Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Blepharoplasty: Review of the current literature

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to provide an evidence-based overview of antibiotic prophylaxis in blepharoplasty. Materials and Methods A literature search was performed which evaluated the risk of infection associated with blepharoplasty as well as the risks and benefits of antibiot...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of oral and maxillofacial surgery Vol. 75; no. 7; pp. 1477 - 1481
Main Authors Ferneini, Elie M., DMD, MD, MHS, MBA, FACS, Halepas, Steven, BS, Aronin, Steven I., MD, FACP
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Elsevier Inc 01.07.2017
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to provide an evidence-based overview of antibiotic prophylaxis in blepharoplasty. Materials and Methods A literature search was performed which evaluated the risk of infection associated with blepharoplasty as well as the risks and benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis. Results The overall infection rate associated with eyelid surgery is extremely low. However, antibiotic prophylaxis has increased over the past 25 years in aesthetic facial procedures. There is no standard of care for or against antibiotic prophylaxis and routine practices vary widely. This leads to the question of whether reducing the risk of surgical site infection to near zero outweighs the real danger of antibiotic-related complications, including the escalating emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Conclusion No direct consensus can be drawn from the current literature and thus, at the present time, there is no current standard of care for oral and maxillofacial surgeons to adhere to in terms of when and if antibiotic prophylaxis is needed when performing a blepharoplasty.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-1
ISSN:0278-2391
1531-5053
DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2017.01.025