Sanchez-Manuel F J, Lozano-García J, Seco-Gil J L
General Yagüe Hospital, General and Digestive Surgery, Avenida del Cid s/n, Castilla y Leon, Burgos, Spain, 09005.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18(3):CD003769. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003769.pub3.
The use of antibiotic prophylaxis for hernia repair is currently a controversial issue given the disparity among study results in this area.
The objective of this systematic review was to clarify the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing postoperative wound infection rates in elective open inguinal hernia repair.
In the present review, we searched for eligible trials in august 2006, using the search terms below. This revealed four new included trials (total of twelve). We searched the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialized register, by crossing the terms herni* and inguinal or groin and the terms antimicr* or antibiot* , as free text and MeSH terms. A similar search were performed in Medline and Embase was conducted using the following terms: #1 antibiotic* or antimicrob* or anti infecti* or antiinfecti*; #2 prophyla* or prevent*; #3 #1 and #2; #4 clean and (surgery or tech* or proced*); #5 herni*; #6 (wound infection) and #4; #7 #3 and (#4 or #5 or #6). Reference lists of the included studies were checked to identify additional studies.
Only randomized clinical trials were included.
Twelve randomized clinical trials were identified. Six of them used prosthetic material for hernia repair (hernioplasty) whereas the remaining studies did not (herniorraphy). Pooled and subgroup analysis were conducted depending on whether prosthetic material was or not used. A random effects model was used in the analysis.
The total number of patients included was 6705 (treatment group: 4128, control group: 2577). Overall infection rates were 2.9% and 3.9% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.48 - 0.85). The subgroup of patients with herniorrhaphy had infection rates of 3.5% and 4.9% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 - 1.00). The subgroup of patients with hernioplasty had infection rates of 1.4% and 2.9% in the prophylaxis and control groups, respectively (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27 - 0.85).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this meta-analysis the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for elective inguinal hernia repair cannot be universally recommended. Nevertheless, its administration cannot either be recommended against when high rates of wound infection are observed.
鉴于该领域研究结果存在差异,目前疝修补术中使用抗生素预防是一个有争议的问题。
本系统评价的目的是阐明抗生素预防在降低择期开放性腹股沟疝修补术后伤口感染率方面的有效性。
在本评价中,我们于2006年8月使用以下检索词搜索符合条件的试验。这发现了四项新纳入的试验(共十二项)。我们通过将疝和腹股沟或腹股沟管以及抗微生物或抗生素等词作为自由文本和医学主题词交叉检索Cochrane结直肠癌小组专门注册库。在Medline和Embase中使用以下检索词进行了类似的搜索:#1抗生素或抗微生物或抗感染或抗感染*;#2预防或预防;#3 #1和#2;#4清洁和(手术或技术或程序*);#5疝*;#6(伤口感染)和#4;#7 #3和(#4或#5或#6)。检查纳入研究的参考文献列表以识别其他研究。
仅纳入随机临床试验。
确定了十二项随机临床试验。其中六项在疝修补术中使用了假体材料(疝成形术),而其余研究未使用(疝修补术)。根据是否使用假体材料进行汇总分析和亚组分析。分析中使用随机效应模型。
纳入的患者总数为6705例(治疗组:4128例,对照组:2577例)。预防组和对照组的总体感染率分别为2.9%和3.9%(比值比0.64,95%可信区间0.48 - 0.85)。疝修补术患者亚组中,预防组和对照组的感染率分别为3.5%和4.9%(比值比0.71,95%可信区间0.51 - 1.00)。疝成形术患者亚组中,预防组和对照组的感染率分别为1.4%和2.9%(比值比0.48,95%可信区间0.27 - 0.85)。
基于这项荟萃分析的结果,不能普遍推荐对择期腹股沟疝修补术使用抗生素预防。然而,当观察到伤口感染率较高时,也不能反对使用抗生素预防。