PROPHYLACTIC USE OF ANTIBIOTICS IN THE INGUINAL HERNIA SURGERY

S. Mladenovic ,
S. Mladenovic

Health Center Gusterica , Gusterica , Kosovo*

J. Mladenovic ,
J. Mladenovic

Surgery clinic KBC Priština, Gracanica , Gracanica , Kosovo*

N. Videnovic ,
N. Videnovic

Surgery clinic KBC Priština, Graèanica Kosovo*

A. Sekulic ,
A. Sekulic

Surgery clinic KBC Priština, Graèanica Kosovo*

M. Filipovic ,
M. Filipovic

Surgery clinic KBC Priština, Graèanica Kosovo*

D. Peric
D. Peric

Surgery clinic KBC Priština, Graèanica Kosovo*

Published: 01.01.2011.

Volume 39, Issue 1 (2011)

pp. 109-115;

https://doi.org/10.70949/pramed201101362M

Abstract

Introduction: antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical patients is defined as the use of antibiotics to prevented infection of the operating field. Applies in cases where the infection is not clinically manifested. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of the prophylactic use of antibiotics in the prevention of postoperative infection for patient's inguinal hernia. Materials and methods: The making of the material used Surgical Clinic KBC Pristina in Gracanica, which is part of the "preventive use of antibiotics in surgical patients, through follow-up prospective study of 200 patients. The first group (study group-Group I) consisted of 100 patients with inguinal hernia, in which we apply the prophylactic use of antibiotics. Study group was divided into two subgroups: (Group IA), 50 patients with inguinal hernia in which the solution methods with installation of mesh. (Group IB), 50 patients with inguinal hernia where the tension applied in the treatment methods of treatment. In the second group of patients (control group-Group II) with the same number of patients in the postoperative tre- atment are therapeutic dose used antibiotics. Research results: In our study, the prophylactic purposes, we used compound II generation cephalosporine cefuroxime (Nilacef), which are given in intravenous bolus, the induction of anesthesia, in a dose of 1.5 grams. In 100 patients examined groups, we used prophylactic cefuroxime 100 ampoules (Nilacefa) of 1.5 grams, whi- le the treatment of 100 patients in the control group used for therapeutic purpose 894 ampoules of different antibiotics. Pos- toperative wound infection in patients with prophylactic application of antibiotics are not recorded, while we were in the gro- up where the applied dose of antibiotics therapeutics wound infection noted in two (2%) patients. The average number of days of treatment the study group, the postoperative period was 2.81 days, while patients with a therapeutic dose of antibiotics the average number of days was 5.28. Cost of treatment cefuroksim 50 patients, the prophylactic use amounted to 32,460RSD, while the cost of antibiotics applied in the postoperative treatment of the control group, in which we applied the therapeutic dose antibiotic treatment, was 253,961.52 RSD, which is 7.8 times more expensive. Conclusion: The prophylac- tic application of antibiotics reduced the non-critical use of antibiotics, the incidence of infection of the operating field, mor- bidity and mortality due to postoperative infection, the frequency of resistance to antibiotics, antibiotics to minimize the ef- fect of Bacterian normal flora of the patient, changes in the defense system of the patient, and thus the cost of hospital treat- ment of surgical patients.

Keywords

References

1.
Burke JP. Infection control—a problem for patient safety. N Engl J Med. 348:651–6.
2.
Hollenbeak CS, Murphy D, Dunagan WC, Fraser VJ. Non-random selection and the attributable cost of surgical-site infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 23:174–6.
3.
Perencevich EN, Sands KE, Cosgrove SE, Guadagnoli E, Meara E, Platt R. Health and economic impact of surgical site infections diagnosed after hospital discharge. Emerg Infect Dis. 9:196–203.
4.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Surgical Infection Prevention Project description.
5.
Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. In: Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. p. 250–78.
6.
Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 43:92–7.
7.
Gilbert DN, Moellering RC, Sande MA. The Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy.
8.
Manian FA, Meyer PL, Setzer J, Senkel D. Surgical site infections associated with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: do postoperative factors play a role? Clin Infect Dis. 36:863–8.
9.
Sessler DI, Akca O. Nonpharmacologic prevention of surgical wound infections. Clin Infect Dis. 35:1397–404.
10.
Surgical site infection and the routine use of perioperative hyperoxia in a general surgical population: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 291:79–87.
11.
Bratzler DW, Houck PM. for the Surgical Infection Prevention Guidelines Writers Workgroup. In: Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Surgery: An Advisory Statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project Clin Infect Dis. p. 1706–15.
12.
Darouiche RO. Antimicrobial approaches for preventing infections associated with surgical implants. Clin Infect Dis. 36(10):1284–9.
13.
Bratzler DW, Houck PM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin Infect Dis. 38:1706–15.
14.
Woods RK, Dellinger EP. Current guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis of surgical wounds.

Citation

Copyright

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles

Indexed by