Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T07:46:55.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cefazolin as surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in hysterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2018

Aurora Pop-Vicas,
Stephen Johnson and
Nasia Safdar
Aurora Pop-Vicas*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
Stephen Johnson
Affiliation:
Ebling Library for the Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
Nasia Safdar
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WisconsinWilliam S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Affairs Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin
*
Author for correspondence: Aurora Pop-Vicas, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 1685 Highland Ave, 5th floor, Madison, WI 53705. E-mail: popvicas@medicine.wisc.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Current practice guidelines recommend cefazolin, cefoxitin, cefotetan, or ampicillin-sulbactam as first-line antibiotic prophylaxis in hysterectomy. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether cefazolin, with limited antianaerobic spectrum, is as effective in preventing surgical site-infection (SSI) as the other first-choice antimicrobials that have more extensive antianaerobic activity.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and EMBASE for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) in any language up to January 23, 2018. We only included trials that measured SSI (our primary outcome) defined as superficial, deep, or organ space. We excluded trials of β-lactams no longer in clinical use.

Results

In terms of SSI incidence, cefazolin use was not inferior to its comparator in 12 of 13 individual RCTs included in the analysis. The meta-analysis summary estimate showed a significantly higher SSI risk with cefazolin versus cefoxitin or cefotetan (risk ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.04–2.77; P = .03). However, most studies included nonstandardized dosing and duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis, had indeterminate or high risk of bias, did not include patients with gynecological malignancies, and/or were older RCTs not reflective of current clinical practices.

Conclusion

Due to inherent limitations associated with old RCTs with limited relevance to contemporary surgery, an RCT of cefazolin versus regimens with significant antianaerobic spectrum is needed to establish the optimal choice for SSI prevention in hysterectomy.

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , February 2019, pp. 142 - 149
Copyright
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common and costly healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). In the United States, ~160,000–300,000 SSIs occur each year, with annual healthcare costs of $3.5–$10 billion.Reference Anderson, Podgorny and Berrios-Torres 1 The prevention of SSI is increasingly important as the number of surgical procedures performed in the United States continues to rise. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately half of SSIs are preventable using evidence-based strategies.Reference Berrios-Torres, Umscheid and Bratzler 2 In addition, SSI prevention is recognized by healthcare organizations, payers, and governmental agencies, including the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, as a national patient safety priority, with hospital performance tied to reimbursement. 3

For more than 20 years, the medical literature has documented that the appropriate perioperative prophylactic use of antimicrobial agents can reduce the incidence of postoperative SSI.Reference Horan, Gaynes, Martone, Jarvis and Emori 4 – Reference Mangram, Horan, Pearson, Silver and Jarvis 6 Hysterectomies are among the most prevalent surgical procedures in United States, performed in >600,000 women each year. Among them, up to 2% are complicated by SSI,Reference Anderson, Podgorny and Berrios-Torres 1 and these are associated with longer hospital stays, higher risk of readmission,Reference Roy, Patkar, Daskiran, Levine, Hinoul and Nigam 7 and an additional $5,000 in healthcare costs for each hysterectomy-related infection.Reference Roy, Patkar, Daskiran, Levine, Hinoul and Nigam 7 According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) practice guidelines, women undergoing abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy should receive a preoperative, single-dose antimicrobial. 8 This recommendation is evidence-based and has been established by randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) in which timely administration of preoperative antibiotics has shown significant SSI reductions in patients undergoing hysterectomy.Reference Mittendorf, Aronson and Berry 9 , Reference Duff 10

Cephalosporins are the most thoroughly studied antimicrobial prophylaxis agents. These drugs are effective against many gram-positive and gram-negative microorganisms. They also share the features of demonstrated safety, acceptable pharmacokinetics, and a reasonable cost per dose.Reference Mangram, Horan, Pearson, Silver and Jarvis 6 In particular, cefazolin is widely used and is generally viewed as the prophylactic guideline-recommended antimicrobial agent of first choice for abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy. 8 , Reference Bratzler, Dellinger and Olsen 11 Antibiotics with broader spectrum, including more extensive antianaerobic activity, such as cefotetan, cefoxitin, or ampicillin-sulbactam, are also first-line recommended options. Head-to-head comparative data between these antibiotics and cefazolin in terms of efficacy in SSI prevention for women undergoing hysterectomy are scarce, and it remains unclear whether the added antianaerobic spectrum provides a prophylactic advantage. This issue is important from the standpoint of antibiotic stewardship and the desire to use the narrowest-spectrum antibiotic indicated. Therefore, we undertook a meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of cefazolin compared with other antimicrobials for prevention of SSI in women undergoing hysterectomy, focusing specifically on agents with broad antianaerobic activity.

Methods

Search strategy

We conducted our study in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.Reference Liberati, Altman and Tetzlaff 12 We searched PubMed (including MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central databases, EMBASE, and abstracts from relevant proceedings and conferences through January 23, 2018, without restrictions to language or date range. We manually reviewed the references of systematic reviews and meta-analyses previously published on this topic to identify additional eligible studies. A librarian (S.J.) assisted with the literature search. To identify eligible studies, we used the following medical subject headings with the “AND” function: cephalosporins, surgical wound infection, hysterectomy, clinical trials. We used the following keywords (text words) with the “OR” function: antibiotic prophylaxis, cefazolin, postoperative, postsurgical, infection, complications, and random allocation.

Inclusion criteria

We included RCTs comparing cefazolin (any dose) with other systemic antimicrobials administered as surgical prophylaxis agents in women undergoing abdominal and/or vaginal hysterectomy. To be included, studies had to provide information on the primary outcome and calculation of a risk ratio. We excluded studies of antimicrobial agents that are no longer manufactured or clinically used in the United States for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis.

Outcome definitions

Our primary outcome of interest was SSI, as defined by CDC criteria.Reference Mangram, Horan, Pearson, Silver and Jarvis 6 As such, we included studies where the reported primary or secondary outcome was described in terms consistent with this definition, despite slight changes in terminology over time. Therefore, we considered the following reported outcomes as consistent with SSI: wound infection, vaginal cuff infection, pelvic infection, infected hematoma, deep pelvic abscess, abdominal wound infection, surgical wound infection, and postoperative skin and soft-tissue infection. Although “febrile morbidity” is a clinical outcome frequently reported in older trials of antimicrobial prophylaxis, we did not include it into our study because the relationship with SSI versus other postoperative etiologies cannot be precisely determined.

Data extraction and assessment of study quality and risk of bias

We abstracted data on study setting, sample size, indications for surgery (benign and/or malignant), type of surgery (abdominal and/or vaginal hysterectomy), prophylactic antibiotic used (dose and duration), duration of follow up, loss to follow up, and incidence of SSI.

We assessed risk of bias using the GRADE guidelines for randomized controlled trials.Reference Guyatt, Oxman and Vist 13 We assigned a rating of high risk of bias if fewer 4 of the GRADE criteria were fulfilled, an indeterminate risk of bias if information on at least 3 of the GRADE criteria were not specified, and a low risk of bias if 4 or more of the 7 GRADE criteria were fulfilled. One author (A.P.V.) abstracted the data; each report was identified by the search strategy described above and independently reviewed by a second author (N.S.). Disagreements regarding data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and study inclusion were resolved by discussion among the authors.

Statistical analysis

We performed meta-analyses to obtain pooled estimates of the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for SSI associated with cefazolin versus other antimicrobials. We conducted subgroup analyses for abdominal versus vaginal hysterectomies and for different groups of comparison antimicrobials. We used the I2 test to assess the SSI estimates that could be attributed to study heterogeneity,Reference Higgins, Thompson, Deeks and Altman 14 and we conducted fixed-effects meta-analysis for I2 <25%, and random effects model for I2 >25%. We assessed publication bias using a funnel plot and the Eggers statistical test.Reference Sterne and Egger 15 , Reference Egger, Davey Smith, Schneider and Minder 16 We analyzed statistical data with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) version 2.0 software (Biostat, Englewood, NJ).

Results

Study selection

Figure 1 shows our review process for study selection. After de-duplication, we screened the titles and/or abstracts of 418 unique references for eligibility; of these, we reviewed 40 full-text articles, and ultimately included 13 studies in the review and meta-analyses. The main reasons for study exclusion were comparator antimicrobials no longer manufactured or clinically used in the United States (n = 12); primary outcome of interest (ie, SSI) not reported (n = 3); gynecological surgeries other than hysterectomies (n = 2); and other reasons (n = 10) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Flowchart of study selection from the literature review. *Studies included obstetric-gynecological surgeries other than hysterectomy. Abbreviation: SSI, surgical site infection.

Study and patient population characteristics

The characteristics of the 13 RCTs are presented in Table 1. Most studies were conducted during 1979–2003, with only 2 studies performed within the last 10 years. Publication languages included English in 12 studies and Italian in 1 study.Reference Baldoni, Cosco, Epicoco, Affronti, Giannone and Gilardi 17 Most of the studies enrolled women undergoing hysterectomies in university-affiliated hospitals within United States (5 trials), Europe (4 trials), Asia (3 trials), and Canada (1 trial). None of the trials included laparoscopic surgeries. Nine studies reported the indications for hysterectomy, which included primarily benign gynecological conditions. One study included 2 patients with endometrial carcinoma,Reference Baldoni, Cosco, Epicoco, Affronti, Giannone and Gilardi 17 and 2 other studies mentioned the inclusion of 17%–20% patients with neoplastic disease, not otherwise specified.Reference Periti, Mazzei and Periti 18 , Reference Periti, Mazzei, Orlandini and Mini 19

Table 1

Characteristics of Randomized Controlled Studies Included in the Meta-analysis

Note. IV, intravenous, IM, intramuscular; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; OR, operating room; postop, postoperatively.

a Defined as surgical site infection (SSI) in our study.

b Antimicrobial redosed for extensive blood loss (>1,500 mL) or surgery duration >3 h.

c Antimicrobial redosed for extensive blood loss (>1,000 mL) or surgery duration >3 h.

Abdominal hysterectomy, vaginal hysterectomy, or both were performed in 3, 3, and 7 studies, respectively (3,528 total patients). The overall SSI rates for abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy were 5.5% and 3%, respectively. One studyReference Cormio, Di Fazio, Cacciapuoti, Bettocchi, Borraccino and Selvaggi 20 included gynecological surgeries other than hysterectomy in 95 of 798 patients enrolled (12%). Clinical outcomes for this study were reported based on randomized antimicrobial drug arm, but they were not stratified by type of surgery performed. Meta-analyses with and outside this study showed no significant differences in results. We, therefore, chose to retain this study into our final analysis because of its relatively large sample size and because the majority (88%) of the patients underwent abdominal hysterectomy.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis characteristics

There was significant clinical heterogeneity among studies regarding antimicrobial prophylaxis choice and dosing, with antimicrobials administered in varying doses, either as a single preoperative dose in some studies, or as additional postoperative doses within first 48 hours of surgery in others (Table 1). None of the studies specified whether antimicrobial dosing was adjusted based on patient’s weight/body mass index and/or renal clearance, although 2 studies did specify antimicrobial redosing intraoperatively for extensive blood loss or surgery duration >3 hours.Reference Cormio, Di Fazio, Cacciapuoti, Bettocchi, Borraccino and Selvaggi 20 , Reference Jyothi, Vyas Neetha, Pratap and Asha 24

Clinical outcome definitions and reporting

Definitions and reporting for the clinical outcome of our interest, SSI, were generally consistent between studies. They included the following terms: surgical wound infection, vaginal cuff infection, postoperative vaginal wound infection, infected pelvic abscess or hematoma, pelvic infection requiring parenteral antimicrobial therapy, abdominal wound infection, pelvic cellulitis. We also included the following phrases: “any surgical wound which drained purulent or serous material, together with or without positive cultures” and “pelvic infection, defined as fever plus ≥1 of the following: purulent drainage from the vaginal cuff, abdominal pain with rebound tenderness and/or guarding, localized tenderness with a tender adnexal mass on bimanual palpation, or bacteremia with or without hypotension” (Table 1).

Study quality and risk of bias

Details related to randomization, such as the randomization sequence for treatment allocation, and details related to treatment concealment and blinding were not reported in 5 studies,Reference Baldoni, Cosco, Epicoco, Affronti, Giannone and Gilardi 17 , Reference Periti, Mazzei, Orlandini and Mini 19 , Reference Grossman, Greco, Minkin, Adams, Hierholzer and Andriole 21 – Reference Stiver, Binns and Brunham 23 and were not present in 3 studies,Reference Periti, Mazzei and Periti 18 , Reference Cormio, Di Fazio, Cacciapuoti, Bettocchi, Borraccino and Selvaggi 20 , Reference Jyothi, Vyas Neetha, Pratap and Asha 24 rendering 8 studies at indeterminate and high risk of bias, respectively. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed in only 1 study.Reference Phoolcharoen, Nilgate, Rattanapuntamanee, Limpongsanurak and Chaithongwongwatthana 25 Table 3 shows details related to risk of bias for the studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.

As shown by the funnel plot in Figure 2, publication bias was not present, and the Egger test of the intercept lacked statistical significance (P = .11).

Fig. 2

Funnel plot to evaluate publication bias for randomized controlled trials of cefazolin as antimicrobial surgical prophylaxis in women undergoing abdominal or vaginal hysterectomies. Publication bias was not detected; the Egger test of the intercept was not statistically significant (2-tailed P value = .11273).

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of cefazolin compared with other antimicrobials in preventing surgical-site infection among women undergoing hysterectomy

Among the 13 RCTs included in the study, 1,782 patients received cefazolin and 1,746 patients received a comparator antimicrobial for surgical prophylaxis. The SSI incidence and relative risk for cefazolin versus other antimicrobials reported in individual RCT is presented in Table 2. Only 1 study found the comparator antimicrobial (cefotetan) to be associated with significantly less SSI than cefazolin (P = .03).Reference Hemsell, Johnson, Hemsell, Nobles, Little and Heard 22 For all other studies, the difference in SSI incidence for patients receiving prophylaxis with cefazolin versus a comparator antimicrobial was not statistically significant.

Table 2

Incidence of Surgical Site Infection (SSI) by Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Regimen and Randomized Controlled Trial of Women Undergoing Abdominal or Vaginal Hysterectomy

Note. CI, confidence interval.

Comparison with agents that have broad antianaerobic spectrum.

The results of the meta-analysis for the SSI risk ratio of cefazolin versus another cephalosporin agent with broad antianaerobic spectrum (cefoxitin or cefotetan) are shown in Figure 3. Among the 513 patients in the cefazolin arm, 41 SSIs (8%) were recorded, and among the 495 patients in the comparator (cefoxitin or cefotetan) arm, 24 SSIs (4.8%) were recorded. Compared with cefoxitin or cefotetan antimicrobial prophylaxis, cefazolin had a significantly higher risk of posthysterectomy SSI (relative risk [RR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–2.77; P = .03).The addition of amoxicillin-clavulanate (a penicillin-based antibiotic with antianaerobic agent) to cefoxitin or cefotetan showed a trend for higher post-hysterectomy SSI with cefazolin (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.98–2.64; P = .06) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3

Forest plot, meta-analysis of relative risk for SSI with cefazolin versus other cephalosporin antimicrobials with antianaerobic activity (cefotetan, cefoxitin) among women undergoing abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy. Fixed effects model. Heterogeneity I2 = 0, P value = .623.

Fig. 4

Forest plot, meta-analysis of relative risk for surgical site infection (SSI) with cefazolin versus β-lactam with antianaerobic activity (cefoxitin, cefotetan, or amoxicillin-clavulanate) among women undergoing abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy. Fixed effects model. Heterogeneity I2 = 0; P value = .756.

Comparison with penicillin-based antibiotics.

When compared with penicillin G, ampicillin, or amoxicillin-clavulanate, cefazolin showed no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of SSI among women undergoing hysterectomy (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.52–1.76; P = .89) (Supplemental Figure 1).

Comparison with other cephalosporin agents without broad antianaerobic activity.

Compared with second- or third-generation cephalosporins that have limited antianaerobic spectrum, cefazolin’s SSI relative risk was not statistically significant among women undergoing hysterectomy (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.36–1.22; P = 0.18) (Supplemental Fig. 2).

Discussion

In this meta-analysis, the efficacy of cefazolin for SSI prevention in hysterectomy was significantly lower than that of other cephalosporins with broader antianaerobic activity, namely cefoxitin or cefotetan. Although not statistically significant, the trend toward lower efficacy was still present when we added amoxicillin-clavulanate, another β-lactam antibiotic with significant antianaerobic spectrum, into the meta-analysis. Our findings are plausible considering the pathophysiology and microbiology underlying SSI in gynecological surgery. Postoperative infections after gynecological surgery are primarily polymicrobial, with enterococci, aerobic-gram-negative bacilli, and anaerobic bacteria, including Bacteroides spp frequently isolated. In addition to the skin as the usual site of contamination for gram-positive pathogens, endogenous bacteria migrating from the vagina and endocervix can gain access to the operative sites. The endogenous flora of the lower reproductive tract in women includes facultative and obligate anaerobic species. Anaerobes are particularly predominant in bacterial vaginosis, long recognized as an SSI risk factor in women undergoing hysterectomy.Reference Fagotti, Costantini and Fanfani 26 – Reference Soper, Bump and Hurt 30 The recent clinical study by Till et al,Reference Till, Morgan and Bazzi 31 not included in our meta-analysis as it is an observational trial, provides further support for the consideration of agents with good antianaerobic spectrum to antimicrobial prophylaxis in hysterectomy. In a large retrospective cohort study including 18,255 hysterectomies in 73 hospitals during 2012–2015, combination prophylaxis with cefazolin plus metronidazole resulted in significantly lower SSI rates than cefazolin alone.Reference Till, Morgan and Bazzi 31 Additionally, a recent retrospective cohort study by Uppal et alReference Uppal, Harris and Al-Niaimi 32 of 21,358 patients from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative undergoing hysterectomy between 2012 and 2015 reported that the rate of SSI was significantly higher in patients receiving non-β-lactam antimicrobials than in those receiving β-lactam antimicrobials.

We found no significant difference in the SSI relative risk when cefazolin was compared with penicillin-based β-lactam antibiotics (penicillin G, ampicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate) or with second- or third-generation cephalosporins that lacked antianaerobic spectrum.

Any conclusions regarding optimal surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in hysterectomy are tempered by the significant limitations of the literature in this field. First, most cefazolin trials are old, with no representation of laparoscopic procedures and with only 1 RCT published within the last decade.Reference Phoolcharoen, Nilgate, Rattanapuntamanee, Limpongsanurak and Chaithongwongwatthana 25 Variations in antibiotic dosing and perioperative duration, lack of standardized weight-based dosing, and lack of information regarding antimicrobial redosing in relation to duration of surgery introduce significant clinical heterogeneity and make comparisons with contemporary standard of practice difficult. Second, most hysterectomies performed in these studies were due to benign surgical indications. The exclusion of patients with underlying gynecological malignancies, especially ovarian cancers that are usually clinically advanced at presentation and require complex debulking procedures, renders the choice of optimal surgical antibiotic prophylaxis uncertain in these cases. Third, the methodological rigor is low or indeterminate in many of the older studies; we identified a high potential for bias in more than half of the studies. Lastly, most studies reported “postoperative fever” as a major clinical outcome for antibiotic prophylaxis. Although some cases of postoperative fever may be due to SSI, this is a nonspecific outcome, potentially attributable to a variety of other infectious or noninfectious processes. Its exclusion from our analysis may have underestimated the true incidence of SSI.

To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis that frames the question of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in terms of comparative efficacy for cefazolin versus antimicrobials with broader antianaerobic spectrum—a clinically relevant question for contemporary surgery. Previous meta-analyses in the field have focused on the preventive benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis in general and have included antimicrobials that are no longer used for this clinical purpose.Reference Mittendorf, Aronson and Berry 9 , Reference Ayeleke, Mourad, Marjoribanks, Calis and Jordan 33 – Reference Tanos and Rojansky 35 Due to the antiquated nature of the published RCT on this topic, and their inherent limitations stated above, the question cannot be answered conclusively from the evidence-based literature available at this time.

In conclusion, the question of optimal antimicrobial prophylaxis for SSI prevention in contemporary hysterectomy deserves further study, and RCTs are needed to assess the efficacy of cefazolin versus other antimicrobials with broader antianaerobic spectrum. The enrollment of patients undergoing complex surgical procedures due to underlying gynecological malignancies, and the inclusion of laparoscopic as well as open surgical approaches should be prioritized for future trials. In addition, given the known deleterious effects of broad-spectrum antimicrobials on the gut microbiome, future studies of comparative efficacy should also explore the adverse effects of broader antianaerobic spectrum on gut microbiota, in addition to the effects on SSI prevention. (Table 3)

Table 3

Risk of Bias Summary for the Studies Included in the Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

a According to review author.

Financial support

None provided.

Conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Supplementary Materials

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.286

Footnotes

Cite this article: Pop-Vicas A, et al. (2019). Cefazolin as surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in hysterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2019, 40, 142–149. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.286

References

1. Anderson, DJ, Podgorny, K, Berrios-Torres, SI, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35 Suppl 2:S66–S88.Google Scholar
2. Berrios-Torres, SI, Umscheid, CA, Bratzler, DW, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017. JAMA Surg 2017;152:784–791.Google Scholar
3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services HHS. Medicare and Medicaid programs: hospital outpatient prospective payment and ambulatory surgical center payment systems and quality reporting programs; Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program; organ procurement organizations; quality improvement organizations; Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program; provider reimbursement determinations and appeals. Final rule with comment period and final rules. Fed Regist 2013;78:74825–75200.Google Scholar
4. 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.Google Scholar
5. Dellinger, EP, Gross, PA, Barrett, TL, et al. Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. The Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:182–188.Google Scholar
6. Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250–278.Google Scholar
7. Roy, S, Patkar, A, Daskiran, M, Levine, R, Hinoul, P, Nigam, S. Clinical and economic burden of surgical site infection in hysterectomy. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2014;15:266–273.Google Scholar
8. Bulletins—Gynecology ACoP. ACOG practice bulletin No. 104: antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:1180–1189.Google Scholar
9. Mittendorf, R, Aronson, MP, Berry, RE, et al. Avoiding serious infections associated with abdominal hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;169:1119–1124.Google Scholar
10. Duff, P. Antibiotic prophylaxis for abdominal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 1982;60:25–29.Google Scholar
11. Bratzler, DW, Dellinger, EP, Olsen, KM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2013;14:73–156.Google Scholar
12. Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65–W94.Google Scholar
13. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:407–415.Google Scholar
14. Higgins, JP, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, Altman, DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–560.Google Scholar
15. Sterne, JA, Egger, M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:1046–1055.Google Scholar
16. Egger, M, Davey Smith, G, Schneider, M, Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–634.Google Scholar
17. Baldoni, A, Cosco, AG, Epicoco, G, Affronti, G, Giannone, E, Gilardi, G. Comparative study of short-term antimicrobial chemoprophylaxis in gynecologic surgery: cefotetan versus cefazolin. Minerva Ginecol 1989;41:149–155.Google Scholar
18. Periti, P, Mazzei, T, Periti, E. Prophylaxis in gynaecological and obstetric surgery: a comparative randomised multicentre study of single-dose cefotetan versus two doses of cefazolin. Chemioterapia 1988;7:245–252.Google Scholar
19. Periti, P, Mazzei, T, Orlandini, F, Mini, E. Comparison of the antimicrobial prophylactic efficacy of cefotaxime and cephazolin in obstetric and gynaecological surgery. A randomised multicentre study. Drugs 1988;35 Suppl 2:133–138.Google Scholar
20. Cormio, G, Di Fazio, F, Cacciapuoti, C, Bettocchi, S, Borraccino, L, Selvaggi, L. Prospective randomized study comparing amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with cefazolin as antimicrobial prophylaxis in laparotomic gynecologic surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82:1130–1134.Google Scholar
21. Grossman, JH 3rd, Greco, TP, Minkin, MJ, Adams, RL, Hierholzer, WJ Jr, Andriole, VT. Prophylactic antibiotics in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 1979;53:537–544.Google Scholar
22. Hemsell, DL, Johnson, ER, Hemsell, PG, Nobles, BJ, Little, BB, Heard, MC. Cefazolin is inferior to cefotetan as single-dose prophylaxis for women undergoing elective total abdominal hysterectomy. Clin Infect Dis 1995;20:677–684.Google Scholar
23. Stiver, HG, Binns, BO, Brunham, RC, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacies, costs, and vaginal flora alterations with single-dose ceftriaxone and multidose cefazolin prophylaxis in vaginal hysterectomy. Antimicrob Agent Chemother 1990;34:1194–1197.Google Scholar
24. Jyothi, S, Vyas Neetha, M, Pratap, K, Asha, K. Antibiotic prophylaxis for hysterectomy and cesarean section: amoxicillin-clavulanic acid versus cefazolin. J Obstet Gynecol India 2010;60:419–423.Google Scholar
25. Phoolcharoen, N, Nilgate, S, Rattanapuntamanee, O, Limpongsanurak, S, Chaithongwongwatthana, S. A randomized controlled trial comparing ceftriaxone with cefazolin for antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012;119:11–13.Google Scholar
26. Fagotti, A, Costantini, B, Fanfani, F, et al. Risk of postoperative pelvic abscess in major gynecologic oncology surgery: one-year single-institution experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:2452–2458.Google Scholar
27. Faro, C, Faro, S. Postoperative pelvic infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2008;22:653–663.Google Scholar
28. Lachiewicz, MP, Moulton, LJ, Jaiyeoba, O. Pelvic surgical site infections in gynecologic surgery. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2015;2015:614950.Google Scholar
29. Soper, DE. Bacterial vaginosis and postoperative infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;169:467–469.Google Scholar
30. Soper, DE, Bump, RC, Hurt, WG. Bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis vaginitis are risk factors for cuff cellulitis after abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:1016–1021.Google Scholar
31. Till, SR, Morgan, DM, Bazzi, AA, et al. Reducing surgical site infections after hysterectomy: metronidazole plus cefazolin compared with cephalosporin alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217:187 e181–187 e187.Google Scholar
32. Uppal, S, Harris, J, Al-Niaimi, A, et al. Prophylactic antibiotic choice and risk of surgical site infection after hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:321–329.Google Scholar
33. Ayeleke, RO, Mourad, S, Marjoribanks, J, Calis, KA, Jordan, V. Antibiotic prophylaxis for elective hysterectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;6:CD004637.Google Scholar
34. Wttewaall-Evelaar, EW. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal hysterectomy. Pharmaceutisch weekblad Sci ed. 1990;12:296–298.Google Scholar
35. Tanos, V, Rojansky, N. Prophylactic antibiotics in abdominal hysterectomy. J Am Coll Surg 1994;179:593–600.Google Scholar
36. Chongsomchai, C, Lumbiganon, P, Thinkhamrop, J, Ounchai, J, Vudhikamraksa, N. Placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study of prophylactic antibiotics in elective abdominal hysterectomy. J Hosp Infect 2002;52:302–306.Google Scholar
37. Hemsell, DL, Menon, MO, Friedman, AJ. Ceftriaxone or cefazolin prophylaxis for the prevention of infection after vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Surg 1984;148(4a):22–26.Google Scholar
38. Hemsell, DL, Johnson, ER, Bawdon, RE, Hemsell, PG, Nobles, BJ, Heard, ML. Ceftriaxone and cefazolin prophylaxis for hysterectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1985;161:197–203.Google Scholar
39. Hemsell, DL, Bawdon, RE, Hemsell, PG, Nobles, BJ, Johnson, ER, Heard, MC. Single-dose cephalosporin for prevention of major pelvic infection after vaginal hysterectomy: cefazolin versus cefoxitin versus cefotaxime. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:1201–1205.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1Flowchart of study selection from the literature review. *Studies included obstetric-gynecological surgeries other than hysterectomy. Abbreviation: SSI, surgical site infection.

Figure 1

Table 1Characteristics of Randomized Controlled Studies Included in the Meta-analysis

Figure 2

Fig. 2Funnel plot to evaluate publication bias for randomized controlled trials of cefazolin as antimicrobial surgical prophylaxis in women undergoing abdominal or vaginal hysterectomies. Publication bias was not detected; the Egger test of the intercept was not statistically significant (2-tailed P value = .11273).

Figure 3

Table 2Incidence of Surgical Site Infection (SSI) by Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Regimen and Randomized Controlled Trial of Women Undergoing Abdominal or Vaginal Hysterectomy

Figure 4

Fig. 3Forest plot, meta-analysis of relative risk for SSI with cefazolin versus other cephalosporin antimicrobials with antianaerobic activity (cefotetan, cefoxitin) among women undergoing abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy. Fixed effects model. Heterogeneity I2 = 0, P value = .623.

Figure 5

Fig. 4Forest plot, meta-analysis of relative risk for surgical site infection (SSI) with cefazolin versus β-lactam with antianaerobic activity (cefoxitin, cefotetan, or amoxicillin-clavulanate) among women undergoing abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy. Fixed effects model. Heterogeneity I2 = 0; P value = .756.

Figure 6

Table 3Risk of Bias Summary for the Studies Included in the Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Supplementary material: Image

Pop-Vicas et al. supplementary material

Pop-Vicas et al. supplementary material 1

Download Pop-Vicas et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 6.7 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Pop-Vicas et al. supplementary material

Pop-Vicas et al. supplementary material 2

Download Pop-Vicas et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 7.6 KB