• G D Musters, J W A Burger, C J Buskens, W A Bemelman, and P J Tanis.
• Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Post box 22660, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G.D.Musters@amc.uva.nl.
• World J Surg. 2015 Nov 1; 39 (11): 2786-94.

BackgroundUse of topical antibiotics to improve perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection (APR) is controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the impact of local application of gentamicin on perineal wound healing after APR.MethodsThe electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched in January 2015. Perineal wound outcome was categorized as infectious complications, non-infectious complications, and primary perineal wound healing.ResultsFrom a total of 582 articles, eight studies published between 1988 and 2012 were included: four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three comparative cohort studies, and one cohort study without control group. Gentamicin was administered using sponges (n = 3), beads (n = 4), and by local injection (n = 1). There was substantial heterogeneity regarding underlying disease, definition of outcome parameters and timing of perineal wound evaluation among the included studies, which precluded meta-analysis with pooling. Regarding infectious complications, three of six evaluable studies demonstrated a positive effect of local application of gentamicin: one of four RCTs and both comparative cohort studies. Only two RCTs reported on non-infectious complications, showing no significant impact of gentamicin sponge. All three comparative cohort studies demonstrated a significantly higher percentage of primary perineal wound healing after local application of gentamicin beads, but only one out of three evaluable RCTs did show a positive effect of gentamicin sponges.ConclusionCurrently available evidence does not support perineal gentamicin application after APR.

18 keywords...

hide…