Protective effect of intraoperative re-dose of prophylactic antibiotics on surgical site infection in diabetic patients: a retrospective cohort study

Performance of a Large Language Model in the Generation of Clinical Guidelines for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT's 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines.

METHODS

ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy.

RESULTS

Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT's GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response.

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model's performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model's responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.

Intraoperative Redosing of Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Addition to Preoperative Prophylaxis Versus Single Dose Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection: A Meta-Analysis and GRADE Recommendation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of preoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) with additional intraoperative redosing compared to single-dose preoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Preoperative SAP is standard care for the prevention of SSI. During long surgical procedures, additional intraoperative redosing of SAP is advised, but there is great variability in redosing strategies and compliance rates.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL and CENTRAL on June 25th, 2021 according to PROSPERO registration CRD42021229035. We included studies that compared the effect of preoperative SAP with additional intraoperative redosing to single dose preoperative SAP (no redosing) on SSI incidence in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Two researchers performed data appraisal and extraction of summary data independently. Meta-analyses were stratified per study type. We used a generic inverse variance random-effects model to estimate a pooled odds ratio with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We included 2 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 8 cohort studies comprising of 9470 patients. Pooled odds ratios for SSI in patients receiving intraoperative redosing compared to those without redosing were 0.47 (95% CI: 0.19-1.16. I2 = 36%) for RCTs and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.38-0.79, I2 = 56%) for observational cohorts. There was considerable clinical heterogeneity among antibiotics used and redosing protocols. GRADE-assessment showed overall low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative redosing of SAP may reduce incidence of SSI compared to a single dose preoperative SAP in any type of surgery, based on studies with considerable heterogeneity of antibiotic regimens and redosing protocols.

Role of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in children with Hirschsprung's disease undergoing colostomy closure and pull-through

BACKGROUND

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) has been performed routinely before colorectal surgery in children, but the necessity was questioned recently. We evaluated the utility of MOABP in children with Hirschsprung's disease (HSCR) undergoing colostomy closure and pull-through.

METHODS

The medical records of pediatric patients with HSCR who underwent colostomy closure and pull-through in a single center from January 2010 to January 2020 were reviewed. The use of MOABP was noted. The incidence of postoperative complications, duration of postoperative antibiotic therapy, total hospital cost and length-of-stay were compared between patients receiving MOABP and no bowel preparation (NBP).

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients were included in the study: 33 received MOABP and 31 had NBP. The respective postoperative complications in the MOABP and NBP groups were: intra-abdominal infection (18.2% vs. 29.0%), wound infection (9.1% vs. 16.1%), anastomotic leak (0 vs. 0), intestinal obstruction (6.1% vs. 0) and enterocolitis (3.03% vs. 12.90%). The duration of antibiotic therapy was 4.91±4.21 and 5.23±3.77 days (P=0.75) and hospitalization was 18.21±7.26 and 16.26±6.63 days (P=0.27) respectively. The total hospital cost in the MOABP group (4,720.14±1,858.89 USD) was higher than in the NBP group (3,749.06±2,009.97 USD) (P=0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any clear benefit of MOABP in children with HSCR before colostomy closure and pull-through. However, a multicenter randomized controlled trial is needed to more definitely determine the best preoperative approach for children with HSCR.

Insight Into the Perioperative Management of Type 2 Diabetes

Diabetic people are at risk of developing acute complications when exposed to stress. Surgery brings a stressful period when the patient is exposed not only to surgical stress but also the effects of medications used during that particular period. The patient's comorbidities can influence the perioperative management of diabetes. Poorly controlled diabetes can complicate the hospital course. The literature was searched through PubMed and the articles of the last 5 years, from 2014 to 2019, were looked into. The studies available as a free text, in the English language and related to humans, were included. Inclusion criteria also included adults with type 2 diabetes undergoing surgery. The perioperative management of diabetes is a challenging one. Apart from the diabetes control; comorbidities, general health, intake, and interaction of medications both anti-diabetic and non-diabetic, type and duration of surgery, are some of the factors that influence the outcome of the surgery. With a variety of options available to manage diabetes currently, it is important to have a good insight into their effects to prevent complications to occur and ensure safe discharge from the hospital. The good control of diabetes is essential in bringing favorable outcomes. The perioperative management of diabetes should be individualized. Oral anti-hyperglycemic medications, other than sulfonylureas and SGLT2 inhibitors, provide a reasonable alternative to insulin and can be continued safely perioperatively depending upon the type of surgery and the patient is expected to resume oral intake soon postoperatively.