Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42631803›Full record

ReviewAdvances in therapy2026

Intrawound Vancomycin Powder in Surgical Site Infection Prophylaxis: A Comprehensive Review of Mechanisms, Efficacy, Safety, and Clinical Controversies.

Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Marco P Troka, Jesus Lopez Ortega, Anthony I Riad, Giuliano Lo Bianco, Alan D Kaye, Madelyn J Reilly

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alaa Abd-ElsayedDepartment of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Avenue, B6/319 CSC, Madison, WI, 53792-3272, USA. alaaawny@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9890-7860
Marco P TrokaDepartment of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Avenue, B6/319 CSC, Madison, WI, 53792-3272, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-9305-9439
Jesus Lopez OrtegaDepartment of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Avenue, B6/319 CSC, Madison, WI, 53792-3272, USA.
Anthony I RiadDepartment of Biology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-8008-5997
Giuliano Lo BiancoResponsabile U.O. Analgesia E Chirurgia Percutanea, Fondazione Istituto G. Giglio, Cefalù, Sicily, Italy.
Alan D KayeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2464-0187
Madelyn J ReillyDepartment of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Avenue, B6/319 CSC, Madison, WI, 53792-3272, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-8828-7740

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical site infections (SSIs) remain a critical postoperative complication that causes significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. To mitigate these risks, intrawound vancomycin powder has been increasingly adopted as a prophylactic option, particularly for high-risk procedures such as spine, orthopedic trauma, and cardiothoracic surgeries. However, the decision ultimately remains at the surgeon's discretion. This comprehensive review evaluates the mechanisms, clinical efficacy, and controversies surrounding the application of topical vancomycin. The current literature shows that intrawound vancomycin powder effectively reduces Gram-positive SSIs, overcomes ischemic barriers to early biofilm formation, and maintains a safe systemic profile while remaining highly cost-effective. However, serious clinical concerns remain about its widespread use, including higher rates of sterile wound dehiscence, possible localized cellular toxicity that may impair bone fusion, changes in pathogen profiles, and the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance. The absence of a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, lack of standardized dosing regimens, and warnings from major health organizations complicate its true clinical utility. Ultimately, the available literature suggests a shift away from universal application and toward tightly controlled, targeted interventions guided by strict antimicrobial stewardship. However, it remains for surgeons to evaluate risks versus benefits when administering vancomycin powder into incisions. Ongoing large-scale randomized controlled trials and emerging translational approaches, such as extended-release carrier systems and personalized bacteriological profiling, are essential for establishing definitive, evidence-based clinical guidelines.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial resistanceAntimicrobial stewardshipBiofilm preventionLocal antibiotic deliveryOrthopedic surgerySpine surgerySSI prophylaxisSurgical site infectionVancomycin

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.