Cefazolin Concentration in Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Compared to Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Nonadherent Wound Dressings

ABSTRACT Objective To compare cefazolin concentrations in biopsied tissue samples collected from surgically created wounds treated with negative pressure wound therapy to those collected from surgically created wounds treated with nonadherent dressings. Study Design Prospective, controlled, experime...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Veterinary surgery 2015-01, Vol.44 (1), p.9-16
Hauptverfasser: Coutin, Julia V., Lanz, Otto I., Magnin-Bissel, Geraldine C., Ehrich, Marion F., Miller, Emily I., Werre, Stephen R., Riegel, Thomas O.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 16
container_issue 1
container_start_page 9
container_title Veterinary surgery
container_volume 44
creator Coutin, Julia V.
Lanz, Otto I.
Magnin-Bissel, Geraldine C.
Ehrich, Marion F.
Miller, Emily I.
Werre, Stephen R.
Riegel, Thomas O.
description ABSTRACT Objective To compare cefazolin concentrations in biopsied tissue samples collected from surgically created wounds treated with negative pressure wound therapy to those collected from surgically created wounds treated with nonadherent dressings. Study Design Prospective, controlled, experimental study. Animals Adult female spayed Beagles (n = 12). Methods Full thickness cutaneous wounds were created on each antebrachium (n = 24). Immediately after surgery, cefazolin (22 mg/kg intravenously [IV]) was administered to each dog and continued every 8 hours during the study. The right wound was randomly assigned to group I or group II whereas the wound on the contralateral antebrachium was assigned to the other group. Group I wounds were treated with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and group II wounds were treated with nonadherent dressings for 3 days. Dressings were changed and tissue biopsies obtained from wound beds at 24 hours intervals for both groups. Cefazolin wound tissue and plasma concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Blood samples for measuring plasma cefazolin concentrations were collected before biopsy sampling. At the time of surgery and at each subsequent bandage change, wound beds were swabbed and submitted for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Results After initiating cefazolin treatment, wound tissue antibiotic concentrations between treatment groups were not significantly different at any sampling time. Similarly, after initiating cefazolin treatment, plasma cefazolin concentrations were not significantly different at any sampling time for individual dogs. Conclusions Using a canine experimental model, NPWT treatment of surgically created wounds does not statistically impact cefazolin tissue concentrations when compared with conventional nonadherent bandage therapy.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2014.12218.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1641198723</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3536943891</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4868-1fd7b7d128f230580c41750cd47117198249426fb0f9572677a25542e7d1ab993</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkcuO0zAYRi3EiCkDr4AssWGT4Gscb5BQmAuaqiC1Q9lZbuJ0UlK72Am0PBWPiDPpdMFqvLHjnO_kVz4AIEYpjuv9JsWckkRy9D0lCLMUE4LzdP8MTE4vnoMJwhlOKJPyHLwMYYMQkozRF-CcMJkRJtAE_C1Mrf-4trGwcLY0tvO6a5yF8WLe-3VT6rY9wMIb3ZkKLl1vqwAXj49Ndw9nZh0jvwz86k0IvTcjBRf3xutdzLrtTvtId-7JSmd1FeNxnKPs0-Bu7Dq8Ame1boN5fdwvwN3V5aK4SaZfrj8XH6dJyfIsT3BdiZWoMMlrQhHPUcmw4KismMBYYJnHX8BIVq9QLbkgmRCacM6IiRm9kpJegHejd-fdz96ETm2bUJq21da4PiicMRw1gtCIvv0P3bje2zjdQCGOCCcsUvlIld6F4E2tdr7Zan9QGKmhVbVRQ3lqKE8NraqHVtU-Rt8cP9CvtqY6BR9rjMCHEfjdtObwZLH6Nr97OEZBMgqa0Jn9SaD9D5UJKrhazq7V7QzfiCWdqyn9B926wbg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1640502524</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cefazolin Concentration in Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Compared to Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Nonadherent Wound Dressings</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Coutin, Julia V. ; Lanz, Otto I. ; Magnin-Bissel, Geraldine C. ; Ehrich, Marion F. ; Miller, Emily I. ; Werre, Stephen R. ; Riegel, Thomas O.</creator><creatorcontrib>Coutin, Julia V. ; Lanz, Otto I. ; Magnin-Bissel, Geraldine C. ; Ehrich, Marion F. ; Miller, Emily I. ; Werre, Stephen R. ; Riegel, Thomas O.</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT Objective To compare cefazolin concentrations in biopsied tissue samples collected from surgically created wounds treated with negative pressure wound therapy to those collected from surgically created wounds treated with nonadherent dressings. Study Design Prospective, controlled, experimental study. Animals Adult female spayed Beagles (n = 12). Methods Full thickness cutaneous wounds were created on each antebrachium (n = 24). Immediately after surgery, cefazolin (22 mg/kg intravenously [IV]) was administered to each dog and continued every 8 hours during the study. The right wound was randomly assigned to group I or group II whereas the wound on the contralateral antebrachium was assigned to the other group. Group I wounds were treated with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and group II wounds were treated with nonadherent dressings for 3 days. Dressings were changed and tissue biopsies obtained from wound beds at 24 hours intervals for both groups. Cefazolin wound tissue and plasma concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Blood samples for measuring plasma cefazolin concentrations were collected before biopsy sampling. At the time of surgery and at each subsequent bandage change, wound beds were swabbed and submitted for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Results After initiating cefazolin treatment, wound tissue antibiotic concentrations between treatment groups were not significantly different at any sampling time. Similarly, after initiating cefazolin treatment, plasma cefazolin concentrations were not significantly different at any sampling time for individual dogs. Conclusions Using a canine experimental model, NPWT treatment of surgically created wounds does not statistically impact cefazolin tissue concentrations when compared with conventional nonadherent bandage therapy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-3499</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-950X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2014.12218.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24962470</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Animals ; Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration &amp; dosage ; Anti-Bacterial Agents - metabolism ; Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology ; Bandages - veterinary ; Biopsy ; Cefazolin - administration &amp; dosage ; Cefazolin - metabolism ; Cefazolin - pharmacokinetics ; Dogs ; Dogs - injuries ; Female ; Forelimb - injuries ; Infusions, Intravenous ; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy - veterinary ; Prospective Studies ; Surgical outcomes ; Treatment Outcome ; Veterinary medicine ; Wound Healing ; Wounds and Injuries - surgery ; Wounds and Injuries - veterinary</subject><ispartof>Veterinary surgery, 2015-01, Vol.44 (1), p.9-16</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2014 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons</rights><rights>Copyright 2014 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4868-1fd7b7d128f230580c41750cd47117198249426fb0f9572677a25542e7d1ab993</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4868-1fd7b7d128f230580c41750cd47117198249426fb0f9572677a25542e7d1ab993</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1532-950X.2014.12218.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1532-950X.2014.12218.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24962470$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Coutin, Julia V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanz, Otto I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magnin-Bissel, Geraldine C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ehrich, Marion F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Emily I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Werre, Stephen R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riegel, Thomas O.</creatorcontrib><title>Cefazolin Concentration in Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Compared to Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Nonadherent Wound Dressings</title><title>Veterinary surgery</title><addtitle>Veterinary Surgery</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT Objective To compare cefazolin concentrations in biopsied tissue samples collected from surgically created wounds treated with negative pressure wound therapy to those collected from surgically created wounds treated with nonadherent dressings. Study Design Prospective, controlled, experimental study. Animals Adult female spayed Beagles (n = 12). Methods Full thickness cutaneous wounds were created on each antebrachium (n = 24). Immediately after surgery, cefazolin (22 mg/kg intravenously [IV]) was administered to each dog and continued every 8 hours during the study. The right wound was randomly assigned to group I or group II whereas the wound on the contralateral antebrachium was assigned to the other group. Group I wounds were treated with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and group II wounds were treated with nonadherent dressings for 3 days. Dressings were changed and tissue biopsies obtained from wound beds at 24 hours intervals for both groups. Cefazolin wound tissue and plasma concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Blood samples for measuring plasma cefazolin concentrations were collected before biopsy sampling. At the time of surgery and at each subsequent bandage change, wound beds were swabbed and submitted for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Results After initiating cefazolin treatment, wound tissue antibiotic concentrations between treatment groups were not significantly different at any sampling time. Similarly, after initiating cefazolin treatment, plasma cefazolin concentrations were not significantly different at any sampling time for individual dogs. Conclusions Using a canine experimental model, NPWT treatment of surgically created wounds does not statistically impact cefazolin tissue concentrations when compared with conventional nonadherent bandage therapy.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - metabolism</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology</subject><subject>Bandages - veterinary</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Cefazolin - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Cefazolin - metabolism</subject><subject>Cefazolin - pharmacokinetics</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Dogs - injuries</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Forelimb - injuries</subject><subject>Infusions, Intravenous</subject><subject>Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy - veterinary</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgical outcomes</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Veterinary medicine</subject><subject>Wound Healing</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - surgery</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - veterinary</subject><issn>0161-3499</issn><issn>1532-950X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkcuO0zAYRi3EiCkDr4AssWGT4Gscb5BQmAuaqiC1Q9lZbuJ0UlK72Am0PBWPiDPpdMFqvLHjnO_kVz4AIEYpjuv9JsWckkRy9D0lCLMUE4LzdP8MTE4vnoMJwhlOKJPyHLwMYYMQkozRF-CcMJkRJtAE_C1Mrf-4trGwcLY0tvO6a5yF8WLe-3VT6rY9wMIb3ZkKLl1vqwAXj49Ndw9nZh0jvwz86k0IvTcjBRf3xutdzLrtTvtId-7JSmd1FeNxnKPs0-Bu7Dq8Ame1boN5fdwvwN3V5aK4SaZfrj8XH6dJyfIsT3BdiZWoMMlrQhHPUcmw4KismMBYYJnHX8BIVq9QLbkgmRCacM6IiRm9kpJegHejd-fdz96ETm2bUJq21da4PiicMRw1gtCIvv0P3bje2zjdQCGOCCcsUvlIld6F4E2tdr7Zan9QGKmhVbVRQ3lqKE8NraqHVtU-Rt8cP9CvtqY6BR9rjMCHEfjdtObwZLH6Nr97OEZBMgqa0Jn9SaD9D5UJKrhazq7V7QzfiCWdqyn9B926wbg</recordid><startdate>201501</startdate><enddate>201501</enddate><creator>Coutin, Julia V.</creator><creator>Lanz, Otto I.</creator><creator>Magnin-Bissel, Geraldine C.</creator><creator>Ehrich, Marion F.</creator><creator>Miller, Emily I.</creator><creator>Werre, Stephen R.</creator><creator>Riegel, Thomas O.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201501</creationdate><title>Cefazolin Concentration in Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Compared to Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Nonadherent Wound Dressings</title><author>Coutin, Julia V. ; Lanz, Otto I. ; Magnin-Bissel, Geraldine C. ; Ehrich, Marion F. ; Miller, Emily I. ; Werre, Stephen R. ; Riegel, Thomas O.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4868-1fd7b7d128f230580c41750cd47117198249426fb0f9572677a25542e7d1ab993</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - metabolism</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology</topic><topic>Bandages - veterinary</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Cefazolin - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Cefazolin - metabolism</topic><topic>Cefazolin - pharmacokinetics</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Dogs - injuries</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Forelimb - injuries</topic><topic>Infusions, Intravenous</topic><topic>Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy - veterinary</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgical outcomes</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Veterinary medicine</topic><topic>Wound Healing</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - surgery</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - veterinary</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Coutin, Julia V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanz, Otto I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magnin-Bissel, Geraldine C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ehrich, Marion F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Emily I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Werre, Stephen R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riegel, Thomas O.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Veterinary surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Coutin, Julia V.</au><au>Lanz, Otto I.</au><au>Magnin-Bissel, Geraldine C.</au><au>Ehrich, Marion F.</au><au>Miller, Emily I.</au><au>Werre, Stephen R.</au><au>Riegel, Thomas O.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cefazolin Concentration in Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Compared to Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Nonadherent Wound Dressings</atitle><jtitle>Veterinary surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Veterinary Surgery</addtitle><date>2015-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>9</spage><epage>16</epage><pages>9-16</pages><issn>0161-3499</issn><eissn>1532-950X</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT Objective To compare cefazolin concentrations in biopsied tissue samples collected from surgically created wounds treated with negative pressure wound therapy to those collected from surgically created wounds treated with nonadherent dressings. Study Design Prospective, controlled, experimental study. Animals Adult female spayed Beagles (n = 12). Methods Full thickness cutaneous wounds were created on each antebrachium (n = 24). Immediately after surgery, cefazolin (22 mg/kg intravenously [IV]) was administered to each dog and continued every 8 hours during the study. The right wound was randomly assigned to group I or group II whereas the wound on the contralateral antebrachium was assigned to the other group. Group I wounds were treated with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and group II wounds were treated with nonadherent dressings for 3 days. Dressings were changed and tissue biopsies obtained from wound beds at 24 hours intervals for both groups. Cefazolin wound tissue and plasma concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Blood samples for measuring plasma cefazolin concentrations were collected before biopsy sampling. At the time of surgery and at each subsequent bandage change, wound beds were swabbed and submitted for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Results After initiating cefazolin treatment, wound tissue antibiotic concentrations between treatment groups were not significantly different at any sampling time. Similarly, after initiating cefazolin treatment, plasma cefazolin concentrations were not significantly different at any sampling time for individual dogs. Conclusions Using a canine experimental model, NPWT treatment of surgically created wounds does not statistically impact cefazolin tissue concentrations when compared with conventional nonadherent bandage therapy.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>24962470</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1532-950X.2014.12218.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0161-3499
ispartof Veterinary surgery, 2015-01, Vol.44 (1), p.9-16
issn 0161-3499
1532-950X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1641198723
source Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; MEDLINE
subjects Animals
Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage
Anti-Bacterial Agents - metabolism
Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology
Bandages - veterinary
Biopsy
Cefazolin - administration & dosage
Cefazolin - metabolism
Cefazolin - pharmacokinetics
Dogs
Dogs - injuries
Female
Forelimb - injuries
Infusions, Intravenous
Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy - veterinary
Prospective Studies
Surgical outcomes
Treatment Outcome
Veterinary medicine
Wound Healing
Wounds and Injuries - surgery
Wounds and Injuries - veterinary
title Cefazolin Concentration in Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Compared to Surgically Created Wounds Treated With Nonadherent Wound Dressings
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T05%3A57%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cefazolin%20Concentration%20in%20Surgically%20Created%20Wounds%20Treated%20With%20Negative%20Pressure%20Wound%20Therapy%20Compared%20to%20Surgically%20Created%20Wounds%20Treated%20With%20Nonadherent%20Wound%20Dressings&rft.jtitle=Veterinary%20surgery&rft.au=Coutin,%20Julia%20V.&rft.date=2015-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=9&rft.epage=16&rft.pages=9-16&rft.issn=0161-3499&rft.eissn=1532-950X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2014.12218.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3536943891%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1640502524&rft_id=info:pmid/24962470&rfr_iscdi=true