Back to research feed

Surgical endoscopy

October 19, 2026 · via Europe PMC

Are prophylactic antibiotics routinely necessary in laparoscopic adnexal surgery? A multicenter cohort study.

Miyata H, Kobayashi E, Yasuda M, +8 more, Ueda Y.

Journal ArticleAbstract only — full text under license

AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only

Routine cefazolin did not reduce 30-day surgical site infection after clean laparoscopic adnexal surgery in this large cohort.

What was studied

Multicenter retrospective cohort of 1,678 patients having laparoscopic adnexal surgery for benign disease at Osaka University and six hospitals, comparing pre-incision cefazolin (n = 1,415) with none (n = 263) using IPTW.

Key findings

  • SSI occurred in about 1.1% in both groups (16/1,415 vs 3/263); weighted 1.1% vs 1.2%, p = 0.915
  • Operative time of 120 minutes or more was associated with SSI (aOR 3.54, 95% CI 1.41-8.85)
  • In ovarian cystectomy, uterine manipulator use was associated with SSI (aOR 4.03, 95% CI 1.26-12.90)

Clinical relevance

Supports questioning routine antibiotic prophylaxis in clean laparoscopic gynecologic procedures, and highlights modifiable infection risks.

Who should care

General SurgeryEndocrine Surgery

Limitations

Retrospective non-randomized comparison with very few SSI events, so residual confounding and low power limit conclusions.

Consider omitting routine prophylaxis for clean laparoscopic adnexal surgery in low-risk patients and focus on operative time and manipulator use.

This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.

Abstract

Background

The benefit of routine prophylactic antibiotics for clean laparoscopic adnexal surgery remains unclear. We evaluated whether pre-incision cefazolin reduces the incidence of 30-day surgical site infections (SSIs), and we identified perioperative risk factors for SSIs.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study using clinical data from Osaka University and six affiliated hospitals. Among 1,865 patients who underwent laparoscopic adnexal surgery for benign conditions, 1,678 were included after specified exclusions. Patients received either pre-incision cefazolin (n = 1,415) or no prophylaxis (n = 263) according to institutional policy. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSI during the 30-day postoperative interval, classified according to CDC criteria. The association between prophylaxis and SSI was evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Propensity scores were estimated using age, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, endometriosis, and previous abdominal surgery. Risk factors for SSI were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Exploratory subgroup analyses were performed by repeating the same IPTW procedure within specified subgroups, and procedure-specific supplementary analyses were performed for ovarian cystectomy.

Results

SSI occurred in 1.1% of patients in both groups: 16/1,415 in the cefazolin group and 3/263 in the non-antibiotic group. In IPTW-adjusted analyses, the incidence of SSI did not differ between groups (1.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.915). In multivariable analysis, operative time ≥120 min was associated with SSI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-8.85). In supplementary analyses restricted to an ovarian cystectomy subgroup, uterine manipulator use was associated with SSI (aOR 4.03, 95% CI 1.26-12.90).

Conclusion

Routine prophylactic cefazolin was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of 30-day SSI after clean laparoscopic adnexal surgery. Given few SSI events and the potential for residual confounding, our findings support further evaluation of a selective rather than routine approach to prophylactic antibiotic use.

DOI

10.1007/s00464-026-13529-3

PMID

42897337

Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.

Want more like this?

Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.

Back to the research feed

Create a free account · Sign in