Antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery: A complex systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
In orthognathic surgery, antibiotics are prescribed to reduce the risk of postoperative infection. However, there is lack of consensus over the appropriate drug, the dose and duration of administration. The aim of this complex systematic review was to assess the effect of antibiotics on postoperative infections in orthognathic surgery.Methods
Both systematic reviews and primary studies were assessed. Medline (OVID), The Cochrane Library (Wiley) and EMBASE (embase.com), PubMed (non-indexed articles) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publications were searched. The primary studies were assessed using GRADE and the systematic reviews by AMSTAR.Results
Screening of abstracts yielded 6 systematic reviews and 36 primary studies warranting full text scrutiny. In total,14 primary studies were assessed for risk of bias. Assessment of the included systematic reviews identified two studies with a moderate risk of bias, due to inclusion in the meta-analyses of primary studies with a high risk of bias. Quality assessment of the primary studies disclosed one with a moderate risk of bias and one with a low risk. The former compared a single dose of antibiotic with 24 hour prophylaxis using the same antibiotic; the latter compared oral and intravenous administration of antibiotics. Given the limited number of acceptable studies, no statistical analysis was undertaken, as it was unlikely to contribute any relevant information.Conclusion
With respect to antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery, most of the studies to date have been poorly conducted and reported. Thus scientific uncertainty remains as to the preferred antibiotic and the optimal duration of administration.
SUBMITTER: Naimi-Akbar A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5791956 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: The elaboration of a precise pre-surgical plan is essential during surgical treatment of dentofacial deformities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of computer-aided simulation compared with the actual surgical outcome, following orthognathic surgery reported in clinical trials.Methods: Our search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and SciELO for articles published in the last decade. A total of 392 articles identified were assessed independently and in a blinded manner using eligibility criteria, out of which only twelve articles were selected for inclusion in our research. Data were presented using intra-class correlation coefficient, and linear and angular differences in three planes.Results: The comparison of the accuracy analyses of the examined method has shown an average translation (<?2?mm) in the maxilla and also in the mandible (in three planes). The accuracy values for pitch, yaw, and roll (°) were (<?2.75, <?1.7 and?<?1.1) for the maxilla, respectively, and (<?2.75, <?1.8, <?1.1) for the mandible. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with intra-oral scans of the dental casts is the most used imaging protocols for virtual orthognathic planning. Furthermore, calculation of the linear and angular differences between the virtual plan and postoperative outcomes was the most frequented method used for accuracy assessment (10 out of 12 studies) and a difference less than 2?mm/° was considered acceptable and accurate. When comparing this technique with the classical planning, virtual planning appears to be more accurate, especially in terms of frontal symmetry.Conclusion: Virtual planning seems to be an accurate and reproducible method for orthognathic treatment planning. However, more clinical trials are needed to clearly determine the accuracy and validation of the virtual planning in orthognathic surgery.
| S-EPMC7716456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine whether orthognathic surgery is associated with any complications, and what type of complications may occur.Materials and methodsData were obtained using PubMed (MEDLINE), ISI Web of Knowledge, Ovid, Cochrane Library, Embase Library, and an additional manual search. The titles and abstracts of the electronic search results were screened and evaluated by two observers for eligibility according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.ResultsA total of 1924 articles were identified, and we retained 44 articles for the final analysis. The Prisma diagram flowchart demonstrates our selection scheme. For the purpose of this study, the Cochrane data extraction form was modified. One review author extracted data from the included studies, and the second author checked all of the forms. The hierarchy of evidence classification from the UK NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination was used to assess the level of evidence for the retrieved studies.ConclusionsAn evaluation of the obtained studies revealed the existence of a large number of varied complications associated with orthognathic surgery procedures.Clinical relevanceOral and maxillofacial surgeons, orthodontists, and the surgical team need to prevent such complications during preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods to increase the safety of orthognathic surgery procedures. This review was registered on http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO as CRD42013004711.
| S-EPMC4434857 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere is little evidence-based guidance on the use of prophylactic antibiotics in skin surgery; whilst antibiotics may protect against surgical site infections (SSI), they have associated side effects, increase the risk of adverse events, and can propagate antibiotic resistance. We present a protocol for a systematic review to establish whether the benefit of prophylactic antibiotics overrides the risk, for patients undergoing autograft surgery.MethodsThe systematic review will be registered a priori on researchregistry.com and will be conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). A search strategy will be devised to investigate 'skin graft surgery and use of antibiotics'. The following electronic databases will be searched, 1979-2018: PubMed, MEDLINE®, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SciELO, The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (DARE), the Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Databases and Cochrane Groups, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials Database, the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, UpToDate.com, NHS Evidence and the York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Grey literature will be searched. All comparative study designs reporting on the use of antibiotics in skin graft surgery will be considered for inclusion, namely randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two trained independent teams will screen all titles and abstracts, followed by relevant full texts, for eligibility. Data will be extracted under standardized extraction fields into a preformatted database. Note will be made of the indication for skin graft surgery (traumatic, congenital, malignant, benign), the graft site (head & neck, trunk, upper extremities, lower extremities), type of skin graft (split thickness, full-thickness). The primary outcome will be occurrence of SSI at the donor and/or recipient sites. Secondary outcomes, if reported, will include: length of hospital stay, revision surgery required, cost of medical care, time to wound healing and cosmetic outcome.Ethics and disseminationThe systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international meetings within fields of plastic, reconstructive, and aesthetic surgery. The work will be disseminated electronically and in print. Brief reports of the review and findings will be disseminated to interested parties through email and direct communication. The review aims to guide healthcare practice and policy.
| S-EPMC6913549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Topical antibiotics are widely prescribed as prophylaxis for surgical site infection (SSI). Despite giving high drug concentrations at local wound sites, their efficacy remains controversial. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis designed to compare the efficacy and safety of topical antibiotics with non-antibiotic agents in preventing SSI. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical antibiotics in patients with clean and clean-contaminated postsurgical wounds were included. Relevant trials published before 30 September 2020, were searched in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, without language restrictions. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSIs, presented as the event rate. The secondary outcome was the incidence of contact dermatitis (safety outcome). Data were synthesized using the random-effects model, with the results expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.). Thirteen RCTs were included. The incidence of SSIs and contact dermatitis showed no significant difference between topical antibiotics and non-antibiotic agents (RR 0.89, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.32 (P = 0.56, I2 = 48 per cent); and RR 2.79, 95 per cent c.i. 0.51 to 15.19 (P = 0.24, I2 = 0 per cent), respectively). In the subgroup analyses, a reduction in SSIs was also not observed in dermatological (RR 0.77, 95 per cent c.i. 0.39 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 65 per cent), ocular (RR 0.08, 95 per cent c.i. 0.00 to 1.52; P = 0.09), spinal (RR 1.34, 95 per cent c.i. 0.65 to 2.77; P = 0.43, I2 = 0 per cent), orthopaedic (RR 0.69, 95 per cent c.i. 0.37 to 1.29; P = 0.25, I2 = 0 per cent), or cardiothoracic surgeries (RR 1.60, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 3.25; P = 0.19). Given the current evidence, the routine application of topical antibiotics to surgical wounds did not reduce the incidence of SSI. Further trials are needed to assess their effectiveness in high-risk surgeries or in selected patient groups.
| S-EPMC8763364 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo assess the effect of topical antibiotic prophylaxis on the rate of post-operative endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection (IVI).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies comparing the rates of endophthalmitis in eyes receiving IVI of different drugs with and without topical antibiotic prophylaxis, by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE up to June 2016. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Risk Of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies, respectively. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to compute the odds ratio (OR) of endophthalmitis with antibiotic prophylaxis compared with no prophylaxis and conducted subgroup analyses to compare the efficacy of different regimens and classes of antibiotics on endophthalmitis rates.ResultsWe identified 1 randomized and 12 non-randomized studies that reported 74 cases of endophthalmitis in 147,203 IVIs using antibiotic prophylaxis compared with 55 cases in 211,418 IVIs with no prophylaxis. The overall OR of endophthalmitis for antibiotic prophylaxis vs. no prophylaxis was 1.33 (95% CI 0.75-2.38). Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses showed that the exclusion of the only study with a serious risk of bias significantly increased the risk of endophthalmitis in the antibiotic prophylaxis group compared with control (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.17, 2.34). There was no difference in the endophthalmitis rate associated with any other factor analyzed, including type of antibiotic, type of drug injected, or antibiotic prophylaxis regimen.ConclusionsAntibiotic prophylaxis does not reduce the rate of endophthalmitis following IVI and might potentially be associated with an increased risk of post-operative infection.
| S-EPMC6137222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough antibiotic prophylaxis following rhinoplasty is widespread, the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis effectiveness and the superiority of particular administration regimens is controversial. To date, a meta-analysis on the topic has not been performed.ObjectiveTo systematically review the association between use of preventive antibiotics and postoperative complications in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and quantify the review through meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Central (Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched with prospectively designed search phrases on February 16, 2018. All databases were searched from database inception. Key search terms included rhinoplasty, nasal valve repair, and antibacterial agent.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) with adults (≥18 years) undergoing rhinoplasty and including systemic antibiotic medications administered in the absence of other reasons for use of an antibiotic (eg, localized or systemic infection), without restrictions on language or the time of publication, were included in the study. Interventions of interest were classified into 3 types: (1) single-dose systemic antibiotic administered within 24 hours before the first incision, (2) multidose systemic antibiotic treatment started within 24 hours before the first incision and continuing after the operation, and (3) systemic antibiotic therapy (single dose or multidose) started within 24 hours after the first incision. The following comparisons were made: for the interventions of type 1, no antibiotic; for the interventions of types 2 or 3, no antibiotic or an intervention of type 1.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was compliant with PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the remaining records at abstract and full-text stages. Meta-analysis pooled with random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresDifference in infectious complication rate between groups.ResultsA total of 262 records were identified; of these, only 5 RCTs fulfilled predetermined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria. The pooled study sample consisted of 589 participants. No significant differences in outcome of preventive antibiotic therapy given either preoperatively or postoperatively were found, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43; P = .86).Conclusions and relevanceThis study appears to be the first Cochrane-protocol systematic review and meta-analysis investigating preventive antibiotics in rhinoplasty. This study's results suggest that pooled evidence from the 5 RCTs does not support the use of preventive antibiotic therapy in rhinoplasty.Level of evidence1.
| S-EPMC6439733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeInfective endocarditis (IE) is a severe bacterial infection. As a measure of prevention, the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prior to dental procedures was recommended in the past. However, between 2007 and 2009, guidelines for IE prophylaxis changed all around the word, limiting or supporting the complete cessation of AP. It remains unclear whether AP is effective or not against IE.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review whether the administration of AP in adults before any dental procedure, compared to the non-administration of such drugs, has an effect on the risk of developing IE. We searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via OVID, and EMBASE. Two different authors filtered articles independently and data extraction was performed based on a pre-defined protocol.ResultsThe only cohort study meeting our criteria included patients at high-risk of IE. Analysis of the extracted data showed a non-significant decrease in the risk of IE when high-risk patients take AP prior to invasive dental procedures (RR 0.39, p-value 0.11). We did not find other studies including patients at low or moderate risk of IE. Qualitative evaluation of the excluded articles reveals diversity of results and suggests that most of the state-of-the-art articles are underpowered.ConclusionsEvidence to support or discourage the use of AP prior to dental procedures as a prevention for IE is very low. New high-quality studies are needed, even though such studies would require big settings and might not be immediately feasible.
| S-EPMC9879842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background It is a constant debate among surgeons whether the use of prolonged postoperative antibiotics may reduce surgical site infection rates. As specific treatment guidelines are still lacking, many surgeons continue to use broad-spectrum antibiotics, causing not only increased costs but also contributing to the potential for antibiotic resistance. Hence, there is an urgent need for an appropriately designed prospective clinical trial, to investigate whether a prophylactic use of antibiotics after surgery actually decreases surgical site infections to a clinically relevant degree. Methods This study presents a multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-blinded, clinical trial with two parallel study arms to demonstrate that no postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is not inferior to antibiotic prophylaxis with respect to surgical site infections in patients having undergone orthognathic surgery. The primary efficacy endpoint is defined as the occurrence of postoperative surgical site infections within 30 days of surgery. Secondary endpoints are further efficacy and subject-oriented parameters within 90 days after surgery. The entire trial is planned for 54 months, with an enrolment of 1420 patients over 39 months by 14 national participating centres. Discussion As a highly standardised procedure on an exceeding, healthy and young homogenous study population and identical processes all over the world, elective orthognathic surgery as clean-contaminated procedure provides comparable intervention groups with balanced baseline characteristics, comparable surgical duration, even when performed within multiple centres. Therefore, evaluating antibiotic prophylaxis after orthognathic surgery will be of high scientific value representable for other surgical procedures. Trial registration DRKS—German Clinical Trials Register—DRKS00022838; EudraCT No. 2020-001397-30. Registered on 29 March 2021
| S-EPMC8561874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Controversy exists regarding the use of continuous antibiotic prophylaxis vs observation in the management of children with vesicoureteral reflux. The reported effectiveness of continuous antibiotic prophylaxis in children with reflux varies widely. We determined whether the aggregated evidence supports use of continuous antibiotic prophylaxis in children with vesicoureteral reflux.We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE(®), EMBASE(®), Google Scholar and recently presented meeting abstracts for reports in any language. Bibliographies of included studies were then hand searched for any missed articles. The study protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (No. CRD42014009639). Reports were assessed and data abstracted in duplicate, with differences resolved by consensus. Risk of bias was assessed using standardized instruments.We identified 1,547 studies, of which 8 are included in the meta-analysis. Pooled results demonstrated that continuous antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of recurrent febrile or symptomatic urinary tract infection (pooled OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42-0.96) but, if urinary tract infection occurred, increased the risk of antibiotic resistant organism (pooled OR 8.75, 95% CI 3.52-21.73). A decrease in new renal scarring was not associated with continuous antibiotic prophylaxis use. Adverse events were similar between the 2 groups. Significant heterogeneity existed between studies (I(2) 50%, p = 0.03), specifically between those trials with significant risk of bias (eg unclear protocol descriptions and/or lack of blinding).Compared to no treatment, continuous antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of febrile and symptomatic urinary tract infections in children with vesicoureteral reflux, although it increased the risk of infection due to antibiotic resistant bacteria. Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis did not significantly impact the occurrence of new renal scarring or reported adverse events.
| S-EPMC4380260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To assess the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical site infection (SSI) rates in women undergoing breast cancer surgery in two tertiary hospitals in Brazil. METHODS:This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. A total of 124 women without independent risk factors for SSI were randomly assigned to receive either cefazolin (antibiotic group, n = 62) or placebo (control group, n = 62) as preoperative prophylaxis. After surgery, all surgical wounds were examined once a week, for four weeks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions and classifications for SSI. RESULTS:Baseline characteristics were homogeneous between the two groups. Only one patient in the antibiotic group developed SSI, which was classified as superficial incisional. The overall SSI rate was low, with no significant difference between groups. CONCLUSION:Antibiotic prophylaxis had no significant effect on reducing SSI rates in women without independent risk factors for SSI undergoing breast cancer surgery.
| S-EPMC7531055 | biostudies-literature