Cargando…

Prospective evaluation of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before cystoscopy

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare single-dose intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis vs. no prophylaxis before minor cystoscopic procedures, including punch biopsy and transurethral resection (TUR) of small bladder tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 patients with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cam, Kamil, Kayikci, Ali, Erol, Ali
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2710065/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672347
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.52914
_version_ 1782169349764677632
author Cam, Kamil
Kayikci, Ali
Erol, Ali
author_facet Cam, Kamil
Kayikci, Ali
Erol, Ali
author_sort Cam, Kamil
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare single-dose intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis vs. no prophylaxis before minor cystoscopic procedures, including punch biopsy and transurethral resection (TUR) of small bladder tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 patients with a mean age of 47.3 years old (range: 19–84 years old) with initial negative urine cultures were recruited. All patients underwent a diagnostic cystoscopy. Patients were then randomized into 2 groups: One group that did not receive antibiotics (100 patients) and the other group that received antibiotic treatment (100 patients with a single intravenous dose of cefoperazone). All patients had urine analysis and urine cultures on the second day after the operation. Additionally, clinical parameters including fever and dysuria were recorded. In 15% of the patients, incidental additional interventions such as punch biopsy or TUR of a small bladder tumor that were similarly distributed in both groups were performed. RESULTS: In 1 patient from the antibiotic group and 2 patients from the no prophylaxis group, the urine cultures after cystoscopy were positive. No statistically significant difference was observed between these groups based on the microbiological and clinical parameters. CONCLUSION: The current study provides evidence that no antibiotic prophylaxis is required before diagnostic cystoscopy in patients without bacteriuria. But, the absolute risk of infection was small, suggesting that a much larger study is required.
format Text
id pubmed-2710065
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Medknow Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27100652009-08-11 Prospective evaluation of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before cystoscopy Cam, Kamil Kayikci, Ali Erol, Ali Indian J Urol Original Article BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare single-dose intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis vs. no prophylaxis before minor cystoscopic procedures, including punch biopsy and transurethral resection (TUR) of small bladder tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 patients with a mean age of 47.3 years old (range: 19–84 years old) with initial negative urine cultures were recruited. All patients underwent a diagnostic cystoscopy. Patients were then randomized into 2 groups: One group that did not receive antibiotics (100 patients) and the other group that received antibiotic treatment (100 patients with a single intravenous dose of cefoperazone). All patients had urine analysis and urine cultures on the second day after the operation. Additionally, clinical parameters including fever and dysuria were recorded. In 15% of the patients, incidental additional interventions such as punch biopsy or TUR of a small bladder tumor that were similarly distributed in both groups were performed. RESULTS: In 1 patient from the antibiotic group and 2 patients from the no prophylaxis group, the urine cultures after cystoscopy were positive. No statistically significant difference was observed between these groups based on the microbiological and clinical parameters. CONCLUSION: The current study provides evidence that no antibiotic prophylaxis is required before diagnostic cystoscopy in patients without bacteriuria. But, the absolute risk of infection was small, suggesting that a much larger study is required. Medknow Publications 2009 /pmc/articles/PMC2710065/ /pubmed/19672347 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.52914 Text en © Indian Journal of Urology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Cam, Kamil
Kayikci, Ali
Erol, Ali
Prospective evaluation of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before cystoscopy
title Prospective evaluation of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before cystoscopy
title_full Prospective evaluation of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before cystoscopy
title_fullStr Prospective evaluation of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before cystoscopy
title_full_unstemmed Prospective evaluation of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before cystoscopy
title_short Prospective evaluation of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before cystoscopy
title_sort prospective evaluation of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before cystoscopy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2710065/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672347
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.52914
work_keys_str_mv AT camkamil prospectiveevaluationoftheefficacyofantibioticprophylaxisbeforecystoscopy
AT kayikciali prospectiveevaluationoftheefficacyofantibioticprophylaxisbeforecystoscopy
AT erolali prospectiveevaluationoftheefficacyofantibioticprophylaxisbeforecystoscopy