Show simple item record

Preoperative topical antimicrobial decolonization in head and neck surgery

dc.contributor.authorShuman, Andrew G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorShuman, Emily K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHauff, Samantha J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFernandes, Laura L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLight, Emilyen_US
dc.contributor.authorChenoweth, Carol E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBradford, Carol R.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-11-07T17:04:31Z
dc.date.available2014-01-07T14:51:07Zen_US
dc.date.issued2012-11en_US
dc.identifier.citationShuman, Andrew G.; Shuman, Emily K.; Hauff, Samantha J.; Fernandes, Laura L.; Light, Emily; Chenoweth, Carol E.; Bradford, Carol R. (2012). "Preoperative topical antimicrobial decolonization in head and neck surgery ." The Laryngoscope 122(11): 2454-2460. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/94244>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0023-852Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1531-4995en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/94244
dc.description.abstractObjectives/Hypothesis: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality after head and neck surgery. Our primary objective was to determine the efficacy of preoperative topical antimicrobial decolonization before head and neck surgery. Study Design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. Methods: This study was conducted among 84 patients presenting for head and neck surgery requiring admission to an academic medical center. Preoperative cultures were performed to identify Staphylococcus aureus carriers. Patients were randomized to preoperative topical antimicrobial decolonization with a 5‐day regimen of chlorhexidine skin rinses and intranasal mupirocin coupled with standard perioperative systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis, versus standard prophylaxis alone. The main outcome was the incidence of SSIs. Results: Despite a trend suggesting a decrease in SSIs with perioperative topical antimicrobial decolonization (24% vs. 10%), there was no significant difference (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.10–1.18; P = .079). Patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (3 vs. 1; P = .02), with more operative blood loss ( P = .05), and who required operative takeback ( P = .04) had a higher rate of SSIs; there was a trend suggesting a higher rate of SSIs among patients undergoing clean‐contaminated surgery compared to clean cases ( P = .08) and among those having received prior radiation ( P = .07) or chemotherapy ( P = .06). Conclusions: Preoperative antimicrobial decolonization did not significantly decrease the incidence of SSIs after head and neck surgery, but might be considered for high‐risk groups despite the lack of conclusive evidence confirming efficacy. Risk factors for SSIs after head and neck surgery are identified for the first time in a prospective study. Laryngoscope, 2012en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherLevel of Evidence: 1ben_US
dc.subject.otherSurgical Site Infectionen_US
dc.subject.otherAntimicrobial Decolonizationen_US
dc.subject.otherHead and Neck Surgeryen_US
dc.titlePreoperative topical antimicrobial decolonization in head and neck surgeryen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOtolaryngologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Infection Control and Epidemiology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Biostatistics Core, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumInternal Medicine, Division of Infectious Disease, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Michigan Hospitals, 1904 Taubman Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartments of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.en_US
dc.identifier.pmid22865589en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94244/1/23487_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/lary.23487en_US
dc.identifier.sourceThe Laryngoscopeen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiyake M, Ohbayashi Y, Iwasaki A, Ogawa T, Nagahata S. Risk factors for methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and use of a nasal mupirocin ointment in oral cancer inpatients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 2159 – 2163.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSutherland R, Boon RJ, Griffin KE, Masters PJ, Slocombe B, White AR. Antibacterial activity of mupirocin (pseudomonic acid), a new antibiotic for topical use. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 27: 495 – 498.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMilstone AM, Passaretti CL, Perl TM. Chlorhexidine: expanding the armamentarium for infection control and prevention. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 274 – 281.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBode LG, Kluytmans JA, Wertheim HF, et al. Preventing surgical‐site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 9 – 17.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan Rijen M, Bonten M, Wenzel R, Kluytmans J. Mupirocin ointment for preventing Staphylococcus aureus infections in nasal carriers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 ( 4 ): CD006216.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan Rijen MM, Bonten M, Wenzel RP, Kluytmans JA. Intranasal mupirocin for reduction of Staphylococcus aureus infections in surgical patients with nasal carriage: a systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 61: 254 – 261.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWebster J, Osborne S. Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 ( 2 ): CD004985.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHebert C, Robicsek A. Decolonization therapy in infection control. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2010; 23: 340 – 345.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMangram 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; quiz 279 – 280.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDellinger 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoran TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care‐associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008; 36: 309 – 332.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSimmons RL. Wound infection: a review of diagnosis and treatment. Infect Control 1982; 3: 44 – 51.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDripps RD, Lamont A, Eckenhoff JE. The role of anesthesia in surgical mortality. JAMA 1961; 178: 261 – 266.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceASA Physical Status Classification System. Available at: http://www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.htm Accessed June 3, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceQue Y, Moreillon P. Staphylococcus aureus. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, eds. Mandell, Bennett, and Dolin's Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuehlmann M, Frei R, Fenner L, Dangel M, Fluckiger U, Widmer AF. Highly effective regimen for decolonization of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29: 510 – 516.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerl TM, Cullen JJ, Wenzel RP, et al. Intranasal mupirocin to prevent postoperative Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1871 – 1877.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarbarth S, Fankhauser C, Schrenzel J, et al. Universal screening for methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus at hospital admission and nosocomial infection in surgical patients. JAMA 2008; 299: 1149 – 1157.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorimoto Y, Sugiura T, Tatebayashi S, Kirita T. Reduction in incidence of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) after radical surgery for head and neck cancer. Spec Care Dentist 2006; 26: 209 – 213.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWatters K, O'Dwyer TP, Rowley H. Cost and morbidity of MRSA in head and neck cancer patients: what are the consequences? J Laryngol Otol 2004; 118: 694 – 699.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRingberg H, Cathrine Petersson A, Walder M, Hugo Johansson PJ. The throat: an important site for MRSA colonization. Scand J Infect Dis 2006; 38: 888 – 893.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLautenbach E, Nachamkin I, Hu B, et al. Surveillance cultures for detection of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus: diagnostic yield of anatomic sites and comparison of provider‐ and patient‐collected samples. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009; 30: 380 – 382.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGaribaldi RA, Cushing D, Lerer T. Predictors of intraoperative‐acquired surgical wound infections. J Hosp Infect 1991; 18 ( suppl A ): 289 – 298.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKorinek AM, Golmard JL, Elcheick A, et al. Risk factors for neurosurgical site infections after craniotomy: a critical reappraisal of antibiotic prophylaxis on 4,578 patients. Br J Neurosurg 2005; 19: 155 – 162.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee DH, Kim SY, Nam SY, Choi SH, Choi JW, Roh JL. Risk factors of surgical site infection in patients undergoing major oncological surgery for head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol 2011; 47: 528 – 531.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRodrigo JP, Alvarez JC, Gomez JR, Suarez C, Fernandez JA, Martinez JA. Comparison of three prophylactic antibiotic regimens in clean‐contaminated head and neck surgery. Head Neck 1997; 19: 188 – 193.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSkitarelic N, Morovic M, Manestar D. Antibiotic prophylaxis in clean‐contaminated head and neck oncological surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2007; 35: 15 – 20.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRedleaf MI, Bauer CA. Topical antiseptic mouthwash in oncological surgery of the oral cavity and oropharynx. J Laryngol Otol 1994; 108: 973 – 979.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSimons JP, Johnson JT, Yu VL, et al. The role of topical antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing contaminated head and neck surgery with flap reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2001; 111: 329 – 335.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFawley WN, Parnell P, Hall J, Wilcox MH. Surveillance for mupirocin resistance following introduction of routine peri‐operative prophylaxis with nasal mupirocin. J Hosp Infect 2006; 62: 327 – 332.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee AS, Macedo‐Vinas M, Francois P, et al. Impact of combined low‐level mupirocin and genotypic chlorhexidine resistance on persistent methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage after decolonization therapy: a case‐control study. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52: 1422 – 1430.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePhan M, Van der Auwera P, Andry G, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for major head and neck surgery in cancer patients: sulbactam‐ampicillin versus clindamycin‐amikacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 2014 – 2019.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePenel N, Fournier C, Lefebvre D, Lefebvre JL. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for wound infection in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma surgery with opening of mucosa. Study of 260 surgical procedures. Oral Oncol 2005; 41: 294 – 303.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDellinger EP, Ehrenkranz NJ, Jarvis WR. Surgical site infections. In: Jarvis WR, ed. Bennett and Brachman's Hospital Infections. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins; 2007: 583 – 598.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.