Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:35:33.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infected Urine as a Risk Factor for Postprostatectomy Wound Infection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Santiago Richter ,
Ruth Lang ,
Fruma Zur  and
Israel Nissenkorn
Santiago Richter*
Affiliation:
Department of Urology, Sapir Medical Center, Kfar Sava and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Ruth Lang
Affiliation:
Hospital Epidemiology Unit, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Sapir Medical Center, Kfar Sava and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Fruma Zur
Affiliation:
Hospital Epidemiology Unit, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Sapir Medical Center, Kfar Sava and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Israel Nissenkorn
Affiliation:
Department of Urology, Sapir Medical Center, Kfar Sava and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel
*
Department of Urology, Sapir Medical Center, 44 281 Kfar Sava, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To study the relation of preoperative infected urine and postprostatectomy wound infection in patients with and without indwelling bladder catheters.

Design:

Patients undergoing prostatectomy were evaluated for the presence of infected urine prior to prostatectomy and postoperative wound infection. They were further divided into patients with indwelling urinary catheter and catheter-free patients. All had received antibiotic prophylaxis.

Patients:

One hundred fifty consecutive patients undergoing open prostatectomy-mean age was 67 years; 100 patients with an indwelling catheter for a mean period of 50 days; 50 catheter-free patients.

Results:

Wound infection was found in 19 of 81 (23.5%) and in 6 of 69 (8.7%) patients with infected and sterile urine, respectively p = .028). In patients with indwelling catheters prior to operation, wound infection was 22.4% when urine was infected and 8.3% when it was not. In patients without catheters, infected urine was associated with 40% of wound infections, as compared with 8.9% of wound infections in patients with sterile urine. Organisms obtained from infected wound and urine were identical in 84% of cases. These results were obtained despite antibiotic prophylaxis.

Conclusions:

Wound infection has been demonstrated to be a postprostatectomy complication directly related to the presence of urinary infection at surgery; thus, elective prostatectomy should be deferred until urine becomes sterile.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , March 1991 , pp. 147 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bastable, JRG, Peel, RN, Birch, DM, Richards, B. Continuous irrigation of the bladder after prostatectomy: its effect on post-prostatectomy infection. Br J Urol. 1977;49:689–693.10.1111/j.1464-410X.1977.tb04554.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Chodak, GW, Plaut, ME. Systemic antibiotics for prophylaxis in urologic surgery: a critical review. J Urol. 1979;121: 695–699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Gibbons, RP, Stark, RA, Correa, RJ Jr, Cummings, KB, Mason, JT. The prophylactic use or misuse of antibiotics in transurethral prostatectomy.] Urol. 1978;119:381–386.10.1016/S0022-5347(17)57496-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Haverkorn, MJ. Prophylactic trimethoprim for prostatectomy. Urology. 1984;24:414–418.10.1016/0090-4295(84)90227-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Roberts, FJ. A review of positive blood cultures: identification and source of microorganisms and patterns of sensitivity to antibiotics. Rev Infect Dis. 1980;2:329–333.10.1093/clinids/2.3.329CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Murphy, DM, Falkiner, FR, Carr, M, Cafferkey, MT, Gillespie, WA. Septicemia after transurethral prostatectomy. urology. 1983;22:133–136.10.1016/0090-4295(83)90493-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Webb, JK, Blandy, JP. Closed urinary drainage in plastic bags containing antiseptic. Br J Urol. 1968;40:585–588.10.1111/j.1464-410X.1968.tb11854.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Jackaman, FR, Chisholm, GD. Urinary infection and prostatectomy. Br J Urol. 1975;47:545–548.10.1111/j.1464-410X.1975.tb06259.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Cafferkey, MT, Falkiner, FR, Gillespie, WA, Murphy, DM. Antibiotics for the prevention of septicemia in urology. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1982;9:471–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Shah, PJR, Williams, G, Chaudary, M. Short-term antibiotic prophylaxis and prostatectomy. Br J Urol. 1981;53:339–343.10.1111/j.1464-410X.1981.tb03193.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Holl, WH, Rous, SN. Is antibiotic prophylaxis worthwhile in patients with transurethral resection of prostate? Urology. 1982;19:43–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Meyhoff, HH, Nordling, J, Hald, T. Transurethral versus transvesical prostatectomy. Physiological strain. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1985;19:85–91.10.3109/00365598509180232CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Prokocimer, P, Quazza, M, Gibert, C, et al. Short-term prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing prostatectomy: report of a double-blind randomized trial with 2 intravenous doses of cefotaxime. J Urol. 1986;135:60–64.10.1016/S0022-5347(17)45518-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Joly-Guillou, ML, Prokocimer, P, Desmonts, JM, Lemoine, JF, Manuel, C, Bergogne-Berezin, E. Effect of flash chemo-prophylaxis by cefotaxime on the appearance of post- operative bacterial superinfections in surgery of the prostate. Pathol Biol (Paris). 1985;33:325–329.Google Scholar
15. Ramsey, EW, Sheth, NK. Antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing prostatectomy. Urology 1983;11:376–378.10.1016/0090-4295(83)90155-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar