This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gatell, J.
Right arrow Articles by Garcia SanMiguel, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Gatell, J.
Right arrow Articles by Garcia SanMiguel, J
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 66, Issue 8 1219-1222, Copyright © 1984 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

JOURNAL CONTENTS

Prophylactic cefamandole in orthopaedic surgery

JM Gatell, J Riba, ML Lozano, J Mana, R Ramon and J Garcia SanMiguel

Three hundred patients were included in a prospective randomized double-blind trial comparing the efficacy of cefamandole with that of a placebo for prophylaxis of sepsis in operations using Ender or Kuntscher nails, bone plates, or other internal fixation devices. Patients with an open fracture, total joint replacement, or direct operation on the hip were not included in the study. Sixteen patients were excluded because the trial protocol was not followed exactly, so a total of 284 patients participated, 134 of whom were given cefamandole and 150, a placebo. The two groups were similar in terms of mean age, sex ratio, duration of preoperative hospital stay, underlying risk factors, and type of surgical procedure. A superficial wound infection developed in none of the 134 patients who were given cefamandole and in seven of those in the control group (p less than 0.05). Two deep-wound infections developed in the cefamandole-treated group and four, in the control group (p greater than 0.05). Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and gram-negative bacilli were the most common infecting organisms. The rates of infection-related mortality and abscopal infection were similar in both groups. No adverse side effects of the drug were encountered.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
N. Fletcher, D. Sofianos, M. B. Berkes, and W. T. Obremskey
Prevention of Perioperative Infection
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 1, 2007; 89(7): 1605 - 1618.
[Full Text] [PDF]