Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Turku University Hospital, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2019 Jan 1;21(1):12-17. doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2018.1187.
Although antibiotic prophylaxis following rhinoplasty is widespread, the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis effectiveness and the superiority of particular administration regimens is controversial. To date, a meta-analysis on the topic has not been performed.
To systematically review the association between use of preventive antibiotics and postoperative complications in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and quantify the review through meta-analysis.
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Central (Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched with prospectively designed search phrases on February 16, 2018. All databases were searched from database inception. Key search terms included rhinoplasty, nasal valve repair, and antibacterial agent.
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with adults (≥18 years) undergoing rhinoplasty and including systemic antibiotic medications administered in the absence of other reasons for use of an antibiotic (eg, localized or systemic infection), without restrictions on language or the time of publication, were included in the study. Interventions of interest were classified into 3 types: (1) single-dose systemic antibiotic administered within 24 hours before the first incision, (2) multidose systemic antibiotic treatment started within 24 hours before the first incision and continuing after the operation, and (3) systemic antibiotic therapy (single dose or multidose) started within 24 hours after the first incision. The following comparisons were made: for the interventions of type 1, no antibiotic; for the interventions of types 2 or 3, no antibiotic or an intervention of type 1.
Data extraction was compliant with PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the remaining records at abstract and full-text stages. Meta-analysis pooled with random-effects model.
Difference in infectious complication rate between groups.
A total of 262 records were identified; of these, only 5 RCTs fulfilled predetermined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria. The pooled study sample consisted of 589 participants. No significant differences in outcome of preventive antibiotic therapy given either preoperatively or postoperatively were found, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43; P = .86).
This study appears to be the first Cochrane-protocol systematic review and meta-analysis investigating preventive antibiotics in rhinoplasty. This study's results suggest that pooled evidence from the 5 RCTs does not support the use of preventive antibiotic therapy in rhinoplasty.
重要性:尽管鼻整形术后使用抗生素预防是广泛的,但关于抗生素预防效果和特定给药方案优势的证据仍存在争议。迄今为止,尚未对该主题进行荟萃分析。
目的:系统评价鼻整形术患者使用预防性抗生素与术后并发症的关系,并通过荟萃分析对其进行量化。
数据来源:2018 年 2 月 16 日,使用前瞻性设计的搜索词在 MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、中央(Cochrane 对照试验注册中心)、Scopus 和 Web of Science 中进行了搜索。所有数据库均从数据库成立开始进行搜索。主要搜索词包括鼻整形术、鼻阀修复术和抗菌剂。
研究选择:纳入了成年人(≥18 岁)接受鼻整形术且接受全身抗生素药物治疗的随机临床试验(RCT),不考虑使用抗生素的其他原因(例如局部或全身感染),也不考虑语言或发表时间的限制,研究包括 3 种干预措施:(1)在第一次切口前 24 小时内给予单次全身抗生素;(2)在第一次切口前 24 小时内开始并在手术后继续给予多剂量全身抗生素治疗;(3)在第一次切口后 24 小时内开始全身抗生素治疗(单剂量或多剂量)。比较了以下组间差异:(1)无抗生素组;(2)类型 2 或 3 的干预措施中,无抗生素或单一剂量组。
数据提取与合成:数据提取符合 PRISMA 指南和 Cochrane 干预系统评价手册。两名独立评审员在摘要和全文阶段评估了剩余记录的相关性。使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。
主要结果和措施:两组之间感染并发症发生率的差异。
结果:共确定了 262 条记录,其中只有 5 项 RCT 满足预定的人群、干预、比较和结局标准。汇总研究样本包括 589 名参与者。术前或术后预防性抗生素治疗的结果没有显著差异,合并风险比为 0.92(95%CI,0.35-2.43;P=0.86)。
结论和相关性:这项研究似乎是首个 Cochrane 方案系统评价和荟萃分析,调查了鼻整形术中的预防性抗生素。这项研究的结果表明,5 项 RCT 的汇总证据并不支持鼻整形术中预防性抗生素治疗的使用。
证据水平:1。