Administration Routes for Perioperative Prophylactic Antibiotics: A Scoping Review of Intravenous Push Versus Infusion

Objectives: Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent a significant postoperative challenge. Although timely perioperative prophylaxis with cephalosporins is essential to prevention, adherence to the recommended 30–60 min administration window may be challenging with traditional intravenous infusion (IVI) in settings with high surgical turnover, as is the case in China. Intravenous push (IVP) has been proposed as a more time-efficient alternative. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence comparing IVP with IVI for perioperative cephalosporin administration across four domains: safety, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), efficacy, and economic impact. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and gray literature up to February 2026. Data were systematically charted and extracted using a standardized form. Results: Of the 14 included sources, only 3 were peer-reviewed comparative studies; the remaining 11 (78.6%) were gray literature documents. Among the gray literature, 72.7% (8/11) permitted or recommended IVP for cephalosporin prophylaxis; however, this proportion reflected practice patterns of heterogeneous methodological rigor. The 3 peer-reviewed studies focused on the safety, PK/PD, and economic outcomes. Two studies—in orthopedic and bariatric surgery, respectively—found no significant difference in adverse event rates between IVP and IVI, though both were limited by small samples. A single small study suggested similar PK/PD target attainment between IVI and IVP cefazolin. No study directly compared SSI rates between the two routes. One study suggested potential cost savings with IVP, but the evidence was dated and based on limited patient numbers. Conclusions: The available evidence for IVP is predominantly derived from gray literature, while peer-reviewed articles suggest that safety and PK/PD profiles do not differ markedly from IVI in the limited populations, surgical procedures, and agents studied; economic data are suggestive but dated. Direct comparative data on clinical efficacy outcomes, such as SSI rates, are absent. Well-powered, multi-center comparative studies comparing IVP and IVI with SSI as a primary endpoint are needed.