Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2008
Oral vs intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an exploratory trial.
Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Role of prophylactic antibiotics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2008Pooled it
- Intravenous Versus Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Efficacy for Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.The Indian journal of surgery · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe application of perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is often considered a necessary routine procedure. The only way to decide whether an antibiotic prophylaxis is necessary in elective gallbladder surgery is to conduct a multicenter randomized trial. The aim of this exploratory trial was to clarify whether an oral application of an antibiotic prophylaxis is a feasible and safe procedure compared to intravenous application. This exploratory trial was conducted prospective randomized, using a double-dummy design. The main target criteria included tolerance, adverse effects, pharmacokinetics, and cost of treatment. MATERIAL AND
methodsPatients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized double-blinded to an oral or intravenous application group of one antibiotic (gyrase inhibitor) using a double-dummy design. Exclusion criteria were acute cholecystitis, icterus, and choledocholithiasis. In addition to a tolerance analysis, the antibiotic concentration was determined in serum and bile by high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC).
resultsOne hundred fifty one patients (75 patients with oral and 76 with intravenous prophylaxis) were evaluated for the tolerance analysis. Four patients (1 p.o., 3 i.v.) had adverse reactions to the antibiotics. The antibiotic serum concentration was 0.83 mg/l (p.o.) vs 8.44 mg/l (i.v.) before surgery, 0.81 mg/l (p.o.) vs 4.43 mg/l (i.v.) during surgery, and 0.69 mg/l (p.o.) vs 2.77 mg/l (i.v.) after surgery. The bile concentration was higher after oral administration with 9.20 mg/l than after intravenous application with 5.79 mg/l. The costs of medication for intravenous application were 20 times higher than those for oral application.
conclusionThe oral application of an antibiotic (gyrase inhibitor) was feasible and safe for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy in this exploratory trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18094990What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.