Given concerns for antibiotic resistance, broader spectrum antibiotic agents such as ertapenem are being used for pre-operative prophylaxis. We hypothesize that pre-operative ertapenem prior to laparotomies and colectomies is superior at decreasing surgical site infections (SSIs) compared with other widely used antibiotic agents.
Methods:
Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were queried for studies until February 02, 2025. Studies were excluded if they did not evaluate ertapenem as a pre-operative antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparotomy or colectomy, the outcome was not SSIs, or it represented a review of prior publications. Three reviewers independently extracted relevant articles, and two performed risk-of-bias analyses.
Results:
Of 6,389 abstracts identified, 9 studies remained after full-text review. Seven of the included studies were observational (78%), and two (22%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The median number of patients enrolled was 499 (inter-quartile range 253, 5192). Study populations included colorectal surgery (n = 8) and trauma patients undergoing laparotomy (n = 1). Ertapenem was compared with single-agent second-generation cephalosporins such as cefotetan, cefuroxime, and cefoxitin and to a single-agent penicillin with or without a combined β-lactamase inhibitor (i.e., ampicillin–sulbactam). In total, five (56%) studies showed that ertapenem was superior in preventing SSIs, decreasing SSI rates by as much as 59% (adjusted odds ratio = 0.41 [0.28–0.61]; p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
Approximately half of the studies (56%) demonstrated that ertapenem was superior to other commonly used antibiotic prophylaxis regimens in decreasing SSI after laparotomies and colectomies. However, most studies were observational. Therefore, RCTs, especially in trauma, are needed.
de LissovoyG, FraemanK, HutchinsV, et al.Surgical site infection: Incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Control, 2009; 37(5):387–397; doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.12.010
2.
UmscheidCA, MitchellMD, DoshiJA, et al.Estimating the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are reasonably preventable and the related mortality and costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2011; 32(2):101–114; doi: 10.1086/657912
3.
JhaAK, ChanDC, RidgwayAB, et al.Improving safety and eliminating redundant tests: Cutting costs in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood), 2009; 28(5):1475–1484; doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.5.1475
4.
BozzayJD, WalkerPF, SchechtmanDW, et al.; Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program Trauma Infectious Disease Outcomes Study Group. Outcomes of exploratory laparotomy and abdominal infections among combat casualties. J Surg Res, 2021; 257:285–293; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.07.075
5.
HannaK, AsmarS, DitilloM, et al.Readmission with major abdominal complications after penetrating abdominal trauma. J Surg Res, 2021; 257:69–78; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.07.060
6.
National Healthcare Safety Network, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surgical site infection (SSI) event. National Healthcare Safety Network, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2025. Available from: www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/9pscssicurrent.pdf
7.
BowaterRJ, StirlingSA, LilfordRJ. Is antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery a generally effective intervention? Testing a generic hypothesis over a set of meta-analyses. Ann Surg, 2009; 249(4):551–556; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318199f202
8.
NagyE, UrbánE, NordCE, ESCMID Study Group on Antimicrobial Resistance in Anaerobic Bacteria. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates in Europe: 20 years of experience. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2011; 17(3):371–379; doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03256.x
9.
LiuC-Y, HuangY-T, LiaoC-H, et al.Increasing trends in antimicrobial resistance among clinically important anaerobes and Bacteroides fragilis isolates causing nosocomial infections: Emerging resistance to carbapenems. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2008; 52(9):3161–3168; doi: 10.1128/AAC.00355-08
10.
TeillantA, GandraS, BarterD, et al.Potential burden of antibiotic resistance on surgery and cancer chemotherapy antibiotic prophylaxis in the USA: A literature review and modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis, 2015; 15(12):1429–1437; doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00270-4
11.
LongDR, CifuA, SalipanteSJ, et al.Preventing surgical site infections in the era of escalating antibiotic resistance and antibiotic stewardship. JAMA Surg, 2024; 159(8):949–956; doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0429
12.
IraniJ, HendrickT, MillerT, et al.Clinical Practice Guidelines for Enhanced Recovery After Colon and Rectal Surgery From the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. 2023.
13.
GoldbergSR, AnandRJ, ComoJJ, et al.; Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Prophylactic antibiotic use in penetrating abdominal trauma: An Eastern Association for the surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2012; 73(Suppl 4):S321–S325; doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182701902
14.
ItaniKMF, JensenEH, FinnTS, et al.Effect of body mass index and ertapenem versus cefotetan prophylaxis on surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt), 2008; 9(2):131–137; doi: 10.1089/sur.2007.034
15.
NutmanA, TemkinE, HarbarthS, et al.Personalized ertapenem prophylaxis for carriers of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing enterobacteriaceae undergoing colorectal surgery. Clin Infect Dis, 2020; 70(9):1891–1897; doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz524
16.
LeeS, PrasadP, LinM, et al.Ertapenem prophylaxis associated with an increased risk of clostridium difficile infection among surgical patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2015; 36(11):1351–1354; doi: 10.1017/ice.2015.193
17.
YangF-C, YanJ-J, HungK-H, et al.Characterization of ertapenem-resistant Enterobacter cloacae in a Taiwanese university hospital. J Clin Microbiol, 2012; 50(2):223–226; doi: 10.1128/JCM.01263-11
18.
Ertapenem. RED BOOK Online Drug Information. 2025.
SterneJAC, SavovićJ, PageMJ, et al.RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2019; 366:l4898; doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
25.
FerrazÁAB, SiqueiraLTd, CamposJM, et al.Antibiotic prophylaxis in bariatric surgery: A continuous infusion of cefazolin versus ampicillin/sulbactam and ertapenem. Arq Gastroenterol, 2015; 52(2):83–87; doi: 10.1590/S0004-28032015000200002
26.
PoeranJ, WassermanI, ZubizarretaN, et al.Characteristics of antibiotic prophylaxis and risk of surgical site infections in open colectomies. Dis Colon Rectum, 2016; 59(8):733–742; doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000633
27.
BlairWO, EllisMA, FadaM, et al.; Enhanced Recovery Comparative Pharmacotherapy Collaborative. Effect of pharmacoprophylaxis on postoperative outcomes in adult elective colorectal surgery: A multi-center retrospective cohort study within an enhanced recovery after surgery framework. Healthcare (Basel), 2023; 11(23):3060; doi: 10.3390/healthcare11233060
28.
WilsonSE, TurpinRS, KumarRN, et al.Comparative costs of ertapenem and cefotetan as prophylaxis for elective colorectal surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt), 2008; 9(3):349–356; doi: 10.1089/sur.2007.047
29.
LaDowT, BrustKB, ZolfaghariK, et al.1102. Ertapenem vs. nonertapenem antibiotics in colorectal surgery: A stewardship opportunity. Open Forum Infect Dis, 2019; 6(Suppl_2):S391; doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz360.966
30.
ChernH, FinlaysonE, KimE, et al.Evaluation of ertapenem use as a perioperative antibiotic in colorectal surgery. n.d.
31.
FongCF, ZielinskiL, DenoyaP. Ertapenem used as surgical prophylaxis prevents SSI but contributes to antimicrobial resistance. n.d.
32.
Chan-TompkinsN, VuylstekeV, BhatS, et al.Ertapenem monotherapy versus cefotetan/metronidazolecombination therapy in colorectal surgery patients. 2011 ACCP Annual Meeting Pharmacotherapy: The J Human Pharmacology Drug Therapy, 2011; 31:311e–453e; doi: 10.1592/phco.31.10.311e
33.
TallmanGB, BeardenDT, LewisJ, et al.Ertapenem for the prevention of surgical site infection following colorectal surgery. Poster Abstract Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2016; 3(suppl_1).
34.
VicentiniC, CorradiA, CorcioneS, et al.Meta-analysis of the efficacy of ertapenem in preventing SSIs after elective colorectal surgery. 16th World Congress on Public Health, 2020.
35.
AzizM, BealeJ, SheehanB, et al.Perioperative antibiotic selection and surgical site infection in elective colon surgery. Am Surg, 2020; 86(9):1091–1093; doi: 10.1177/0003134820943567
36.
EagyeKJ, NicolauDP. Selection of prophylactic antimicrobial agent may affect incidence of infection in small bowel and colorectal surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt), 2011; 12(6):451–457; doi: 10.1089/sur.2010.108
37.
FieldAM, SeaburyRW, KufelWD, et al.Single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis with ertapenem increases compliance with recommendations for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery: A retrospective, single-center analysis. Surg Infect (Larchmt), 2023; 24(2):177–182; doi: 10.1089/sur.2022.253
38.
DeierhoiRJ, DawesLG, VickC, et al.Choice of intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis for colorectal surgery does matter. J Am Coll Surg, 2013; 217(5):763–769; doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.003
39.
KuriakoseJP, VuJ, KarmakarM, et al.β-lactam vs non-β-lactam antibiotics and surgical site infection in colectomy patients. J Am Coll Surg, 2019; 229(5):487–496.e2; doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.07.011
40.
MazuskiJE, SymonsWJ, JarmanS, et al.Reduction of surgical site infection after trauma laparotomy through use of a specific protocol for antibiotic prophylaxis. Surg Infect (Larchmt), 2023; 24(2):141–157; doi: 10.1089/sur.2022.393
41.
ItaniKMF, WilsonSE, AwadSS, et al.Ertapenem versus cefotetan prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery. N Engl J Med, 2006; 355(25):2640–2651; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa054408
42.
LengX, ZhaoY, QiuH, et al.Ertapenem prophylaxis of surgical site infections in elective colorectal surgery in China: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2014; 69(12):3379–3386; doi: 10.1093/jac/dku302
43.
FryDE. Surgical site infections and the Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP): Evolution of national quality measures. Surg Infect (Larchmt), 2008; 9(6):579–584; doi: 10.1089/sur.2008.9951
44.
MundayGS, DeveauxP, RobertsH, et al.Impact of implementation of the surgical care improvement project and future strategies for improving quality in surgery. Am J Surg, 2014; 208(5):835–840; doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.05.005
45.
D’AngelicaMI, EllisRJ, LiuJB, et al.Piperacillin-tazobactam compared with cefoxitin as antimicrobial prophylaxis for pancreatoduodenectomy: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2023; 329(18):1579–1588; doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.5728
46.
TepplerH, GesserRM, FriedlandIR, et al.Safety and tolerability of ertapenem. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2004; 53(Suppl 2):ii75–ii81; doi: 10.1093/jac/dkh209
47.
RighiE, MuttersNT, GuiraoX, et al.European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases/European Committee on infection control clinical guidelines on pre-operative decolonization and targeted prophylaxis in patients colonized by multidrug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria before surgery. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2024; 30(12):1537–1550; doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2024.07.012
48.
SkråmmI, Fossum MoenAE, ÅrøenA, et al.Surgical site infections in orthopaedic surgery demonstrate clones similar to those in orthopaedic Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriers. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2014; 96(11):882–888; doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00919
49.
MoremiN, ClausH, VogelU, et al.The role of patients and healthcare workers Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization in occurrence of surgical site infection among patients admitted in two centers in Tanzania. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control, 2019; 8:102; doi: 10.1186/s13756-019-0554-y
50.
BodeLGM, KluytmansJAJW, WertheimHFL, et al.Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med, 2010; 362(1):9–17; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0808939
51.
PerlTM, CullenJJ, WenzelRP, et al.; Mupirocin And The Risk Of Staphylococcus Aureus Study Team. Intranasal mupirocin to prevent postoperative Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med, 2002; 346(24):1871–1877; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa003069
52.
WenzelRP. Surgical site infections and the microbiome: An updated perspective. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2019; 40(5):590–596; doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.363
53.
KrezalekMA, HyojuS, ZaborinA, et al.Can methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus silently travel from the gut to the wound and cause postoperative infection? Modeling the “Trojan Horse Hypothesis. Ann Surg, 2018; 267(4):749–758; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002173
54.
ZhuH, JinH, ZhangC, et al.Intestinal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus causes prosthetic infection via “Trojan Horse” mechanism: Evidence from a rat model. Bone Joint Res, 2020; 9(4):152–161; doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.94.BJR-2019-0205.R1
55.
YellinAE, HassettJM, FernandezA, et al.; 004 Intra-abdominal Infection Study Group. Ertapenem monotherapy versus combination therapy with ceftriaxone plus metronidazole for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults. Int J Antimicrob Agents, 2002; 20(3):165–173; doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(02)00160-7
56.
BloomfieldMG, PageMJ, McLachlanAG, et al.Routine ertapenem prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy does not select for carbapenem resistant organisms: A prospective cohort study. J Urol, 2017; 198(2):362–368; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.077
57.
SanclementeG, BodroM, CerveraC, et al.Perioperative prophylaxis with ertapenem reduced infections caused by extended-spectrum betalactamase-producting Enterobacteriaceae after kidney transplantation. BMC Nephrol, 2019; 20(1):274; doi: 10.1186/s12882-019-1461-4
58.
KaoL. PRevention Of Trauma-related Infections Through an Embedded Clinical Trials Network (PROTECT). clinicaltrials.gov, 2025.
59.
LensenS. When to pool data in a meta-analysis (and when not to)? Fertil Steril, 2023; 119(6):902–903; doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.03.015
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
