Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association · 2022
Comparison of ceftriaxone and cefazolin as prophylactic antibiotics for surgical site infection in orthopedic upper extremity surgery: The nationwide shortage of cefazolin in March 2019.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sugiura Sara, Shimura Haruhiko, Fujita Koji, Ogawa Takahisa, Nimura Akimoto
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Due to the nationwide supply shortage of cefazolin in March 2019 in Japan, ceftriaxone was used as an alternative prophylaxis antibiotic agent. This retrospective study was designed to investigate the impact of cefazolin and ceftriaxone as a prophylactic antibiotic agent for surgical site infection (SSI) in orthopedic upper extremity surgery.
METHODS: We used cefazolin for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent SSI before March 2019. Because of cefazolin shortage, ceftriaxone was used as an alternative agent in our hospital. From April 2014 to May 2021, 2493 upper extremity surgeries were reviewed. The exclusion criteria in this study were as follows: patients aged under 16 years, those with an open wound, those with infectious diseases, those who underwent trigger finger surgery, and those who underwent percutaneous pinning surgery. The incidence of deep SSI was evaluated according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
RESULTS: Among the 2493 eligible cases, 1674 were included in this study. In the cefazolin group, 1140 cases were included, whereas, in the ceftriaxone group, 534 cases were included. No significant differences in the demographic data of the patients were observed between the two groups. The incidence of deep SSI was 0.08% (1/1140 cases) in the cefazolin group and 1.1% (6/534 cases) in the ceftriaxone group, with a significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio, 12.9; p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that the use of ceftriaxone instead of cefazolin after upper extremity surgery increases the risk of deep SSI.
METHODS: We used cefazolin for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent SSI before March 2019. Because of cefazolin shortage, ceftriaxone was used as an alternative agent in our hospital. From April 2014 to May 2021, 2493 upper extremity surgeries were reviewed. The exclusion criteria in this study were as follows: patients aged under 16 years, those with an open wound, those with infectious diseases, those who underwent trigger finger surgery, and those who underwent percutaneous pinning surgery. The incidence of deep SSI was evaluated according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
RESULTS: Among the 2493 eligible cases, 1674 were included in this study. In the cefazolin group, 1140 cases were included, whereas, in the ceftriaxone group, 534 cases were included. No significant differences in the demographic data of the patients were observed between the two groups. The incidence of deep SSI was 0.08% (1/1140 cases) in the cefazolin group and 1.1% (6/534 cases) in the ceftriaxone group, with a significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio, 12.9; p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that the use of ceftriaxone instead of cefazolin after upper extremity surgery increases the risk of deep SSI.