Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis to Reduce Early Implant Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Systemic antibiotics are routinely prescribed in implant procedures, but the lack of consensus causes large differences between clinicians regarding antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. The objectives of this systematic review are to assess the need to prescribe antibiotics to prevent early implant failure and find the most appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis regimen. The electronic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scielo and Cochrane Central Trials Database for randomized clinical trials of at least 3 months of follow-up. Eleven studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Antibiotics were found to statistically significantly reduce early implant failures (RR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.19–0.47, p < 0.00001; heterogeneity I2 = 0%, p = 0.54). No differences were seen between preoperative or both pre- and postoperative antibiotic regimens (RR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.21–1.55, p = 0.27; heterogeneity I2 = 0%, p = 0.37). A single preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis dose was found to be enough to significantly reduce early implant failures compared to no antibiotic (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21–0.53, p < 0.00001; heterogeneity I2 = 0%, p = 0.61). In conclusion, in healthy patients a single antibiotic prophylaxis dose is indicated to prevent early implant failure.

Prescription of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Dental Implant Surgery in Healthy Patients: A Systematic Review of Survey-Based Studies

Background: Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently prescribed by dentists performing dental implant surgery to avoid premature implant failure and postoperative infections. The scientific literature suggests that a single preoperative dose suffices to reduce the risk of early dental implant failure in healthy patients.Material and Methods: A systematic review was made based on an electronic literature search in the PubMed-Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Open Gray databases. The review addressed the question: “which antibiotic prophylaxis regimens are being used in dental implant surgery in healthy patients according to survey-based studies?” The identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion phases were conducted according to the PRISMA statement by two independent reviewers. The following data were collected: country, number of surveyed dentists, number of dentists who responded (n), response rate, routine prescription of antibiotic prophylactic treatment (yes, no, or conditioned prescription), prescription regimen (preoperative, perioperative or postoperative) and antibiotic choice (first and second choice). Cohen’s kappa coefficient (k) evaluated the level of agreement between the two reviewers. The analysis of risk of bias was performed follow the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for observational studies. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed to calculate total target sample, sample size and total mean.Results: A total of 159 articles were identified, of which 12 were included in the analysis. Two thousand and seventy-seven dentists from nine different countries on three continents were surveyed. The median response rate was low and disparate between studies. About three-quarters of the surveyed dentists claimed to routinely prescribe systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery. The prescription regimen was perioperative, postoperative and preoperative, in decreasing order of frequency. The most frequent first choice drug was amoxicillin, with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid as second choice.Conclusions: A majority of dentists from different countries do not prescribe systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery following the available scientific evidence and could be overprescribing. Efforts are needed by dental educators and professionals to reduce the gap between the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery as supported by the scientific evidence and what is being done by clinicians in actual practice.

The Wound Microbiology and the Outcomes of the Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis in a Mass Burn Casualty Incident

This paper describes the wound microbiology and outcome of using systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) in mass burn casualties (MBC). The charts of 31 patients (mean age: 21 years, mean burn area: 42% of the total body surface area) injured in a dust explosion were reviewed for 1 month after the burn. Polymicrobial and rare pathogen wound infections (Acinetobacter junii, Aeromonas sobri, et al) were common in MBC due to sterility breech. Following the use of SAP for 2 to 14 days after admission, there was a reduction in wound infection rate from 45% at week 1 postburn to 10% at week 4. In addition, no blood stream infection occurred in the first week after the burns. Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Candida albicans were the top three wound pathogens cultured. Multidrug-resistant microorganism infections were found in 39% of the patients, and the odds ratios for the these infections in burn patients with more than ≥40% total body surface area and in patients receiving two or more classes of antibiotics were 41.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1–810.7, P = .01) and 9.9 (95% CI= 1.0–92.7, P = .04), respectively. Although SAP did not prevent wound or blood stream infections, no mortality occurred in our patients. A randomized controlled study is needed to investigate the impact of SAP on burn mortality in MBC.

USE OF INTRAOPERATORY VANCOMYCIN IN SPINAL SURGERIES

ABSTRACT Objectives: Despite the use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, infection is still a challenge for spine surgeons, with high morbidity and mortality, long hospitalization, delayed rehabilitation, and a greater number of interventions. The purpose of this cross-sectional retrospective case-control study was to compare the incidence of postoperative infection in individuals who received a systemic antibiotic as the sole prophylactic method with those who received vancomycin in the operative wound in association with systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in spinal surgery. Methods: We evaluated 2694 medical records of individuals submitted to posterior spinal surgery in the thoracolumbar segment in the period from January 2012 to June 2017, 1360 in the treatment group and 1334 in the control group. Results: Nineteen (1.39%) of the treatment group progressed with surgical site infection, compared to 42 (3.14%) of the control group. Conclusions: There was a significant reduction in the postoperative infection rate with the use of vancomycin (p=0.0379). Level of Evidence III; Case-Control Study.

Retrospective study in 608 cases on the rate of surgical site infections after orbital surgery without prophylactic systemic antibiotics

ObjectiveTo determine postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) rates in three separate patient groups who underwent orbital surgery without prophylactic systemic antibiotics.Study designSingle-centre retrospective descriptive case series.Study populationWe studied the notes of 639 consecutive patients who had undergone orbital surgery in our hospital from 2009 through 2013. All patients belonged to either of three groups: (1) clean orbital surgery (n=226); (2) clean orbital surgery with implant (n=290); (3) clean-contaminated surgery (n=92). Thirty-one patients were excluded.ResultsOf the total of 608 patients, without systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, only five were diagnosed with SSI 5/608 (0.82%): 1/226 in the ‘clean’ group, 3/290 in the ‘clean-with-implant’ group and 1/92 in the ‘clean-contaminated’ group. All five patients with SSI were effectively treated with antibiotics.ConclusionIn this study ‘clean’, ‘clean-with-implant’ and ‘clean-contaminated’ orbital surgery was safely performed without prophylactic antibiotics. Where postoperative infection did occur, the patients were effectively treated with systemic antibiotics. We suggest to restrict the administration of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in orbital surgery.