Predictors of surgical site infection after radical cystectomy: should we enhance surgical antibiotic prophylaxis?
To compare surgical site infections (SSI) rate after radical cystectomy (RC) over time and ascertain whether antibiotic prophylaxis should be enhanced.
All medical records of RC patients in a single tertiary uro-oncology center between 2007 and 2017 were analyzed. SSI was defined using the criteria of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All bacterial culture results and antimicrobial resistance rates were recorded. Lastly, multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to ascertain SSI predictors.
RC was performed in 405 patients, of which 96 (23.7%) developed SSI. No differences were demonstrated in the mean age, gender, NIDDM prevalence, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, positive preoperative urine culture, bowel preparation, and surgery time between both groups. However, statistically significant higher median BMI, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity score, usage of ceftriaxone preoperatively, and intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization were noted in SSI patients. Overall, 62/96 (63.5%) SSI patients had a positive wound culture, with only 16.7% of the pathogens being sensitive to their perioperative antibiotics. Lastly, on multivariable analysis rising BMI, preoperative ceftriaxone and ICU hospitalization were associated with a higher SSI rate.
Preoperative BMI reduction, and maximal preoperative medical optimization in an attempt to lower ICU admittance rates, should be part of the ideal strategy for lowering SSI rates. Additionally, preoperative antibiotics should be enhanced to harbor-wide spectrum coverage, based on local resistance rates.
KeywordsRadical cystectomy Surgical site infection Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis
American Urology association
Body mass index
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
European association of Urology
Enhanced recovery after surgery
Intensive care unit
Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis
Surgical site infection
HG: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. CS: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. HT: data collection, data analysis. RM: data collection, data analysis, manuscript editing. JB: project development, manuscript editing. DM: project development, manuscript editing. DK: project development, manuscript editing. OY: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing
No disclosures. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
As this was a retrospective study, this study did not contain any contact with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
As this was a retrospective study, no informed consent was required for this study by the internal review board.
- 6.Alonso-Isa M, Medina-Polo J, Lara-Isla A et al (2017) Surgical wound infection in urology. Analysis of risk factors and associated microorganisms. Actas Urol Espanolas 41(2):109–116Google Scholar
- 13.Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Dejong CH, Fearon KC, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN (2010) The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr 29(4):434–440 (Edinburgh, Scotland) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Bonkat RPG, Bartoletti R, Bruyère F, Geerlings SE, Wagenlehner F, Wullt B, Cai T, Köves B, Pilatz A, Pradere B, Veeratterapillay R (2017) EAU guidelines on urologic infections. EAU Guidelines Office, ArnhemGoogle Scholar