scholarly journals Is 72 h of antimicrobial prophylaxis better than 24 h in elective gastric cancer surgery?

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 1135-1140
Author(s):  
Xiang XIA ◽  
Gang ZHAO ◽  
Wei LING ◽  
Fengrong YU
2012 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norihiro Haga ◽  
Hideyuki Ishida ◽  
Toru Ishiguro ◽  
Kensuke Kumamoto ◽  
Keiichiro Ishibashi ◽  
...  

Abstract The duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis in gastric cancer surgery is not yet established. This prospective randomized study was performed to confirm the noninferiority of single-dose versus multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis in terms of the incidence of surgical-site infection in gastric cancer surgery. Three hundred twenty-five patients undergoing elective resection for gastric cancer were randomized to receive only single-dose cefazolin (1 g) during surgery (single-dose group) or an additional 5 doses every 12 hours postoperatively (multiple-dose group). The overall incidence of surgical-site infections was 9.1% in the single-dose group and 6.2% in the multiple-dose group [difference (95% confidence interval): −2.9% (−5.9%–0.0%)]. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified blood loss, being overweight, and advanced age as significant independent risk factors for surgical-site infection. Single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis seemed to be acceptable, and choosing multiple-dose prophylaxis may have little impact on the prevention of surgical-site infections in elective gastric cancer surgery.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15576-e15576
Author(s):  
K. Inoue ◽  
H. Imamura ◽  
Y. Kimura ◽  
K. Fujitani ◽  
Y. Miyake ◽  
...  

e15576 Background: In Japan, antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) is typically administered for 3 to 4 days postoperatively in gastric cancer surgery. This far exceeds the recommended 24h or less laid out by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines for the prevention of surgical-site infections, after a clean-contaminated operation. Methods: A multicenter randomized phase III trial was designed to evaluate the effect of postoperative AMP in gastric cancer surgery. Patients (pts) were required to have histologically proven gastric cancer which was curable by distal gastrectomy, be classifiable as ASA 1 or 2, and have adequate organ function. Pts were randomized to: (A) perioperative AMP (cefazolin 1g, at <30min before incision, every 3h intraoperative supplements) plus postoperative AMP (cefazolin 1g, twice daily for 2 postoperative days) or (B) perioperative AMP alone. Pts were stratified by institution and ASA. The primary endpoint was the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI). With 171 pts per arm, this study had 80% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with 5% margin of peri-AMP alone and 0.05 1-sided alpha. Results: 355 patients were recruited (A: 179, B: 176) in 7 centers between June 2005 and December 2007. The surgical-site infection rate was 9.0 percent (16 of 178) for peri-/post AMP and 4.5 percent (8 of 176) for peri-AMP alone, with no significant differences (Fisher's exact test: P=0.14, RR=1.98 [95%CI, 0.89–4.44]), but showing a significant non-inferiority (P<0.001). The remote site infection rate was 3.4 percent (6 of 178) for peri-/post AMP and 5.1 percent (9 of 175) for peri-AMP alone, with no significant differences (P=0.44, RR=0.66 [95%CI, 0.25- 1.70]). Conclusions: This multicenter randomized phase III trial confirms that postoperative AMP is unnecessary in patients undergoing distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2007 ◽  
Vol 94 (6) ◽  
pp. 683-688 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Mohri ◽  
H. Tonouchi ◽  
M. Kobayashi ◽  
K. Nakai ◽  
M Kusunoki ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 360-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Kubota ◽  
Katsutoshi Shoda ◽  
Hirotaka Konishi ◽  
Kazuma Okamoto ◽  
Eigo Otsuji

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e033267
Author(s):  
Dengfeng Wang ◽  
Yang Yu ◽  
Pengxian Tao ◽  
Dan Wang ◽  
Yajing Chen ◽  
...  

IntroductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious life-threatening complication in patients with gastric cancer. Abnormal coagulation function and tumour-related treatment may contribute to the occurrence of VTE. Many guidelines considered that surgical treatment would put patients with cancer at high risk of VTE, so positive prevention is needed. However, there are no studies that have systematically reviewed the postoperative risk and distribution of VTE in patients with gastric cancer. We thus conduct this systematic review to determine the risk of VTE in patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery and provide some evidence for clinical decision-making.Methods and analysisStudies reporting the incidence of VTE after gastric cancer surgery will be included. Primary studies of randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, population-based surveys and cross-sectional studies are eligible for this review and only studies published in Chinese and English will be included. We will search the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang data from their inception to November 2019. Two reviewers will independently select studies and extract data. The quality of each included study will be assessed with tools corresponding to their study design. Meta-analysis will be used to pool the incidence data from included studies. Heterogeneity of the estimates across studies will be assessed, if necessary, a subgroup analysis will be performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method is applied to assess the level of evidence obtained from this systematic review.Ethics and disseminationThis proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is based on published data, and thus ethical approval is not required. The results of this review will be sought for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019144562


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Johannes Asplund ◽  
Eivind Gottlieb-Vedi ◽  
Wilhelm Leijonmarck ◽  
Fredrik Mattsson ◽  
Jesper Lagergren

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document