Efficacy of Local Powder Prophylactics

Overview

Hypothesis: Directly applying antibiotic powder onto the site of surgery along with perioperative intravenous antibiotics, before closing the wound, is more effective than intravenously applied perioperative antibiotics alone in controlling post-operative wound infection. The investigators also think powders that control both gram positive and gram negative bacteria are more beneficial.

Full Title of Study: “Effects of Applying Powdered Prophylactics Verses Intravenous Antibiotics Only on Post-operative Infection Rate”

Study Type

  • Study Type: Interventional
  • Study Design
    • Allocation: Randomized
    • Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
    • Primary Purpose: Prevention
    • Masking: Single (Outcomes Assessor)
  • Study Primary Completion Date: June 2012

Detailed Description

1. Subjects will be divided into three groups based on the procedure used for the application of antibiotics 1. No local antibiotics (control group): In this group, individuals will be subjected to peri-operative intravenous* antibiotics only 2. Gram positive antibiotic: In this group, gram positive (powdered vancomycin)+ will be applied to the site of surgery, before closure of the wound, along with peri-operative intravenous antibiotics* 3. Gram positive and gram negative: In this group, gram positive (powdered vancomycin) will be instilled on the site of surgery, before closing the wound, and gram negative antibiotic (gentamycin mixed with bone cement)+ will be used, along with peri-operative intravenous antibiotics* (only in cases of implant fixation). – Intravenous antibiotic dosage: 1 pre-operative dose of Cefuroxime 1.5 gm and 2 post-operative doses of Cefuroxime 750 mg. – Vancomycin and Gentamycin dosage: 500 mg of vancomycin powder will be used and in group 'c' gentamycin mixed with bone cement will be used along with vancomycin powder. 2. Sample size: Based on, finding at least 4% difference between the proportions of infections found in control (generally 5%, 4% in case of joint replacement) and case groups (1%) (proportions were assumed from literature and our institute records), a sample size of minimum 285 in each group (424 for joint replacement cases) will be considered for the observation to be significant at an alpha level of 0.05. This will give the study a minimum power of 80%. Spine cases: Control = 143, Gram-P = 143; Trauma cases: Control = 143, Gram-P = 143; Joint replacement cases: Control = 424, Gram-P = 424, Gram-P+Gram-N = 424; Total = 1844; Where Control – Cases with intravenous antibiotic dose; Gram-P – Cases with intravenous antibiotic + local antibiotic (Vancomycin, acts against gram positive bacteria); Gram-N – Cases with intravenous antibiotic + local antibiotic (Vancomycin, acts against gram positive bacteria) + local Gentamycin cement (acts against gram negative bacteria). 3. Procedure: Sampling will be based on stratified procedure. The total sample will be divided into categories based on the type of surgery, which are spine, trauma and joint replacement. Subjects within each category will be randomly selected for the three antibiotic treatments. For this study, we will use computer software to generate restricted randomization to achieve balance between groups in size. Within this restricted randomization, single block random size will be used to ensure randomization within each group. While joint surgery category will have all the three groups of cases (a, b and c), spine and trauma surgery category will have only two groups (a and b). Surgeries will be performed accordingly i.e. control group individuals will undergo mandated hospital policy requirements + perioperative intravenous antibiotic treatment and cases will undergo mandated hospital policy requirements + powdered vancomycin, or both vancomycin, just before the closure of the wound, and gentamycin as a mix with bone cement. Patients who exhibit both superficial and deep wood infection will be considered as infected and accounted for statistical analysis. 4. Analysis: Our main parameter of comparison is infection percentage among control and cases. Various factors like duration of surgery, tourniquet time, prior infections, blood transfusion, haemoglobin count, comorbidities, etc, will be considered while analysing for infection percentage. Infection proportions will be compared between different groups at a significance level of 0.05.

Interventions

  • Biological: Vancomycin
    • 1 pre-operative dose of intravenous Cefuroxime (1.5 gm) and 2 post-operative doses of Cefuroxime (750 mg) + 500 mg of vancomycin instilled on surgical site before closure
  • Biological: Vancomycin and Gentamycin
    • 1 pre-operative dose of intravenous Cefuroxime (1.5 gm) and 2 post-operative doses of Cefuroxime (750 mg) and 500 mg of vancomycin powder on surgical site before closure with gentamycin bone cement for joint replacement cases.
  • Biological: Cefuroxime
    • 1 pre-operative dose of Cefuroxime (1.5 gm) and 2 post-operative doses of Cefuroxime (750 mg)

Arms, Groups and Cohorts

  • Active Comparator: Vancomycin
  • Active Comparator: Vancomycin and Gentamycin
  • Active Comparator: Intravenous Antibiotic

Clinical Trial Outcome Measures

Primary Measures

  • Infection percent after surgery
    • Time Frame: Within one year after surgery

Participating in This Clinical Trial

Inclusion Criteria

  • All joint replacement patients – All non infected spine patients – Hemiarthroplasty, All upper limb plating of closed fractures Exclusion Criteria:
  • Open injuries in trauma – Revision joint replacement surgeries – Patients with suspicion of existing infection
  • Gender Eligibility: All

    Minimum Age: 10 Years

    Maximum Age: N/A

    Are Healthy Volunteers Accepted: No

    Investigator Details

    • Lead Sponsor
      • Ganga Hospital
    • Provider of Information About this Clinical Study
      • Dr. S. Rajasekaran, Ph.D., Ganga Hospital
    • Overall Official(s)
      • Rajasekaran Shanmuganathan, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, Ganga Hospital

    Clinical trials entries are delivered from the US National Institutes of Health and are not reviewed separately by this site. Please see the identifier information above for retrieving further details from the government database.

    At TrialBulletin.com, we keep tabs on over 200,000 clinical trials in the US and abroad, using medical data supplied directly by the US National Institutes of Health. Please see the About and Contact page for details.