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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical orthopaedics and related research 1988-03, Vol.228 (228), p.117-122
Hauptverfasser: BRYAN, C. S, MORGAN, S. L, CATON, R. J, LUNCEFORD, E. M. JR
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 &amp; 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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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