Current practice of antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical fixation of closed long bone fractures: A survey of 297 members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association

被引:17
作者
Gans I. [1 ]
Jain A. [1 ]
Sirisreetreerux N. [1 ]
Haut E.R. [2 ]
Hasenboehler E.A. [1 ]
机构
[1] The Johns Hopkins University, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 601 N Caroline Street, Baltimore, 21287, MD
[2] The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Department of Surgery, Division of Acute Care Surgery, 600 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, 21287, MD
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
Antibiotic prophylaxis; Long bone fractures; Orthopaedic trauma; Perioperative antibiotics; Surgical site infection;
D O I
10.1186/s13037-016-0118-5
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The risk of postoperative surgical site infection after long bone fracture fixation can be decreased with appropriate antibiotic use. However, there is no agreement on the superiority of a single- or multiple-dose perioperative regimen of antibiotic prophylaxis. The purpose of this study is to determine the following: 1) What are the current practice patterns of orthopaedic trauma surgeons in using perioperative antibiotics for closed long bone fractures? 2) What is the current knowledge of published antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines among orthopaedic trauma surgeons? 3) Are orthopaedic surgeons willing to change their current practices? Methods: A questionnaire was distributed via email between September and December 2015 to 955 Orthopaedic Trauma Association members, of whom 297 (31%) responded. Results: Most surgeons (96%) use cefazolin as first-line infection prophylaxis. Fifty-nine percent used a multiple-dose antibiotic regimen, 39% used a single-dose regimen, and 2% varied this decision according to patient factors. Thirty-six percent said they were unfamiliar with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines; only 30% were able to select the correct CDC recommendation from a multiple-choice list. However, 44% of surgeons said they followed CDC recommendations. Fifty-six percent answered that a single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis regimen was not inferior to a multiple-dose regimen. If a level-I study comparing a single preoperative dose versus multiple perioperative antibiotic dosing regimen for treatment of closed long bone fractures were published, most respondents (64%) said they would fully follow these guidelines, and 22% said they would partially change their practice to follow these guidelines. Conclusion: There is heterogeneity in the use of single- versus multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical repair of closed long bone fractures. Many surgeons were unsure of current evidence-based recommendations regarding perioperative antibiotic use. Most respondents indicated they would be receptive to high-level evidence regarding the single- versus multiple-dose perioperative prophylactic antibiotics for the treatment of closed long bone fractures. © 2017 The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
Mangram A.J., Horan T.C., Pearson M.L., Silver L.C., Jarvis W.R., The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999, Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 20, 4, pp. 250-278, (1999)
[2]  
Malik M.H., Harwood P., Diggle P., Khan S.A., Factors affecting rates of infection and nonunion in intramedullary nailing, J Bone Joint Surg (Br), 86, 4, pp. 556-560, (2004)
[3]  
Wolinsky P.R., McCarty E., Shyr Y., Johnson K., Reamed intramedullary nailing of the femur: 551 cases, J Trauma, 46, 3, pp. 392-399, (1999)
[4]  
Andersson A.E., Bergh I., Karlsson J., Eriksson B.I., Nilsson K., The application of evidence-based measures to reduce surgical site infections during orthopedic surgery - report of a single-center experience in Sweden, Patient Saf Surg, 6, 1, (2012)
[5]  
Boxma H., Broekhuizen T., Patka P., Oosting H., Randomised controlled trial of single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical treatment of closed fractures: the Dutch Trauma Trial, Lancet, 347, 9009, pp. 1133-1137, (1996)
[6]  
Boyd R.J., Burke J.F., Colton T., A double-blind clinical trial of prophylactic antibiotics in hip fractures, J Bone Joint Surg Am, 55, 6, pp. 1251-1258, (1973)
[7]  
Burnett J.W., Gustilo R.B., Williams D.N., Kind A.C., Prophylactic antibiotics in hip fractures. A double-blind, prospective study, J Bone Joint Surg Am, 62, 3, pp. 457-462, (1980)
[8]  
Gatell J.M., Riba J., Lozano M.L., Mana J., Ramon R., Garcia SanMiguel J., Prophylactic cefamandole in orthopaedic surgery, J Bone Joint Surg Am, 66, 8, pp. 1219-1222, (1984)
[9]  
Haynes A.B., Weiser T.G., Berry W.R., Lipsitz S.R., Breizat A.H.S., Dellinger E.P., Herbosa T., Joseph S., Kibatala P.L., Lapitan M.C.M., Merry A.F., Moorthy K., Reznick R.K., Taylor B., Gawande A.A., Safe Surgery Saves Lives Study Group. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population, N Engl J Med, 360, 5, pp. 491-499, (2009)
[10]  
Paiement G.D., Renaud E., Dagenais G., Gosselin R.A., Double-blind randomized prospective study of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for open reduction and internal fixation of closed ankle fractures, J Orthop Trauma, 8, 1, pp. 64-66, (1994)