|
The Cochrane Collaboration
Cochrane Reviews |
| Explore | New + Updated | Other languages |
|
|
|
Antibiotic prophylaxis in clean and clean-contaminated ear surgeryVerschuur HP, Wever WWH de, Benthem PPG van
Bookmark this:
loading... please wait
SummaryThere is no strong evidence that the large scale use of prophylactic antibiotics in ear surgery is helpful in reducing postoperative complications.Ear surgery, as surgery in general, can be divided into several categories: clean, clean-contaminated, contaminated and dirty surgery. Postoperative complications can include wound infection, discharge from the outer ear canal, labyrinthitis and graft failure. This review aimed to demonstrate whether the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in ear surgery can be helpful in reducing postoperative complications in clean or clean-contaminated surgery. There is no current evidence from randomised controlled trials showing that there is any antibiotic substance, in any regime, which can contribute to reducing complications in any type of clean or clean-contaminated surgical procedure in the ear.
This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008 Issue 2, Copyright © 2008 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This version first published online:
July 19. 2004 AbstractBackgroundEar surgery may be performed in the treatment of chronic otitis media, ossicular chain disorders, tympanic membrane perforations and otitis media with effusion. Postoperative infection in ear surgery may result in:
These complications may be associated with discomfort and inconvenience for the patient, an increase in morbidity and an increase in the costs of medical care. ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of local and/or systemic antibiotics for preventing complications such as postoperative discharge, graft failure and labyrinthitis in patients undergoing clean or clean-contaminated ear surgery. Search strategyThis review was updated in 2007. Our search included MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2007), EMBASE (January 1974 to June 2007), the Science Citation Index, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2 2007), the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group and Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Group Trials Registers and proceedings of scientific meetings. The date of the last search was June 2007. We also contacted investigators in the field (Govaerts, Antwerp). Bibliographies of identified articles were screened for further relevant trials. No language restriction was applied. Selection criteriaRandomised or quasi-randomised trials involving:
Data collection and analysisWhen possible, investigators were contacted for additional information on data and methodological issues. At least two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Main resultsEleven studies were included in the review. The methodological quality of the trials was fair to good. However, most studies presented insufficient detail on methodological data. Although definitions of outcome measures were heterogeneous, pooling of results was possible. There were no significant differences between antibiotic prophylaxis groups and control groups in terms of reduction of postoperative infections, graft failures, draining outer ear canals and adverse drug effects. Authors' conclusionsThere is no strong evidence that the large scale use of prophylactic of antibiotics in clean and clean-contaminated ear surgery is helpful in reducing postoperative complications such as wound infection, discharge from the outer ear canal, labyrinthitis and graft failure. |