ReviewAdvances in therapy2026
Intrawound Vancomycin Powder in Surgical Site Infection Prophylaxis: A Comprehensive Review of Mechanisms, Efficacy, Safety, and Clinical Controversies.
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.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
42631803What 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.