The Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Plastic Surgery

Efficacy of 24 hours versus 5 days of prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of surgical site infection in outpatient elective facial plastic surgery

Background

The discovery of penicillin marked a paradigm shift in medicine with the ability to treat previously life-threatening infections. Increasing antibiotic resistance as well as the risk of adverse reactions to antibiotics, however, creates pressures for judicious use. There continues to be debate about the role of prophylactic antibiotics in facial plastic surgery. This study explores the role of prophylactic antibiotic administration in elective outpatient facial plastic surgery by comparing 5 days versus 24 hours of antibiotic prophylaxis.

Method

A retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients undergoing cosmetic procedures at an outpatient facial plastic surgical center who received either 5 days or 24 hours of prophylactic antibiotics was performed. The primary outcome was the need for postoperative antibiotics within 6 weeks of surgery.

Results

204 patients met the inclusion criteria: 104 in the 5-day group and 100 in the 24-hour prophylaxis group. The overall infection rate was 3.4%: 3% in the 24-hour group and 3.8% in the 5-day group (p = 0.77). Subgroup analysis of clean-contaminated cases (n = 85) showed the rate of postoperative infections was 4.3%, all within the 5-day group. In clean cases (n = 119), the rate of postoperative infections was 4.2% (n = 5): 4.8% (n = 3) in the 24-hour group versus 3.5% (n = 2) in the 5-day group.

Conclusions

The results show that decreasing the duration of antibiotics was not associated with an increased risk of postoperative infection. Given that antibiotics are an increasingly precious commodity with rising rates of resistance, this study supports the use of decreasing postoperative antibiotics to 24 hours.

Contemporary Prophylactic Antibiotic Practices and Adjunct Therapies in Autologous Fat Grafting Procedures: A Survey of The Aesthetic Society Members

Background

Autologous fat grafting (AFG) is a widely used surgical technique that involves extracting a patient's own adipose tissue and transferring it to different areas of the body. This practice is still evolving. Guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis and use of adjuncts in plastic surgery are currently limited, with a notable absence of standardized guidelines for AFG.

Objectives

In this survey, we assess contemporary antibiotic practices and adjuncts in AFG procedures.

Methods

A 52-question survey was emailed to 3106 active members of The Aesthetic Society. Two hundred and ninety-three responses were recorded, representing a 9% response rate.

Results

We analyzed 288 responses. The most common AFG procedures were facial (38%), gluteal (34%), and breast (27%) augmentation. Preoperative antibiotics were used by 84.0% overall, with rates of 74.3%, 88.0%, and 92.7% in face, breast, and gluteal AFG, respectively. Lipoaspirate-antibiotic mixing was reported by 19.8%, mainly during gluteal AFG (46.9%), and less so in face (2.8%) and breast (8%) AFG. Notably, 46.9% of surgeons administered prolonged prophylaxis for 72 h or more. Tranexamic acid was utilized by 39.9% of the surveyed surgeons. Platelet-rich plasma was used by 5.6%. Doppler ultrasound was incorporated by 16.7% in AFG, with 21.5% in gluteal AFG, 14% in the face, and 19% in breast procedures.

Conclusions

In this survey, we offer insights into antibiotic practices and adjunct therapies in AFG, especially intraoperative antibiotic mixing. Practices among members of The Aesthetic Society vary from guidelines. It is crucial to standardize practices and conduct further research to pave the way for evidence-based guidelines in AFG.

Level of Evidence 5

Perioperative Management of Cleft Lip Repair: A Meta-Analysis and Clinical Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have focused on perioperative management of cleft lip repair. We sought to evaluate the available data on this topic to create evidence-based clinical guidelines.

DESIGN

Systematic review, meta-analysis.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed focusing on perioperative management of cleft lip repair. Studies were included if they included comparative data. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Systematic review of literature regarding wound closure, postoperative arm restraints, perioperative antibiotics, outpatient or ambulatory surgery, or feeding restrictions postoperatively.

RESULTS

Twenty-three articles met inclusion criteria after initial screening of 3103 articles. This included 8 articles on wound closure, 2 on postoperative restraints, one on perioperative antibiotics, 6 on outpatient surgery, and 6 on postoperative feeding. Meta-analysis could be performed on dehiscence rates with postoperative feeding regimen and readmission rates after outpatient versus inpatient lip repair. There were few studies with low risk of bias. Outpatient cleft lip repair does not increase readmission (odds ratio [OR]: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.28-3.07). Allowing postoperative breastfeeding or bottle-feeding does not increase dehiscence (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.19-1.95). There was no evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of available data, there is no evidence of a clearly superior closure material. The evidence does not support use of postoperative arm restraints. The evidence does not support the use of preoperative nasal swabs for antibiotic guidance. With careful patient selection, outpatient cleft lip repair appears safe. The evidence supports immediate breastfeeding or bottle-feeding after cleft lip repair.

Surgical Site Infections in Aesthetic Surgery

Surgical site infections represent one of the most common postoperative complications in patients undergoing aesthetic surgery. As with other postoperative complications, the incidence of these infections may be influenced by many factors and varies depending on the specific operation performed. Understanding the risk factors for infection development is critical because careful patient selection and appropriate perioperative counseling will set the right expectations and can ultimately improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. Various perioperative prevention measures may also be employed to minimize the incidence of these infections. Once the infection occurs, prompt diagnosis will allow management of the infection and any associated complications in a timely manner to ensure patient safety, optimize the postoperative course, and avoid long-term sequelae.

Practice patterns in the use of prophylactic antibiotics following nonoperative orbital fractures

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to analyze the practice management patterns of the current members of the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) and to determine the use of oral prophylactic antibiotics in an attempt to prevent orbital cellulitis following nonoperative orbital fractures.

Patients and methods

A cross-sectional web-based survey was emailed to all the members of ASOPRS regarding their current management of nonsurgical orbital fractures and their experience with orbital cellulitis following nonoperative orbital fractures.

Results

The majority of practicing oculoplastic surgeon members of ASOPRS do not routinely prescribe prophylactic antibiotics for patients with nonoperative orbital fractures or patients with orbital fractures whom the physicians are observing and who might potentially need surgical intervention. Among the reported cases of orbital cellulitis following a nonoperative orbital fracture in this survey, more than a quarter of the patients had received prophylactic antibiotics. Furthermore, among physicians who have managed orbital cellulitis following nonoperative fracture, 75% (33 out of 44 physicians) report that <1% of patients develop orbital cellulitis.

Conclusion

Despite frequent recommendation for the use of prophylactic antibiotics after orbital fractures in commonly cited ophthalmic references, the majority of oculoplastic surgeons do not use prophylactic antibiotics for orbital fractures, including both nonoperative orbital fractures and orbital fractures that may potentially need surgery.

Antibiotic Use in Facial Plastic Surgery

Prophylactic antibiotic use in facial plastic surgery is a highly controversial topic primarily due to the lack of evidence in support of or against antibiotic use. In this section the authors present the available literature on the most commonly performed procedures within facial plastic surgery in an attempt to see if the data support or contradict the need for antibiotic prophylaxis in facial plastic surgery.

Antibiotic Use after Free Tissue Reconstruction of Head and Neck Defects: Short Course vs. Long Course

BACKGROUND

Free tissue reconstruction has become the standard of care for most major defects in the head and neck. Surgical site infection (SSI) can lead to vessel thrombosis and eventual flap loss. The use of antibiotics after free tissue reconstruction has not been studied in the current environment of heightened bacterial antibiotic resistance. We compared the use of short-term and longer-term antibiotics in a series of patients receiving free tissue reconstructions.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 147 patients receiving 149 free flaps who were treated with either short-course (≤2 d; n = 149 [43%]) or long-course (>2 d; n = 85 [57%])) post-operative antibiotics from 2009 to 2014. The outcomes examined were infection, return to the operating room, length of hospital stay, and patient death up to six weeks post-surgery. In addition, risk factors associated with SSI were explored.

RESULTS

Surgical site infection, flap dehiscence, flap loss, and length of stay were not different in the two groups. However, those receiving long-course antibiotics had a significantly higher rate of pneumonia (24.7% vs. 10.9%; p = 0.03), although they had a lower rate of urinary tract infection (0.0% vs 9.4%, respectively; p = 0.01). Body mass index remained a statistically significant risk factor in the multivariable analysis (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Prolonged antibiotic use after free flap reconstruction of head and neck defects does not appear to prevent SSI better than short-course treatment in this population. Moreover, long-course antibiotic use was associated with a higher risk of pneumonia.

Efficacy and safety profile of antibiotic prophylaxis usage in clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus with regard to antibiotic prophylaxis usage in clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery. This meta-analysis sought to assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis and to determine appropriate duration of prophylaxis.

METHODS

An English language literature search was conducted using PubMed and the Cochrane Collaboration for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate the use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery. Data from intention-to-treat analyses were used where available. For the dichotomous data, results for each study were odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and combined for meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method or the DerSimonian and Laird method. Study quality was critically appraised by 2 reviewers using established criteria. STATA version 12 was used for meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 2395 patients were included, of which 8 trials were considered to be of high methodological quality. Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in plastic and reconstructive surgery was found favorable over placebo in SSI prevention (13 studies; 2449 participants; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < 0.01) and the other wound complication (OWC) prevention (9 studies; 1843 participants; OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.84; P < 0.02). Subgroup analysis performed according to surgical wound type or the duration of prophylaxis did not modify the results except for the OWC with short-term antibiotic treatment. Compared with short-term antibiotic prophylaxis, long-term administration showed no evidence of a difference in risk of SSI (7 studies; 1012 participants; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.63-1.55; P < 0.95), OWC (5 studies; 824 participants; OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.46-1.86; P < 0.82), and adverse event relative to antibiotic administration (3 studies; 653 participants; OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.01-4.92; P < 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of RCTs provides evidence supporting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduced postoperative SSI in clean plastic surgeries with high-risk factors and clean-contaminated plastic surgeries. Besides, a short-course administration regimen seemed to be of adequate efficacy and safety. High-quality prospective trials on larger scale are needed to further confirm these findings.

Early analgesic treatment regimens for patients with acute abdominal pain: a nationwide survey among general surgeons

INTRODUCTION

Early pain relief in patients with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain in emergency departments has been discussed for years. Some randomized trials have addressed this issue but conclusive data are lacking. In this study, we assessed the current treatment practice in German hospitals in order to evaluate the necessity of a further clinical trial.

METHODS

An online survey containing 27 questions was sent to general and visceral surgeons at attending level using a mailing list provided by the Professional Board of German Surgeons (BDC) using a standard interview software. The questionnaire collected demographic data, current treatment policies about frequency of early analgesia, types of pain medication, and opinions about their use and effects.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-five completed questionnaires were returned. Many surgeons were cautious about early analgesia in the emergency department. Forty-five percent of the surgeons would provide analgesia prior to diagnosis to the majority of patients. Within the departments, differing opinions existed regarding the analgesic treatment (41 %). Thirty-two percent of all the respondents knew about a false diagnosis after early analgesia. There was heterogeneity in the estimation of the impact of pain medication on masking of clinical symptoms. A randomized controlled trial would be supported by the majority of respondents. As influencing factors for withdrawing early analgesia, we found the examiner being over 40 years of age (p < 0.05), low experience with the clinical picture of acute abdominal pain (p < 0.05), high estimation of the masking of clinical findings (p < 0.001), and knowing about a false diagnosis after early analgesia (p < 0.001) to be significant.

CONCLUSION

Discordance in the analgesic treatment regimens in patients with acute abdominal pain still exists in German hospitals. The topic remains subject of frequent discussions. More high quality data are needed before a clear guideline can be given for implementation in clinical routine management.

Determining the use of prophylactic antibiotics in breast cancer surgeries: a survey of practice

Background

Prophylactic antibiotics (PAs) are beneficial to breast cancer patients undergoing surgery because they prevent surgical site infection (SSI), but limited information regarding their use has been published. This study aims to determine the use of PAs prior to breast cancer surgery amongst breast surgeons in Colombia.

Methods

An online survey was distributed amongst the breast surgeon members of the Colombian Association of Mastology, the only breast surgery society of Colombia. The scope of the questions included demographics, clinical practice characteristics, PA prescription characteristics, and the use of PAs in common breast surgical procedures.

Results

The survey was distributed amongst eighty-eight breast surgeons of whom forty-seven responded (response rate: 53.4%). Forty surgeons (85.1%) reported using PAs prior to surgery of which >60% used PAs during mastectomy, axillary lymph node dissection, and/or breast reconstruction. Surgeons reported they targeted the use of PAs in cases in which patients had any of the following SSI risk factors: diabetes mellitus, drains in situ, obesity, and neoadjuvant therapy. The distribution of the self-reported PA dosing regimens was as follows: single pre-operative fixed-dose (27.7%), single preoperative dose followed by a second dose if the surgery was prolonged (44.7%), single preoperative dose followed by one or more postoperative doses for >24 hours (10.6%), and single preoperative weight-adjusted dose (2.1%).

Conclusion

Although this group of breast surgeons is aware of the importance of PAs in breast cancer surgery there is a discrepancy in how they use it, specifically with regards to prescription and timeliness of drug administration. Our findings call for targeted quality-improvement initiatives, such as standardized national guidelines, which can provide sufficient evidence for all stakeholders and therefore facilitate best practice medicine for breast cancer surgery.