The Effectiveness of Cefazolin Prophylaxis on Infection after Transureteral Lithotripsy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Mohammad Taheri, Ahmad Kameli, Ramin Haghighi
{"title":"The Effectiveness of Cefazolin Prophylaxis on Infection after Transureteral Lithotripsy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Mohammad Taheri, Ahmad Kameli, Ramin Haghighi","doi":"10.4314/ejhs.v33i6.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transureteral lithotripsy (TUL) is one of the most common surgeries in urology, and many TUL procedures have been performed with antibiotics prophylaxis. The present study investigates the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on the rate of urinary infection after TUL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted on 158 patients with ureteral stones, with 79 in each group: the prophylaxis cefazolin group (Group A) and the placebo group (Group B). The patients were referred to Imam Hassan Hospital in Bojnurd, Iran. The standard technique of TUL operation was performed using a pneumatic lithoclast and a semirigid 9/8/Fr ureteroscope. The bacterial isolates were identified through growth on EMB agar and blood agar. Antimicrobial sensitivity testing (AST) was carried out by disc diffusion technique.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>According to our results, 157 patients were eligible for analysis; 79 patients in Group A and 78 patients in Group B. Flank pain and urinary complaints were the most common symptoms. Our findings indicate that cefazolin prophylaxis did not show any significant differences in preventing postoperative infection between the two groups. E. coli accounted for eight 10.1% (8/79) Group A and 9% (7/78) in Group B, respectively. The results of AST for the 15 E. coli strains revealed a high rate of antibiotic resistance against ampicillin (73.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings indicate that prophylactic antibiotic administration does not demonstrate effectiveness in reducing the infection rate following TUL surgery. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended considering the potential adverse effects, cost implications, risk of antibiotic resistance, and lack of efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12003,"journal":{"name":"Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences","volume":"33 6","pages":"1055-1062"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11698473/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v33i6.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Transureteral lithotripsy (TUL) is one of the most common surgeries in urology, and many TUL procedures have been performed with antibiotics prophylaxis. The present study investigates the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on the rate of urinary infection after TUL.

Methods: This double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted on 158 patients with ureteral stones, with 79 in each group: the prophylaxis cefazolin group (Group A) and the placebo group (Group B). The patients were referred to Imam Hassan Hospital in Bojnurd, Iran. The standard technique of TUL operation was performed using a pneumatic lithoclast and a semirigid 9/8/Fr ureteroscope. The bacterial isolates were identified through growth on EMB agar and blood agar. Antimicrobial sensitivity testing (AST) was carried out by disc diffusion technique.

Results: According to our results, 157 patients were eligible for analysis; 79 patients in Group A and 78 patients in Group B. Flank pain and urinary complaints were the most common symptoms. Our findings indicate that cefazolin prophylaxis did not show any significant differences in preventing postoperative infection between the two groups. E. coli accounted for eight 10.1% (8/79) Group A and 9% (7/78) in Group B, respectively. The results of AST for the 15 E. coli strains revealed a high rate of antibiotic resistance against ampicillin (73.3%).

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that prophylactic antibiotic administration does not demonstrate effectiveness in reducing the infection rate following TUL surgery. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended considering the potential adverse effects, cost implications, risk of antibiotic resistance, and lack of efficacy.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences
Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
137
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences is a general health science journal addressing clinical medicine, public health and biomedical sciences. Rarely, it covers veterinary medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信