PROPHYLACTIC ANTIBIOTICS IN ENT AND STOMA TOLOGICAL SURGERY

Citation
F. Legent et Jf. Arnould, PROPHYLACTIC ANTIBIOTICS IN ENT AND STOMA TOLOGICAL SURGERY, Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation, 13(5), 1994, pp. 100-109
Citations number
NO
Categorie Soggetti
Anesthesiology
ISSN journal
07507658
Volume
13
Issue
5
Year of publication
1994
Supplement
S
Pages
100 - 109
Database
ISI
SICI code
0750-7658(1994)13:5<100:PAIEAS>2.0.ZU;2-F
Abstract
Postsurgical infection has always been a cause for major concern in EN T surgey. Papers on the topic allowed to identify indications for anti biotic prophylaxis. In ear surgery, in the absence of prior infection (stapes surgery, medium dry ear surgery), studies' results are not in favour of antibiotic prophylaxis. On the other hand, however, when the ear is inflamed or infected, the use of antibiotics is indicated, if possible after having first taken a sample. For nose and sinus surgery , antibiotic prophylaxis seems to be worthless in the absence of a pro longed packing. If a packing has to be maintained or if a transplant i s used, an antibiotic adminstration has to be considered; the most app ropriate antibiotic and its mode of use still have to be specified. In case of facial trauma, antibiotic prophylaxis using cefazolin reduces the risk of infection of paraymphysis fractures and angle fractures. The postoperative course after tonsillectomy is simplified by a prolon ged antibiotic administration based on ampicillin. In clean cervicofac ial surgery, without buccopharyngeal opening, the antibiotic prophylax is seems to be worthless. In the opposite, antibiotherapy is required in case of buccopharyngeal opening. Indeed the presence of potential p athogenic bacteria in the buccopharyngeal cavity, the difficulties of mucosa closing, the importance of the tumoral extension, the length of the procedure, radiotherapy and use of myocutaneous flaps may all be the cause of a high infection rate (80 %) in the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis. Two types of antibiotics seem to be suitable, cefazolin and clindamycin. Antibiotics active against Gram negative bacteria see m to be useless. There is a disagreement concerning the duration of an tibiotic administration. The populations studied are too small to obta in significant results. Both points of view (prolonged antibiotic admi nistration or true antibiotic prophylaxis) can be considered. Only lar ge scale prospective studies with an adequate methodology will provide credible data for this debate.