Prophylactic antibiotic treatment following laparoscopic robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections: did the AUA guidelines make a difference?

We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the American Urological Association (AUA) antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). Our prospective registry database was reviewed for all RALP cases. The following variables were eval...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of robotic surgery 2017-09, Vol.11 (3), p.367-371
Hauptverfasser: Haifler, Miki, Mor, Yoram, Dotan, Zohar, Ramon, Jacob, Zilberman, Dorit E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the American Urological Association (AUA) antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). Our prospective registry database was reviewed for all RALP cases. The following variables were evaluated: age, associated comorbidities, body mass index (BMI), total operative time, length of stay (LOS), prostate weight, pathological grade and stage. Until 11/2011, RALP patients were treated with antibiotics administered in the operating room and continued until urethral catheter removal. Since 11/2011, all patients were treated with a single intravenous dose of Cephalosporin and Aminoglycoside given within 30 min of surgical incision. The rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) was evaluated in both groups. 229 RALP patients were identified. The first 60 patients (26.2%) were treated according to the old protocol (Group 1) while the remaining 169 (73.8%) were treated according to the new protocol (Group 2). Group match was identified in all categories but LOS. Moreover, LOS was found to be longer in Group 1 compared with Group 2 (5.8 vs. 4.5 days, p  
ISSN:1863-2483
1863-2491
DOI:10.1007/s11701-016-0667-8