The British journal of surgery · 2025
Prophylactic antibiotics in hand trauma surgery: a network meta-analysis.
СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание 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.
Yusuf Suraya, Zhang Chen, Takenoshita Moe, Wade Ryckie George, Wormald Justin Conrad Rosen
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infections (SSI) complicate at least 5% of hand trauma operations; however, the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics remains unclear. Unlike previous meta-analyses, this network meta-analysis (NMA) provides a definitive summary of all currently available data across multiple antibiotic classes, allowing indirect comparisons to provide a robust understanding of relative antibiotic effectiveness.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed across EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL, supplemented by Google Scholar and clinical trial registries. Prospective comparative studies comparing antibiotics versus placebo/no antibiotics in patients undergoing surgery for hand and wrist trauma were included. Data on SSI rates were extracted and analysed using network meta-analysis with frequentist random-effects models.
RESULTS: Some 4499 articles were screened, with 13 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 2 non-randomized studies involving 3898 participants included in the analysis. The pooled SSI prevalence was 3.6%. Our NMA indicated that prophylactic antibiotics did not significantly reduce SSI risk compared to placebo: the highest-ranking treatment (mixed antibiotic regimen) demonstrating a relative risk of 0.29 (95% c.i. 0.04, 2.13). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences based on injury type or location of surgery.
CONCLUSION: There was insufficient evidence to support routine prophylactic antibiotic use in hand trauma surgery. Low event rates, wide confidence intervals, and moderate-to-high risk of bias in most included studies limit the certainty of this conclusion: the evidence remains inconclusive. Future high-quality RCTs are warranted to evaluate the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in hand trauma surgery.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed across EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL, supplemented by Google Scholar and clinical trial registries. Prospective comparative studies comparing antibiotics versus placebo/no antibiotics in patients undergoing surgery for hand and wrist trauma were included. Data on SSI rates were extracted and analysed using network meta-analysis with frequentist random-effects models.
RESULTS: Some 4499 articles were screened, with 13 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 2 non-randomized studies involving 3898 participants included in the analysis. The pooled SSI prevalence was 3.6%. Our NMA indicated that prophylactic antibiotics did not significantly reduce SSI risk compared to placebo: the highest-ranking treatment (mixed antibiotic regimen) demonstrating a relative risk of 0.29 (95% c.i. 0.04, 2.13). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences based on injury type or location of surgery.
CONCLUSION: There was insufficient evidence to support routine prophylactic antibiotic use in hand trauma surgery. Low event rates, wide confidence intervals, and moderate-to-high risk of bias in most included studies limit the certainty of this conclusion: the evidence remains inconclusive. Future high-quality RCTs are warranted to evaluate the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in hand trauma surgery.