Wound infection following laryngectomy The effect of topical ampicillin and carbenicillin

Robinson, Joan

doi:10.1017/s0022215100082268

Cited by 25 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While parenteral antimicrobial prophylaxis has been largely accepted for head and neck mucosal surgery, 1,2,26 there is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of topical antimicrobial prophylaxis in reducing infectious complications after mucosal head and neck surgery. 5,[11][12][13]19,27 In addition, many topical antibiotic and antiseptic formulations exist with no consensus on which are appropriate, safe, and effective. The effect on short-and long-term bacterial load is even less clear.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After additional exclusion of 14 studies, 9 articles remained for qualitative assessment, 3,5,[10][11][12][13][19][20][21] of which up to 8 were in a meta-analysis of pooled SSI rates. 3,5,[11][12][13][19][20][21] Seven were in a final meta-analysis of pooled RR. Topical antiseptics were povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine gluconate, and topical antimicrobials were clindamycin, ampicillincarbenicillin, neomycin-erythromycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, mupirocin, tetracycline, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and ticarcillin-clavulanate.…”

Section: Baseline Characteristics Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Infection Control With Topical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Mucosal Head and Neck Surgery: A Meta‐analysis

Lee

Chibueze

Walia

et al. 2022

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess for differences in surgical site infection (SSI) rates and bacterial load after major mucosal head and neck surgery between patients who received topical antimicrobial prophylaxis and those who did not. Data Sources Ovid Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 20, 2021, with cross-referencing of retrieved studies per PRISMA guidelines. Review Methods Inclusion criteria captured clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies with infectious outcomes of adults who underwent major mucosal head and neck surgery and received perioperative topical antimicrobial therapy to the oral cavity and/or pharynx. Studies of dental procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was SSI rate, and the secondary outcome was bacterial load. Two blinded investigators screened each text. Results Of 265 unique citations, 9 studies of 470 total patients were included. Topical treatments included numerous antibiotics and antiseptics directly applied over mucosa. Pooled SSI rates of 252 patients in the intervention cohort and 218 in the control cohort were 8% (95% CI, 3%-14%; I2 = 61.2%) and 29% (95% CI, 16%-43%; I2 = 79.5%), respectively. A meta-analysis of 7 comparative studies totaling 192 patients receiving topical therapy and 218 control patients revealed a pooled relative risk of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.28-0.68; I2 = 0.0%) in favor of the treatment group. The studies demonstrated a short-term decrease in bacterial counts after topical antimicrobial prophylaxis. Conclusion Patients who underwent prophylactic topical antimicrobial therapy had less than half the risk of developing SSI after mucosal head and neck surgery when compared with those who received no topical prophylaxis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Baseline Characteristics Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infection Control With Topical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Mucosal Head and Neck Surgery: A Meta‐analysis

Lee

Chibueze

Walia

et al. 2022

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the infections that occurred in this group, 3 were minor and the clinical management was not compromised. Various antibiotics, administered orally, parentally or topically, have been used with beneficial effects (Ketcham et al 1962, Echelman et al 1971, Dor & Klastersky 1976, Robinson 1976, Seagle et al 1978, Becker & Parell 1979, Becker 1981, Innes et al 1980, Mombelli et al 1981, Suarez Nieto et al 1981. Becker & Parell (1979) observed a significant reduction in postoperative sepsis, from 87% to 38%, with cefazolin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1Although reports have been written opposing the use of prophylactic antibiotics (King 1961, Strong 1963, Ketcham et al 1962 there have been few trials advocating their benefits in major head and neck surgery (Ketcham et al 1962, Echelman et al 1971, Dor & Klastersky 1973, 1976, Robinson 1976, Seagle et al 1978, Becker & Parell 1979, Becker 1981. Unfortunately, not all have been critical.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemoprophylaxis in Major Head and Neck Surgery

et al. 1984

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Postoperative wound infections due to endogenous microflora (3,7,14) occur in a considerable proportion of patients undergoing head and neck cancer surgery and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Extension of these infections through fascial planes of the neck have resulted in carotid blowout and exsanguination.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduction of oral flora with rifampin in healthy volunteers

Appelbaum¹,

Spangler²,

Potter³

et al. 1986

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of a short course of rifampin on the oral microflora was evaluated in 17 healthy volunteers. Salivary specimens were collected before and after two 600-mg doses of rifampin administered 6 h apart. Salivary bacteria were identified to species, and total quantitative colony counts were determined for each isolate. For all 17 subjects, treatment with rifampin led to a reduction in total bacterial colony counts; the mean inhibitory activity was 85.8% (range, 48.3 to 99.8%). Both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were inhibited in every case: 45.5 to 99.8% for aerobic bacteria, mean inhibitory activity of 85.8%; 40.9 to 100% inhibition for anaerobic bacteria, mean inhibitory activity of 87.6%. However, total counts were reduced by .2 logarithms in only 18% of individuals; for aerobes, in 29%; and for anaerobes, in 41%. All classes of bacteria were inhibited, with mean inhibitory activities ranging from 8.4 to 99.9%. However, only streptococci, Haemophilus spp., Bacteroides spp., and aerobic and anaerobic gram-positive nonsporeforming rods were reduced in counts close to 2 logarithms after treatment with rifampin. Clinical studies are needed to clarify the significance of these in vitro data and to delineate a possible role for rifampin in preoperative prophylaxis of patients undergoing head and neck cancer surgery.

show abstract

Wound infection following laryngectomy The effect of topical ampicillin and carbenicillin

Cited by 25 publications

References 20 publications

Infection Control With Topical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Mucosal Head and Neck Surgery: A Meta‐analysis

Infection Control With Topical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Mucosal Head and Neck Surgery: A Meta‐analysis

Chemoprophylaxis in Major Head and Neck Surgery

Reduction of oral flora with rifampin in healthy volunteers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About