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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Veterinary surgery 2015-01, Vol.44 (1), p.9-16 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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 & 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</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 & dosage</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - metabolism</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology</subject><subject>Bandages - veterinary</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Cefazolin - administration & 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 & dosage</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - metabolism</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology</topic><topic>Bandages - veterinary</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Cefazolin - administration & 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 |