Flucloxacillin compared with cefazolin in short-term prophylaxis for clean orthopedic surgery

Meirhaeghe, Jan Van; Verdonk, René; Verschraegen, Gerda; Myny, P.; Paeme, G.; Claessens, H

doi:10.1007/bf00932321

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found no significant effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in hip fracture patients and we are in agreement with several randomized [3,7,9,10,11] studies. It is doubtful whether antibiotic prophylaxis should be given to hip fracture patients.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Nephrotoxicity by dicloxacillin and gentamicin in 163 patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures

Solgaard

Tuxoe

Mafi

et al. 2000

International Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Of 163 patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures 87 received 2 g dicloxacillin and 240 mg of gentamicin preoperatively, and 76 patients had no antibiotic prophylaxis. Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis was not shown to have any significant effect on wound infections. However, 16 reversible and 1 irreversible cases of kidney toxicity were found among patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis, whereas there were only four cases of reversible kidney damage among the patients not receiving antibiotics.Résumé Parmi 163 patients avec des fractures intertrochantériennes, 87 patients avaient reçu en préopéra-toire 2 g Dicloxacilline et 240 mg Gentamicine. 76 patients n'avaient reçu aucune prophylaxie antibiotique. La prophylaxie préopératoire contre les infections n'a montré aucun effet significatif. Cependant dans le groupe avec prophylaxie, 17 affections rénales ont été observées, dont 16 réversibles et 1 irréversible. Parmi les patients n'ayant reçu aucune prophylaxie antibiotique 4 affections rénales réversibles ont été observées.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Nephrotoxicity by dicloxacillin and gentamicin in 163 patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures

Solgaard

Tuxoe

Mafi

et al. 2000

International Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1,2). Cephalosporins and other antibiotics are used widely for prophylaxis, and several reports have compared other antibiotics with cephalosporins (3,4). The…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Efficacy of Short-Term vs. Long-Term Antibiotic Therapy in Preventing Deep Infection After Orthopedic Procedures (A Prospective Observational Study)

Khorrami

Tabatabaei²,

Mirabbas

2012

Jundishapur J Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In using short-term antibiotic prophylaxis in clean orthopedic procedures we can avoid side effects and also it is more cost-effective. Background: Antibiotic therapy prevents postoperative infections after orthopedic procedures, but the method and prescribed dose of this therapy are debated. Short-term prophylaxis and long-term prophylaxis are 2 accepted methods after orthopedic procedures. Objectives: In this prospective observational study, we compared the results of shortterm and long-term prophylaxis after elective orthopedic procedures at 2 hospitals of Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. Patients and Methods: We divided patients who underwent uneventful orthopedic operations into 2 groups, administered short-and long-term prophylactic antibiotic therapy, respectively, and observed the patients for signs and symptoms of superficial and deep infections. We compared and analyzed the results with SPSS, considering P values of less than 0.001 to indicate a significant difference. Results: There was no significant difference regarding superficial and deep infections between short-and long-term prophylaxis groups; thus, both methods can be used for prophylaxis after elective orthopedic surgeries, effecting equal rates of success. Conclusions: Short-term prophylaxis can be used for clean orthopedic procedures with equivalent results as long-term therapy.

show abstract

“…Further hand searching of a Cochrane Review [28] (found through the electronic search) identified an additional study [29]. Hand searching of journals for RCTs also identified three articles [30–32].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirty one studies were excluded as they were randomized trials performed on primary THA and TKA only [22, 25, 26, 27, 31, 43–67]. Nine studies were excluded due to the fact that the number of revision THA/TKA procedures and corresponding infections could not be broken out from primary THA/TKA [29, 68–75]. Three studies were excluded as they were for revisions of infected primary THA/TKA and the antibiotics administered were for treatment and not for prophylaxis [76–78].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Antibiotics and antiseptics for preventing infection in people receiving revision total hip and knee prostheses: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInfection rates in revision (second and subsequent) major joint arthroplasty continues to be a significant issue with rates 2–3 times those of primary procedures. The effect of antibiotic and antiseptic prophylaxis on outcomes for this type of surgery has not been adequately reviewed.MethodsA systematic search of the main databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antibiotics and antiseptics was conducted to evaluate the predetermined endpoints of infection.ResultsThere were five (5) RCTs identified that examined the effects of antibiotic and antiseptic prophylaxis on infections after revision total hip arthroplasty [THA] (total of 304 participants) and total knee arthroplasty [TKA] (total of 206 participants). For TKA, preoperative systemic intravenous (IV) antibiotic prophylaxis plus antibiotic cement may be effective in reducing the incidence of infection in revision TKA at 8+ years. These results however should be interpreted with caution due to the significant biases. For revision THA, there is no RCT evidence that antibiotics/antiseptics have any effect on the infection rate.ConclusionsThere is a lack of high quality data demonstrating an effect of antibiotics or antiseptics on infection rates in revision THA/TKA. Considering the rate of infections in revisions is 2-3X that of primary procedures and; there is a consensus recommendation to use similar antibiotic and antiseptic regimens in both primary and revision procedures, there is a need for high quality studies in revision THA/TKA.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-016-2063-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Flucloxacillin compared with cefazolin in short-term prophylaxis for clean orthopedic surgery

Cited by 8 publications

References 20 publications

Nephrotoxicity by dicloxacillin and gentamicin in 163 patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures

Nephrotoxicity by dicloxacillin and gentamicin in 163 patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures

The Efficacy of Short-Term vs. Long-Term Antibiotic Therapy in Preventing Deep Infection After Orthopedic Procedures (A Prospective Observational Study)

Antibiotics and antiseptics for preventing infection in people receiving revision total hip and knee prostheses: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About