Abstract
Introduction: Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is common in radical prostatectomy (RP). Yet there is no standard recommendation in international guidelines due to poor evidence. It is of great importance that these perioperative AP are sufficiently checked and systemically validated. The objective of this study was to determine whether a “single-shot” (single-use) perioperative AP yields equivalent results compared to a multiday prophylaxis in RP regarding postoperative wound infections and urinary tract infections. Methods: 376 patients treated by RP at the University Medical Centre Mannheim, from 2014 to 2016, were included in this retrospective study. RP was performed either in a robotic-assisted or open manner. One group received an intravenous dose of perioperative AP with either ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin, continued by an oral dose of AP with ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin until catheter removal, while the other group received a single-shot intravenous perioperative AP with either ciprofloxacin or cefuroxime. Results: There was no significant difference regarding the occurrence of postoperative infections between both AP regimes (p = 0.5). Age, body mass index, and ASA classification did not differ significantly between both groups (p > 0.25). Except for surgery time (p < 0.05), perioperative parameters, such as the preoperative presence of germ-free urine culture, length of hospital stay, catheter time, drain lay time, Gleason score, and TNM stadium, did not differ significantly. Conclusion: The present study shows that perioperative single-shot AP does not entail any disadvantage compared to the multiday AP in terms of postoperative infections after RP.
References
1.
Berry
A
, Barratt
A
. Prophylactic antibiotic use in transurethral prostatic resection: a meta-analysis
. J Urol
. 2002 Feb
;167
(2 Pt 1
):571
–7
.2.
Bootsma
AJ
, Laguna Pes
MP
, Geerlings
SE
, Goossens
A
. Antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic procedures: a systematic review
. Eur Urol
. 2008 Dec
;54
(6
):1270
–86
.3.
Wagenlehner
FME
, Grabe
M
, Naber
KG
, Bjerklund Johansen
TE
, Naber
CK
, Weidner
W
. Antibiotic prophylaxis in urology
. Urologe A
. 2011 Nov
;50
(11
):1469
–78
; quiz 1479–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-011-2661-0.4.
Hein
C
, Pilatz
A
, Wagenlehner
FME
. Prudent use of antimicrobial prophylaxis : prevention of increasing antibiotic resistance
. Urologe A
. 2017 Sep
;56
(9
):1109
–15
.5.
Mottet
N
. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2022. EAU Guidelines Office
. 2022
.6.
Heinlen
JE
, Salinas
L
, Cookson
MS
. Clostridium difficile infection in contemporary urologic practice
. Urology
. 2018 Jan
;111
:23
–7
.7.
Schön
G
, Tawassoli
N
. Perioperative Antibiotikaprophylaxe bei der radikalen retropubischen Prostatektomie
. Der Urologe B
. 1998
;38
(6
):522
–4
.8.
Stranne
J
, Aus
G
, Hansson
C
, Lodding
P
, Pileblad
E
, Hugosson
J
. Single-dose orally administered quinolone appears to be sufficient antibiotic prophylaxis for radical retropubic prostatectomy
. Scand J Urol Nephrol
. 2004
;38
(2
):143
–7
.9.
Terai
A
, Ichioka
K
, Kohei
N
, Ueda
N
, Utsunomiya
N
, Inoue
K
. Antibiotic prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy: 1-day versus 4-day treatments
. Int J Urol
. 2006 Dec
;13
(12
):1488
–93
.10.
Takeyama
K
, Takahashi
S
, Maeda
T
, Mutoh
M
, Kunishima
Y
, Matsukawa
M
, . Comparison of 1-day, 2-day, and 3-day administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy
. J Infect Chemother
. 2007 Oct
;13
(5
):320
–3
.11.
Wacha
H
, Hoyme
U
, Isenmann
R
, Kujath
P
, Lebert
C
, Naber
K
, . Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Evidence based guidelines by an expert panel of the Paul Ehrlich Gesellschaft
. Chemother J
. 2010
;19
:70
–84
.12.
Etminan
M
, Brophy
JM
, Samii
A
. Oral fluoroquinolone use and risk of peripheral neuropathy: a pharmacoepidemiologic study
. Neurology
. 2014 Sep 30
;83
(14
):1261
–3
.13.
Alves
C
, Mendes
D
, Marques
FB
. Fluoroquinolones and the risk of tendon injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
. Eur J Clin Pharmacol
. 2019 Oct
;75
(10
):1431
–43
.14.
FDA
. FDA updates warnings for oral and injectable fluoroquinolone antibiotics due to disabling side effects
. 2016
. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/99425/download.15.
Grabe
M
. Guidelines on Urological Infections
. 2013
. Available from: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/18_Urological-infections_LR.pdf.16.
Sakura
M
, Kawakami
S
, Yoshida
S
, Masuda
H
, Kobayashi
T
, Kihara
K
. Prospective comparative study of single dose versus 3-day administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis in minimum incision endoscopic radical prostatectomy
. Int J Urol
. 2008 Apr
;15
(4
):328
–31
.17.
Schenck
M
, Luetzke
A
, Ruebben
H
, Schneider
T
. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in radical retropubic prostatectomy: a randomised pilot study of perioperative and postoperative administration
. Aktuelle Urol
. 2011 Jan
;42
(1
):38
–45
.18.
Behnke
M
, Hansen
S
, Leistner
R
, Diaz
LAP
, Gropmann
A
, Sohr
D
, . Nosocomial infection and antibiotic use: a second national prevalence study in Germany
. Dtsch Arztebl Int
. 2013 Sep
;110
(38
):627
–33
.19.
Shin
B
, Chung
HS
, Hwang
EC
, Jung
SI
, Kwon
DD
. Antibiotic prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy: comparison of 2-day and more than 2-day prophylaxis
. J Korean Med Sci
. 2017 Jun
;32
(6
):1009
–15
.20.
NRZ. KISS-Definitionen
. 2017
. Available from: https://www.nrz-hygiene.de/fileadmin/nrz/module/KISS_Definitionen_E-Book_Neuauflage_06_2017.pdf.21.
Shigemura
K
, Tanaka
K
, Yamamichi
F
, Muramaki
M
, Arakawa
S
, Miyake
H
, . Comparison of postoperative infection between robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy
. Urol Int
. 2014
;92
(1
):15
–9
.22.
Matsumoto
T
, Kiyota
H
, Matsukawa
M
, Yasuda
M
, Arakawa
S
, Monden
K
, . Japanese guidelines for prevention of perioperative infections in urological field
. Int J Urol
. 2007 Oct
;14
(10
):890
–909
.23.
Haifler
M
, Mor
Y
, Dotan
Z
, Ramon
J
, Zilberman
DE
. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment following laparoscopic robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections: did the AUA guidelines make a difference
. J Robot Surg
. 2017 Sep
;11
(3
):367
–71
.24.
Arai
Y
, Egawa
S
, Tobisu
K
, Sagiyama
K
, Sumiyoshi
Y
, Hashine
K
, . Radical retropubic prostatectomy: time trends, morbidity and mortality in Japan
. BJU Int
. 2000 Feb
;85
(3
):287
–94
.25.
Wallerstedt
A
, Tyritzis
SI
, Thorsteinsdottir
T
, Carlsson
S
, Stranne
J
, Gustafsson
O
, . Short-term results after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy
. Eur Urol
. 2015 Apr
;67
(4
):660
–70
.26.
Yamamoto
S
, Kunishima
Y
, Kanamaru
S
, Ito
N
, Kinoshita
H
, Kamoto
T
, . A multi-center prospective study for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent perioperative infections in urologic surgery
. Hinyokika Kiyo
. 2004 Oct
;50
(10
):673
–83
.27.
Bjerklund Johansen
TE
, Cek
M
, Naber
K
, Stratchounski
L
, Svendsen
MV
, Tenke
P
. Prevalence of hospital-acquired urinary tract infections in urology departments
. Eur Urol
. 2007 Apr
;51
(4
):1100
–12
; discussion 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.012.28.
Berrondo
C
, Feng
C
, Kukreja
JB
, Messing
EM
, Joseph
JV
. Antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of catheter removal after radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial
. Urol Oncol
. 2019 Mar
;37
(3
):181 e7
–14
.© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2022
You do not currently have access to this content.
