Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2019
Efficacy of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Hysteroscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Muzii Ludovico, Donato Violante Di, Tucci Chiara Di, Pinto Anna Di, Cascialli Gianluca, Monti Marco, Patacchiola Felice, Benedetti Panici Pierluigi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and side effects of antibiotic prophylaxis compared with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing hysteroscopy.
DATA SOURCES: A structured search was carried out in PubMed-Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases through December 31, 2018.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: The search included a combination of the following terms: "hysteroscopy," "endoscopic surgery," "antibiotic prophylaxis." The following outcomes were selected: postoperative fever, infection rate, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and abscess occurrence, postoperative antibiotic requirement, and side effects occurrence (lower abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, anaphylactic reaction). A random-effects model was used at meta-analysis. Study quality and bias risk were assessed with the Cochrane tool.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo or no treatment were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, pooled incidence of events was very low in both groups (fever, 3.79% vs 1.8%; overall infection, .52% vs .58%; postoperative antibiotic therapy, 1.18% vs 1.32%; and lower abdominal pain, 12.46% vs 9.31%). Moreover, the incidence of serious infections requiring further actions (PID or abscess) appeared to be extremely low (.2% in pretreated women and none in control groups). No one trial individually or the pooled analysis showed a statistically significant benefit of antibiotics prophylaxis over placebo for the outcome considered.
CONCLUSION: The use of antibiotics appears not to be beneficial to prevent infection after hysteroscopy; however, the lack of high-quality studies makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Considering the very low infection rate highlighted after hysteroscopic procedures, a difference will probably never be proven in a randomized trial. A larger population and program data to confirm these results are therefore warranted.
DATA SOURCES: A structured search was carried out in PubMed-Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases through December 31, 2018.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: The search included a combination of the following terms: "hysteroscopy," "endoscopic surgery," "antibiotic prophylaxis." The following outcomes were selected: postoperative fever, infection rate, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and abscess occurrence, postoperative antibiotic requirement, and side effects occurrence (lower abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, anaphylactic reaction). A random-effects model was used at meta-analysis. Study quality and bias risk were assessed with the Cochrane tool.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo or no treatment were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, pooled incidence of events was very low in both groups (fever, 3.79% vs 1.8%; overall infection, .52% vs .58%; postoperative antibiotic therapy, 1.18% vs 1.32%; and lower abdominal pain, 12.46% vs 9.31%). Moreover, the incidence of serious infections requiring further actions (PID or abscess) appeared to be extremely low (.2% in pretreated women and none in control groups). No one trial individually or the pooled analysis showed a statistically significant benefit of antibiotics prophylaxis over placebo for the outcome considered.
CONCLUSION: The use of antibiotics appears not to be beneficial to prevent infection after hysteroscopy; however, the lack of high-quality studies makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Considering the very low infection rate highlighted after hysteroscopic procedures, a difference will probably never be proven in a randomized trial. A larger population and program data to confirm these results are therefore warranted.