Antibiotic prophylaxis

抗生素预防
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:手术中预防性抗生素的使用存在争议。随着抗菌素耐药性的上升,应遵循循证抗生素的使用。这项系统评价和网络荟萃分析将评估不同抗生素在手外伤手术后预防手术部位感染(SSI)的有效性。
    方法:数据库Embase,MEDLINE,CINAHL和CENTRAL,将搜索ClinicalTrials.gov和WHO国际临床试验注册平台。摘要将由两个人独立筛选,以确定合格的研究。这项系统评价将包括随机和非随机的前瞻性比较研究,包括手和/或手腕受伤需要手术的参与者;咬伤将被排除。网络荟萃分析将比较不同预防性抗生素的使用,在手术后30天内(如果有植入装置,则为90天)服用安慰剂和/或不使用抗生素治疗SSI。Cochrane偏倚风险工具2将用于评估随机对照试验中方法学偏倚的风险。纽卡斯尔-奥托瓦量表(NOS)将用于评估非随机研究中的偏倚风险。随机效应网络荟萃分析将与亚组分析一起进行,研究抗生素的时机,损伤类型,和操作位置。将进行敏感性分析,仅包括低偏倚风险研究,对结果的信心将使用网络荟萃分析(CINEMA)进行评估。
    结论:本系统综述和网络荟萃分析旨在提供评估手部和腕关节创伤后抗生素使用情况的最新研究综合,以实现基于证据的围手术期处方。
    背景:PROSPEROCRD42023429618.
    BACKGROUND: The use of prophylactic antibiotics in surgery is contentious. With the rise in antimicrobial resistance, evidence-based antibiotic use should be followed. This systematic review and network meta-analysis will assess the effectiveness of different antibiotics on the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) following hand trauma surgery.
    METHODS: The databases Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be searched. Abstracts will be screened by two persons independently to identify eligible studies. This systematic review will include both randomised and non-randomised prospective comparative studies in participants with hand and/or wrist injuries requiring surgery; bite injuries will be excluded. The network meta-analysis will compare the use of different prophylactic antibiotics against each other, placebo and/or no antibiotics on the development of SSI within 30 days of surgery (or 90 days if there is an implanted device). The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 will be used to assess the risk of methodological bias in randomised controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottowa scale (NOS) will be used to assess the risk of bias in non-randomised studies. A random-effects network meta-analysis will be conducted along with subgroup analyses looking at antibiotic timing, injury type, and operation location. Sensitivity analyses including only low risk-of-bias studies will be conducted, and the confidence in the results will be assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINEMA).
    CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to provide an up-to-date synthesis of the studies assessing the use of antibiotics following hand and wrist trauma to enable evidence-based peri-operative prescribing.
    BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42023429618.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    尽管细菌感染减少,成功率提高,在种植牙科中广泛使用全身性抗生素预防是有争议的.这种使用导致了日益增长的抗菌素耐药性问题,同时造成巨大的健康和经济负担。引起植入物感染的基本机制可以通过新的预防和治疗方法来靶向,这也可以导致全身性抗生素暴露及其相关副作用的减少。本文旨在总结基于抗致病机制和免疫平衡机制的先进生物材料应用于植入物组件的策略。它强调修饰牙种植体表面和调节早期免疫反应是有前途的策略,这可以进一步预防或减缓植入物周围感染的发展,随后的失败。
    Despite reductions in bacterial infection and enhanced success rate, the widespread use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in implant dentistry is controversial. This use has contributed to the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance, along with creating significant health and economic burdens. The basic mechanisms that cause implant infection can be targeted by new prevention and treatment methods which can also lead to the reduction of systemic antibiotic exposure and its associated adverse effects. This review aims to summarize advanced biomaterial strategies applied to implant components based on anti-pathogenic mechanisms and immune balance mechanisms. It emphasizes that modifying the dental implant surface and regulating the early immune response are promising strategies, which may further prevent or slow the development of peri-implant infection, and subsequent failure.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:本研究旨在显示经直肠超声引导前列腺穿刺活检(TRUSBx)后感染剂引起的急性前列腺炎和菌血症的细菌学特征,并确定经直肠穿刺活检患者感染的耐药率,并指导活检前的预防方法。
    方法:回顾性分析2010年1月至2019年1月接受TRUSBx治疗的935例患者的资料。获得活检前尿液培养物和抗菌药物敏感性。随后,活检后有任何投诉入院的患者接受了严重感染并发症的检查.
    结果:在手术前接受尿培养的430例(61.7%)患者中,45(10.5%)有生长;生长中的微生物中有30(66.7%)是大肠杆菌。活检前尿液培养中的所有革兰氏阴性药物中有20种(44.4%)对喹诺酮敏感。TRUSBx后菌血症占18.2%,泌尿系统感染占83.6%,住院的55例患者中有61.8%住院。在分离的革兰氏阴性微生物中,40%的患者对泌尿系统感染的氟喹诺酮类药物耐药,70%的患者出现菌血症。在本研究中,在活检后的40%的血液感染和38.5%的泌尿系统感染中确定了产生ESBL的革兰氏阴性菌。
    结论:这些高抗生素耐药率表明我们更好地审查我们的术前预防方法。
    BACKGROUND: This study aims to show the bacteriologic picture of acute prostatitis and bacteremia caused by infective agent after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) and to determine the resistance rates of the infections in patients undergoing transrectal biopsy and to guide prophylaxis approach before biopsy.
    METHODS: The retrospective data of 935 patients who underwent TRUSBx between January 2010 to January 2019 were reviewed. Pre-biopsy urine cultures and antimicrobial susceptibility were obtained. Subsequently, patients admitted to the hospital with any complaint after biopsy were examined for severe infection complications.
    RESULTS: Of the 430 (61.7%) patients who underwent urine culture before the procedure, 45 (10.5%) had growth; 30 (66.7%) of the growing microorganisms were Escherichia coli. Twenty (44.4%) of all Gram-negative agents in pre-biopsy urine culture were susceptible to quinolone. Post TRUSBx bacteremia was present in 18.2%, urinary system infection in 83.6%, and hospitalization in 61.8% of 55 patients who were admitted to the hospital. In the isolated gram-negative microorganisms, fluoroquinolones resistance in urinary system infections was seen in 40% and bacteremia was seen in 70% of the cases. ESBL-producing Gram-negative bacteria were determined in 40% of infections in blood and 38.5% of urinary system infections in the post biopsy period in the current study.
    CONCLUSIONS: These high antibiotic resistance rates suggest that we better review our pre-procedure prophylaxis approaches.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    尽管有证据表明在心脏手术期间预防性局部抗生素递送(RAD)到胸骨边缘的益处,在临床实践中很少进行。包括随机对照试验(RCT)在内的最新研究进一步质疑了局部万古霉素和庆大霉素预防胸骨伤口感染(SWI)的价值。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是全面评估RAD的安全性和有效性,以降低SWI的风险。我们筛选了多个评估RAD有效性的随机对照试验数据库(万古霉素,庆大霉素)在SWI预防中。进行随机效应荟萃分析。主要终点是任何SWI;还分析了其他伤口并发症。赔率比作为主要的统计分析。进行试验序贯分析(TSA)。包括13个RCT(N=7,719例患者)。使用任何RAD:OR(95CIs):0.49(0.35-0.68);p<0.001,并且在万古霉素(0.34[0.18-0.64];p<0.001)和庆大霉素(0.58[0.39-0.86];p=0.007)组(psubgroup=0.15)中,任何SWI的几率均显着降低超过50%。同样,RAD降低了SWI在糖尿病和非糖尿病患者中的几率(分别为0.46[0.32-0.65];p<0.001和0.60[0.44-0.83];p=0.002)。累积Z曲线通过了SWIs的TSA调整边界,表明已经达到了足够的功率,不需要进一步的试验。RAD显著降低深度(0.60[0.43-0.83];p=0.003)和浅层SWI(0.54[0.32-0.91];p=0.02)。纵隔炎和死亡率没有差异,然而,评估这些终点的研究数量有限。没有全身毒性的证据,胸骨开裂和抗性菌株出现。万古霉素和庆大霉素均降低了培养物超出其各自血清浓度的几率:万古霉素对革兰氏阴性菌株:0.20(0.01-4.18),庆大霉素对革兰氏阳性菌株:0.42(0.28-0.62);P<0.001。区域性抗生素给药是安全的,有效地降低了心脏手术患者的SWI风险。
    Despite evidence suggesting the benefit of prophylactic regional antibiotic delivery (RAD) to sternal edges during cardiac surgery, it is seldom performed in clinical practice. The value of topical vancomycin and gentamicin for sternal wound infections (SWI) prophylaxis was further questioned by recent studies including randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to comprehensively assess the safety and effectiveness of RAD to reduce the risk of SWI.We screened multiple databases for RCTs assessing the effectiveness of RAD (vancomycin, gentamicin) in SWI prophylaxis. Random effects meta-analysis was performed. The primary endpoint was any SWI; other wound complications were also analysed. Odds Ratios served as the primary statistical analyses. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed.Thirteen RCTs (N = 7,719 patients) were included. The odds of any SWI were significantly reduced by over 50% with any RAD: OR (95%CIs): 0.49 (0.35-0.68); p < 0.001 and consistently reduced in vancomycin (0.34 [0.18-0.64]; p < 0.001) and gentamicin (0.58 [0.39-0.86]; p = 0.007) groups (psubgroup = 0.15). Similarly, RAD reduced the odds of SWI in diabetic and non-diabetic patients (0.46 [0.32-0.65]; p < 0.001 and 0.60 [0.44-0.83]; p = 0.002 respectively). Cumulative Z-curve passed the TSA-adjusted boundary for SWIs suggesting adequate power has been met and no further trials are needed. RAD significantly reduced deep (0.60 [0.43-0.83]; p = 0.003) and superficial SWIs (0.54 [0.32-0.91]; p = 0.02). No differences were seen in mediastinitis and mortality, however, limited number of studies assessed these endpoints. There was no evidence of systemic toxicity, sternal dehiscence and resistant strains emergence. Both vancomycin and gentamicin reduced the odds of cultures outside their respective serum concentrations\' activity: vancomycin against gram-negative strains: 0.20 (0.01-4.18) and gentamicin against gram-positive strains: 0.42 (0.28-0.62); P < 0.001. Regional antibiotic delivery is safe and effectively reduces the risk of SWI in cardiac surgery patients.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:鼻中隔和隆鼻是耳鼻喉科常见的手术,通常合并为鼻中隔成形术(SRP),提供美学和功能的好处。由于鼻孔中的天然细菌菌群,这些手术被认为可能存在术后感染的风险。这项研究评估了预防性抗生素在减少手术后感染并发症中的有效性。
    方法:使用PubMed进行了系统评价,科克伦,和WebofScience,坚持PRISMA准则,专注于在鼻中隔成形术中使用抗生素,隆鼻,SRP。这项研究包括随机对照试验,单/双盲研究,回顾性图表回顾,和前瞻性队列研究,不包括儿科,非人类研究,或具有无法访问数据的研究。术后感染率采用R软件进行统计分析。
    结果:来自697篇文章,选择了15项研究进行荟萃分析,涉及2225名患者,1274人接受预防性抗生素治疗,951人作为对照。荟萃分析表明比值比为0.65(95%CI:[0.23,1.89]),显示预防性抗生素没有显著的保护作用。
    结论:研究发现预防性使用抗生素并没有显著降低感染率。值得注意的是研究设计的不一致,抗生素给药时机,和各种外科手术。考虑了抗生素使用风险。研究的局限性包括潜在的偏见和许多研究的回顾性性质。
    结论:本综述和荟萃分析没有发现实质性证据支持预防性使用抗生素在降低鼻中隔成形术术后感染率方面的有效性,隆鼻,SRP,表明需要重新评估实践和制定循证指南。未来的研究应该集中在全面,随机对照研究,涵盖术前和术后阶段。
    OBJECTIVE: Septoplasty and rhinoplasty are common otolaryngological procedures, often combined as septorhinoplasty (SRP), offering aesthetic and functional benefits. These surgeries are believed to potentially risk postoperative infections due to natural bacterial flora in the nares. This study evaluates the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in reducing post-surgical infection complications.
    METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, focusing on antibiotic use in septoplasty, rhinoplasty, and SRP. The study included randomized control trials, single/double-blind studies, retrospective chart reviews, and prospective cohort studies, excluding pediatric, non-human research, or studies with inaccessible data. Postoperative infection rates were analyzed utilizing R software as a form of Statistic.
    RESULTS: From 697 articles, 15 studies were chosen for meta-analysis, involving 2225 patients, with 1274 receiving prophylactic antibiotics and 951 as controls. The meta-analysis indicated an odds ratio of 0.65 (95 % CI: [0.23, 1.89]), showing no significant protective effect of prophylactic antibiotics.
    CONCLUSIONS: The study found no significant infection rate reduction with prophylactic antibiotic use. Notable were inconsistencies in study designs, antibiotic administration timing, and varied surgical practices. Antibiotic use risks were considered. Study limitations include potential biases and the retrospective nature of many studies.
    CONCLUSIONS: This review and meta-analysis found no substantial evidence supporting prophylactic antibiotics\' effectiveness in reducing postoperative infection rates in septoplasty, rhinoplasty, and SRP, indicating a need to reevaluate practices and develop evidence-based guidelines. Future research should focus on comprehensive, randomized control studies, covering both preoperative and postoperative stages.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:为了防止经直肠超声引导下前列腺活检(TRUS-PB)后的感染性并发症,一些研究调查了使用聚维酮碘(PI)和抗生素预防(AP)的直肠消毒效果.
    目的:总结现有数据,并比较在TRUS-PB之前使用PI与非PI方法进行直肠消毒的功效。
    方法:到2023年11月,对三个数据库进行了随机对照试验(RCT),分析了接受TRUS-PB的患者。我们比较了PI组和有或没有AP的非PI组的直肠消毒效果。感兴趣的主要结果是总体感染并发症的发生率,发烧,还有败血症.进行了亚组分析,以评估与使用其他抗生素组相比,使用氟喹诺酮组的患者的差异结局。
    结果:我们在meta分析中纳入了10项RCT。当使用PI进行直肠消毒时,感染并发症的总发生率显着降低(RR0.56,95%CI0.42-0.74,p<0.001)。与AP单药治疗相比,AP和PI的组合与感染并发症(RR0.54,95%CI0.40-0.73,p<0.001)和发烧(RR0.47,95%CI0.30-0.75,p=0.001)的风险显着降低相关,但不与脓毒症(RR0.49,95%CI0.23-1.04,p=0.06)。与非FQ抗生素相比,氟喹诺酮抗生素的使用与感染并发症和发热的风险较低相关。
    结论:PI直肠消毒可显著降低TRUS-PB患者感染并发症和发热的发生率。然而,该方法对降低术后脓毒症发生率没有显著影响.
    BACKGROUND: To prevent infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-PB), some studies have investigated the efficacy of rectal disinfection using povidone-iodine (PI) and antibiotic prophylaxis (AP).
    OBJECTIVE: To summarize available data and compare the efficacy of rectal disinfection using PI with non-PI methods prior to TRUS-PB.
    METHODS: Three databases were queried through November 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing patients who underwent TRUS-PB. We compared the effectiveness of rectal disinfection between PI groups and non-PI groups with or without AP. The primary outcomes of interest were the rates of overall infectious complications, fever, and sepsis. Subgroups analyses were conducted to assess the differential outcomes in patients using fluoroquinolone groups compared to those using other antibiotics groups.
    RESULTS: We included ten RCTs in the meta-analyses. The overall rates of infectious complications were significantly lower when rectal disinfection with PI was performed (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.74, p < 0.001). Compared to AP monotherapy, the combination of AP and PI was associated with significantly lower risk of infectious complications (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.73, p < 0.001) and fever (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.75, p = 0.001), but not with sepsis (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.23-1.04, p = 0.06). The use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics was associated with a lower risk of infectious complications and fever compared to non-FQ antibiotics.
    CONCLUSIONS: Rectal disinfection with PI significantly reduces the rates of infectious complications and fever in patients undergoing TRUS-PB. However, this approach does not show a significant impact on reducing the rate of sepsis following the procedure.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    背景:预防意外接触布鲁氏菌后的布鲁氏菌病是公共卫生领域的重要课题。本研究旨在系统评价意外接触布鲁氏菌后预防抗生素预防人类布鲁氏菌病的功效。
    方法:研究方案在PROSPERO(CRD42023456812)中注册。结果包括布鲁氏菌病的发病率,不良事件发生率,和抗生素预防依从性。全面的文献检索,一直持续到11月20日,2023年,涉及Medline,Embase,科克伦图书馆,和LILACS数据库。使用R软件进行描述性分析和荟萃分析,使用JBI关键评估工具评估偏差风险,使用GRADE工具评估证据的确定性。
    结果:在最初确定的3102条记录中,八项研究涉及97个人意外暴露,所有这些都集中在实验室环境中意外接触布鲁氏菌的高风险,包括在审查中。所有研究都报道了包含多西环素的预防性治疗,剂量为100毫克,每天两次,结合600毫克的利福平,两者均超过21天。86%的病例报告了预防依从性,治疗后布鲁氏菌病的发病率为0.01。不良事件,主要是胃肠,发生在26%的病例中。严格的评估揭示了报告人口统计学和临床信息的局限性。证据的确定性被评为非常低,由于研究设计的限制和缺乏比较组,强调在解释观察到的结果时需要谨慎。
    结论:PEP是文献中报道的替代实践,用于高风险接触布鲁氏菌的事故。目前可用的抗生素预防功效的证据不足以支持支持或反对广泛使用抗生素预防的建议。因此,由于证据的确定性非常低,在解释结果时需要谨慎,主要源于病例系列和缺乏比较组。
    BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent brucellosis after accidental exposure to Brucella is an important topic in public health. This study aimed to systematically review the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis following accidental exposure to Brucella in preventing human brucellosis disease.
    METHODS: The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023456812). The outcomes included the incidence of brucellosis disease, adverse events rate, and antibiotic prophylaxis adherence. A comprehensive literature search, conducted until 20 November, 2023, involved Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS databases. Descriptive analysis and meta-analysis using R software were performed, risk of bias was assessed using JBI Critical appraisal tools, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE tool.
    RESULTS: Among 3102 initially identified records, eight studies involving 97 individuals accidentally exposed, all focused on high-risk accidental exposure to Brucella in laboratory settings, were included in the review. All studies reported the prophylactic treatment comprising doxycycline at a dosage of 100 mg twice daily, combined with rifampicin at 600 mg, both administered over 21 days. Prophylaxis adherence was reported in 86% of cases, and incidence of brucellosis post-treatment was 0.01. Adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal, occurred in 26% of cases. Critical appraisal revealed limitations in reporting demographics and clinical information. The certainty of evidence was rated as \'very low,\' emphasising the need for caution in interpreting the observed outcomes due to study design constraints and the absence of comparative groups.
    CONCLUSIONS: PEP is an alternative practice reported in the literature, used in accidents with high-risk exposure to Brucella. The currently available evidence of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis is insufficient to support a recommendation for or against the widespread use of antibiotic prophylaxis, so caution is needed in interpreting results due to the very low certainty of evidence, primarily stemming from case series and lack of comparative groups.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Case Reports
    低速穿透性脑损伤(LVPBI)是一类脑损伤,其中异物侵犯了头骨并损害了大脑。这种伤害很少见,因此研究不足。
    因此,我们报道了一个例子,一个29岁的女性,塑料钉穿透她的右眼眶进入她的中脑.在CT扫描和血管造影评估后,移除该物体时,请仔细注意可能的血管损伤。该患者的术后过程简单,并接受了抗生素和抗癫痫预防。她在术后第5天出院,仅经历轻度的左侧无力。
    关于LVPBI的常见问题包括感染,创伤后癫痫,和血管损伤。对过去20年发表的LVPBI病例的回顾表明,大多数病例(55.2%)是由于事故造成的。在接受手术的病人中,43.4%接受开颅手术,22.8%接受了颅骨切除术。尽管LVPBI性质严重,只有13.5%的患者死亡。此外,6.5%的患者在其临床过程中出现感染。
    总之,更多报告的病例进一步描绘了LVPBI的管理现状和结果,为更具凝聚力的指南铺平道路,以确保尽可能好的患者结果。
    UNASSIGNED: Low-velocity penetrating brain injury (LVPBI) is a class of brain injury where a foreign object violates the skull and damages the brain. Such injuries are rare and consequently understudied.
    UNASSIGNED: As such, we report an illustrative case of a 29-year-old female with a dense, plastic spike penetrating her right orbit and into her midbrain. After assessment with a CT scan and angiography, the object was removed with careful attention to possible vascular injury. The patient had an uncomplicated post-operative course and received antibiotic and antiepileptic prophylaxis. She was discharged on post-operative day 5, experiencing only mild left-sided weakness.
    UNASSIGNED: Common concerns regarding LVPBI include infection, post-traumatic epilepsy, and vascular injury. A review of published LVPBI cases over the past 20 years demonstrated that most cases (55.2%) are due to accidents. Of patients undergoing surgery, 43.4% underwent a craniotomy, and 22.8% underwent a craniectomy. Despite the grave nature of LVPBI, only 13.5% of the patients died. Additionally, 6.5% of patients developed an infection over their clinical course.
    UNASSIGNED: In all, more reported cases further paint a picture of the current state of management and outcomes regarding LVPBI, paving the way for more cohesive guidelines to ensure the best possible patient outcomes.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    背景:越来越多的证据表明,机械肠道准备(MBP)对减少择期结肠切除术后并发症的影响很小。这项研究调查了选择性结肠切除术前MBP的必要性。
    方法:在PubMed,奥维德,和Cochrane图书馆,以确定比较选择性结肠切除术前没有准备的MBP效果的研究,直到2023年5月26日。收集手术相关结果并随后进行分析。主要结果包括吻合口漏(AL)和手术部位感染(SSI)的发生率,使用ReviewManager软件(v5.3)进行分析。
    结果:分析包括14项研究,包括七个RCT,5146名参与者。人口统计学信息在各组之间是一致的。两组间AL差异无统计学意义(P=0.43,OR=1.16,95%CI(0.80,1.68),I2=0%)或SSI(P=0.47,OR=1.20,95%CI(0.73,1.96),I2=0%),其他结果也没有显著差异.对口服抗生素使用的亚组分析显示结果没有显着变化。然而,在右结肠切除术的情况下,未准备组的SSI发生率显着降低(P=0.01,OR=0.52,95%CI(0.31,0.86),I2=1%)。在其他亚组分析中没有发现显著差异。
    结论:目前的证据有力地表明,择期结肠切除术前的MBP在减少术后并发症方面没有显著的益处。因此,在选择性结肠切除术前放弃MBP是合理的,无论肿瘤的位置。
    BACKGROUND: Growing evidence demonstrates minimal impact of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on reducing postoperative complications following elective colectomy. This study investigated the necessity of MBP prior to elective colonic resection.
    METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing the effects of MBP with no preparation before elective colectomy, up until May 26, 2023. Surgical-related outcomes were compiled and subsequently analyzed. The primary outcomes included the incidence of anastomosis leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI), analyzed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3).
    RESULTS: The analysis included 14 studies, comprising seven RCTs with 5146 participants. Demographic information was consistent across groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of AL ((P = 0.43, OR = 1.16, 95% CI (0.80, 1.68), I2 = 0%) or SSI (P = 0.47, OR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.73, 1.96), I2 = 0%), nor were there significant differences in other outcomes. Subgroup analysis on oral antibiotic use showed no significant changes in results. However, in cases of right colectomy, the group without preparation showed a significantly lower incidence of SSI (P = 0.01, OR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.86), I2 = 1%). No significant differences were found in other subgroup analyses.
    CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence robustly indicates that MBP before elective colectomy does not confer significant benefits in reducing postoperative complications. Therefore, it is justified to forego MBP prior to elective colectomy, irrespective of tumor location.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:本研究旨在确定针对体重指数≥40kg/m2的人群的循证围产期干预措施。
    方法:PubMed,MEDLINE,EMBASE,科克伦,CINAHL,和ClinicalTrials.gov从成立到2022年没有日期进行搜索,出版物类型,或语言限制。
    方法:纳入了对体重指数≥40kg/m2的人实施干预并评估围产期结局的队列和随机对照试验。主要结局取决于干预措施,但通常与剖宫产后的伤口发病率有关(即,感染,分离,血肿)。
    方法:对至少2项研究的干预措施进行了Meta分析。报告了具有95%置信区间和异质性(I2统计)的集合风险比。
    结果:在筛选的20,301项研究中,包括30项研究(17项队列和13项随机对照试验),包括10种干预措施。干预措施包括分娩计划(引产,计划剖宫产),引产期间或用于手术预防的抗生素,6种剖宫产技术,剖宫产后的抗凝剂量。根据3项队列研究,与计划的阴道分娩相比,计划的剖宫产并没有改善结局。一项队列研究比较了3g和2g头孢唑林预防剖宫产的效果,发现手术部位感染没有差异。根据3项队列研究和2项随机对照试验,非下横切皮肤切口的结局无改善.10项研究(4项队列和6项随机对照试验)符合荟萃分析的纳入标准。两项随机对照试验比较了剖宫产后缝合下表皮下封闭与缝合钉的差异,发现剖宫产后6周内伤口发病率无差异(n=422;风险比,1.09;95%置信区间,0.75-1.59;I2=9%)。在4个队列和4个随机对照试验中,预防性负压伤口治疗与标准敷料进行了比较。发现伤口发病率没有差异(队列n=2200;风险比,1.19;95%置信区间,0.88-1.63;I2=66.1%)或手术部位感染(随机对照试验n=1262;风险比,0.90;95%置信区间,0.63-1.29;I2=0)。
    结论:很少有研究针对体重指数≥40kg/m2的人进行干预,大多数研究没有显示出益处。缝合钉或缝合被推荐用于表皮下闭合,但现有数据不支持对体重指数≥40kg/m2的患者进行剖宫产术后预防性负压伤口治疗.
    OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify evidence-based peripartum interventions for people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2.
    METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 2022 without date, publication type, or language restrictions.
    METHODS: Cohort and randomized controlled trials that implemented an intervention and evaluated peripartum outcomes of people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2 were included. The primary outcome depended on the intervention but was commonly related to wound morbidity after cesarean delivery (ie, infection, separation, hematoma).
    METHODS: Meta-analysis was completed for interventions with at least 2 studies. Pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals and heterogeneity (I2 statistics) were reported.
    RESULTS: Of 20,301 studies screened, 30 studies (17 cohort and 13 randomized controlled trials) encompassing 10 types of interventions were included. The interventions included delivery planning (induction of labor, planned cesarean delivery), antibiotics during labor induction or for surgical prophylaxis, 6 types of cesarean delivery techniques, and anticoagulation dosing after a cesarean delivery. Planned cesarean delivery compared with planned vaginal delivery did not improve outcomes according to 3 cohort studies. One cohort study compared 3 g with 2 g of cephazolin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery and found no differences in surgical site infections. According to 3 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials, there was no improvement in outcomes with a non-low transverse skin incision. Ten studies (4 cohort and 6 randomized controlled trials) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Two randomized controlled trials compared subcuticular closure with suture vs staples after cesarean delivery and found no differences in wound morbidity within 6 weeks of cesarean delivery (n=422; risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.59; I2=9%). Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy was compared with standard dressing in 4 cohort and 4 randomized controlled trials, which found no differences in wound morbidity (cohort n=2200; risk ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.63; I2=66.1%) or surgical site infections (randomized controlled trial n=1262; risk ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.29; I2=0).
    CONCLUSIONS: Few studies address interventions in people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2, and most studies did not demonstrate a benefit. Either staples or suture are recommended for subcuticular closure, but available data do not support prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after cesarean delivery for people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号