Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2022 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 1

Topical Rifamycin Prophylaxis in Gynecological and Obstetric Surgery

Pages
76–81
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The use of rifamycin would aid in systemic antibiotic prophylaxis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic prophylaxis is one of the most important steps to reduce surgical site infections.
📊
Key Findings & Data:STUDY DESIGN: One hundred patients were included in this case-control study during the last quarter period of 2017.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The use of rifamycin would aid in systemic antibiotic prophylaxis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic prophylaxis is one of the most important steps to reduce surgical site infections. First-generation cephalosporin (cefazolin) is used prophylactically in the majority of operations. Rifamycin is a broad-spectrum semisynthetic antibiotic that is bactericidal against gram (+) and gram (˗) microorganisms. To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies on the use of rifamycin in antibiotic prophylaxis. In this study, we aimed to analyze whether there is a difference between the use of only cefazolin and only rifamycin in terms of surgical site infections. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred patients were included in this case-control study during the last quarter period of 2017. These patients (n=100) were divided into two groups according to their antibiotic use; 50 patients who received only 1 g cefazolin constituted Group 1, 50 patients who received only 250 mg topical rifamycin over the incision line based on surgeon’s preference constituted Group 2. RESULTS: The use of prophylactic topical rifamycin reduced the incidence of wound infection. compared with cefazolin. Surgical site infection was detected in 5 (10%) of the patients who received cefazolin, whereas surgical site infection was not observed in patients who received rifamycin (p=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: The use of topical rifamycin is effective but does not imply that systemic antibiotics should replace prophylaxis. The use of rifamycin would aid in systemic antibiotic prophylaxis.

🔖

Cite This Article

TURKLER, C., BILGI, A., ATA, N., KULHAN, N. G., KULHAN, M., CELIK, C. (2022). Topical Rifamycin Prophylaxis in Gynecological and Obstetric Surgery. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 1, 76–81. https://ajindex.com/articles/525795

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27(2):97-132; quiz 133-4; discussion 96. PMID: 10196487
  2. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20(5):271-4. Doi: 10.1016/s0196-6553(05)80201-9
  3. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control. 1988;16(3):128-40. Doi: 10.1016/0196- 6553(88)90053-3
  4. Anderson DJ, Podgorny K, Berríos-Torres SI, Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Greene L, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(6):605-27. Doi: 10.1086/676022
  5. Nichols RL. Preventing surgical site infections: a surgeon's perspective. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(2):220-4. Doi: 10.3201/eid0702.010214
  6. Zumla A Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s principles and practice of infectious diseases. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10(5):303-4. Doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70089-X 7. Kremer KM, Foster RT, Drobnis EZ, Hyde KJ, Brennaman LM. Non-indicated use of prophylactic antibiotics in gynaecological surgery at an academic tertiary medical centre. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(4):543-547. Doi: 10.1080/01443615.2017.1371119
  7. Park DH, Lee SA, Jeong HJ, Yoo TH, Kang SW, Oh HJ. Rifampicin-induced minimal change disease is improved after cessation of rifampicin without steroid therapy. Yonsei Med J. 2015;56(2):582-5. Doi: 10.3349/ymj.2015. 56.2.582
  8. Iselin F, Audren JL, Gouet O, Hautefort E, Peze W, Pradet G. Comparative study of the effects of a local antibiotic and a local antiseptic in emergency hand surgery. Ann Chir Main Memb Super. 1990;9(1):65-71. French. Doi: 10.1016/s0753-9053(05)80441-7
  9. Burke JF. The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery. 1961;50:161-8. PMID: 16722001
  10. Fleischman AN, Austin MS. Local intra-wound administration of powdered antibiotics in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Jt Infect. 2017;2(1):23-28. Doi: 10.7150/jbji.16649
  11. ACOG practice bulletin No. 104: antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113(5):1180-1189. Doi: 10.1097/A