Abstract

Antibiotic prophylaxis in inguinal hernia repair (IHR) is contentious in literature and practice. In low-risk patients, for whom evidence suggests antibiotic prophylaxis is unnecessary, many surgeons still advocate for its routine use. This study surveys prescription patterns of Department of Defense (DoD) general surgeons.An anonymous survey was sent electronically to approximately 350 DoD general surgeons. The survey asked multiple-choice and free text answers about prescribing patterns and knowledge of current evidence for low-risk patients undergoing elective open inguinal hernia repair without mesh (OIHRWOM), open inguinal hernia repair with mesh (OIHRWM), or laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR).110 DoD general surgeons consented to participate. 58.6, 95 and 84.2% of surgeons always administer antibiotic prophylaxis in OIHRWOM, OIHRWM, and LIHR, respectively. 37.9, 70.9, and 63.2% of surgeons believe that it reduces rates of surgical site infection in OIHRWOM, OIHRWM, and LIHR, respectively. The most common reasons for empirically prescribing antibiotic prophylaxis include "I think the evidence supports it" (27 of 72 responses), "I would rather be conservative and safe" (15 of 72 responses), and "I am following my hospital/department guidelines" (9 of 72 responses). 11.8, 40.8, and 32.9% of surgeons believe current evidence supports antibiotic prophylaxis use in OIHRWM, OIHRWOM, and LIHR, respectively. 50, 18.4, and 22.4% of surgeons believe current evidence refutes antibiotic prophylaxis use in OIHRWM, OIHRWOM, and LIHR, respectively.The survey results indicate that the majority of practicing DoD general surgeons still empirically prescribe surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in IHR despite more conflicting opinions that it has no meaningful effect or that current evidence does not supports its use.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s10029-020-02145-2

View details for PubMedID 32107656