No significant decrease in SSI rate with prophylactic cefazolin in below-knee implant removal .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
This study has been identified as potentially high impact.
OE's AI-driven High Impact metric estimates the influence a paper is likely to have by integrating signals from both the journal in which it is published and the scientific content of the article itself.
Developed using state-of-the-art natural language processing, the OE High Impact model more accurately predicts a study's future citation performance than journal impact factor alone.
This enables earlier recognition of clinically meaningful research and helps readers focus on articles most likely to shape future practice.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2018;6(9):18 JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2438-2445477 patients who had previously undergone internal fixation for a fracture of the foot, ankle, or lower leg were randomized to either prophylactic cefazolin or saline during routine implant removal. The primary outcome was the development of surgical site infection within 4 weeks of implant removal. Overall, no significant difference in the rate of surgical site infection was observed between the cefazolin group and the saline group.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Yes = 1
Uncertain = 0.5
Not Relevant = 0
No = 0
The Reporting Criteria Assessment evaluates the transparency with which authors report the methodological and trial characteristics of the trial within the publication. The assessment is divided into five categories which are presented below.
4/4
Randomization
4/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
2/4
Therapy Description
4/5
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
The Fragility Index is a tool that aids in the interpretation of significant findings, providing a measure of strength for a result. The Fragility Index represents the number of consecutive events that need to be added to a dichotomous outcome to make the finding no longer significant. A small number represents a weaker finding and a large number represents a stronger finding.
Why was this study needed now?
While not always routine, removal of orthopaedic implants used for fracture healing is often undergone. Antibiotic prophylaxis is often used at the time of fracture fixation, but not at implant removal. It is this reason that some researchers speculate that surgical site infection rates during implant removal are higher than should be expected. Therefore, routine antibiotic prophylaxis may be an effective intervention to reduce surgical site infection rate after implant removal for a lower limb fracture.
What was the principal research question?
In the removal of an implant after internal fixation of a fracture below the knee, does a prophylactic dose of cefazolin 1000mg result in a significantly lower rate of surgical site infection when compared to intravenous saline?
- The incidence of SSI did not significantly differ between the cefazolin group (30/228; 13.2%) and the saline group (36/242; 14.9%) (p=0.60).
- The rate of superficial SSI was 29/228 in the cefazolin group and 29/242 in the saline group. The rate of deep SSI was 1/228 in the cefazolin group and 7/242 in the saline group.
What should I remember most?
A preoperative, prophylactic dose of cefazolin did not significantly reduce the rate of surgical site infection compared to control saline in implant removal following fixation of a lower leg fracture.
How will this affect the care of my patients?
The results of this study suggest that routine intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is not necessary among patients scheduled for removal of an implant for a previous lower leg fracture.
DISCLAIMER
This content found on this page is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you require medical treatment, always seek the advice of your physician or go to your nearest emergency department. The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the individuals on the content found on this page do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of OrthoEvidence.
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
