Antibiotic Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Infection after Major Limb Amputation

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg (2009) 37, 696e703 REVIEW Antibiotic Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Infection after Major Limb Amputation J. McIntosh, J.J. Earnshaw* Department of Vascular Surgery, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Great Western Road, Gloucester GL1 3NN, United Kingdom Submitted 2 August 2008; accepted 26 January 2009 Available online 26 March 2009 KEYWORDS Amputation; Antibiotic prophylaxis- Wound infection Abstract Background: Major limb amputation is often required by patients with a limited capacity to tolerate post-operative complications. Amputation stump infection is common and may necessitate re-amputation, potentially exposing a vulnerable patient to further serious complications. Effective antibiotic strategies should be employed to reduce wound infection after major amputation. Methods: Online databases were searched to identify studies regarding reduction in wound infection following major limb amputation. Only four randomised studies were identified comparing antibiotic prophylaxis with control; a further three evaluated the efficacy of specific antibiotics. Study design, end-points and outcome data were recorded. The data were too heterogeneous for formal meta-analysis. Results: Prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced rates of stump infection in all studies, and were associated with a reduced rate of re-amputation in one. Where investigated, the type of antibiotic did not affect rates of infection. In non-randomised studies, infection with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) increased the risk of complications and post-operative death. Conclusion: It is agreed that prophylactic antibiotics are part of the standard of care for amputation surgery, and this is supported by limited, mostly historical-controlled data. Evolution of the bacterial threat means that future studies should assess the role and type of prophylaxis for patients with existing bacterial colonisation or infection. ª 2009 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 08454 226190; fax: þ44 08454 226778. E-mail address: jjearnshaw@tiscali.co.uk (J.J. Earnshaw). Major limb amputation is the devastating end stage of advanced peripheral vascular disease, and often follows prolonged attempts at limb salvage. The most important 1078-5884/$34 ª 2009 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.01.013

Prevention of Infection after Major Limb Amputation 697 local complication after amputation is failure of the stump to heal. This may be the result of continued ischaemia, or infection caused by wound contamination by pathogenic bacteria (often there is an element of both). Defining the appropriate level of amputation with respect to the remaining blood supply in the leg is a major factor in ensuring primary healing, but will not be considered further here. The aim of this review is to summarise the literature concerning the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of amputation stump failure. Patients who need major limb amputation are frequently elderly with numerous medical co-morbidities, and represent a high-risk group for surgical intervention, with decreased capacity to tolerate complications. They often have many patient-related risk factors for developing surgical site infection, including diabetes mellitus, old age, smoking and bacterial colonisation. 1 As a consequence of their co-morbidities, these patients are often exposed to the health care environment where they may become colonised with pathogenic bacteria. For example, patients recently exposed to a health care environment are twice as likely to be colonised with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). 2,3 It is not unusual for potential amputees to come from residential care facilities where MRSA colonisation is common. 4,5 In addition, the presence of skin ulceration, necrosis and gangrene, often the indication for limb amputation, is recognised as a risk factor for developing MRSA-related complications in colonised patients. 6 The consequences of infection following major limb amputation may include the need for wound revision or reamputation at a higher level. This increases hospital stay, and also potentially increases the rate of secondary postoperative complications, which may include acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia and even death, or late complications such as poor long-term mobility and independence. Minimising the risk of stump infection after major amputation therefore reduces both hospital stay and secondary morbidity. The aim of this review was to summarise the available literature on antibiotic prophylaxis in leg amputation surgery, evaluate the importance of the available trials and then to suggest the possible direction for future research. Methods Studies concerning wound infection after major limb amputation were identified by performing a literature search on Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar and The Cochrane Library, using the keywords major limb amputation with the Boolean operator AND wound infection AND antibiotic prophylaxis. The search was exploded using the related articles term in PubMed. No restrictions were put on language or references starting date, and all identified studies were included. The reference lists of published studies were also scrutinised in order to identify any other studies that could be included. All studies identified were reviewed and data pertaining to recorded endpoints and their frequency were recorded. The quality of the study design and reporting was included as part of the analysis. End-points after major limb amputation To decide which strategies could be useful in reducing infection after major limb amputation, peer reviewed, comparative data on clinically important end-points were analysed from suitably designed trials. As a minimum requirement, the key end-points after major limb amputation should have included: rate of primary wound healing, rate of infected and non-infected wound necrosis, reoperation for wound debridement and re-amputation (including the level at which this was performed) and mortality, both wound and non-wound related. Other endpoints sought were duration of post-operative hospital stay and adverse events relating to the treatment. Analysis The available literature was reviewed to look for evidence supporting measures designed to reduce stump infection following major limb amputation. Ideally meta-analysis should be used to collate the results of randomised trials, however, the available trials were too heterogeneous and diverse for this to be valid statistically. It was therefore decided simply to perform a summation analysis without formal statistical review. Results Antibiotic prophylaxis There were four studies that compared patient outcome following major limb amputation with, or without antibiotic prophylaxis (Tables 1 and 2). Two were prospective, controlled trials, 7,8 but only one described treatment allocation 8 and neither was blinded. The other studies were randomised trials, 9,10 of which only one was blinded or described the method of allocation to treatment. 10 In three studies 8e10 amputation was performed by an orthopaedic surgeon, and in the fourth by a vascular surgeon. 7 Three studies reported data from a single institution, 7e9 the fourth included data from seven separate hospitals. 10 This study stated that amputations followed the usual regimen for the individual department, and it was evident from their description of both operative procedure and postoperative wound care that the regimens of the individual departments were different. Further, their data also included 16 through knee amputations, a technique not used in all studies. 7 Although though knee amputations were included by Moller and Krebs, 8 they did not state how many were done, nor indeed the number of the different amputations at each level. The mean age of the patients in three of the studies was comparable 8e10 but in the study by Huizinga et al. it was lower. 7 The indications for amputation may have varied, however, these appeared to be similar in all the studies, albeit that amputation for arteriosclerosis reported in one study 10 lacked the more specific indications cited in the others. Huizinga et al. 7 included amputations for infected, non-healing wounds after previous amputation, whereas the other studies included primary amputations only.

698 J. McIntosh, J.J. Earnshaw Table 1 Published studies of antibiotic prophylaxis in major limb amputation References Year Country Surgical N Median age (range) M:F ratio Comparison Study type Treatment allocation department Not described Prospective, randomised trial (blinding not commented on) No antibiotics vs cefotaxime 38 76 control Not 79 Prophylaxis reported (46e89, 47e94) Norlin et al. 9 1990 Sweden Orthopaedic (1 institution) Sequential allocation Prospective, controlled trial (non-blinded) 145 54 (22e79) 3.7:1 No antibiotics vs flucloxacillin, amoxycillin Vascular (1 institution) Huizinga et al. 7 1986 South Africa Amoxicillin and clavulanic acid Not described Prospective, controlled trial (blinding not commented on) 50 75 control 0.9:1 No antibiotics 73 prophylaxis vs methicillin (range not given) Moller and Krebs 8 1985 Denmark Orthopaedic (1 institution) Random number allocation 152 74 (24e95) 1.6:1 Placebo vs cefoxitin Randomised controlled trial (double blind) Sonne-Holm et al. 10 1985 Denmark Orthopaedic (7 institutions) Only one study employed a placebo in the patients who did not receive antibiotics. 10 The antibiotics used are summarised in Table 2. All studies recorded primary wound healing and wound infection as end-points; two recorded rates of dry necrosis 8,10 and three recorded rates of reamputation, 8e10 with Sonne-Holm et al. 10 and Norlin et al. 9 recording the level at which this occurred. No other endpoints were recorded. Prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced the rate of wound infection in all the studies (amoxicillin, P < 0.01, amoxicillin and flucloxacillin, P < 0.005, amoxicillin and clavulanic acid, P < 0.005, 7 P < 0.01, 8 P < 0.001, 9 P < 0.005 10 ). Rates of dry necrosis requiring re-amputation were greater after antibiotic use in one study 8 (4/27, 14.8% vs 1/23, 4.3%, no statistical analysis), however, no re-amputations were needed for infected necrosis in the prophylaxis group compared with seven in the control group (no statistical analysis). In another study, dry necrosis did not differ significantly between groups, 10 but the re-amputation rate was significantly higher after placebo (21/75, 28% vs 7/77, 9%, P < 0.005) and was more commonly performed at a higher level, irrespective of antibiotic use. This concurred with re-amputation level data from another study. 9 All the antibiotics reduced the rates of clinical wound infection and positive wound culture swabs, except flucloxacillin in the study reported by Huizinga et al. 7 There was an obvious discrepancy in the control group in the latter study, however, as the authors reported that 13 out of 26 controls received benzyl penicillin (500 mg intravenous, QDS for 48 h) due to the high rate of isolation of Clostridium species from wound swabs in the first 13 patients from this group. Although the authors concluded that this did not affect the homogeneity of the control group, patients who received benzyl penicillin should have been excluded from the study in the same way that patients who had received antibiotics in the 48 h before surgery for other indications were excluded. This study also compared flucloxacillin with other antibiotics used in the investigation, and reported that only the combination of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid showed a significant advantage in reducing clinical wound infection and positive wound culture swabs (P < 0.005 for both parameters). One of the co-authors of the study was based at the pharmaceutical company acknowledged for supplying the antibiotics for the study, which clearly represents a potential conflict of interest, particularly as the study was not blinded. Trials of different antibiotics Three studies compared the efficacy of different prophylactic antibiotics for major limb amputation (Table 3). Two compared broad spectrum penicillins with broad spectrum cephalosporins (methicillin vs cephalothin, 11 and penicillin G vs cefuroxime 12 ), whilst a third compared members of the penicillin group (benzyl penicillin vs amoxicillin and clavulanic acid 13 ). The first two studies were performed after the studies discussed in the previous section, and recorded end-points that included wound revision and level of reamputation, and post-operative death. The first two studies were prospective, randomised trials with acceptable patient recruitment. 11,12 Neither reported

Prevention of Infection after Major Limb Amputation 699 Table 2 Indication, antibiotic regimens, operation, end-points and result summary following major limb amputation References Indication for Antibiotic Site of End-points Results Summary amputation regimens amputation BKA TKA AKA recorded (compared to control) Norlin et al. 9 Ischaemia IV cefotaxime 2 g (20 min pre-op & 2 doses post op) Huizinga et al. 7 Moller and Krebs 8 Control 11 3 5 Wound infection Significantly reduced Cefotaxime 13 3 3 Re-amputation rate Reduced Infected nonhealing ulceration Infected gangrene IV Fl 500 mg QDS IV Am 500 mg QDS Control Fl 15 19 11 7 Wound infection Significantly reduced by all antibiotics Infected nonhealing of previous amputation wound IV Fl/Am 500 mg QDS (30 min preop & QDS for 48 h) Am 21 10 except Fl PO Am 500 mg and Ca 250 mg (2 h pre-op & TDS for 48 h) Fl/Am 18 14 Am/Ca 15 15 Am/Ca combination reported as significantly better than other regimes Total 88 57 Infected nonhealing ulceration IV methicillin 1 g (30 min pre-op & Not recorded Wound infection Significantly reduced Gangrene QDS for 24 h) Dry necrosis Increased (no statistics) Rest pain Re-amputation rate Reduced Sonne-Holm Arteriosclerosis IV cefoxitin 2 g et al. 10 (Induction & QDS for 24 h) Control 38 10 27 Wound infection Significantly reduced Cefoxitin 43 6 28 Dry necrosis No difference Total 81 16 55 Re-amputation rate (3/12) Significantly reduced Fl, Flucloxacillin, Am, Amoxicillin, Ca, Clavulanic acid, BKA, below knee amputation, TKA, through knee amputation, AKA, above knee amputation. any significant differences in any of the end-points. For example, Friis 12 reported wound infection rates of 12.6% (20/158) with penicillin G and 17.4% (27/155) with cefuroxime (P > 0.05); whilst rates of re-amputation reported by Thomsen et al 11 were 18.2% (16/88) after cephalothin and 12.8% (11/86) after methicillin (P Z 0.3094). One criticism of the study by Friis 12 is that some of the patients received antibiotics in the 48 h before surgery for other indications. Data on these patients were presented separately, however, and the results appeared similar between the groups, although no statistical analysis was done. The third of these studies 13 predated those in the previous section, and only reported wound infection as an end-point. Benzyl penicillin was compared to the combination of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid; the authors reported significantly higher rates of wound infection with benzyl penicillin (10/13, 76.9% vs 4/31, 12.9%, P < 0.001). Whilst the benefit of a broader antimicrobial spectrum may not be a surprise, this study also included a number of transmetatarsal and phalangeal amputations, and was therefore more heterogeneous than other populations studied. Additionally, as noted in the previous study from this group, a participating co-author was affiliated to the pharmaceutical company who produced and supplied the antibiotics for the study. Another study was identified that compared cephradine with cefuroxime in 41 patients undergoing major limb amputation. 14 These were, however, reported as part of a larger study of vascular procedures that included other elective and emergency vascular reconstructions. Further, the authors did not state if the amputation was a primary procedure or whether it followed unsuccessful revascularisation. Wound infection was the only end-point reported after amputation, and in keeping with previous studies 11,12 the rates of wound infection were similar in both groups (2/19, 11%, cephradine vs 3/15, 15% cefuroxime, no statistical analysis). A further study was identified 15 that compared pre-operative metronidazole and neomycin (with no postoperative antibiotics) against post-operative oral penicillin V. The rationale of this study was that the pre-operative regimen might reduce contamination with

700 J. McIntosh, J.J. Earnshaw Table 3 Published studies comparing efficacy of specific antibiotics and end-points in major limb amputation References Year Country Study type N Comparison End-points recorded Results summary Thomsen et al. 11 1990 Denmark Prospective randomised trial Friis 12 1987 Denmark Prospective trial Huizinga et al. 13 1983 South Africa Prospective trial 174 Methicillin vs cephalothin 457 Penicillin G vs cefuroxime 44 Benzyl penicillin vs amoxicillin and clavulanic acid Primary healing Dry necrosis Infected necrosis Wound revision Re-amputation (level defined) Primary healing Dry necrosis Infected necrosis Wound revision Re-amputation (level defined) Death (wound or non-wound related) Wound infection No significant differences in any end-points No significant differences in any end-points Wound infection rate higher with benzyl penicillin compared to amoxicillin and clavulanic acid. Table 4 Infecting organisms in published studies relating to wound infection following major limb amputation References Year Country Comparison Infecting micro-organism(s) reported Norlin et al. 9 1990 Sweden No antibiotics vs cefotaxime 2/4 (50%) Staphylococcus aureus, 2/4 (50%) Gram negative organisms. Thomsen et al. 11 1990 Denmark Methicillin vs cephalothin 18/25 (72%) Staphylococcus aureus, 3/25 (12%) Gram negative organisms, 4/25 (16%) undefined (1 positive swab for Clostridium perfringens without clinical evidence of infection). Friis 12 1987 Denmark Penicillin G vs cefuroxime 10/47 (21%) Staphylococcus aureus, 1/47 (2%) Clostridium perfringens. Huizinga et al. 7 1986 South Africa No antibiotics vs flucloxacillin, amoxycillin, flucloxacillin & amoxicillin and amoxicillin and clavulanic acid Proteus mirabilis, Proteus vulgaris, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus faecalis, Acinetobacter calcoaceticus anitratum, Bacteroides fragilis, Bacteroides melaninogenicus. No numerical data given Moller and Krebs 8 1985 Denmark No antibiotics vs methicillin 6/8 (75%) Staphylococcus aureus, 2/8 (25%) Streptococcus faecalis, 1/8 (13%) Clostridium perfringens, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas and Enterobacter. Sonne-Holm et al. 10 1985 Denmark Placebo vs cefoxitin Authors state that Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium perfringens caused most infections, but no numerical data given. Huizinga et al. 13 1983 South Africa Benzyl penicillin vs amoxicillin and clavulanic acid 1/13 (8%) Proteus mirabilis, other infecting organisms undefined.

Prevention of Infection after Major Limb Amputation 701 faecal aerobic and anaerobic organisms, which the authors previously found to be associated with wound infection. Only 10 patients were enrolled in the study, which was concluded prematurely due to a high rate of Clostridial wound infections in the patients who had preoperative metronidazole and neomycin. These two studies added little to the evidence presented, and are only cited for completeness. Infecting micro-organisms Where the organism was reported, wound infection was most frequently caused by S. aureus, which accounted for between 21% (10/47) and 75% (6/8) of infections 8,9,11,12 (Table 4). Another study cited this organism to be the cause for the majority of infections without giving exact numerical data. 10 Clostridium perfringens was identified as an occasional infecting organism in two studies: 2% (1/47) and 13% (1/8). 8,12 This pathogen was also identified on a post-operative wound swab in another study, but without clinical evidence of infection. 11 Gram negative bacteria caused between 8% (1/13) and 50% (2/4) of wound infections in some studies. 8,9,11,13 They were also recognised as a significant cause in another study, but without exact numbers. 7 Methicillin resistant S. aureus Increasingly, MRSA is being identified as a major problem in vascular surgery, particularly in the United Kingdom. It is not unusual for patients to need amputation who have either colonisation, or frank infection due to MRSA. Unsurprisingly, as yet there are no controlled studies that compare antibiotic prophylaxis in either of these groups. One non-randomised cohort study examined the efficacy of teicoplanin prophylaxis in 29 patients that had either colonisation or wound infection before major limb amputation. 16 There was primary healing after 22 procedures (76%); no patient with MRSA colonisation developed an MRSA wound infection postoperatively. Seven patients developed post-operative amputation stump infection; five of these were caused by MRSA, three of whom had active MRSA infection at the time of amputation. Preoperative MRSA infection significantly increased the rate of post-operative MRSA stump infection (P Z 0.007), and the risk of re-amputation (P Z 0.009), and also increased post-operative hospital stay (P Z 0.0074). This was in keeping with other published data, 17 where patients with MRSA (colonisation or infection) were found to have spent longer in hospital before amputation (P Z 0.0038). The authors of this study concluded that patients with MRSA colonisation should be considered separately from those with active infection preoperatively, and that their management should be different. They suggested that teicoplanin prophylaxis alone might be adequate in patients colonised with MRSA at the time of surgery, but that active MRSA infection should be treated before major limb amputation, if possible, since it was associated with a higher risk of complications. 17 The adverse association of post-operative MRSA stump with outcome was reinforced in another study where it resulted in a significant reduction in the rate of primary healing (P < 0.05) and a significantly increased mortality rate compared to those who did not get post-operative MRSA infection 18 (P < 0.001). Conclusions This review has highlighted the paucity of studies examining strategies to reduce wound infection after major limb amputation; indeed many existing studies have identifiable confounding factors. This finding is similar to the literature on antibiotic prophylaxis for vascular reconstructions, where the evidence is often historical and potentially flawed. Yet the findings were similar, that antibiotic prophylaxis can reduce the rate of post-operative infection. 19 It is highly unlikely that larger contemporary controlled trials will be undertaken to address these deficiencies, since clinicians generally agree about the need for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing major limb amputation and vascular reconstruction. In addition, many patients facing amputation have active sepsis, and have had recent, often multiple courses of antibiotics. It is generally agreed that patients with ongoing sepsis require extended therapeutic antibiotic treatment. The studies assessed here included patients with end stage vascular disease without active sepsis, where prophylactic antibiotics reduced the rate of stump infection after major limb amputation, 7e10 and they reduced the rate of re-amputation in one study. 10 In contrast, the type of antibiotic had no significant effect on wound infection. 11e13 The value of these largely historical studies is limited not just by their poor design, but also by changes in the microbiological threat which now faces patients undergoing vascular surgery. In the identified studies, antibiotic prophylaxis for amputations was directed primarily towards preventing infections with Clostridium sp, yet in the studies, S. aureus was the major infecting organism. 8,10e12 However, the relentless rise in MRSA colonisation and infection in health care settings has established this organism as the new major threat, and one which must be considered before deciding on prophylaxis for patients undergoing any vascular surgical procedure. MRSA is the most commonly isolated organism from all surgical site infections, 20 and now the commonest cause of serious vascular wound and graft infection in the United Kingdom. 21 Rates of MRSA colonisation approaching 50% have been reported in patients undergoing amputation, 16 and post-operative MRSA wound infections in this patient group have been shown to confer a poor outcome. 16,18 For these reasons, identifying patients with MRSA preoperatively is crucial so that eradication of colonisation and active infection may be attempted. This strategy is supported by published evidence that it can reduce both surgical site and overall MRSA infections on surgical wards and in an intensive care unit. 22,23 A study in orthopaedic patients has also shown that the use of intranasal mupirocin reduced the rate of MRSA infection. 24 Despite the lack of evidence from controlled trials, contemporary guidelines suggest that patients colonised with MRSA should have an attempt at eradication before surgery, where clinical circumstances permit. 25,26

702 J. McIntosh, J.J. Earnshaw Intranasal mupirocin is recommended in patients planned to undergo surgery with a high risk of major morbidity, which would clearly include major limb amputation. Consideration should be given to remove necrotic tissue infected with MRSA before amputation, and treating cellulitis with appropriate antibiotics. 20 Identification also allows such patients to be subject to other strategies directed at reducing dissemination of MRSA in hospital, such as nursing them in a side room and placing them last on an operating list. Although the use of prophylactic antibiotics is not controversial, 27 the actual drug employed and the duration of treatment remain open to debate. To some extent this will depend on the local microbiological flora in each hospital, and the level of MRSA. In patients known to have MRSA colonisation or infection, this should include teicoplanin or vancomycin. The latter drugs may be appropriate in hospitals with a high prevalence of MRSA, even if preoperative swabs are negative for MRSA. The limited evidence that exists suggests that a broad spectrum antibiotic should be included (e.g. co-amoxiclav); it is probably not sufficient to use flucloxacillin alone. The duration of prophylaxis also remains controversial, but a total of three perioperative doses is probably adequate. A recent nonrandomised study has suggested that a prolonged course of antibiotics for five days increased the chance of primary healing and reduced hospital stay. 28 There remains a paucity of published data on antibiotic prophylaxis specifically against MRSA in major limb amputation, and it has been acknowledged that further evaluation in this area is required. 16,20 Vascular surgeons will agree that there are many factors that can affect the healing of an amputation stump. Careful surgery, meticulous tissue handling, accurate skin apposition and effective dressings all play a part. Cochrane metaanalysis was unable to identify a type of incision (skew flap or long posterior flap) that conferred improved wound healing. 29 A number of trials have suggested that the use of a rigid stump dressing improves healing. 30 The present study has confirmed that perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is also an evidence-based measure that can reduce the rate of wound failure. Recommendations concerning individual antibiotics are hampered by the historical nature of the information about the bacteria involved. An effective programme of surgical site surveillance in amputation surgery would provide information that could guide future research. Conflict of Interest/Funding None. References 1 Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for disease control and prevention (CDC) hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Am J Infect Control 1999;27(2):97e132. 2 Rubinovitch B, Pittet D. Screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the endemic hospital: what have we learned? J Hosp Infect 2001;47(1):9e18. 3 Salgado CD, Farr BM, Calfee DP. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a meta-analysis of prevalence and risk factors. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36(2):131e9. 4 Briggs S, McGuiness C, Foster M, Roberts S. A reservoir for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the Auckland community? N Z Med J 2002;115(1162):U182. 5 Tacconelli E. New strategies to identify patients harbouring antibiotic-resistant bacteria at hospital admission. Clin Microbiol Infect 2006;12(2):102e9. 6 Tacconelli E, Venkataraman L, De Girolami PC, Dagata EM. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia diagnosed at hospital admission: distinguishing between community-acquired versus healthcare-associated strains. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004;53(3):474e9. 7 Huizinga WK, Robbs JV, Bhamjee A, Kritzinger NA. Wound infection after major lower-limb amputation e the role of antibiotic prophylaxis. S Afr J Surg 1986;24(3):98e102. 8 Moller BN, Krebs B. Antibiotic prophylaxis in lower limb amputation. Acta Orthop Scand 1985;56(4):327e9. 9 Norlin R, Fryden A, Nilsson L, Ansehn S. Short-term cefotaxime prophylaxis reduces the failure rate in lower limb amputations. Acta Orthop Scand 1990;61(5):460e2. 10 Sonne-Holm S, Boeckstyns M, Menck H, Sinding A, Leicht P, Dichmann O, et al. Prophylactic antibiotics in amputation of the lower extremity for ischemia. A placebo-controlled, randomized trial of cefoxitin. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985;67(5):800e3. 11 Thomsen S, Jakobsen BW, Wethelund JO, Dalsgaard J, Gregersen HN, Lucht U. Antibiotic prophylaxis in lowerextremity amputations due to ischemia. A prospective, randomized trial of cephalothin versus methicillin. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1990;109(2):72e4. 12 Friis H. Penicillin G versus cefuroxime for prophylaxis in lower limb amputation. Acta Orthop Scand 1987;58(6):666e8. 13 Huizinga WK, Robbs JV, Kritzinger NA. Prevention of wound sepsis in amputations by peri-operative antibiotic cover with an amoxycillineclavulanic acid combination. S Afr Med J 1983; 63(3):71e3. 14 Barlow IW, Ausobsky JR, Wilkinson D, Kester RC. Controlled trial of cephradine versus cefuroxime in vascular surgery. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 1989;9(3):223e7. 15 Hares MM, Downing R, Marsh J. Failure of metronidazole/penicillin oral prophylaxis to prevent amputation stump infection. Lancet 1980;1(8176):1028e9. 16 Richards T, Pittathankel AA, Pursell R, Magee TR, Galland RB. MRSA in lower limb amputation and the role of antibiotic prophylaxis. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2005;46(1):37e41. 17 Scriven JM, Silva P, Swann RA, Thompson MM, Naylor AR, Bell PR, et al. The acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in vascular patients. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2003;25(2):147e51. 18 Grimble SA, Magee TR, Galland RB. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patients undergoing major amputation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2001;22(3):215e8. 19 Stewart AH, Eyers PS, Earnshaw JJ. Prevention of infection in peripheral arterial reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg 2007;46(1):148e55. 20 Earnshaw JJ. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: vascular surgeons should fight back. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2002;24(4):283e6. 21 Naylor AR, Hayes PD, Darke S, on behalf of the Joint Vascular Research Group. A prospective audit of complex wound and graft infection in Great Britain and Ireland: the emergence of MRSA. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2001;21:289e94. 22 Schelenz S, Tucker D, Georgeu C, Daly S, Hill M, Roxburgh J, et al. Significant reduction of endemic MRSA acquisition and infection in cardiothoracic patients by means of an enhanced targeted infection control programme. J Hosp Infect 2005; 60(2):104e10.

Prevention of Infection after Major Limb Amputation 703 23 Clancy M, Graepler A, Wilson M, Douglas I, Johnson J, Price CS. Active screening in high-risk units is an effective and costavoidant method to reduce the rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in the hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(10):1009e17. 24 Wilcox MH, Hall J, Pike H, Templeton PA, Fawley WN, Parnell P, et al. Use of perioperative mupirocin to prevent methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) orthopaedic surgical site infections. J Hosp Infect 2003;54(3):196e201. 25 Gemmell CG, Edwards DI, Fraise AP, Gould FK, Ridgway GL, Warren RE. Guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the UK. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;57:589e608. 26 Coia JE, Duckworth GJ, Edwards DI, Farringdon M, Fry C, Humphreys H, et al. Guidelines for the control and prevention of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in healthcare facilities. J Hosp Infect 2006;63(Suppl. I):S1e44. 27 Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery: a national clinical guideline. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, ISBN 978 1 905813 346; 2008. 104. 28 Sadat U, Chaudhuri A, Hayes PD, Gaunt ME, Boyle JR, Varty K. Five day antibiotic prophylaxis for major lower limb amputation reduces wound infection rates and the length of in-hospital stay. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008;35(1):75e8. 29 Nawaijn SE, van der Linde H, Emmelot CH, Hofstad CJ. Stump management after trans-tibial amputation: a systematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005;29:13e26. 30 Tisi PV, Callam MJ. Types of incision for below knee amputation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(1):CD003749 [Review].