Antibiotico profilassi in Chirurgia Senologica Risultati preliminari di uno studio multicentrico randomizzato su 1400 casi trattati
Alessandro Sanguinetti 1, Lodovico Rosato 2, Roberto Cirocchi 3, Francesco Barberini 4, Angela Pezzolla 5, Giuseppe Cavallaro 6, Domenico Parmeggiani 7, Roberto Ruggiero 7, Giovanni Docimo 7, Eugenio Procaccini 8, Antonio Santoriello 9, Antonio Rulli 4, Adelmo Gubitosi 10, Silvestro Canonico 9, Mario Taffurelli 11, Francesco Sciannameo 3, Alfonso Barbarisi 12, Ludovico Docimo 8, Massimo Agresti 10, Giorgio De Toma 6, Giuseppe Noya 4, Umberto Parmeggiani 7, Nicola Avenia 1
1 S.C. Chirurgia Endocrina, Università degli Studi di Perugia
2 S.C. Chirurgia Generale, Ospedale di Ivrea (TO)
3 S.C. Chirurgia Generale e D’Urgenza, Università degli Studi di Perugia, sede di Terni
4 S.C. Chirurgia Generale ed Oncologica, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia
5 III Chirurgia Generale, Università degli Studi di Bari
6 Dipartimento Chirurgia “Pietro Valdoni”, Università degli Studi di Roma, La Sapienza
7 V Chirurgia Generale, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli
8 XI Chirurgia Generale, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli
9 Chirurgia Generale e Geriatrica, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli
10 X Chirurgia Generale, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli
11 Chirurgia Generale, Università degli Studi di Bologna
12 IX Chirurgia Generale, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli
Ann. Ital. Chir. 2009, 80(4), 275–279
Published: 2 Feb 2024
Abstract
Breast surgery is classified among the procedures performed in clean surgery and is associated with a low incidence of wound infection (3-15%). The objective of this study was to evaluate the advantages antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing breast surgery. A multicenter randomized controlled study was performed between January 2008 and November 2008. Onethousandfourhundred patients were enrolled in prospective randomized study; surgical wound infection was found in 41 patients (2.93%). In our RCT we have shown that in breast surgery antibiotic prophylaxis does not present significant advantages in patients with potential risk of infection (17 patients, 2.42%, subjected to antibiotic prophylaxis vs 24 patients, 3.43%, without antibiotic prophylaxis) (P = 0.27). In patients with drainage there is a significant minor incidence of wound infections in patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis (5 patients, 0.92%, subjected to antibiotic prophylaxis vs 14 patients, 3.09%, without antibiotic prophylaxis) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This study is only a preliminary RCT to be followed by a study which should be enrolled more patients in order to get the results as statistically significant.
