Evidence Hub

Effects of extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical site infections after instrumented spinal fusion: a cohort study of 901 patients with a minimum follow-up of 1 year

M. Menéndez García, Iñaki Otermin Maya, Julián Librero López, Jorge Gutierrez Dubois, Diego Manrique Cuevas, Jose Ignacio Alaez Cruz, Leyre Azcona Salvatierra, Isabel Ayechu Diaz et al.

Acta Orthopaedica, 2023

901 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Background and purpose We aimed to determine whether an extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis protocol may reduce the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing instrumented spinal fusion. Patients and methods This retrospective cohort study comprise 901 consecutive patients subjected to spinal fusion between September 2011 and December 2018 with a minimum 1-year follow-up. 368 patients operated on between September 2011 and August 2014 were administered standard intravenous prophylaxis. 533 patients operated on between September 2014 and December 2018 were administered an extended protocol with 500 mg of oral cefuroxime axetil every 12 hours (clindamycin or levofloxacin in allergic individuals) until the removal of sutures. SSI was defined following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. The association between risk factors and the incidence of SSI was evaluated by odds ratio (OR) with a multiple logistic regression model. Results The bivariate analysis showed a statistically significant association between SSI and the type of prophylaxis used (“extended”’ = 1.7% vs. “standard” = 6.2%, p= 0.001), with a lower proportion of superficial SSIs with the extended regimen (0.8% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.001). The multiple logistic regression model showed an OR = 0.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10–0.53) for extended prophylaxis and an OR = 3.5 (CI 1.3–8.1) for non-beta-lactams antibiotics. Conclusion Extended antibiotic prophylaxis seems to be…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 901 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free