Yayın:
Topical antibiotic prophylaxis in Lichtenstein hernia repair and comparison of three methods

dc.contributor.authorDuray Seker
dc.contributor.authorGaye Ebru Seker
dc.contributor.authorBahattin Bayar
dc.contributor.authorZafer Ergul
dc.contributor.authorHakan Kulacoglu
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-04T15:14:03Z
dc.date.issued2021-04-01
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: Lichtenstein hernia repair is a clean surgical intervention and one of the most frequently applied operation worldwide. Despite guidelines, benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in hernia surgery has been considered questionable and prophylaxis usage is not infrequent. Here, in this clinical randomized trial, we aimed to compare three different prophylaxis regimens to find out which one is more effective. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients were divided into three groups. First group (G1) received cefazoline, second group (G2) received topical gentamicin, and third group (G3) received combination of cefazoline and topical gentamicin. On 1st, 7th, and 30th postoperative days, surgical sites were examined for the signs of infection according to the definitions of Centers for Disease Control. Furthermore, effectiveness of infection prevention in patients with comorbid diseases was also analyzed. RESULTS: Totally 276 patients were analyzed. In G1 three, in G2 two, and in G3 0 infections were recorded. Total, infection rate was 1.8%. There was no any difference in infection rates between three groups (P = 0.285). Comorbidities did not rise infection rates under prophylaxis coverage (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: All three methods are equally effective in surgical site infection, but combination method seems better with “0” ratio. Prophlaxy coverage also prevents surgical site infection even in the presence of risk (comorbidities).
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21
dc.description.urihttps://doaj.org/article/24b10f5f7c4c4757bc5e687fabae83f5
dc.description.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21
dc.identifier.doi10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21
dc.identifier.endpage63
dc.identifier.issn2589-8736
dc.identifier.openairedoi_dedup___::8169049c8ab13c6cb0c200d63097ce21
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-2816-6734
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5343-0747
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85127015130
dc.identifier.startpage58
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12597/38684
dc.identifier.volume4
dc.identifier.wos001104957500002
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherMedknow
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery
dc.rightsOPEN
dc.subjectanti-bacterial agents
dc.subjectwounds
dc.subjectRD1-811
dc.subjectprevention and control
dc.subjectSurgery
dc.subjecthernia
dc.subjectinfection
dc.subject.sdg3. Good health
dc.titleTopical antibiotic prophylaxis in Lichtenstein hernia repair and comparison of three methods
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.api.response{"authors":[{"fullName":"Duray Seker","name":null,"surname":null,"rank":1,"pid":{"id":{"scheme":"orcid","value":"0000-0003-2816-6734"},"provenance":null}},{"fullName":"Gaye Ebru Seker","name":null,"surname":null,"rank":2,"pid":{"id":{"scheme":"orcid","value":"0000-0002-5343-0747"},"provenance":null}},{"fullName":"Bahattin Bayar","name":null,"surname":null,"rank":3,"pid":null},{"fullName":"Zafer Ergul","name":null,"surname":null,"rank":4,"pid":null},{"fullName":"Hakan Kulacoglu","name":null,"surname":null,"rank":5,"pid":null}],"openAccessColor":"gold","publiclyFunded":false,"type":"publication","language":{"code":"eng","label":"English"},"countries":null,"subjects":[{"subject":{"scheme":"FOS","value":"03 medical and health sciences"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"anti-bacterial agents"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"wounds"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"FOS","value":"0302 clinical medicine"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"RD1-811"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"prevention and control"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"Surgery"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"hernia"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"keyword","value":"infection"},"provenance":null},{"subject":{"scheme":"SDG","value":"3. Good health"},"provenance":null}],"mainTitle":"Topical antibiotic prophylaxis in Lichtenstein hernia repair and comparison of three methods","subTitle":null,"descriptions":["<jats:sec> <jats:title>INTRODUCTION:</jats:title> <jats:p>Lichtenstein hernia repair is a clean surgical intervention and one of the most frequently applied operation worldwide. Despite guidelines, benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in hernia surgery has been considered questionable and prophylaxis usage is not infrequent. Here, in this clinical randomized trial, we aimed to compare three different prophylaxis regimens to find out which one is more effective.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>METHODS:</jats:title> <jats:p>In this prospective study, patients were divided into three groups. First group (G1) received cefazoline, second group (G2) received topical gentamicin, and third group (G3) received combination of cefazoline and topical gentamicin. On 1<jats:sup>st</jats:sup>, 7<jats:sup>th</jats:sup>, and 30<jats:sup>th</jats:sup> postoperative days, surgical sites were examined for the signs of infection according to the definitions of Centers for Disease Control. Furthermore, effectiveness of infection prevention in patients with comorbid diseases was also analyzed.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>RESULTS:</jats:title> <jats:p>Totally 276 patients were analyzed. In G1 three, in G2 two, and in G3 0 infections were recorded. Total, infection rate was 1.8%. There was no any difference in infection rates between three groups (<jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic> = 0.285). Comorbidities did not rise infection rates under prophylaxis coverage (<jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic> &gt; 0.05).</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>CONCLUSION:</jats:title> <jats:p>All three methods are equally effective in surgical site infection, but combination method seems better with “0” ratio. Prophlaxy coverage also prevents surgical site infection even in the presence of risk (comorbidities).</jats:p> </jats:sec>"],"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publisher":"Medknow","embargoEndDate":null,"sources":["Crossref","International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery, Vol 4, Iss 2, Pp 58-63 (2021)"],"formats":null,"contributors":null,"coverages":null,"bestAccessRight":{"code":"c_abf2","label":"OPEN","scheme":"http://vocabularies.coar-repositories.org/documentation/access_rights/"},"container":{"name":"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery","issnPrinted":"2589-8736","issnOnline":null,"issnLinking":null,"ep":"63","iss":null,"sp":"58","vol":"4","edition":null,"conferencePlace":null,"conferenceDate":null},"documentationUrls":null,"codeRepositoryUrl":null,"programmingLanguage":null,"contactPeople":null,"contactGroups":null,"tools":null,"size":null,"version":null,"geoLocations":null,"id":"doi_dedup___::8169049c8ab13c6cb0c200d63097ce21","originalIds":["10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21","50|doiboost____|8169049c8ab13c6cb0c200d63097ce21","oai:doaj.org/article:24b10f5f7c4c4757bc5e687fabae83f5","50|doajarticles::c0a59138e804dd6bf0643a4390a826a1","3166860354"],"pids":[{"scheme":"doi","value":"10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21"}],"dateOfCollection":null,"lastUpdateTimeStamp":null,"indicators":{"citationImpact":{"citationCount":2,"influence":2.662094e-9,"popularity":3.2034015e-9,"impulse":1,"citationClass":"C5","influenceClass":"C5","impulseClass":"C5","popularityClass":"C5"}},"instances":[{"pids":[{"scheme":"doi","value":"10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21"}],"type":"Article","urls":["https://doi.org/10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21"],"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","refereed":"peerReviewed"},{"pids":[{"scheme":"doi","value":"10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21"}],"license":"CC BY NC SA","type":"Article","urls":["https://doi.org/10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21"],"refereed":"nonPeerReviewed"},{"alternateIdentifiers":[{"scheme":"doi","value":"10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21"}],"type":"Article","urls":["https://doaj.org/article/24b10f5f7c4c4757bc5e687fabae83f5"],"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","refereed":"nonPeerReviewed"},{"alternateIdentifiers":[{"scheme":"mag_id","value":"3166860354"},{"scheme":"doi","value":"10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21"}],"type":"Other literature type","urls":["https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_6_21"],"refereed":"nonPeerReviewed"}],"isGreen":false,"isInDiamondJournal":false}
local.import.sourceOpenAire
local.indexed.atWOS
local.indexed.atScopus

Dosyalar

Koleksiyonlar