Literature DB >> 2656624

Comparative efficacy and safety of cefmetazole or cefoxitin in the prevention of postoperative infection following vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy.

S Roy1, J Wilkins, E Galaif, C Azen.   

Abstract

We evaluated three 1-g doses of cefmetazole in comparison with the standard three 2-g doses of cefoxitin for prophylaxis in vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy to determine efficacy and safety. The antibiotics were administered intravenously 30-90 min before the incision and were followed with additional intravenous doses 8 and 16 h or 6 and 12 h later, respectively. The patients received povidone-iodine vaginal preparations before surgery; vaginal packs, when used, contained no antibiotic agents. Vaginal cultures were obtained before the vaginal preparation, at the time of discharge from hospital and when there was a suggestion of operative site infection. The activity of both antibiotics against these organisms was tested. Patient demographic characteristics and surgical procedures were similar in each treatment group. The difference between the primary failure rates with the two antibiotics (2 of 35 (5.7%) with cefmetazole and 2 of 16 (12.5%) with cefoxitin) did not reach statistical significance, and results were similar for the two routes of hysterectomy. Cefmetazole was more active than cefoxitin against the majority of the aerobic and anaerobic organisms recovered, although approximately 20-30% of the isolates showed resistance, or intermediate sensitivity, generally to both antibiotics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2656624     DOI: 10.1093/jac/23.suppl_d.109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother        ISSN: 0305-7453            Impact factor:   5.790


  5 in total

Review 1.  Antibiotic prophylaxis for elective hysterectomy.

Authors:  Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke; Selma Mourad; Jane Marjoribanks; Karim A Calis; Vanessa Jordan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-06-18

2.  Predicting postoperative fever and bacterial colonization on packing material following endoscopic endonasal surgery.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Nomura; Yurika Yamanaka; Yasuhiro Sekine; Hiroki Yamamoto; Yoshihiko Esu; Mariko Hara; Masayo Hasegawa; Akihiro Shinnabe; Hiromi Kanazawa; Risako Kakuta; Daiki Ozawa; Hiroshi Hidaka; Yukio Katori; Naohiro Yoshida
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Cefminox versus Cefoxitin in Hysterectomy Prophylaxis : Clinical Efficacy and Serum and Tissue Concentrations.

Authors:  R Garrido; A Novo; S Quintana; M A Macía; L Carrasco; M J de Dios; J M Romo; M Sánchez; M Vargas; M Maciá; F Lapuente; Y Mieza; P Coronet; M Gimeno; A J Carcas; J Frías; V Caballero Fernández
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.859

4.  Single-blind, prospective, randomized study of cefmetazole and cefoxitin in the treatment of postcesarean endometritis.

Authors:  A Chatwani; M Martens; D A Grimes; M Chatterjee; M Noah; M M Stamp-Cole; K T Perry
Journal:  Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1995

5.  Impact of surgical site infection (SSI) following gynaecological cancer surgery in the UK: a trainee-led multicentre audit and service evaluation.

Authors:  Rachel L O'Donnell; Georgios Angelopoulos; James P Beirne; Ioannis Biliatis; Helen Bolton; Melissa Bradbury; Elaine Craig; Ketan Gajjar; Michelle L Mackintosh; Wendy MacNab; Thumuluru Kavitha Madhuri; Mark McComiskey; Eva Myriokefalitaki; Claire L Newton; Nithya Ratnavelu; Sian E Taylor; Amudha Thangavelu; Sarah A Rhodes; Emma J Crosbie; Richard J Edmondson; Yee-Loi Louise Wan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.