Are Perioperative Antibiotics Necessary During Direct Microlaryngoscopy?

Megan Yetzke, Richard Heyes, Natasha Nakra, Valeria Silva Merea, David G Lott, Matthew Clary, Paul Bryson, Sunil P. Verma

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis: There are currently no established recommendations for the use of perioperative antibiotics (PAs) to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) for direct microlaryngoscopy (DML). This study examined the incidence of SSI in patients undergoing DML with and without PAs. Study Design: Retrospective, multi-institutional chart review. Methods: A retrospective, multi-institutional chart review was performed at four tertiary referral academic medical centers. Patients undergoing DML from 2010 to 2017 were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Medical records of patients undergoing DML with biopsy, microsurgery, laser ablation, or vocal fold injection who had adequate follow-up were reviewed. Procedures with significant cartilage destruction, concurrent open surgery, or esophageal surgery were excluded. Data recorded included age, gender, pacemaker history, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, wound class, indication for surgery, use of laser, complications, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, pain, fever, and postoperative steroid and antibiotic prescriptions. Presence or absence of SSIs was evaluated by a fellowship-trained laryngologist. Results: There were 834 patients who met inclusion criteria. Of those, 698 did not receive PAs and 136 received PAs. The median age of patients was 54 years of age in the PA group and 57.5 years of age in the non-PA group, and all cases were recorded as wound class II. Overall, 58% of surgeries involved use of carbon dioxide or potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser. Only one SSI was reported on follow-up in a patient who did receive PAs. Conclusions: SSIs are exceedingly rare following DML. PA use is not indicated for routine DML. Level of Evidence: 4 Laryngoscope, 1– 6, 2018.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalLaryngoscope
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Surgical Wound Infection
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Laser Therapy
Current Procedural Terminology
Laryngoscopes
Microsurgery
Vocal Cords
Solid-State Lasers
Wounds and Injuries
Postoperative Pain
Carbon Dioxide
Cartilage
Medical Records
Prescriptions
Hospital Emergency Service
Hospitalization
Cohort Studies
Fever
Referral and Consultation
Retrospective Studies

Keywords

  • complications
  • Laryngology
  • surgical site infection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Yetzke, M., Heyes, R., Nakra, N., Merea, V. S., Lott, D. G., Clary, M., ... Verma, S. P. (Accepted/In press). Are Perioperative Antibiotics Necessary During Direct Microlaryngoscopy? Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27308

Are Perioperative Antibiotics Necessary During Direct Microlaryngoscopy? / Yetzke, Megan; Heyes, Richard; Nakra, Natasha; Merea, Valeria Silva; Lott, David G; Clary, Matthew; Bryson, Paul; Verma, Sunil P.

In: Laryngoscope, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yetzke, M, Heyes, R, Nakra, N, Merea, VS, Lott, DG, Clary, M, Bryson, P & Verma, SP 2018, 'Are Perioperative Antibiotics Necessary During Direct Microlaryngoscopy?', Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27308
Yetzke, Megan ; Heyes, Richard ; Nakra, Natasha ; Merea, Valeria Silva ; Lott, David G ; Clary, Matthew ; Bryson, Paul ; Verma, Sunil P. / Are Perioperative Antibiotics Necessary During Direct Microlaryngoscopy?. In: Laryngoscope. 2018.
@article{e4551d8b2b0d406c85554dfde940bb3e,
title = "Are Perioperative Antibiotics Necessary During Direct Microlaryngoscopy?",
abstract = "Objectives/Hypothesis: There are currently no established recommendations for the use of perioperative antibiotics (PAs) to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) for direct microlaryngoscopy (DML). This study examined the incidence of SSI in patients undergoing DML with and without PAs. Study Design: Retrospective, multi-institutional chart review. Methods: A retrospective, multi-institutional chart review was performed at four tertiary referral academic medical centers. Patients undergoing DML from 2010 to 2017 were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Medical records of patients undergoing DML with biopsy, microsurgery, laser ablation, or vocal fold injection who had adequate follow-up were reviewed. Procedures with significant cartilage destruction, concurrent open surgery, or esophageal surgery were excluded. Data recorded included age, gender, pacemaker history, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, wound class, indication for surgery, use of laser, complications, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, pain, fever, and postoperative steroid and antibiotic prescriptions. Presence or absence of SSIs was evaluated by a fellowship-trained laryngologist. Results: There were 834 patients who met inclusion criteria. Of those, 698 did not receive PAs and 136 received PAs. The median age of patients was 54 years of age in the PA group and 57.5 years of age in the non-PA group, and all cases were recorded as wound class II. Overall, 58{\%} of surgeries involved use of carbon dioxide or potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser. Only one SSI was reported on follow-up in a patient who did receive PAs. Conclusions: SSIs are exceedingly rare following DML. PA use is not indicated for routine DML. Level of Evidence: 4 Laryngoscope, 1– 6, 2018.",
keywords = "complications, Laryngology, surgical site infection",
author = "Megan Yetzke and Richard Heyes and Natasha Nakra and Merea, {Valeria Silva} and Lott, {David G} and Matthew Clary and Paul Bryson and Verma, {Sunil P.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/lary.27308",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Laryngoscope",
issn = "0023-852X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are Perioperative Antibiotics Necessary During Direct Microlaryngoscopy?

AU - Yetzke, Megan

AU - Heyes, Richard

AU - Nakra, Natasha

AU - Merea, Valeria Silva

AU - Lott, David G

AU - Clary, Matthew

AU - Bryson, Paul

AU - Verma, Sunil P.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objectives/Hypothesis: There are currently no established recommendations for the use of perioperative antibiotics (PAs) to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) for direct microlaryngoscopy (DML). This study examined the incidence of SSI in patients undergoing DML with and without PAs. Study Design: Retrospective, multi-institutional chart review. Methods: A retrospective, multi-institutional chart review was performed at four tertiary referral academic medical centers. Patients undergoing DML from 2010 to 2017 were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Medical records of patients undergoing DML with biopsy, microsurgery, laser ablation, or vocal fold injection who had adequate follow-up were reviewed. Procedures with significant cartilage destruction, concurrent open surgery, or esophageal surgery were excluded. Data recorded included age, gender, pacemaker history, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, wound class, indication for surgery, use of laser, complications, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, pain, fever, and postoperative steroid and antibiotic prescriptions. Presence or absence of SSIs was evaluated by a fellowship-trained laryngologist. Results: There were 834 patients who met inclusion criteria. Of those, 698 did not receive PAs and 136 received PAs. The median age of patients was 54 years of age in the PA group and 57.5 years of age in the non-PA group, and all cases were recorded as wound class II. Overall, 58% of surgeries involved use of carbon dioxide or potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser. Only one SSI was reported on follow-up in a patient who did receive PAs. Conclusions: SSIs are exceedingly rare following DML. PA use is not indicated for routine DML. Level of Evidence: 4 Laryngoscope, 1– 6, 2018.

AB - Objectives/Hypothesis: There are currently no established recommendations for the use of perioperative antibiotics (PAs) to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) for direct microlaryngoscopy (DML). This study examined the incidence of SSI in patients undergoing DML with and without PAs. Study Design: Retrospective, multi-institutional chart review. Methods: A retrospective, multi-institutional chart review was performed at four tertiary referral academic medical centers. Patients undergoing DML from 2010 to 2017 were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Medical records of patients undergoing DML with biopsy, microsurgery, laser ablation, or vocal fold injection who had adequate follow-up were reviewed. Procedures with significant cartilage destruction, concurrent open surgery, or esophageal surgery were excluded. Data recorded included age, gender, pacemaker history, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, wound class, indication for surgery, use of laser, complications, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, pain, fever, and postoperative steroid and antibiotic prescriptions. Presence or absence of SSIs was evaluated by a fellowship-trained laryngologist. Results: There were 834 patients who met inclusion criteria. Of those, 698 did not receive PAs and 136 received PAs. The median age of patients was 54 years of age in the PA group and 57.5 years of age in the non-PA group, and all cases were recorded as wound class II. Overall, 58% of surgeries involved use of carbon dioxide or potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser. Only one SSI was reported on follow-up in a patient who did receive PAs. Conclusions: SSIs are exceedingly rare following DML. PA use is not indicated for routine DML. Level of Evidence: 4 Laryngoscope, 1– 6, 2018.

KW - complications

KW - Laryngology

KW - surgical site infection

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055206331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055206331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/lary.27308

DO - 10.1002/lary.27308

M3 - Article

JO - Laryngoscope

JF - Laryngoscope

SN - 0023-852X

ER -