比较 0.05% 洗必泰葡萄糖酸盐单一疗法与传统抗生素灌洗法在重新植入阴茎假体中的应用:一项双中心前瞻性随机对照非劣效研究(初步结果)。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-09-30 Epub Date: 2024-09-26 DOI:10.21037/tau-24-278
Elsayed Desouky, Peter Tsambarlis, Laurence A Levine
{"title":"比较 0.05% 洗必泰葡萄糖酸盐单一疗法与传统抗生素灌洗法在重新植入阴茎假体中的应用:一项双中心前瞻性随机对照非劣效研究(初步结果)。","authors":"Elsayed Desouky, Peter Tsambarlis, Laurence A Levine","doi":"10.21037/tau-24-278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Infection remains a significant concern following penile prosthesis (PP) implantation surgery. Published guidelines have indicated the use of pre-operative intravenous (IV) antibiotics but have not provided specific recommendations regarding intra-operative irrigation. For long in our practice, we have been using a combination of antibiotics for irrigation (rifampin 600 mg/L of sterile water, gentamicin 80 mg/L of sterile water). Recently, 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) (Irrisept<sup>®</sup>) (Irrimax Corp, Lawrenceville, GA, USA), has shown promise as an alternative irrigant, with potential advantages in terms of cost, ease of administration and reduced antibiotic resistance risk. The study aims to assess the non-inferiority of CHG antiseptic irrigation compared to conventional combined antibiotic irrigation in preventing postoperative infections for men undergoing de-novo PP implantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a two-center Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved prospective randomized controlled non inferiority trial, involving men undergoing de-novo PP implantation with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 4%. Patients were randomly assigned into one of two groups: the CHG irrigation or the group receiving conventional antibiotic irrigation. All patients received IV antibiotics preoperatively and were sent home on oral antibiotics for 2 weeks post-operatively. The primary endpoint of this trial was to evaluate the incidence of PP infections. Secondary objectives encompassed the assessment of simplicity of use and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A hundred patients were enrolled in our study so far (50 in each arm). Only one case of PP infection necessitating explanation was reported in each arm. Moreover, the use of CHG irrigation offered the potential advantages of ease of administration and less cost as compared to antibiotic irrigation solutions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Preliminary data from this non-inferiority study demonstrate that CHG irrigation is non-inferior to conventional antibiotic irrigation in preventing postoperative infection following PP implantation. These findings support the consideration of CHG irrigation as a viable alternative during PP implantation, offering both clinical effectiveness and potential cost savings as well as reducing the risk of antibiotic resistance.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06489431.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491223/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate monotherapy to conventional antibiotic irrigation in <i>de-novo</i> penile prosthesis implantation: a two-center prospective randomized controlled non-inferiority study (preliminary results).\",\"authors\":\"Elsayed Desouky, Peter Tsambarlis, Laurence A Levine\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/tau-24-278\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Infection remains a significant concern following penile prosthesis (PP) implantation surgery. Published guidelines have indicated the use of pre-operative intravenous (IV) antibiotics but have not provided specific recommendations regarding intra-operative irrigation. For long in our practice, we have been using a combination of antibiotics for irrigation (rifampin 600 mg/L of sterile water, gentamicin 80 mg/L of sterile water). Recently, 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) (Irrisept<sup>®</sup>) (Irrimax Corp, Lawrenceville, GA, USA), has shown promise as an alternative irrigant, with potential advantages in terms of cost, ease of administration and reduced antibiotic resistance risk. The study aims to assess the non-inferiority of CHG antiseptic irrigation compared to conventional combined antibiotic irrigation in preventing postoperative infections for men undergoing de-novo PP implantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a two-center Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved prospective randomized controlled non inferiority trial, involving men undergoing de-novo PP implantation with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 4%. Patients were randomly assigned into one of two groups: the CHG irrigation or the group receiving conventional antibiotic irrigation. All patients received IV antibiotics preoperatively and were sent home on oral antibiotics for 2 weeks post-operatively. The primary endpoint of this trial was to evaluate the incidence of PP infections. Secondary objectives encompassed the assessment of simplicity of use and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A hundred patients were enrolled in our study so far (50 in each arm). Only one case of PP infection necessitating explanation was reported in each arm. Moreover, the use of CHG irrigation offered the potential advantages of ease of administration and less cost as compared to antibiotic irrigation solutions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Preliminary data from this non-inferiority study demonstrate that CHG irrigation is non-inferior to conventional antibiotic irrigation in preventing postoperative infection following PP implantation. These findings support the consideration of CHG irrigation as a viable alternative during PP implantation, offering both clinical effectiveness and potential cost savings as well as reducing the risk of antibiotic resistance.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06489431.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491223/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-24-278\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-24-278","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:感染仍然是阴茎假体(PP)植入手术后的一个重要问题。已发布的指南指出了术前静脉注射抗生素的使用方法,但并未提供关于术中冲洗的具体建议。长期以来,我们一直使用联合抗生素进行冲洗(利福平 600 毫克/升无菌水、庆大霉素 80 毫克/升无菌水)。最近,0.05% 葡萄糖酸氯己定(CHG)(Irrisept®)(Irrimax Corp,Lawrenceville,GA,USA)显示出作为替代冲洗剂的前景,它具有成本低、易于使用和降低抗生素耐药性风险等潜在优势。本研究旨在评估 CHG 消毒冲洗与传统的联合抗生素冲洗相比,在预防男性再次植入 PP 的术后感染方面的非劣效性:这是一项经机构审查委员会(IRB)批准的双中心前瞻性随机对照非劣效性试验,参与试验的男性患者均接受了去原位PP植入术,非劣效性差值预定为4%。患者被随机分配到两组中的一组:CHG 冲洗组或接受传统抗生素冲洗组。所有患者术前均接受静脉注射抗生素,术后回家口服抗生素 2 周。该试验的主要终点是评估 PP 感染的发生率。次要目标包括评估使用的简便性和成本效益:迄今为止,共有 100 名患者参加了我们的研究(每组 50 人)。每组仅报告了一例需要解释的 PP 感染。此外,与抗生素冲洗溶液相比,使用 CHG 冲洗具有使用方便、成本低的潜在优势:这项非劣效性研究的初步数据表明,在预防PP植入术后感染方面,CHG冲洗并不优于传统的抗生素冲洗。这些研究结果支持将 CHG 冲洗作为 PP 植入术中的一种可行替代方案,既能提供临床效果,又能节省潜在成本,还能降低抗生素耐药性风险:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06489431。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate monotherapy to conventional antibiotic irrigation in de-novo penile prosthesis implantation: a two-center prospective randomized controlled non-inferiority study (preliminary results).

Background: Infection remains a significant concern following penile prosthesis (PP) implantation surgery. Published guidelines have indicated the use of pre-operative intravenous (IV) antibiotics but have not provided specific recommendations regarding intra-operative irrigation. For long in our practice, we have been using a combination of antibiotics for irrigation (rifampin 600 mg/L of sterile water, gentamicin 80 mg/L of sterile water). Recently, 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) (Irrisept®) (Irrimax Corp, Lawrenceville, GA, USA), has shown promise as an alternative irrigant, with potential advantages in terms of cost, ease of administration and reduced antibiotic resistance risk. The study aims to assess the non-inferiority of CHG antiseptic irrigation compared to conventional combined antibiotic irrigation in preventing postoperative infections for men undergoing de-novo PP implantation.

Methods: This is a two-center Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved prospective randomized controlled non inferiority trial, involving men undergoing de-novo PP implantation with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 4%. Patients were randomly assigned into one of two groups: the CHG irrigation or the group receiving conventional antibiotic irrigation. All patients received IV antibiotics preoperatively and were sent home on oral antibiotics for 2 weeks post-operatively. The primary endpoint of this trial was to evaluate the incidence of PP infections. Secondary objectives encompassed the assessment of simplicity of use and cost-effectiveness.

Results: A hundred patients were enrolled in our study so far (50 in each arm). Only one case of PP infection necessitating explanation was reported in each arm. Moreover, the use of CHG irrigation offered the potential advantages of ease of administration and less cost as compared to antibiotic irrigation solutions.

Conclusions: Preliminary data from this non-inferiority study demonstrate that CHG irrigation is non-inferior to conventional antibiotic irrigation in preventing postoperative infection following PP implantation. These findings support the consideration of CHG irrigation as a viable alternative during PP implantation, offering both clinical effectiveness and potential cost savings as well as reducing the risk of antibiotic resistance.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06489431.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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