Brand Martin, Goosen Jacque, Grieve Andrew
PO Box 291429, Melville, South Africa, 2109.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7(4):CD007370. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007370.pub2.
Penetrating abdominal trauma occurs when the peritoneal cavity is breached. Routine laparotomy for penetrating abdominal injuries began in the 1800s, with antibiotics first being used in World War II to combat septic complications associated with these injuries. This practice was marked with a reduction in sepsis-related mortality and morbidity. Whether prophylactic antibiotics are required in the prevention of infective complications following penetrating abdominal trauma is controversial, however, as no randomised placebo controlled trials have been published to date. There has also been debate about the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis. In 1972 Fullen noted a 7% to 11% post-surgical infection rate with pre-operative antibiotics, a 33% to 57% infection rate with intra-operative antibiotic administration and 30% to 70% infection rate with only post-operative antibiotic administration. Current guidelines state there is sufficient class I evidence to support the use of a single pre-operative broad spectrum antibiotic dose, with aerobic and anaerobic cover, and continuation (up to 24 hours) only in the event of a hollow viscus perforation found at exploratory laparotomy.
To assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic antibiotics administered for penetrating abdominal injuries for the reduction of the incidence of septic complications, such as septicaemia, intra-abdominal abscesses and wound infections.
Searches were not restricted by date, language or publication status. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008 Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), PubMed. Searches were last conducted in September 2008.
All randomised controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis or treatment in patients with penetrating abdominal trauma versus no antibiotics or placebo.
The authors performed the literature search independently, and screened all resulting abstracts for inclusion.
We identified no trials meeting the inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no information from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of antibiotics for patients with penetrating abdominal trauma.
当腹膜腔被穿透时即发生穿透性腹部创伤。19世纪开始对穿透性腹部损伤进行常规剖腹手术,抗生素在第二次世界大战期间首次用于对抗与这些损伤相关的败血症并发症。这种做法使败血症相关的死亡率和发病率有所降低。然而,对于穿透性腹部创伤后预防感染性并发症是否需要预防性使用抗生素存在争议,因为迄今为止尚未发表随机安慰剂对照试验。关于抗生素预防的时机也存在争议。1972年,富伦指出术前使用抗生素的术后感染率为7%至11%,术中使用抗生素的感染率为33%至57%,仅术后使用抗生素的感染率为30%至70%。当前指南指出,有足够的I级证据支持术前使用单一剂量的广谱抗生素,涵盖需氧菌和厌氧菌,并且仅在剖腹探查术中发现有空腔脏器穿孔时才继续使用(最长24小时)。
评估用于穿透性腹部损伤的预防性抗生素在降低败血症并发症(如败血症、腹腔内脓肿和伤口感染)发生率方面的益处和危害。
检索不受日期、语言或出版状态限制。我们检索了以下电子数据库:Cochrane损伤组专业注册库、CENTRAL(Cochrane图书馆2008年第3期)、MEDLINE(Ovid)、EMBASE(Ovid)、ISI科学网:科学引文索引扩展版(SCI-EXPANDED)、ISI科学网:会议论文引文索引 - 科学版(CPCI-S)、PubMed。检索最后一次进行于2008年9月。
所有关于穿透性腹部创伤患者抗生素预防或治疗与不使用抗生素或安慰剂对比的随机对照试验。
作者独立进行文献检索,并筛选所有所得摘要以确定是否纳入。
我们未找到符合纳入标准的试验。
目前尚无来自随机对照试验的信息支持或反驳对穿透性腹部创伤患者使用抗生素。