one of the restorative methods to replace missing teeth. As implants are directly anchored into bones, they provide stability, a more natural appearance, and minimize the risk of bone resorption. Thus, today, there is a high demand of dental implants and it is inevitable to meet diabetics who request implant treatment. However, Diabetes mellitus patients may pose contraindications to dental implants because of microvascular complications leading to slower healing process after surgery. Studies have shown that dental implantation failure rate in diabetic patients is much higher than that in non-diabetic patients. This article reviews the effect of diabetes on the osseointegration of implants and the soft tissue healing. It presents the factors used in assessing the severity of diabetes and its complications, as well as considerations for rehabilitation planning in these patients. In addition, the role of antibiotic prophylaxis has been reviewed since its effect on wound healing in diabetics is controversial. Integration of these factors by the dentist can dictate whether, as well as what type of implant supported prosthesis should be given to the diabetic patient.

A prospective study on infectious complications in orthognathic surgery

AIM

According to an earlier study in 2000, 4.7% of patients undergoing corrective facial orthopaedic surgery in this unit suffered a postoperative wound infection. In 1998, the Belgian Government recommended stricter rules for infection prophylaxis and a new antibiotic protocol similar to that proposed by Peterson (1990) was implemented in this unit. The new protocol was to be evaluated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eight hundred and ten consecutive patients were selected receiving orthognathic surgery (Le Fort I-type osteotomies, sagittal split osteotomies, segmental and chin osteotomies). Cefazolin 1g was administered intravenously on induction of general anaesthesia and repeated at 4h intervals for the duration of surgery. No antibiotics were administered postoperatively. The observation period was 6 weeks. When an infection occurred, appropriate culture specimens were obtained according to a standardized protocol.

RESULTS

Fifty-one infections (6.8%) were diagnosed, 33 with purulent exudates occurring spontaneously or after incision and drainage. Ninety-two per cent of these infections occurred in the sagittal split area, 6% in the maxillary region and 2% in the chin region. Infections in the sagittal split area were further analysed. A reduction in infection rate from 6.6 to 2.6% was noted following a change in practice when fibrin glue was used in the wound instead of a drain in the sagittal split wound. Of the 30 aerobic cultures, 12 contained normal mucosal flora, of which 9 were Streptococcus species. In 11 of the 30 anaerobic cultures the identified species belonged to the Bacteroides group. This bacterium is resistant to cefazolin but sensitive to amoxicillin-clavulanate and for a high percentage also to clindamycin. All the other cultures were sterile.

CONCLUSION

The infections occurring almost exclusively in the sagittal split osteotomy site can be partially explained by wound contamination upon removal of the drain. It is suggested that for prophylaxis cefazolin is replaced by amoxicillin-clavulanate.

[Antibiotic prophylaxis in ORL surgery and oral medicine]

Postsurgical infection has always been a cause for major concern in ENT surgery. Papers on the topic allowed to identify indications for antibiotic prophylaxis. In ear surgery, in the absence of prior infection (stapes surgery, medium dry ear surgery), studies' results are not in favour of antibiotic prophylaxis. On the other hand, however, when the ear is inflamed or infected, the use of antibiotics is indicated, if possible after having first taken a sample. For nose and sinus surgery, antibiotic prophylaxis seems to be worthless in the absence of a prolonged packing. If a packing has to be maintained or if a transplant is used, an antibiotic administration has to be considered; the most appropriate antibiotic and its mode of use still have to be specified. In case of facial trauma, antibiotic prophylaxis using cefazolin reduces the risk of infection of paraymphysis fractures and angle fractures. The postoperative course after tonsillectomy is simplified by a prolonged antibiotic administration based on ampicillin. In clean cervico-facial surgery, without buccopharyngeal opening, the antibiotic prophylaxis seems to be worthless. In the opposite, antibiotherapy is required in case of buccopharyngeal opening. Indeed the presence of potential pathogenic bacteria in the buccopharyngeal cavity, the difficulties of mucosa closing, the importance of the tumoral extension, the length of the procedure, radiotherapy and use of myocutaneous flaps may all be the cause of a high infection rate (80%) in the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis. Two types of antibiotics seem to be suitable, cefazolin and clindamycin. Antibiotics active against Gram negative bacteria seem to be useless. There is a disagreement concerning the duration of antibiotic administration. The populations studied are too small to obtain significant results. Both points of view (prolonged antibiotic administration or true antibiotic prophylaxis) can be considered. Only large scale prospective studies with an adequate methodology will provide credible data for this debate.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery

Infection of the surgical wound or deep structures violated during surgery account for a major portion of postoperative morbidity. The medical consultant should have an understanding of the principles of antimicrobial prophylaxis for postoperative infection in order to manage this complication in the postoperative period. This article assesses the risks for infection, patient preparation for surgery, and antibiotic usage in frequently performed surgeries.

Bicoronal flap approach to the temporomandibular joints

The bicoronal scalp flap provides an excellent approach to the temporomandibular joint, particularly in cases where bilateral operation is required. It is also indicated when wide exposure is required and when previous surgery may make more conventional techniques difficult. In this report, the anatomy and indications for this approach are reviewed, the operative technique is described and complications are discussed.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in cranial base surgery

The role of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis was investigated in 95 patients undergoing 100 clean-contaminated cranial base surgeries. A variety of antibiotic regimens were employed. Potential risk factors for local infection were analyzed. Seven patients (7%) developed infections at the surgical site (meningitis, intracranial abscess, cellulitis/abscess, and osteomyelitis). Antibiotic prophylaxis for 24 hours or less was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection (p less than 0.04). Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis (greater than 48 hours) was not more efficacious than prophylaxis for 48 hours. The surgical approach, type of reconstruction, duration of surgery, and use of drains were not significantly correlated with wound infection. The risk of intracranial infection following cranial base surgery is low despite the presence of bacterial contamination intraoperatively. Broad-spectrum coverage of gram-positive and gram-negative organisms for at least 48 hours is recommended. Attention to surgical technique is important in preventing infectious complications.

Antibiotics and endodontics

Antibiotics can be used as an adjunct to endodontic treatment in a number of ways--locally, systemically and prophylactically. The local or intra-canal use of antibiotics in the form of medicaments is common. However, the commercially available agents for this purpose may not be the ideal mixtures. Systemic antibiotics should be restricted to patients who have local signs of infection, malaise and elevated body temperature. Prophylactic use of antibiotics has been recommended for patients 'at risk' of infective endocarditis, in some pre-surgical situations and following avulsion and replantation of teeth. The tendency towards indiscriminate antibiotic use should be discouraged. The use of broad spectrum drugs should be restricted so that these medications remain effective in serious situations.

Infectious flare-ups and serious sequelae following endodontic treatment: a prospective randomized trial on efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in cases of asymptomatic pulpal-periapical lesions

Without peritreatment antibiotics, infectious flare-ups (about 15% incidence) and serious sequelae follow endodontic treatment of asymptomatic teeth with necrotic pulps and associated periapical lesions. Antibiotics administered after endodontic treatment (4-day regimen) reduce the flare-up incidence to about 2%, but hypersensitivity responses, sensitization, resistant microbes, and drug-taking compliance are potential problems. To ascertain whether a specific prophylactic antibiotic (high-dose, 1-day regimen) would preferentially maintain this low flare-up incidence while overcoming antibiotic-related problems, 315 patients with quiescent pulpal necrosis and an associated periapical lesion were randomly given either penicillin V or erythromycin (base or stearate). Evaluations of flare-up after endodontic treatment were done at 1 day, 1 week, and 2 months. A 2.2% flare-up incidence was found, with no statistically significant differences for penicillin (0.0%), base (2.9%), and stearate (3.8%). No hypersensitivity responses occurred. Gastrointestinal side effects were found primarily with the erythromycins (12.4%). A comparative analysis of the data from our first study (no peritreatment antibiotics) and the pooled data from our last two investigations (including the current trial) showed that peritreatment antibiotic coverage significantly reduced flare-ups and serious sequelae after endodontic treatment (p less than 0.001).