Cefazolin Versus cefamandole for prophylaxis during total joint arthroplasty
A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of cefazolin versus cefamandole was carried out to evaluate safety and efficacy and to determine bone and serum antibiotic concentrations in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. Dosages were 1 g of cefazolin before surgery followed by 500 m...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical orthopaedics and related research 1988-03, Vol.228 (228), p.117-122 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 122 |
---|---|
container_issue | 228 |
container_start_page | 117 |
container_title | Clinical orthopaedics and related research |
container_volume | 228 |
creator | BRYAN, C. S MORGAN, S. L CATON, R. J LUNCEFORD, E. M. JR |
description | A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of cefazolin versus cefamandole was carried out to evaluate safety and efficacy and to determine bone and serum antibiotic concentrations in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. Dosages were 1 g of cefazolin before surgery followed by 500 mg every eight hours for six doses, versus 2 g of cefamandole before surgery followed by 1 g every eight hours for six doses. Intraoperative doses were given during prolonged procedures. No significant adverse drug reactions were clearly attributable to either drug. Among 48 patients receiving cefazolin there was one postoperative wound infection and one distant site infection. Among 49 patients receiving cefamandole, there were two postoperative wound infections and two distant site infections. No deep wound infections occurred in either group during at least 48 months of follow-up study. In hip specimens removed at surgery, the mean antibiotic concentrations were 1.6 +/- 1.4 micrograms/g for cefazolin recipients, compared with 5.7 +/- 5.9 micrograms/g for cefamandole recipients (p less than .001). In knee specimens, the mean antibiotic concentrations were 0.64 +/- 0.57 microgram/g for cefazolin recipients compared to 3.8 +/- 3.4 micrograms/g for cefamandole recipients (p = .004). Cefazolin given at one-half the dose of cefamandole appeared to be equally safe and effective but resulted in lower bone concentrations of antibiotic. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/00003086-198803000-00018 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78108713</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>78108713</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-bf04f28f7f96678099c371bad0bfbd232ce8f998ae57f7a74898dae6ba0d8bd93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkF1LwzAUhoMoc05_gpAL8a6aj7ZJLmX4BQNvVLwLp03iOrJ2Ji04f72Z1t0aOCS853lPDi9CmJIrSpS4JulwIsuMKinTi5AsFZUHaEoLJjNKOTtE06SpTDH6doxOYlztTHnBJmjCec6Kgk_RYm4dfHW-afGrDXGIuE7CGlrTeYtdF_AmdJvl1sNnE7EZQtO-477rweNV17Q9htAvE-Eh9ttTdOTAR3s23jP0cnf7PH_IFk_3j_ObRVZzQfqsciR3TDrhVFkKSZRKOq3AkMpVhnFWW-mUkmAL4QSIXCppwJYVECMro_gMXf7OTbt9DDb2et3E2noPre2GqIWkRArK_wVpQTgruUyg_AXr0MUYrNOb0KwhbDUlepe4_ktc7xPXP4kn6_n4x1Ctrdkbx4hT_2LsQ6zBuwBt3cQ9JspckIR9A6mQieA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>15032638</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cefazolin Versus cefamandole for prophylaxis during total joint arthroplasty</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>BRYAN, C. S ; MORGAN, S. L ; CATON, R. J ; LUNCEFORD, E. M. JR</creator><creatorcontrib>BRYAN, C. S ; MORGAN, S. L ; CATON, R. J ; LUNCEFORD, E. M. JR</creatorcontrib><description>A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of cefazolin versus cefamandole was carried out to evaluate safety and efficacy and to determine bone and serum antibiotic concentrations in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. Dosages were 1 g of cefazolin before surgery followed by 500 mg every eight hours for six doses, versus 2 g of cefamandole before surgery followed by 1 g every eight hours for six doses. Intraoperative doses were given during prolonged procedures. No significant adverse drug reactions were clearly attributable to either drug. Among 48 patients receiving cefazolin there was one postoperative wound infection and one distant site infection. Among 49 patients receiving cefamandole, there were two postoperative wound infections and two distant site infections. No deep wound infections occurred in either group during at least 48 months of follow-up study. In hip specimens removed at surgery, the mean antibiotic concentrations were 1.6 +/- 1.4 micrograms/g for cefazolin recipients, compared with 5.7 +/- 5.9 micrograms/g for cefamandole recipients (p less than .001). In knee specimens, the mean antibiotic concentrations were 0.64 +/- 0.57 microgram/g for cefazolin recipients compared to 3.8 +/- 3.4 micrograms/g for cefamandole recipients (p = .004). Cefazolin given at one-half the dose of cefamandole appeared to be equally safe and effective but resulted in lower bone concentrations of antibiotic.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-921X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1132</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00003086-198803000-00018</identifier><identifier>PMID: 3342553</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CORTBR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer</publisher><subject>Aged ; Antibacterial agents ; Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cefamandole - therapeutic use ; Cefazolin - therapeutic use ; Double-Blind Method ; Female ; Hip Prosthesis ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments ; Prospective Studies ; Random Allocation ; Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control</subject><ispartof>Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 1988-03, Vol.228 (228), p.117-122</ispartof><rights>1988 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-bf04f28f7f96678099c371bad0bfbd232ce8f998ae57f7a74898dae6ba0d8bd93</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=7647053$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3342553$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>BRYAN, C. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MORGAN, S. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CATON, R. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LUNCEFORD, E. M. JR</creatorcontrib><title>Cefazolin Versus cefamandole for prophylaxis during total joint arthroplasty</title><title>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</title><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><description>A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of cefazolin versus cefamandole was carried out to evaluate safety and efficacy and to determine bone and serum antibiotic concentrations in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. Dosages were 1 g of cefazolin before surgery followed by 500 mg every eight hours for six doses, versus 2 g of cefamandole before surgery followed by 1 g every eight hours for six doses. Intraoperative doses were given during prolonged procedures. No significant adverse drug reactions were clearly attributable to either drug. Among 48 patients receiving cefazolin there was one postoperative wound infection and one distant site infection. Among 49 patients receiving cefamandole, there were two postoperative wound infections and two distant site infections. No deep wound infections occurred in either group during at least 48 months of follow-up study. In hip specimens removed at surgery, the mean antibiotic concentrations were 1.6 +/- 1.4 micrograms/g for cefazolin recipients, compared with 5.7 +/- 5.9 micrograms/g for cefamandole recipients (p less than .001). In knee specimens, the mean antibiotic concentrations were 0.64 +/- 0.57 microgram/g for cefazolin recipients compared to 3.8 +/- 3.4 micrograms/g for cefamandole recipients (p = .004). Cefazolin given at one-half the dose of cefamandole appeared to be equally safe and effective but resulted in lower bone concentrations of antibiotic.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Antibacterial agents</subject><subject>Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cefamandole - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Cefazolin - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hip Prosthesis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Random Allocation</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control</subject><issn>0009-921X</issn><issn>1528-1132</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1988</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkF1LwzAUhoMoc05_gpAL8a6aj7ZJLmX4BQNvVLwLp03iOrJ2Ji04f72Z1t0aOCS853lPDi9CmJIrSpS4JulwIsuMKinTi5AsFZUHaEoLJjNKOTtE06SpTDH6doxOYlztTHnBJmjCec6Kgk_RYm4dfHW-afGrDXGIuE7CGlrTeYtdF_AmdJvl1sNnE7EZQtO-477rweNV17Q9htAvE-Eh9ttTdOTAR3s23jP0cnf7PH_IFk_3j_ObRVZzQfqsciR3TDrhVFkKSZRKOq3AkMpVhnFWW-mUkmAL4QSIXCppwJYVECMro_gMXf7OTbt9DDb2et3E2noPre2GqIWkRArK_wVpQTgruUyg_AXr0MUYrNOb0KwhbDUlepe4_ktc7xPXP4kn6_n4x1Ctrdkbx4hT_2LsQ6zBuwBt3cQ9JspckIR9A6mQieA</recordid><startdate>19880301</startdate><enddate>19880301</enddate><creator>BRYAN, C. S</creator><creator>MORGAN, S. L</creator><creator>CATON, R. J</creator><creator>LUNCEFORD, E. M. JR</creator><general>Springer</general><scope>IQODW</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>7QL</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19880301</creationdate><title>Cefazolin Versus cefamandole for prophylaxis during total joint arthroplasty</title><author>BRYAN, C. S ; MORGAN, S. L ; CATON, R. J ; LUNCEFORD, E. M. JR</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-bf04f28f7f96678099c371bad0bfbd232ce8f998ae57f7a74898dae6ba0d8bd93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1988</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Antibacterial agents</topic><topic>Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cefamandole - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Cefazolin - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hip Prosthesis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Random Allocation</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>BRYAN, C. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MORGAN, S. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CATON, R. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LUNCEFORD, E. M. JR</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>BRYAN, C. S</au><au>MORGAN, S. L</au><au>CATON, R. J</au><au>LUNCEFORD, E. M. JR</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cefazolin Versus cefamandole for prophylaxis during total joint arthroplasty</atitle><jtitle>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><date>1988-03-01</date><risdate>1988</risdate><volume>228</volume><issue>228</issue><spage>117</spage><epage>122</epage><pages>117-122</pages><issn>0009-921X</issn><eissn>1528-1132</eissn><coden>CORTBR</coden><abstract>A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of cefazolin versus cefamandole was carried out to evaluate safety and efficacy and to determine bone and serum antibiotic concentrations in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. Dosages were 1 g of cefazolin before surgery followed by 500 mg every eight hours for six doses, versus 2 g of cefamandole before surgery followed by 1 g every eight hours for six doses. Intraoperative doses were given during prolonged procedures. No significant adverse drug reactions were clearly attributable to either drug. Among 48 patients receiving cefazolin there was one postoperative wound infection and one distant site infection. Among 49 patients receiving cefamandole, there were two postoperative wound infections and two distant site infections. No deep wound infections occurred in either group during at least 48 months of follow-up study. In hip specimens removed at surgery, the mean antibiotic concentrations were 1.6 +/- 1.4 micrograms/g for cefazolin recipients, compared with 5.7 +/- 5.9 micrograms/g for cefamandole recipients (p less than .001). In knee specimens, the mean antibiotic concentrations were 0.64 +/- 0.57 microgram/g for cefazolin recipients compared to 3.8 +/- 3.4 micrograms/g for cefamandole recipients (p = .004). Cefazolin given at one-half the dose of cefamandole appeared to be equally safe and effective but resulted in lower bone concentrations of antibiotic.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>3342553</pmid><doi>10.1097/00003086-198803000-00018</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0009-921X |
ispartof | Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 1988-03, Vol.228 (228), p.117-122 |
issn | 0009-921X 1528-1132 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78108713 |
source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
subjects | Aged Antibacterial agents Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents Biological and medical sciences Cefamandole - therapeutic use Cefazolin - therapeutic use Double-Blind Method Female Hip Prosthesis Humans Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Pharmacology. Drug treatments Prospective Studies Random Allocation Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control |
title | Cefazolin Versus cefamandole for prophylaxis during total joint arthroplasty |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T11%3A31%3A28IST&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%20Versus%20cefamandole%20for%20prophylaxis%20during%20total%20joint%20arthroplasty&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20orthopaedics%20and%20related%20research&rft.au=BRYAN,%20C.%20S&rft.date=1988-03-01&rft.volume=228&rft.issue=228&rft.spage=117&rft.epage=122&rft.pages=117-122&rft.issn=0009-921X&rft.eissn=1528-1132&rft.coden=CORTBR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00003086-198803000-00018&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78108713%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=15032638&rft_id=info:pmid/3342553&rfr_iscdi=true |