Variations in Perioperative Antibiotic Prescriptions Among Academic Urologists After Ambulatory Endoscopic Urologic Surgery: Impact on Infection Rates and Validation of 2019 Best Practice Statement



      To evaluate adherence to the American Urologic Association (AUA) best practice statement guidelines regarding antibiotic duration in the perioperative setting for endoscopic urologic surgery. We assessed concordance to these guidelines among adult urologists at a single academic institution and its correlation with postoperative positive urine cultures as it relates to the revised 2019 best practice statement.


      We performed a retrospective review of all adult endoscopic ambulatory urologic surgeries performed over an 18-month period by urologists at our institution. Patient demographics, pre- and postoperative urine cultures, operative details, stent or foley use, and antibiotic prescriptions were reviewed. Chi-squared and linear regression analyses were done.


      Three hundred thirty patients were included for analysis. Sixty-two percent of patients were prescribed postoperative antibiotics, for an average of 4 days. Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole and fluroquinolones were most often prescribed (43% and 38%, respectively). Intraoperative stent placement, positive urine culture within 30 days prior to surgery, and a positive urine culture within 1 year prior to surgery predicted antibiotic prescription. No significant differences were seen in rates of positive postoperative urine culture rates between cohorts that received antibiotics postoperatively vs those who did not.


      At our academic institution, we observed poor concordance with the AUA best practice statement for perioperative antibiotic prescription after ambulatory endoscopic urologic surgery. Rates of positive postoperative cultures were low and not associated with receipt or duration of antibiotic prescription at the time of surgery, supporting minimal use of antibiotics for most endoscopic cases.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. Center For Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic/antimicrobial resistance. Accessed June 1, 2020.

        • O'Neill J
        Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations.
        Rev Antimicrob Resist. 2016; : 1-76
        • Ventola CL.
        The antibiotic resistance crisis: part 1: causes and threats.
        P T. 2015; 40: 277-283
        • Mioton LM
        • Jordan SW
        • Hanwright PJ
        • et al.
        The relationshipbetween preoperative wound classification and postoperative infection: a multi-institutional analysis of 15,289 patients.
        Arch Plast Surg. 2013; 40: 522-529
      2. Urologic Surgery Antimicrobial Prophylaxis. American urologic association. Published 2008; Reviewed and Validity Confirmed 2011; Amended2012.

        • Lightner DJ
        • Wymer K
        • Sanchez J
        • Kavoussi L
        Best practice statement on urologic procedures and antimicrobial prophylaxis.
        J Urol. 2020; (February)
      3. NYC Antibiogram: Bronx. 2016-2017. Accessed 6/1/2020.

        • Khaw C
        • Oberle AD
        • Lund BC
        • et al.
        Assessment of guideline discordance with antimicrobial prophylaxis best practices for common urologic procedures.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2018; 1e186248
        • Cai T
        • Verze P
        • Brugnolli A
        • et al.
        Adherence to European association of urology guidelines on prophylactic antibiotics: an important step in antimicrobial stewardship.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69 (-02-01VolumePages): 276-283