affandi kurniawan

PERBANDINGAN HASIL KLINIS PROFILAKSIS ANTIBIOTIK CEFAZOLIN DAN TEICOPLANIN PADA BEDAH ORTOPEDI DI RS X

Introduction

Perbandingan hasil klinis profilaksis antibiotik cefazolin dan teicoplanin pada bedah ortopedi di rs x. Penelitian membandingkan efektivitas antibiotik profilaksis Cefazolin & Teicoplanin pada bedah ortopedi untuk mencegah infeksi. Hasil menunjukkan tidak ada perbedaan signifikan, merekomendasikan Cefazolin.

Abstract

Trauma pada tulang menyebabkan keretakan tulang (patah tulang atau fraktur). Patofisiologi fraktur terbagi menjadi dua yaitu fraktur tertutup (closed fracture (CF)) dan fraktur terbuka (open fracture (OF)). Kondisi fraktur umumnya dapat memicu resiko infeksi. Untuk mengurangi risiko infeksi, dapat diberikan terapi antibiotik profilaksis yang dilanjutkan dengan pembedahan. Penelitian terdahulu mencantumkan bahwa penggunaan antibiotik profilaksis digunakan secara irasional pada pasien bedah yang dapat meningkatkan kejadian resistensi antibiotik. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui perbandingan hasil klinis antibiotik profilaksis bedah ortopedi dengan Cefazolin dan Teicoplanin. Berdasarkan hasil analisa yang di ambil secara retrospektif dari buku profilaksis di OT dan data yang tercantum pada EMR membuktikan bahwa tidak ada perbedaan yang signifikan antara penggunaan Teicoplanin dan Cefazolin sebagai profilaksis untuk pembedahan orthopedi. Disarankan  sebaiknya hanya digunakan cefazolin dikarenakan pola kuman di RS masih sensitif terhadap Cefazolin.Kata Kunci: Antibiotik profilaksis, Cefazolin, Teicoplanin

Review

This study, titled 'Perbandingan Hasil Klinis Profilaksis Antibiotik Cefazolin dan Teicoplanin pada Bedah Ortopedi di RS X' (Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Cefazolin and Teicoplanin Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Orthopedic Surgery at Hospital X), addresses a crucial aspect of patient care in orthopedics: the prevention of surgical site infections. Recognizing that fractures inherently carry an infection risk, the appropriate selection of prophylactic antibiotics is paramount. The authors aptly contextualize their research by noting the widespread concern regarding irrational antibiotic use and its contribution to antimicrobial resistance, thus positioning their investigation into the comparative efficacy of Cefazolin and Teicoplanin as a pertinent and timely contribution to evidence-based practice and antibiotic stewardship. The research employed a retrospective analytical approach, utilizing data extracted from prophylaxis logs in the operating theatre and electronic medical records. While the abstract offers a concise overview, it clearly communicates the core finding: no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between patients who received Cefazolin and those who received Teicoplanin as prophylactic agents in orthopedic surgery. This direct comparison, despite the limitations inherent in retrospective designs, provides valuable insights into the local efficacy of these two commonly utilized antibiotics within the studied hospital environment. The practical implications of these findings are substantial. The demonstration of comparable clinical outcomes between Cefazolin and Teicoplanin allows for informed decision-making regarding antibiotic selection. The authors' subsequent recommendation to preferentially use Cefazolin is particularly salient, driven by the critical observation that local microbial patterns at Hospital X remain sensitive to Cefazolin. This recommendation strongly aligns with global efforts in antibiotic stewardship, promoting the use of the most appropriate, often narrower-spectrum and potentially more cost-effective, agent when clinical efficacy is equivalent, thereby contributing to the judicious use of antibiotics and the ongoing fight against resistance.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.