Antibiotic prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy: 1-day versus 4-day treatments

• Published in: International journal of urology 2006-12, Vol.13 (12), p.1488-1493
• Main Authors: TERAI, AKITO, ICHIOKA, KENTARO, KOHEI, NAOKI, UEDA, NOBUFUMI, UTSUNOMIYA, NORIAKI, INOUE, KOJI
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Anti-Infective Agents - therapeutic use; antibiotic prophylaxis; Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods; Cefotiam - therapeutic use; clinical pathway; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Care - methods; Preoperative Care - methods; Prostatectomy - methods; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery; radical prostatectomy; Retrospective Studies; surgical site infection; Surgical Wound Infection - epidemiology; Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0919-8172; 1442-2042
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01597.x

Objective: The standard protocol of antibiotic prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy remains to be established. We retrospectively compared the occurrence of perioperative infections following radical prostatectomy between two different protocols of antibiotic prophylaxis. Methods: This study included 106 cases of radical retropubic prostatectomy managed on the clinical pathways. Two different protocols of antibiotic prophylaxis were used in otherwise identical pathways. Between January and December 2004, 50 patients received a second generation cephem, cefotiam, for 4 days, beginning 30 min before surgery (4‐day group), whilst between December 2004 and July 2005, only two doses of cefotiam were given on the day of operation in 56 patients (1‐day group). The incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and remote infection (RI) was retrospectively investigated. Results: Superficial incisional SSI occurred in one (1.8%) patient in the 1‐day group, whereas no patient in the 4‐day group developed SSI. No RI was observed in either the 1‐day or 4‐day group. Intravenous antibiotics were administered besides the pathway in a patient in the 1‐day group because unexplained fever more than 38°C continued postoperative day (POD) 2 through POD 4 without signs of SSI or RI. Excluding this case, postoperative more than 38°C was rare and transient after POD 2. Conclusion: The incidence of SSI and RI was low and not significantly different between the 1‐day and 4‐day groups. Therefore, the 1‐day protocol of prophylactic antibiotic treatment seems adequate for preventing perioperative infections in radical prostatectomy.