Hide metadata

dc.date.accessioned2021-03-26T21:27:14Z
dc.date.available2021-03-26T21:27:14Z
dc.date.created2020-07-07T13:18:47Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationSvenningsen, Rune Kulseng-Hanssen, Sigurd Kråkenes, Ellen Bettina Casanova Schiøtz, Hjalmar A. . Is antibiotic prophylaxis necessary in mid-urethral sling surgery?. International Urogynecology Journal. 2020, 1-7
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/85005
dc.description.abstractAbstract Introduction and hypothesis Antibiotic prophylaxis is commonly used when implanting a mid-urethral sling (MUS) for female stress urinary incontinence. Use of antibiotics may lead to adverse events and the development of antibiotic resistance. This study compared a variety of outcomes after MUS surgery with and without antibiotic prophylaxis using data from the national Norwegian Female Incontinence Registry. Methods Preoperative and 6–12 months postoperative subjective and objective data from 28,687 patients who received MUS surgery from 1998 through 2017 were extracted from the registry. Categorical outcomes were compared between women with or without antibiotic prophylaxis using chi-square test for independence. Primary outcome was incidence of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI). Secondary outcomes were incidence of tape exposure, de novo or persistent urgency urinary incontinence, postoperative pain > 3 months, subjective and objective cure rates, and patient satisfaction. Results Antibiotic prophylaxis was used in 9131 and not used in 19,556 patients. SSIs and prolonged postoperative pain occurred significantly more often without antibiotic prophylaxis. Subjective and objective cure rates were significantly higher and tape exposures significantly lower in women not receiving prophylactic antibiotics. There were no significant differences in other outcomes. Conclusions Antibiotic prophylaxis resulted in fewer women developing postoperative infections or prolonged postoperative pain after MUS surgery, but did not offer protection against tape exposure. The differences in cure rates were small and probably without clinical relevance. If a small increase in surgical site infections is accepted, the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis can probably be omitted.
dc.languageEN
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleIs antibiotic prophylaxis necessary in mid-urethral sling surgery?
dc.typeJournal article
dc.creator.authorSvenningsen, Rune
dc.creator.authorKulseng-Hanssen, Sigurd
dc.creator.authorKråkenes, Ellen Bettina Casanova
dc.creator.authorSchiøtz, Hjalmar A.
cristin.unitcode185,53,48,11
cristin.unitnameAvdeling for urologi
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.cristin1818831
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=International Urogynecology Journal&rft.volume=&rft.spage=1&rft.date=2020
dc.identifier.jtitleInternational Urogynecology Journal
dc.identifier.volume32
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.startpage629
dc.identifier.endpage635
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04408-z
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-87692
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkel
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.source.issn0937-3462
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/85005/2/Svenningsen2020_Article_IsAntibioticProphylaxisNecessa.pdf
dc.type.versionPublishedVersion


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata

Attribution 4.0 International
This item's license is: Attribution 4.0 International