Topical antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing by primary intention (Review)

Heal, Clare F., Banks, Jennifer L., Lepper, Phoebe D., Kontopantelis, Evangelos and van Driel, Mieke L. (2016) Topical antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing by primary intention (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016 11: . doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011426.pub2

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
UQ413965_OA.pdf Full text (open access) application/pdf 906.44KB 0

Author Heal, Clare F.
Banks, Jennifer L.
Lepper, Phoebe D.
Kontopantelis, Evangelos
van Driel, Mieke L.
Title Topical antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing by primary intention (Review)
Journal name Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1469-493X
1469-493X
Publication date 2016-11-07
Year available 2016
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD011426.pub2
Open Access Status File (Publisher version)
Volume 2016
Issue 11
Total pages 73
Place of publication Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom
Publisher John Wiley & Sons
Language eng
Subject 2736 Pharmacology (medical)
Abstract Background: Surgical site infections (SSI) can delay wound healing, impair cosmetic outcome and increase healthcare costs. Topical antibiotics are sometimes used to reduce microbial contaminant exposure following surgical procedures, with the aim of reducing SSIs. Objectives: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether the application of topical antibiotics to surgical wounds that are healing by primary intention reduces the incidence of SSI and whether it increases the incidence of adverse outcomes (allergic contact dermatitis, infections with patterns of antibiotic resistance and anaphylaxis). Search methods: In May 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction of language, date of study or setting. The search was repeated in May 2016 to ensure currency of included studies. Selection criteria: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials that assessed the effects of topical antibiotics (any formulation, including impregnated dressings) in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention were eligible for inclusion. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies and independently extracted data. Two authors then assessed the studies for risk of bias. Risk ratios were calculated for dichotomous variables, and when a sufficient number of comparable trials were available, trials were pooled in a meta-analysis. Main results: A total of 10 RCTs and four quasi-randomised trials with 6466 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six studies involved minor procedures conducted in an outpatient or emergency department setting; eight studies involved major surgery conducted in theatre. Nine different topical antibiotics were included. We included two three-arm trials, two four-arm trials and 10 two-arm trials. The control groups comprised; an alternative topical antibiotic (two studies), topical antiseptic (six studies) and no topical antibiotic (10 studies), which comprised inert ointment (five studies) no treatment (four studies) and one study with one arm of each. The risk of bias of the 14 studies varied. Seven studies were at high risk of bias, five at unclear risk of bias and two at low risk of bias. Most risk of bias concerned risk of selection bias. Twelve of the studies (6259 participants) reported infection rates, although we could not extract the data for this outcome from one study. Four studies (3334 participants) measured allergic contact dermatitis as an outcome. Four studies measured positive wound swabs for patterns of antimicrobial resistance, for which there were no outcomes reported. No episodes of anaphylaxis were reported. Topical antibiotic versus no topical antibiotic We pooled the results of eight trials (5427 participants) for the outcome of SSI. Topical antibiotics probably reduce the risk of SSI in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention compared with no topical antibiotic (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.87; moderate-quality evidence downgraded once for risk of bias). This equates to 20 fewer SSIs per 1000 patients treated with topical antibiotics (95% CI 7 to 29) and a number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) (i.e. prevention of one SSI) of 50. We pooled the results of three trials (3012 participants) for the outcome of allergic contact dermatitis, however this comparison was underpowered, and it is unclear whether topical antibiotics affect the risk of allergic contact dermatitis (RR 3.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 34.00; very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for imprecision). Topical antibiotic versus antiseptic We pooled the results of five trials (1299 participants) for the outcome of SSI. Topical antibiotics probably reduce the risk of SSI in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention compared with using topical antiseptics (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence downgraded once for risk of bias). This equates to 43 fewer SSIs per 1000 patients treated with topical antibiotics instead of antiseptics (95% CI 17 to 59) and an NNTB of 24. We pooled the results of two trials (541 participants) for the outcome of allergic contact dermatitis; there was no clear difference in the risk of dermatitis between topical antibiotics and antiseptics, however this comparison was underpowered and a difference cannot be ruled out (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.82; very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of bias and once for imprecision). Topical antibiotic versus topical antibiotic One study (99 participants) compared mupirocin ointment with a combination ointment of neomycin/polymyxin B/bacitracin zinc for the outcome of SSI. There was no clear difference in the risk of SSI, however this comparison was underpowered (very low-quality evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for imprecision). A four-arm trial involved two antibiotic arms (neomycin sulfate/bacitracin zinc/polymyxin B sulphate combination ointment versus bacitracin zinc, 219 participants). There was no clear difference in risk of SSI between the combination ointment and the bacitracin zinc ointment. The quality of evidence for this outcome was low, downgraded once for risk of bias, and once for imprecision. Authors' conclusions: Topical antibiotics applied to surgical wounds healing by primary intention probably reduce the risk of SSI relative to no antibiotic, and relative to topical antiseptics (moderate quality evidence). We are unable to draw conclusions regarding the effects of topical antibiotics on adverse outcomes such as allergic contact dermatitis due to lack of statistical power (small sample sizes). We are also unable to draw conclusions regarding the impact of increasing topical antibiotic use on antibiotic resistance. The relative effects of different topical antibiotics are unclear.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Grant ID MC_PC_13042
MR/K006665/1
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
Admin Only - School of Medicine
School of Medicine Publications
 
Available Versions of this Record
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 6 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 8 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 06 Dec 2016, 10:59:15 EST by System User on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)