Best Practice Statement on Urologic Procedures and Antimicrobial Prophylaxis

218Citations
Citations of this article
182Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose:The primary rationale for antimicrobial prophylaxis (AP) is to decrease the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and other preventable periprocedural infections, with the secondary goal of reducing antibiotic overuse. This Best Practice Statement (BPS) updates the prior American Urological Association (AUA) BPS and creates a comprehensive and user-friendly reference for clinicians caring for adult patients who are undergoing urologic procedures.Materials and Methods:Recommendations are based on a review of English language peer-reviewed literature from 2006 through October 2018 and were made by consensus by a multidisciplinary panel. The search parameters included timing, re-dosing, and duration of AP across urologic procedures where there was the possibility of SSI. Excluded from the search were the management of infections outside the genitourinary (GU) tract and pediatric procedures.Results:Single-dose AP is recommended for most urologic cases and antimicrobials should only be used when medically necessary, for the shortest duration possible, and not beyond case completion. Surgeons are the most accurate discerners of an SSI, and should use standard definitions to make better calculations of patient risk. The risk classification developed is dependent on the likelihood of developing SSI, and not the associated consequences of SSI.Conclusions:The AUA developed a multi-disciplinary BPS to guide clinicians on the proper usage of AP across urologic procedures and wound classifications. It is recommended that the lowest dose of antimicrobials be administered to decrease the risk of infection and to minimize the risk of drug-resistant organisms.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lightner, D. J., Wymer, K., Sanchez, J., & Kavoussi, L. (2020). Best Practice Statement on Urologic Procedures and Antimicrobial Prophylaxis. Journal of Urology, 203(2), 351–356. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000509

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free