ArticleHNO2024
[Standardized risk-based antibiotic prophylaxis and adhesive film dressing for the prevention of wound infection following cochlear implantation].
Article in HNO, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no consensus in the pertinent literature regarding the optimal antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for cochlear implantation (CI). This study evaluates the implementation of standardized risk-based AP combined with application of an adhesive film dressing. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll CI cases since September 2019 were retrospectively reviewed for postoperative wound complications. While all patients received preoperative AP with ceftriaxone, postoperative AP after CI in patients older than 7 years was no longer routinely performed in our clinic. Exceptions were made according to predefined criteria for an increased risk of infection. The wound was covered with a transparent adhesive polyurethane film.
resultsIn 72% of the 219 cases, we did not perform postoperative AP. The overall wound complication rate was 2.7% (in the groups with and without postoperative AP, 4.9% and 1.9%, respectively). Wound infection did not occur in any of the patients without postoperative AP older than 70 years (n = 32), with controlled diabetes mellitus (n = 19), or with reimplantation due to technical defect (n = 19). The film did not need to be changed until the suture material was removed.
conclusionStandardized risk-based AP can avoid prolonged administration of antibiotics in selected patients. The film dressing permits continual examination and sufficient wound protection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.