氨苄西林/舒巴坦与头孢唑林预防骨科植入物相关手术部位感染:一项回顾性队列研究

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Masaki Hatano, Yusuke Sasabuchi, Shotaro Aso, Koji Yamada, Hisatoshi Ishikura, Takeyuki Tanaka, Sakae Tanaka, Hideo Yasunaga
{"title":"氨苄西林/舒巴坦与头孢唑林预防骨科植入物相关手术部位感染:一项回顾性队列研究","authors":"Masaki Hatano, Yusuke Sasabuchi, Shotaro Aso, Koji Yamada, Hisatoshi Ishikura, Takeyuki Tanaka, Sakae Tanaka, Hideo Yasunaga","doi":"10.1016/j.jos.2025.03.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cefazolin is widely used for surgical prophylaxis in orthopedic implant surgeries. However, there is insufficient evidence of the superiority of cefazolin over other antibiotics, such as ampicillin/sulbactam (ABPC/SBT), in reducing surgical site infection (SSI). Moreover, concerns exist regarding the adverse events associated with these antimicrobial agents, such as Clostridioides difficile infection. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of ABPC/SBT versus cefazolin prophylaxis in reducing SSI and all-cause mortality rates and its safety regarding Clostridioides difficile infection in major orthopedic implant surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study used data from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database in Japan. We included adult patients who underwent a major orthopedic implant surgery between July 2010 and March 2022. Patients underwent surgery with either cefazolin or ABPC/SBT prophylaxis. The primary outcome was in-hospital SSI, whereas the secondary outcomes were 90-day SSI, 1-year SSI, in-hospital all-cause mortality, and Clostridioides difficile infection. The outcomes were compared between the two groups using propensity-score overlap weighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 440,651 eligible patients, including 17,651 in the ABPC/SBT group and 423,000 in the cefazolin group. The propensity-score overlap weighting successfully balanced patient and institutional characteristics between the groups. No significant differences were observed in in-hospital SSI (risk difference, -0.02 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI), -0.13 to 0.10 %), 90-day SSI (risk difference, 0.00 %; 95 % CI, -0.13 to 0.14 %), 1-year SSI (risk difference, -0.02 %; 95 % CI, -0.17 to 0.13 %), or in-hospital mortality (risk difference, -0.01 %; 95 % CI, -0.05 to 0.04 %) between the groups. However, the ABPC/SBT group had a significantly lower Clostridioides difficile infection (risk difference, -0.02 %; 95 % CI, -0.03 to -0.01 %) than that of the cefazolin group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ABPC/SBT may be comparable to cefazolin as an alternative therapy for preventing early SSIs in patients who undergo major orthopedic implant surgery, with a lower risk of Clostridioides difficile infection.</p>","PeriodicalId":16939,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antimicrobial prophylaxis with ampicillin/sulbactam versus cefazolin for orthopedic implant-related surgical site infections: A retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Masaki Hatano, Yusuke Sasabuchi, Shotaro Aso, Koji Yamada, Hisatoshi Ishikura, Takeyuki Tanaka, Sakae Tanaka, Hideo Yasunaga\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jos.2025.03.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cefazolin is widely used for surgical prophylaxis in orthopedic implant surgeries. However, there is insufficient evidence of the superiority of cefazolin over other antibiotics, such as ampicillin/sulbactam (ABPC/SBT), in reducing surgical site infection (SSI). Moreover, concerns exist regarding the adverse events associated with these antimicrobial agents, such as Clostridioides difficile infection. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of ABPC/SBT versus cefazolin prophylaxis in reducing SSI and all-cause mortality rates and its safety regarding Clostridioides difficile infection in major orthopedic implant surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study used data from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database in Japan. We included adult patients who underwent a major orthopedic implant surgery between July 2010 and March 2022. Patients underwent surgery with either cefazolin or ABPC/SBT prophylaxis. The primary outcome was in-hospital SSI, whereas the secondary outcomes were 90-day SSI, 1-year SSI, in-hospital all-cause mortality, and Clostridioides difficile infection. The outcomes were compared between the two groups using propensity-score overlap weighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 440,651 eligible patients, including 17,651 in the ABPC/SBT group and 423,000 in the cefazolin group. The propensity-score overlap weighting successfully balanced patient and institutional characteristics between the groups. No significant differences were observed in in-hospital SSI (risk difference, -0.02 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI), -0.13 to 0.10 %), 90-day SSI (risk difference, 0.00 %; 95 % CI, -0.13 to 0.14 %), 1-year SSI (risk difference, -0.02 %; 95 % CI, -0.17 to 0.13 %), or in-hospital mortality (risk difference, -0.01 %; 95 % CI, -0.05 to 0.04 %) between the groups. However, the ABPC/SBT group had a significantly lower Clostridioides difficile infection (risk difference, -0.02 %; 95 % CI, -0.03 to -0.01 %) than that of the cefazolin group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ABPC/SBT may be comparable to cefazolin as an alternative therapy for preventing early SSIs in patients who undergo major orthopedic implant surgery, with a lower risk of Clostridioides difficile infection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2025.03.010\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2025.03.010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:头孢唑林广泛用于骨科植入手术的手术预防。然而,没有足够的证据表明头孢唑林在减少手术部位感染(SSI)方面优于氨苄西林/舒巴坦(ABPC/SBT)等其他抗生素。此外,人们还关注与这些抗菌剂相关的不良事件,如艰难梭菌感染。本研究旨在评估ABPC/SBT与头孢唑林预防在降低主要骨科植入手术中SSI和全因死亡率方面的比较效果及其对艰难梭菌感染的安全性。方法:本回顾性队列研究使用来自日本诊断程序组合数据库的数据。我们纳入了在2010年7月至2022年3月期间接受过重大骨科植入手术的成年患者。患者接受头孢唑林或ABPC/SBT预防的手术。主要结局是院内SSI,次要结局是90天SSI、1年SSI、院内全因死亡率和艰难梭菌感染。使用倾向得分重叠加权比较两组之间的结果。结果:我们确定了440,651例符合条件的患者,其中ABPC/SBT组为17,651例,头孢唑林组为423,000例。倾向评分重叠加权成功地平衡了两组之间的患者和机构特征。院内SSI无显著性差异(风险差异- 0.02%;95%置信区间(CI), -0.13 ~ 0.10%), 90天SSI(风险差,0.00 %;95%可信区间-0.13 - 0.14%),1年期SSI(风险差异,-0.02%;95% CI, -0.17 ~ 0.13%)或院内死亡率(风险差异,- 0.01%;95% CI, -0.05 ~ 0.04%)。然而,ABPC/SBT组的艰难梭菌感染显著降低(风险差异为- 0.02%;95% CI(-0.03 ~ - 0.01%)高于头孢唑林组。结论:ABPC/SBT可与头孢唑林媲美,作为一种替代疗法,用于预防接受重大骨科植入手术的患者早期ssi,且艰难梭菌感染的风险较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Antimicrobial prophylaxis with ampicillin/sulbactam versus cefazolin for orthopedic implant-related surgical site infections: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Cefazolin is widely used for surgical prophylaxis in orthopedic implant surgeries. However, there is insufficient evidence of the superiority of cefazolin over other antibiotics, such as ampicillin/sulbactam (ABPC/SBT), in reducing surgical site infection (SSI). Moreover, concerns exist regarding the adverse events associated with these antimicrobial agents, such as Clostridioides difficile infection. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of ABPC/SBT versus cefazolin prophylaxis in reducing SSI and all-cause mortality rates and its safety regarding Clostridioides difficile infection in major orthopedic implant surgeries.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database in Japan. We included adult patients who underwent a major orthopedic implant surgery between July 2010 and March 2022. Patients underwent surgery with either cefazolin or ABPC/SBT prophylaxis. The primary outcome was in-hospital SSI, whereas the secondary outcomes were 90-day SSI, 1-year SSI, in-hospital all-cause mortality, and Clostridioides difficile infection. The outcomes were compared between the two groups using propensity-score overlap weighting.

Results: We identified 440,651 eligible patients, including 17,651 in the ABPC/SBT group and 423,000 in the cefazolin group. The propensity-score overlap weighting successfully balanced patient and institutional characteristics between the groups. No significant differences were observed in in-hospital SSI (risk difference, -0.02 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI), -0.13 to 0.10 %), 90-day SSI (risk difference, 0.00 %; 95 % CI, -0.13 to 0.14 %), 1-year SSI (risk difference, -0.02 %; 95 % CI, -0.17 to 0.13 %), or in-hospital mortality (risk difference, -0.01 %; 95 % CI, -0.05 to 0.04 %) between the groups. However, the ABPC/SBT group had a significantly lower Clostridioides difficile infection (risk difference, -0.02 %; 95 % CI, -0.03 to -0.01 %) than that of the cefazolin group.

Conclusions: ABPC/SBT may be comparable to cefazolin as an alternative therapy for preventing early SSIs in patients who undergo major orthopedic implant surgery, with a lower risk of Clostridioides difficile infection.

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
Journal of Orthopaedic Science
Journal of Orthopaedic Science 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
290
审稿时长
90 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic Science is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association. The journal publishes the latest researches and topical debates in all fields of clinical and experimental orthopaedics, including musculoskeletal medicine, sports medicine, locomotive syndrome, trauma, paediatrics, oncology and biomaterials, as well as basic researches.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信