Antibiotic prophylaxis for acute cholecystectomy: PEANUTS II multicentre randomized non-inferiority clinical trial

BACKGROUND\nMETHODS\nRESULTS\nCONCLUSION\nGuidelines recommending antibiotic prophylaxis at emergency cholecystectomy for cholecystitis were based on low-quality evidence. The aim of this trial was to demonstrate that omitting antibiotics is not inferior to their prophylactic use.\nThis multicentre, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial randomly assigned adults with mild-to-moderate acute calculous cholecystitis (immediate cholecystectomy indicated) to 2 g cefazolin administered before incision or no antibiotic prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was a composite of all postoperative infectious complications in the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included all individual components of the primary endpoint, other morbidity, and duration of hospital stay.\nSixteen of 226 patients (7.1 per cent) in the single-dose prophylaxis group and 29 of 231 (12.6 per cent) in the no-prophylaxis group developed postoperative infectious complications (absolute difference 5.5 (95 per cent c.i. -0.4 to 11.3) per cent). With a non-inferiority margin of 10 per cent, non-inferiority of no prophylaxis was not proven. The number of surgical-site infections was significantly higher in the no-prophylaxis group (5.3 versus 12.1 per cent; P = 0.010). No differences were observed in the number of other complications, or duration of hospital stay.\nOmitting antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended.Pharmacolog

Functional outcome and cost-effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of acute scaphoid fractures: a cost-utility analysis

Background: Physical forces have been widely used to stimulate bone growth in fracture repair. Addition of bone growth stimulation to the conservative treatment regime is more costly than standard health care. However, it might lead to cost-savings due to a reduction of the total amount of working days lost. This economic evaluation was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMF) compared to standard health care in the treatment of acute scaphoid fractures. Methods: An economic evaluation was carried out from a societal perspective, alongside a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial involving five centres in the Netherlands. One hundred and two patients with a clinically and radiographically proven fracture of the scaphoid were included in the study and randomly allocated to either active bone growth stimulation or standard health care, using a placebo. All costs (medical costs and costs due to productivity loss) were measured during one year follow up. Functional outcome and general health related quality of life were assessed by the EuroQol-5D and PRWHE (patient rated wrist and hand evaluation) questionnaires. Utility scores were derived from the EuroQol-5D. Results: The average total number of working days lost was lower in the active PEMF group (9.82 days) compared to the placebo group (12.91 days) (p = 0.651). Total medical costs of the intervention group ([SIC]1594) were significantly higher compared to the standard health care ([SIC]875). The total amount of mean QALY's (quality-adjusted life year) for the active PEMF group was 0.84 and 0.85 for the control group. The cost-effectiveness plane shows that the majority of all cost-effectiveness ratios fall into the quadrant where PEMF is not only less effective in terms of QALY's but also more costly. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the desired effects in terms of cost-effectiveness are not met. When comparing the effects of PEMF to standard health care in terms of QALY's, PEMF cannot be considered a cost-effective treatment for acute fractures of the scaphoid bone

data WIFI trial; wound infection following implant removal

<p>Multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial including 500 patients aged 18 to 75 years with previous surgical treatment for fractures below the knee who were undergoing removal of orthopedic implants from 19 hospitals (17 teaching and 2 academic) in the Netherlands (November 2014-September 2016), with a follow-up of 6 months (final follow-up, March 28, 2017). Exclusion criteria were an active infection or fistula, antibiotic treatment, reimplantation of osteosynthesis material in the same session, allergy for cephalosporins, known kidney disease, immunosuppressant use, or pregnancy.</p><h4>INTERVENTIONS:</h4><p>A single preoperative intravenous dose of 1000 mg of cefazolin (cefazolin group, n = 228) or sodium chloride (0.9%; saline group, n = 242).</p><h4>MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:</h4><p>Primary outcome was SSI within 30 days as measured by the criteria from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Secondary outcome measures were functional outcome, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction.</p><h4>RESULTS:</h4><p>Among 477 randomized patients (mean age, 44 years [SD, 15]; women, 274 [57%]; median time from orthopedic implant placement, 11 months [interquartile range, 7-16]), 470 patients completed the study. Sixty-six patients developed an SSI (14.0%): 30 patients (13.2%) in the cefazolin group vs 36 in the saline group (14.9%) (absolute risk difference, -1.7 [95% CI, -8.0 to 4.6], P = .60).</p>For access to the dataset please contact autho