Role of prophylactic antibiotics in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sang Hoon Kim; Hee Chul Yu; Jae Do Yang; Sung Woo Ahn; Hong Pil Hwang

doi:10.14701/ahbps.2018.22.3.231

Journal List > Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg > v.22(3) > 1100642

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Yu, Yang, Ahn, and Hwang: Role of prophylactic antibiotics in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Original Article

Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2018; 22(3): 231-247.

Published online: 31 August 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.2018.22.3.231

Role of prophylactic antibiotics in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sang Hoon Kim, Hee Chul Yu, Jae Do Yang, Sung Woo Ahn, Hong Pil Hwang

Department of Surgery, Chonbuk National University Medical School and Hospital, Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Chonbuk National University-Biomedical Research Institute of Chonbuk University Hospital, and Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea.

Corresponding author: Hee Chul Yu. Department of Surgery, Chonbuk National University Medical School and Hospital, Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Chonbuk National University-Biomedical Research Institute of Chonbuk University Hospital, and Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Chonbuk National University, 20 Geonji-ro Deokjin-gu, Jeonju 54907, Korea. Tel: +82-63-250-1579, Fax: +82-63-271-6197, hcyu@jbnu.ac.kr

Received 20 July 2018 Revised 29 July 2018 Accepted 31 July 2018

The Korean Association of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Backgrounds/Aims

The role of prophylactic antibiotics for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in low-risk patients is still unclear. This study aimed to verify the conclusion of previous meta-analyses concerning the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in low-risk patients.

Methods

Comprehensive literature searches were performed on electric databases and manual searches. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies, and retrospective studies comparing antibiotic prophylaxis to placebo or no antibiotics in low-risk elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included.

Results

This study included 28 RCTs, three prospective studies, and three retrospective studies. In RCTs, prophylactic antibiotics did not prevent deep surgical site infections (SSI) (RR 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.45–2.69], p=0.84) but reduced SSI (RR 0.70, 95% CI [0.53–0.94], p=0.02), and superficial SSI (RR 0.58, 95% CI [0.42–0.82], p=0.01). Prospective studies showed prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce superficial SSI (RR 0.35, 95% CI [0.01–8.40], p=0.52) but reduced SSI (RR 0.12, 95% CI [0.04–0.35], p=0.0001). In retrospective studies, antibiotic prophylaxis did not reduce SSI (RR 1.59, 95% CI [0.30–8.32], p=0.58). The pooled data (12121 patients) including RCTs and prospective and retrospective studies showed that prophylactic antibiotics were not effective in preventing deep SSI (RR 1.01 95% CI [0.46–2.21], p=0.98) but effective in reducing SSI (RR 0.67, 95% CI [0.51–0.88], p=0.003) and superficial SSI (RR 0.61, 95% CI [0.45–0.83], p=0.002).

Conclusions

The use of prophylactic antibiotics is effective for reducing the incidence of SSI and superficial SSI but is not effective for preventing deep SSI in low-risk patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Keywords: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Antibiotic prophylaxis, Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard method in managing uncomplicated gallbladder stones and other benign gallbladder diseases over open cholecystectomy. Development of minimally invasive laparoscopic cholecystectomy reduced surgical site infection (SSI), length of hospital stay, healthcare costs, and postoperative pain.

Although the use of prophylactic antibiotics before elective surgery has been considered as the best way to prevent postoperative infectious complications, antibiotic prophylaxis for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in low-risk group is not recommended in recent guidelines on SSI from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.1 2 Nevertheless, low-risk patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy are still given prophylactic antibiotics in several clinical centers.

Recent meta-analyses3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 investigating the effects of prophylactic antibiotics before elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the prevention of SSI have relatively small sample size and low statistical power. Moreover, controversy still exists regarding the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Therefore, we performed an up-to-date meta-analysis to assess the value of prophylactic antibiotics for low-risk elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of reducing the incidence of SSI, superficial SSI, and deep SSI with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective studies on this topic. This study aimed to verify the conclusion of previous meta-analyses.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study protocol for this systemic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.14

Searching and other resources

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and KMbase were searched using medical subject heading terms and following keyword combinations: “laparoscopic,” “cholecystectomy,” “antibiotic,” “prophylac,” and “meta-analysis.” Table 1 shows the search strategies on electric databases in this review. Additionally, manual searches were performed with reference lists of original articles and systemic review and meta-analyses. The literature search was limited to articles published between 1995 and 2018 without restriction of languages.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria were (i) study design: RCTs and prospective and retrospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy with placebo or untreated controlled group; (ii) population: low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery; (iii) all patients that were given antibiotics before operation and/or postoperative days; (iv) all studies having at least one of the following outcome parameters: SSI, superficial SSI and deep SSI.

Exclusion criteria were (i) studies that are not full-text original articles and (ii) interventions comparing different antibiotic prophylaxis groups without placebo or untreated groups.

SSIs include superficial and deep, and data were collected based on the definition of guideline.15 16 High-risk factors for SSI are defined according to the diabetes, obesity, open conversion, emergency operation, preoperative endoscopic or percutaneous biliary intervention, acute cholecystitis, intraoperative gallbladder rupture, obstructive jaundice, immunosuppression, insertion of prosthetic device, and episode of colic within 30 days in guideline.1 2

Data collection and analysis

This systemic review and meta-analysis was performed following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.17

Study selection

Two reviewers (Kim and Yu) independently searched available articles to include eligible RCTs and prospective and retrospective studies. Duplicate articles were removed. The full-text articles of possibly related studies were selected to make a list of trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Disagreements about study selection were resolved through discussion and consensus.

Data extraction

The following data were extracted independently by two reviewers (Kim and Yu) from each study when present: inclusion and exclusion criteria, characteristic of population, study design, type of prophylactic antibiotics and dosage, schedule of administration of antibiotics, randomization method, allocation concealment, number of randomized patients in RCTs and enrolled patients in prospective and retrospective studies, drop-outs, intention-to-treat analysis or per-protocol analysis, SSIs, and superficial and deep infections.

Quality assessment of the studies

Two investigators (Kim and Yu) independently assessed the quality of RCTs included through assessing the following risks of bias check lists provided by The Cochrane Collaboration18: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases. Risk of bias was assessed as high, low, and unclear. Jadad et al.19 score was also applied to assess the quality of included randomized studies in the meta-analysis. Of the 28 RCTs,20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 25 studies22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis with high-quality Jadad score ≥3, and the other 3 studies20 21 38 were low-quality studies with Jadad score 2. Sensitivity tests were performed to assess whether including three RCTs classified as low-quality is appropriate in this meta-analysis.

Non-RCTs including 3 prospective48 49 50 and 3 retrospective22 51 52 studies were assessed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale,53 which ranges from 0 to 9, with “high quality” defined as a Newcastle-Ottawa Scale total score ≥7. Of the 6 non-RCTs included in this meta-analysis, 2 prospective studies were classified as “high quality.” Sensitivity tests were performed to obtain pooled data rate. Disagreements about assessment were resolved through discussion and consensus.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager version 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration). In dichotomous variable analysis, the effect size of the intervention was represented by risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and was calculated for continuous variables. A random effect model was applied to calculate the estimated pooled event rate in the presence of significant heterogeneity, determined either when the I² value was >50% or p-value of Cochrane Q test was <0.1. The publication bias was evaluated to detect “small-study effects” by funnel plot.54 RCTs and prospective and retrospective studies were pooled separately to minimize the bias. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess whether including non-randomized studies or low-quality studies is appropriate in this meta-analysis.17

RESULTS

Study selection

A total of 1472 studies were screened through electronic database using our search strategies in July 2018. And 1096 articles were found by hand search. After investigation of title and abstract, 239 articles were screened. Full texts of 63 articles were reviewed and assessed for eligibility, and 34 studies including 28 RCTs and 3 prospective and 3 retrospective trials were included in this meta-analysis. Twenty-nine full-text articles55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 were excluded because of the following reasons: inclusion criteria not met,83 inappropriate intervention,55 57 70 77 84 inappropriate comparator,56 58 59 insufficient data reported, 60 61 63 65 66 67 68 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 78 80 81 82 and data duplication.62 64 The procedure for the study selection is summarized in the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1).

Study characteristics

The 12121 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy from eligible 28 RCTs with 7770 patients, 3 prospective studies with 3123 patients, and 3 retrospective studies with 1228 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Table 2 shows a summary of the characteristics of the included studies published between 1995 and 2018, including years of publication, country, language, study design, intervention, sample size, type of data collection analysis, follow-up days, and outcomes. Most of the patients included in RCTs were classified as low risk for postoperative infection. Exclusion criteria in the majority of RCTs were ASA physical status classification III or higher, antibiotics use within 7 days of the surgery, allergy, complicated gallstone with acute cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis or pancreatitis, previous biliary tract surgery, conversion to open cholecystectomy, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression, pregnancy, prosthetic heart valve, severe comorbidities such as Child C liver cirrhosis or end-stage renal disease, body mass index >30, and age >70 years or <14 years. However, in the definition of high-risk patients, the criteria of ASA score, BMI, and old age are not exactly the same in included studies.

Risk of bias and Jadad score for RCTs included in this meta-analysis are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 shows the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-RCTs included in this review. In RCTs, only 12 studies21 22 28 32 36 38 40 42 43 44 45 47 showed the data from intention-to-treat analysis, and the other 16 studies20 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 33 34 35 37 39 41 46 showed data from per-protocol analysis.

Surgical site infections

Subgroup analysis for SSI including both superficial and deep SSI was performed using 28 RCTs,20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 3 prospective studies,48 49 50 and 3 retrospective studies.22 51 52 In the 28 RCTs, 83 (2.07%) of the 4018 patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group developed SSI compared with 119 (3.17%) of the 3752 patients in the no prophylaxis group. The prophylactic antibiotic group had less incidence of SSI than the control group (RR 0.70, 95% CI [0.53–0.94], p=0.02) without significant heterogeneity (p=0.96, I²=0%). In 3 prospective studies, 3 (0.16%) of the 1831 patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group developed SSI compared with 22 (1.70%) of the 1292 patients in the no prophylaxis group. The patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group had less incidence of SSI than the control group (RR 0.12 [0.04–0.37], p=0.0002). No significant heterogeneity was found among included prospective studies (p=0.48, I²=0%). In 3 retrospective studies, 15 (2.09%) of the 717 patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group developed SSI compared with 5 (0.98%) of the 511 patients in the no prophylaxis group. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of SSI between the prophylactic antibiotic group and the control group (RR 1.59, 95% CI [0.30–8.32], p=0.58) without significant heterogeneity among included prospective studies (p=0.58, I²=47%). In the overall pooled event rate including 28 RCTs and 3 prospective studies and 3 retrospective studies, 101 (1.54%) of the 6566 patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group developed SSI compared with 146 (2.63%) of the 5555 patients in the no prophylaxis group. The patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group had less incidence of SSI than the control group (RR 0.67, 95% CI [0.51–0.88], p=0.003). No significant heterogeneity among included studies was presented (p=0.47, I²=0%) (Fig. 2).

Superficial surgical site infections

The incidence of superficial SSI was described in 22 RCTs,21 22 23 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 2 prospective studies,49 50 and 1 retrospective study.52 In 22 RCTs, 59 (1.68%) of the 3508 patients of the prophylactic antibiotic group developed superficial SSI compared with 96 (2.95%) of the 3258 patients in the no prophylaxis group. The patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group had less incidence of superficial SSI than the patients in the control group (RR 0.59, 95% CI [0.43–0.82], p=0.001) without significant heterogeneity among included studies (p=0.91, I²=0%). In 2 prospective studies, 0 (0%) of the 143 patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group developed superficial SSI compared with 1 (1.03%) of the 97 patients in the no prophylaxis group. No difference was observed in outcomes between the two groups (RR 0.35 95% CI [0.01–8.40], p=0.52). In a retrospective study, 5 (1.79%) of the 279 patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group developed SSI compared with 3 (1.56%) of the 192 patients in the no prophylaxis group. In the overall pooled event rate including 22 RCTs, 2 prospective studies, and one retrospective study, 64 (1.63%) of the 3930 patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group developed superficial SSI compared with 100 (2.81%) of the 3547 patients in the no prophylaxis group. The prophylactic antibiotic group had less incidence of superficial SSI than the control group (RR 0.61, 95% CI [0.45–0.83], p=0.002). No significant heterogeneity was found among included studies (p=0.94, I²=0%) (Fig. 3).

Deep surgical site infections

The incidence of deep SSI was described in 19 RCTs,21 23 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 40 42 43 45 46 2 prospective studies,49 50 and one retrospective study.52 In 19 RCTs, 10 (0.35%) of the 2890 patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group developed deep SSI compared with 10 (0.38%) of the 2637 patients in the no prophylaxis group. The prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the incidence of deep SSI compared with control group (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.46–2.21], p=0.98). No significant heterogeneity was found among included studies (p=0.77, I²=0%). In 2 prospective studies, 0 (0.00%) of the 143 patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group developed deep SSI compared with 0 (0.00%) of the 97 patients in the no prophylaxis group. In a retrospective study, 0 (0.00%) of the 279 patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group developed SSI compared with 0 (0.00%) of the 192 patients in the no prophylaxis group. In the overall pooled event rate including 19 RCTs, 2 prospective studies, and one retrospective study, 10 (0.30%) of the 3312 patients in the prophylactic antibiotic group developed deep SSI compared with 10 (0.34%) of the 2926 in the no prophylaxis group. No difference was observed in outcomes between the two groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.46–2.21], p=0.98) without significant heterogeneity among included studies (p=0.77, I²=0%) (Fig. 4).

Sensitivity test

Sensitivity tests were performed by excluding all low-quality studies including 3 RCTs20 21 38 with Jadad score ≤2 and 4 non-randomized studies22 50 51 52 with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score ≤6. In these sensitivity tests of all subgroups, the results were similar to those of the primary meta-analyses in pooled effect size and heterogeneity. Table 5 shows all sensitivity tests of the subgroups. To determine the effect of individual study, sensitivity analysis excluding one study at a time was also performed. Removal of the largest study48 including 2883 patients did not influenced the substantial change of the outcome (RR 0.74, 95% CI [0.56–0.97], p=0.03) in subgroup analysis of SSI.

Publication bias

A funnel plot of the included studies showed asymmetry, suggesting publication bias in the subgroup analysis of SSI (Fig. 5).

DISCUSSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis included a total of 12121 patients from the 7770 patients in 28 RCTs, 3123 patients in 3 prospective studies, and 1228 patients in 3 retrospective studies. This study concluded that the use of prophylactic antibiotics in low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy prevents SSI and superficial SSI other than deep SSI. Previous meta-analyses3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 were based only on data from RCTs and concluded that prophylactic antibiotics were not effective in preventing postoperative SSI in low-risk elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, except for two studies.10 12

In previous several meta-analyses on this topic, only RCTs were included to determine the overall effect rate. Therefore, these meta-analyses were performed with relatively small sample sizes and were statistically under-powered. To overcome the limitation of the study including only RCTs with small sample sizes, this meta-analysis comprised a total of 12121 patients from both RCTs and non-RCTs to obtain appropriate statistical power in the subgroup analysis of SSI, superficial SSI, and deep SSI. Moreover, all available RCTs and non-RCTs that have not been published in English were used in this study to reduce language bias. Although there was a possibility of inducing significant heterogeneity by combining RCTs with non-RCTs, there were no significant differences in results between RCTs alone and RCTs and non-RCTs in all subgroup analyses.

This systematic review and meta-analysis has several limitations. First, of the 28 RCTs, 3 trials have low quality with Jadad score. In addition, of the 6 non-RCTs, 4 studies were of “low quality” assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Therefore, sensitivity test was performed to obtain pooled data rate. Second, there was significant heterogeneity among non-RCTs in subgroup analysis of SSI. Third, few RCTs provide the data regarding high-risk patients associated with diabetes mellitus, steroid or immunosuppressive therapy, biliary obstruction, jaundice, antibiotic intake 7 days prior to surgery, emergency cholecystectomy, acute or chronic cholecystitis 6 weeks before surgery, and open conversion surgery. Therefore, whether prophylactic antibiotics play a role in high-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy still remains unclear. Fourth, the number of patients in the included studies is insufficient to avoid type II error because most of the trials, including RCTs and non-RCTs, in this meta-analysis showed a relatively low incidence rate of SSI and very low difference in incidence rate between the prophylactic antibiotic group and control group. Fifth, there was publication bias evaluated by funnel plot that showed asymmetry, which suggests that small sample size studies reporting negative results have not been published. Sixth, most of the included RCTs in this review were performed per-protocol analysis instead of intension-to-treat analysis, inducing misleading results.85

In addition, an important consideration of this meta-analysis is the inconsistency of the inclusion criteria in the included studies. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network1 and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists guideline2 suggest intraoperative gallbladder rupture, open conversion, acute cholecystitis, jaundice, immunosuppression, pregnancy and implantation of prosthetic devices as high-risk factors for SSI. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network1 also include diabetes, emergency surgery, long duration of procedures, ASA score of 3 or higher, recent episode of colic within 30 days before surgery and age >70 years as high-risk group for SSI. However, several studies23 25 26 27 28 46 included patients with an ASA score of 3 or the ASA score was not applied to inclusion criteria in several RCTs.22 32 38 40 43 Therefore, future studies need to provide a consistent set of inclusion criteria based on guidelines for defining low-risk or high-risk groups for SSI.

In conclusion, the overall pooled data of this meta-analysis from the present data including RCTs, prospective studies, and retrospective studies support the use of prophylactic antibiotics prior to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in low-risk patients to prevent SSIs and superficial SSIs. To assess the exact beneficial effects of antibiotic prophylaxis for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, more well-designed multicenter RCTs with large sample size, different population groups, and adequate statistical power for high-risk patients are necessary because most of the trials on this topic have focused on particularly the low-to-moderate risk patients. Furthermore, subgroup analyses including overall infection, extra-abdominal infection, and duration of postoperative hospital stay are also required with recent RCTs and non-RCTs.

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

PRISMA flow diagram for study search.

Fig. 2

Forest plot for surgical site infections in low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model was for used for meta-analysis. Risk ratios are shown 95% confidence intervals.

Fig. 3

Forest plot for superficial surgical site infections in low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model was for used for meta-analysis. Risk ratios are shown 95% confidence intervals.

Fig. 4

Forest plot for deep surgical site infections in low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model was for used for meta-analysis. Risk ratios are shown 95% confidence intervals.

Fig. 5

Funnel plot for determination of publication bias in the subgroup analysis of SSI from all included studies. RR, Risk ratio; SE, Standard error.

Table 1

Search strategies

Table 2

Characteristics of included studies

RCTs, randomized controlled trials; SSI, surgical site infections; NA, not available; PP, Per-protocol analysis; ITT, Intention-to-treat analysis

Table 3

Risk of bias and Jadad score of included randomized controlled trials

+, Low risk of bias; −, High risk of bias; ?, unclear risk of bias

Table 4

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale of included non-randomized studies

Table 5

Sensitivity analyses

SSIs, surgical site infections; RCTs, randomized controlled trials; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.

References

1. Network SIG. Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. A national clinical guideline. Elliot House: Edinburgh;2008.

2. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, Perl TM, Auwaerter PG, Bolon MK, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2013; 14:73–156.

3. Al-Ghnaniem R, Benjamin IS, Patel AG. Meta-analysis suggests antibiotic prophylaxis is not warranted in low-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 2003; 90:365–366.

4. Catarci M, Mancini S, Gentileschi P, Camplone C, Sileri P, Grassi GB. Antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lack of need or lack of evidence? Surg Endosc. 2004; 18:638–641.

5. Claros N, Manterola C, Vial M, Sanhueza A. Efectividad de la profilaxis antibiótica en el curso de la colecistectomía laparoscópica electiva: revisión sistemática de la literatura. Rev Chil Cir. 2007; 59:353–359.

6. Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Puli SR, Othman MO, Roy PK. Role of prophylactic antibiotics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008; 12:1847–1853.

7. Zhou H, Zhang J, Wang Q, Hu Z. Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009; 29:1086–1095.

8. Sanabria A, Dominguez LC, Valdivieso E, Gomez G. Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; (12):CD005265.

9. Yan RC, Shen SQ, Chen ZB, Lin FS, Riley J. The role of prophylactic antibiotics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy in preventing postoperative infection: a meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011; 21:301–306.

10. Liang B, Dai M, Zou Z. Safety and efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 31:921–928.

11. Pasquali S, Boal M, Griffiths EA, Alderson D, Vohra RS. CholeS Study Group. West Midlands Research Collaborative. Meta-analysis of perioperative antibiotics in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 2016; 103:27–34.

12. Matsui Y, Satoi S, Hirooka S, Kosaka H, Kawaura T, Kitawaki T. Reappraisal of previously reported meta-analyses on antibiotic prophylaxis for low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2018; 8:e016666.

13. Sajid MS, Bovis J, Rehman S, Singh KK. Prophylactic antibiotics at the time of elective cholecystectomy are effective in reducing the post-operative infective complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018; 3:22.

14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151:264–269.

15. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992; 13:606–608.

16. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Committee HICPA. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999; 20:247–280.

17. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration;2011. updated Mar 2011.

18. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d5928.

19. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996; 17:1–12.

20. Csendes A, Silva A, Burdiles P, Diaz J, Korn O, Maluenda F. Profilaxis antibiótica en colecistectomía laparoscópica: estudio prospectivo randomizado. Rev Chil Cir. 1995; 47:145–147.

21. Illig KA, Schmidt E, Cavanaugh J, Krusch D, Sax HC. Are prophylactic antibiotics required for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy? J Am Coll Surg. 1997; 184:353–356.

22. Dobay KJ, Freier DT, Albear P. The absent role of prophylactic antibiotics in low-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg. 1999; 65:226–228.

23. Higgins A, London J, Charland S, Ratzer E, Clark J, Haun W, et al. Prophylactic antibiotics for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: are they necessary? Arch Surg. 1999; 134:611–614.

24. Harling R, Moorjani N, Perry C, MacGowan AP, Thompson MH. A prospective, randomised trial of prophylactic antibiotics versus bag extraction in the prophylaxis of wound infection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000; 82:408–410.

25. Tocchi A, Lepre L, Costa G, Liotta G, Mazzoni G, Maggiolini F. The need for antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Arch Surg. 2000; 135:67–70.

26. Mahatharadol V. A reevaluation of antibiotic prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 2001; 84:105–108.

27. Koc M, Zulfikaroglu B, Kece C, Ozalp N. A prospective randomized study of prophylactic antibiotics in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2003; 17:1716–1718.

28. Chang WT, Lee KT, Chuang SC, Wang SN, Kuo KK, Chen JS, et al. The impact of prophylactic antibiotics on postoperative infection complication in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Am J Surg. 2006; 191:721–725.

29. Kuthe SA, Kaman L, Verma GR, Singh R. Evaluation of the role of prophylactic antibiotics in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Trop Gastroenterol. 2006; 27:54–57.

30. Souza HP, Breigeiron R, Cunha HM, Deves E. Antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized and double blind study [Antibioticoprofilaxia na colecistectomia videolaparoscópica eletiva: estudo prospectivo randomizado E duplo cego]. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2008; 35:168–172.

31. Uludag M, Yetkin G, Citgez B. The role of prophylactic antibiotics in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2009; 13:337–341.

32. Yildiz B, Abbasoglu O, Tirnaksiz B, Hamaloglu E, Ozdemir A, Sayek I. Determinants of postoperative infection after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology. 2009; 56:589–592.

33. Gaur A, Pujahari AK. Role of prophylactic antibiotics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Med J Armed Forces India. 2010; 66:228–230.

34. Sharma N, Garg PK, Hadke NS, Choudhary D. Role of prophylactic antibiotics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and risk factors for surgical site infection: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2010; 11:367–370.

35. Al-Qahtani HH. The impact of antibiotics prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2011; 6:132–138.

36. Hassan AM, Nasr MM, Hamdy HE, Abbas M, Hedaya MS, Elsebae MM. Role of prophylactic antibiotic in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Egypt Soc Parasitol. 2012; 42:129–134.

37. Shah JN, Maharjan SB, Paudyal S. Routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis in low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unnecessary: a randomized clinical trial. Asian J Surg. 2012; 35:136–139.

38. Naqvi MA, Mehraj A, Ejaz R, Mian A. Role of prophylactic antibiotics in low risk elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is there a need? J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2013; 25:172–174.

39. Turk E, Karagulle E, Serefhanoglu K, Turan H, Moray G. Effect of cefazolin prophylaxis on postoperative infectious complications in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2013; 15:581–586.

40. Matsui Y, Satoi S, Kaibori M, Toyokawa H, Yanagimoto H, Matsui K, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e106702.

41. Mirani AJ, Suchdev SD, Jatoi AH, Haseeb A, Idrees S, Younus SM. Use of antibiotic prophylaxis in low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unnecessary: a clinical trial. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2014; 8:713–716.

42. Ruangsin S, Laohawiriyakamol S, Sunpaweravong S, Mahattanobon S. The efficacy of cefazolin in reducing surgical site infection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2015; 29:874–881.

43. Darzi AA, Nikmanesh A, Bagherian F. The effect of prophylactic antibiotics on post laparoscopic cholecystectomy infectious complications: a double-blinded clinical trial. Electron Physician. 2016; 8:2308–2314.

44. Passos MA, Portari-Filho PE. Antibiotic prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecistectomy: is it worth doing? Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2016; 29:170–172.

45. Kim HJ, Kang SH, Roh YH, Kim MC, Kim KW. Are prophylactic antibiotics necessary in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, regardless of patient risk? Ann Surg Treat Res. 2017; 93:76–81.

46. Sarkut P, Kilicturgay S, Aktas H, Ozen Y, Kaya E. Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics during laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not reduce the risk of surgical site infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017; 18:603–609.

47. Nauman SM, Haroon Y, Ahmad A, Saleem I. Surgical site infection; prophylactic antibiotics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to reduce surgical site infection. Professional Med J. 2018; 25.

48. Lippert H, Gastinger J. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in laparoscopic and conventional cholecystectomy. Conclusions of a large prospective multicenter quality assurance study in Germany. Chemotherapy. 1998; 44:355–363.

49. Guzman-Valdivia G. Routine administration of antibiotics to patients suffering accidental gallbladder perforation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not necessary. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2008; 18:547–550.

50. Han YG, Kim IH, Mun GM, Kim JH, Hwang GS. A prospective study of prophylatic antibiotics for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Korean J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2008; 12:263–267.

51. Garcia N, Kapur S, McClane J, Davis JM. Surgical infections and prophylactic antibiotics: 341 consecutive cases of gallbladder surgery in the era of laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1997; 7:157–162.

52. Chong JU, Lim JH, Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim KS. The role of prophylactic antibiotics on surgical site infection in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Korean J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2015; 19:188–193.

53. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25:603–605.

54. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d4002.

55. Agrawal CS, Sehgal R, Singh RK, Gupta AK. Antibiotic prophylaxis in elective cholecystectomy: a randomized, double blinded study comparing ciprofloxacin and cefuroxime. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 1999; 43:501–504.

56. Dervisoglou A, Tsiodras S, Kanellakopoulou K, Pinis S, Galanakis N, Pierakakis S, et al. The value of chemoprophylaxis against Enterococcus species in elective cholecystectomy: a randomized study of cefuroxime vs ampicillin-sulbactam. Arch Surg. 2006; 141:1162–1167.

57. Kumar A, Patodia M, Pandove PK, Sharda VK, Pahwa S. Role of antibiotic prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective study. JIMSA. 2013; 26:209–211.

58. Regimbeau JM, Fuks D, Pautrat K, Mauvais F, Haccart V, Msika S, et al. Effect of postoperative antibiotic administration on postoperative infection following cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014; 312:145–154.

59. Loozen CS, Kortram K, Kornmann VN, van Ramshorst B, Vlaminckx B, Knibbe CA, et al. Randomized clinical trial of extended versus single-dose perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for acute calculous cholecystitis. Br J Surg. 2017; 104:e151–e157.

60. Chauhan VS, Kariholu PL, Saha S, Singh H, Ray J. Can post-operative antibiotic prophylaxis following elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy be completely done away with in the Indian setting? A prospective randomised study? J Minim Access Surg. 2018; 14:192–196.

61. de Santibañes M, Glinka J, Pelegrini P, Alvarez FA, Elizondo C, Giunta D, et al. Extended antibiotic therapy versus placebo after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for mild and moderate acute calculous cholecystitis: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. Surgery. 2018; 164:24–30.

62. de Souza HP, Breigeiron R, da Cunha HM, Deves E. Antibioticoprofilaxia na colecistectomia videolaparoscópica eletiva: estudo prospectivo randomizado e duplo cego. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2018; 35:168–172.

63. Watkin DS, Wainwright AM, Thompson MH, Leaper DJ. Infection after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: are antibiotics really necessary? Eur J Surg. 1995; 161:509–511.

64. Hell K. Antibiotic prophylaxis in cholecystectomy--necessary and cost saving? Zentralbl Chir. 1998; 123:Suppl 2. 37–41.

65. Colizza S, Rossi S, Picardi B, Carnuccio P, Pollicita S, Rodio F, et al. Surgical infections after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: ceftriaxone vs ceftazidime antibiotic prophylaxis. A prospective study. Chir Ital. 2004; 56:397–402.

66. Immè A, Caglià P, Cardì F, Gandolfo L, Donati M. Antibiotic prophylaxis in laparotomic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Chir Ital. 2004; 56:403–407.

67. Lundström P, Sandblom G, Osterberg J, Svennblad B, Persson G. Effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in a population-based cohort of patients undergoing planned cholecystectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010; 14:329–334.

68. Darkahi B, Videhult P, Sandblom G, Liljeholm H, Ljungdahl M, Rasmussen IC. Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in cholecystectomy: a prospective population-based study of 1171 cholecystectomies. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2012; 47:1242–1246.

69. Mir MA, Malik UY, Wani H, Bali BS. Prevalence, pattern, sensitivity and resistance to antibiotics of different bacteria isolated from port site infection in low risk patients after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis at tertiary care hospital of Kashmir. Int Wound J. 2013; 10:110–113.

70. Yanni F, Mekhail P, Morris-Stiff G. A selective antibiotic prophylaxis policy for laparoscopic cholecystectomy is effective in minimising infective complications. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013; 95:345–348.

71. Gharde P, Swarnkar M, Waghmare LS, Bhagat VM, Gode DS, Wagh DD, et al. Role of antibiotics on surgical site infection in cases of open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative observational study. J Surg Tech Case Rep. 2014; 6:1–4.

72. Mandal N, Nandy MM, Majhi J, Kuiri S, Kumar Ghosh P, Ghosh G. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy without prophylactic antibiotics: a prospective study. Indian J Surg. 2015; 77:Suppl 2. 419–422.

73. Vohra RS, Hodson J, Pasquali S, Griffiths EA. CholeS Study Group and West Midlands Research Collaborative. Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in non-emergency cholecystectomy using data from a population-based cohort study. World J Surg. 2017; 41:2231–2239.

74. McGuckin M, Shea JA, Schwartz JS. Infection and antimicrobial use in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999; 20:624–626.

75. Farello GA, Cerofolini A. Antimicrobial prophylaxis with ceftriaxone in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a 7-year clinical experience involving 3,603 patients. J Chemother. 2000; 12:Suppl 3. 17–22.

76. Shindholimath VV, Seenu V, Parshad R, Chaudhry R, Kumar A. Factors influencing wound infection following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Trop Gastroenterol. 2003; 24:90–92.

77. Uchiyama K, Kawai M, Onishi H, Tani M, Kinoshita H, Ueno M, et al. Preoperative antimicrobial administration for prevention of postoperative infection in patients with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Dis Sci. 2003; 48:1955–1959.

78. Zanotto AR, Heineck I, Ferreira MB. Antibiotic prophylaxis in cholecystectomies in a teaching hospital in Brazil. Ann Pharmacother. 2006; 40:2003–2007.

79. Ruangsin S, Wanasuwannakul T. Variation of prophylactic antibiotic in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Songklanagarind Hospital perspective. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012; 95:48–51.

80. Jaafar G, Persson G, Svennblad B, Sandblom G. Outcomes of antibiotic prophylaxis in acute cholecystectomy in a population-based gallstone surgery registry. Br J Surg. 2014; 101:69–73.

81. Rodríguez-Caravaca G, Gil-Yonte P, Risco-Risco C, Latasa Zamalloa P, Villar del Campo MC, Fernández-Cebrián JM, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in elective cholecystectomy: Protocol adequacy and related outcomes in a retrospective single-centre analysis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2016; 108:15–19.

82. Bari H, Khan MR, Shariff AH. Antibiotics in acute calculous cholecystitis: do Tokyo guidelines influence the surgeons' practices? J Pak Med Assoc. 2017; 67:670–676.

83. Smith JP, Samra NS, Ballard DH, Moss JB, Griffen FD. Prophylactic antibiotics for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg. 2018; 84:576–580.

84. Williams K, Baumann L, Abdullah F, St Peter SD, Oyetunji TA. Variation in prophylactic antibiotic use for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: need for better stewardship in pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg. 2018; 53:48–51.

85. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998; 352:609–613.

TOOLS

Similar articles