scholarly journals Joint replacement, dental surgery, and antibiotic prophylaxis.

BMJ ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 304 (6832) ◽  
pp. 959-959 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Grant ◽  
C. Hoddinott
2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 543-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Slover ◽  
Michael S. Phillips ◽  
Richard Iorio ◽  
Joseph Bosco

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e033718
Author(s):  
Trisha Peel ◽  
Sarah Astbury ◽  
Allen C Cheng ◽  
David Paterson ◽  
Kirsty Buising ◽  
...  

IntroductionResistant Gram-positive organisms, such as methicillin-resistant staphylococci, account for a significant proportion of infections following joint replacement surgery. Current surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines recommend the use of first-generation or second-generation cephalosporin antibiotics, such as cefazolin. Cefazolin, however, does not prevent infections due to these resistant organisms; therefore, new prevention strategies need to be examined. One proposed strategy is to combine a glycopeptide antibiotic with cefazolin for prophylaxis. The clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy compared with usual therapy, however, have not been established.Methods and analysisThis randomised, double-blind, parallel, superiority, placebo-controlled, phase 4 trial will compare the incidence of all surgical site infections (SSIs) including superficial, deep and organ/space (prosthetic joint) infections, safety and cost-effectiveness of surgical prophylaxis with cefazolin plus vancomycin to that with cefazolin plus placebo. The study will be performed in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. In the microbiological sub-studies, we will examine the incidence of SSIs in participants with preoperative staphylococci colonisation (Sub-Study 1) and incidence of VRE acquisition (Sub-Study 2). The trial will recruit 4450 participants over a 4-year period across 13 orthopaedic centres in Australia. The primary outcome is the incidence of SSI at 90 days post index surgery. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of SSI according to joint and microorganism and other healthcare associated infections. Safety endpoints include the incidence of acute kidney injury, hypersensitivity reactions and all-cause mortality. The primary and secondary analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis consisting of all randomised participants who undergo eligible surgery. We will also perform a per-protocol analysis.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was reviewed and approved by The Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/Alfred/102) on 9 July 2018. Study findings will be disseminated in the printed media, and learnt forums.Trial registration numberACTRN12618000642280


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 500-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. F. DeFroda ◽  
E. Lamin ◽  
J. A. Gil ◽  
K. Sindhu ◽  
S. Ritterman

Author(s):  
Marlus Da Silva Pedrosa ◽  
Flávia Ennes Dourado Ferro ◽  
José Guilherme Férrer Pompeu ◽  
Márcia Socorro Da Costa Borba

Background: Impacted third molar surgeries are common procedures in clinical practice of dentists and are associated with several trans and postoperative complications. As a result, antibiotic prophylaxis is quite common. Aim: To investigate the scientific evidences regarding the prophylactic prescription of amoxicillin in third molar surgeries in healthy patients. Methods: It was carried out a literature review in the electronic databases SciELO, PubMed, LILACS, and Oviatt Library from December of 2015 to January of 2016, using as descriptors: amoxicillin, antibiotic prophylaxis, dental surgery, and third molar. Results and Discussion: Prophylactic administration of amoxicillin for third molar extraction is controversial in terms of its effectiveness in preventing post-surgical complications given that the scientific evidences about its advantages and disadvantages are still limited. Conclusion: In third molar extraction of healthy patients, amoxicillin given prophylactically should be carefully prescribed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document