Division of Urology, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Urol. 2013 Oct;190(4 Suppl):1535-9. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.015. Epub 2013 Feb 14.
Data are lacking on prophylactic oral antibiotic use in stented hypospadias repair cases. We evaluated the role of prophylactic oral antibiotics for preventing symptomatic urinary tract infections in this population.
We reviewed consecutive patients treated with stented primary/redo hypospadias repair by a single surgeon from September 2009 to January 2012. All patients received antibiotics upon induction. Before April 1, 2011, patients also received prophylactic oral antibiotics while stented. They were compared to those who underwent surgery after April 1, who received no prophylactic oral antibiotics. The primary outcome was symptomatic urinary tract infections, as captured from patient records and verified by an electronic cross-check of ICD-10 codes. Secondary outcomes included cellulitis, fistula, dehiscence and meatal stenosis.
Of the 161 patients reviewed 11 were unstented and 1 underwent followup elsewhere. Of the remaining 149 patients 78 received prophylactic oral antibiotics and 71 did not. The groups were well matched for age, hypospadias characteristics, surgical technique and stent duration. Median followup was 17 months (range 0.2 to 33). No culture proven, symptomatic urinary tract infections developed in either group. One patient in the prophylactic group was treated for cellulitis by the pediatrician. The complication rate, including redo cases, was 18.2% in the prophylactic group and 15.3% in the nonprophylactic group (p = 0.8).
When postoperative prophylactic oral antibiotics were not administered, we identified no increased incidence of symptomatic urinary tract infections or complications. Our data suggest that prophylactic oral antibiotics may not be needed in cases of stented hypospadias repair. This study contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting the rational use of antimicrobials. It can potentially serve as a basis for a prospective, multicenter, randomized study.
在接受支架治疗的尿道下裂修复病例中,预防性口服抗生素的使用数据较为缺乏。我们评估了在该人群中预防性口服抗生素预防症状性尿路感染的作用。
我们回顾了 2009 年 9 月至 2012 年 1 月期间由一位外科医生治疗的连续接受支架治疗的原发性/复发性尿道下裂修复患者。所有患者在诱导时均接受抗生素治疗。在 2011 年 4 月 1 日之前,接受支架治疗的患者还预防性地口服抗生素。将他们与 4 月 1 日之后接受手术的患者进行比较,后者未接受预防性口服抗生素。主要结局是通过患者记录和 ICD-10 代码的电子交叉核对来验证的症状性尿路感染。次要结局包括蜂窝织炎、瘘管、裂开和尿道口狭窄。
在 161 名患者中,11 名未接受支架治疗,1 名在其他地方接受随访。在其余 149 名患者中,78 名接受预防性口服抗生素治疗,71 名未接受。两组在年龄、尿道下裂特征、手术技术和支架持续时间方面匹配良好。中位随访时间为 17 个月(范围 0.2 至 33)。两组均未发生经培养证实的症状性尿路感染。预防性组中有 1 名患者因蜂窝织炎接受儿科医生治疗。预防性组和非预防性组的并发症发生率(包括再次手术病例)分别为 18.2%和 15.3%(p = 0.8)。
当术后未给予预防性口服抗生素时,我们未发现症状性尿路感染或并发症的发生率增加。我们的数据表明,在接受支架治疗的尿道下裂修复病例中,预防性口服抗生素可能不是必需的。本研究为支持抗生素合理使用的越来越多的证据提供了支持。它可以作为前瞻性、多中心、随机研究的基础。