Department of Surgery, Sakai Municipal Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 May;12(5):381-7. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70370-X. Epub 2012 Jan 31.
Although evidence for the efficacy of postoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis is scarce, many patients routinely receive such treatment after major surgeries. We aimed to compare the incidence of surgical-site infections with intraoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis alone versus intraoperative plus postoperative administration.
We did a prospective, open-label, phase 3, randomised study at seven hospitals in Japan. Patients with gastric cancer that was potentially curable with a distal gastrectomy were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either intraoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis alone (cefazolin 1 g before the surgical incision and every 3 h as intraoperative supplements) or extended antimicrobial prophylaxis (intraoperative administration plus cefazolin 1 g once after closure and twice daily for 2 postoperative days). Randomisation was stratified using Pocock and Simon's minimisation method for institution and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, and Mersenne twister was used for random number generation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of surgical-site infections. We assessed non-inferiority of intraoperative therapy with a margin of 5%. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. During hospital stay, infection-control personnel assessed patients for infection, and the principal surgeons were required to check for surgical-site infections at outpatient clinics until 30 days after surgery. This study is registered with UMIN-CTR, UMIN000000631.
Between June 2, 2005, and Dec 6, 2007, 355 patients were randomly assigned to receive either intraoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis alone (n=176) or extended antimicrobial prophylaxis (n=179). Eight patients (5%, 95% CI 2-9%) had surgical-site infections in the intraoperative group compared with 16 (9%, 5-14) in the extended group. The relative risk of surgical-site infections with intraoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis was 0·51 (0·22-1·16), which revealed statistically significant non-inferiority (p<0·0001).
Elimination of postoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis did not increase the incidence of surgical-site infections after a gastrectomy. Therefore, this treatment is not recommended after gastric cancer surgery.
尽管术后抗菌预防的疗效证据有限,但许多患者在大手术后仍常规接受此类治疗。我们旨在比较单独术中抗菌预防与术中加术后给药的手术部位感染发生率。
我们在日本的七家医院进行了一项前瞻性、开放标签、3 期、随机研究。患有可通过远端胃切除术治愈的潜在可切除胃癌的患者按 1:1 随机分配,分别接受单独术中抗菌预防(手术切口前给予头孢唑林 1 g,并在术中作为补充剂每 3 小时给予一次)或扩展抗菌预防(术中给药,关闭后给予头孢唑林 1 g 一次,术后 2 天每天两次)。随机化采用 Pocock 和 Simon 的最小化方法进行分层,按机构和美国麻醉医师协会评分分层,Mersenne twister 用于生成随机数。主要终点是手术部位感染的发生率。我们用 5%的边缘评估术中治疗的非劣效性。分析采用意向治疗。在住院期间,感染控制人员评估患者的感染情况,主刀医生需要在门诊诊所检查手术部位感染,直到术后 30 天。这项研究在 UMIN-CTR 注册,注册号 UMIN000000631。
在 2005 年 6 月 2 日至 2007 年 12 月 6 日之间,355 名患者被随机分配接受单独术中抗菌预防(n=176)或扩展抗菌预防(n=179)。术中组有 8 名(5%,95%CI 2-9%)患者发生手术部位感染,而扩展组有 16 名(9%,5-14)患者发生手术部位感染。术中抗菌预防的手术部位感染相对风险为 0.51(0.22-1.16),显示具有统计学意义的非劣效性(p<0.0001)。
消除术后抗菌预防并未增加胃切除术后手术部位感染的发生率。因此,不建议在胃癌手术后进行这种治疗。