Evidence Hub

Is levofloxacin necessary to prevent postoperative infections of auricular second-intention wounds?

Mailler-Savage EA, Neal KW, Godsey T, Adams BB, Gloster HM

Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.], 2008

84 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgeons may prescribe oral quinolones after auricular procedures to prevent postoperative infections, especially those caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the efficacy of levofloxacin and local wound care to local wound care alone in preventing postoperative infection of auricular second-intention wounds.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized trial of 84 consecutive patients (82 in the final analysis) who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery for an auricular neoplasm and had a wound left to heal by second intention. After surgery, patients were randomly assigned to receive either local wound care or local wound care with concurrent 500 mg of levofloxacin by mouth daily.

RESULTS: Overall, 85.4% of patients had no complications. Complications included 12.2% of patients with inflammatory chondritis and 2.4% of patients with infection. No infections with P. aeruginosa were observed. No statistical significance was observed between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION: Levofloxacin is not necessary to prevent postoperative infections of auricular second-intention wounds after Mohs surgery.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 84 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