Prophylactic antibiotics after severe trauma: more is not better.

After severe trauma, physicians frequently use multiple antibiotics for prolonged periods of time to prevent sepsis, based on intuition rather than scientific evidence. Over a 1-year period (January-December 1999) we included prospectively 112 critically injured patients who required an operation and/or chest tube insertion and stayed for more than 2 days in the intensive care unit (ICU). Of these patients, 46 received a single prophylactic antibiotic for 24 hours (group SING+SHORT), and 66 received one or more prophylactic antibiotics for more than 24 hours (group MULT+LONG), based on physician discretion. Twenty-seven outcome parameters were collected to compare the effect of the different prophylactic antibiotic regimens. The two groups were similar in regard to overall injury severity, age, gender, mechanism of injury, and physiologic condition on admission. However, more SING+SHORT patients had an abdominal operation (83% versus 62%, P = 0.02), and more MULT+LONG patients had an orthopedic operation (35% versus 15%, P = 0.03). There was no difference in sepsis (41% versus 42%, P = 1.0), organ failures (37% versus 50%, P = 0.18), mortality (7% versus 12%, P = 0.52), ICU stay (14 +/- 2.5 versus 16 +/- 2 days, P = 0.57), hospital stay (26 +/- 3 versus 28 +/- 2 days, P = 0.53), or any other outcome parameter. Independent risk factors for sepsis were blunt mechanism of trauma, Injury Severity Score > or = 25, and more than two units of blood transfused over the first 24 hours, but not the amount of prophylactic antibiotics given. In conclusion, we found that 24-hour prophylaxis with a single broad-antibiotic is as effective as prophylaxis for longer periods of time with multiple spectrum antibiotics for critically injured patients at high risk for sepsis.

Laparoscopic splenectomy in beta-thalassemia major patients. Advantages and disadvantages.

BACKGROUND: Splenectomy is indicated in patients with thalassemia major when they develop hypersplenism with subsequent need for increased transfusions. Extreme splenomegaly is considered a restrictive factor for laparoscopic splenectomy in these patients. METHODS: Laparoscopic splenectomy was undertaken in 12 beta-thalassemia major patients with massive splenomegaly. The devascularization of the organ was performed with serial ligations of the splenic vessels starting from the lower pole of the organ. The spleen was extracted from the abdominal cavity through a 5-cm incision in the left iliac fossa, which incorporated two port sites. RESULTS: The procedure was concluded laparoscopically in 10 cases, while two patients were converted due to difficulty in controlling bleeding from branches of the splenic vein. The patients tolerated the procedure well and had a postoperative hospital stay of 3-6 days. CONCLUSIONS: From our limited initial experience it seems that laparoscopic splenectomy in the difficult setting of thalassemia major patients is feasible, but extreme care is required in order to avoid hemorrhagic complications.

Septic and other complications resulting from biliary stones placed in the abdominal cavity. Experimental study in rabbits.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this experimental study is to assess the consequences of biliary stones placed in the abdominal cavity of rabbits. METHODS: The animals were allocated to five groups. In group A a nonsterile gallstone was used. In group B animals with a nonsterile gallstone received preoperative chemoprophylaxis. In group C a sterile stone was placed in the abdomen. Group D served as control. In group E were animals with a nonsterile stone who had a prolonged follow-up period. Parameters studied postoperatively were temperature, white blood cell count, abscess formation, sepsis, peritonitis, adhesion formation, intestinal obstruction, and histological changes of the omentum enveloping the gallstones. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference among the five groups concerning morbidity, mortality, or histological findings. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of septic complications was higher among the four groups that received gallstones compared to the control group and thus an adverse effect of gallstone implantation can be suggested.