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 Email 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 SanMiguel, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Gatell, J.
Right arrow Articles by 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 69, Issue 8 1189-1193, Copyright © 1987 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

JOURNAL CONTENTS

Perioperative cefamandole prophylaxis against infections

JM Gatell, S Garcia, L Lozano, E Soriano, R Ramon and JG SanMiguel
Department of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, Barcelona, Spain.

Seven hundred and seventeen patients were included in a prospective randomized double-blind trial comparing the efficacy of five doses of cefamandole (group I, 335 patients) with that of a single preoperative dose (group II, 382 patients) for prophylaxis against sepsis in patients who had an operation using either a Moore prosthesis, Ender or Kuntscher nails, a bone plate, or another internal-fixation device. Patients who had an open fracture or total joint replacement were not included in the study. 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 wound infection developed in none of the seventy-four patients in group I and in five (6.6 per cent) of the seventy-six in group II (p = 0.03) who required a Moore prosthesis. A wound infection developed in three patients (1 per cent) in group I and in fifteen (5 per cent) in group II (p = 0.006) who required an internal fixation device other than a Moore prosthesis. Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and gram-negative bacilli were the most common infecting organisms. The rate of mortality was similar in both groups, while the percentage of postoperative urinary-tract infections was lower in group I (p = 0.04). 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
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
L. Prokuski
Prophylactic Antibiotics in Orthopaedic Surgery
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., May 1, 2008; 16(5): 283 - 293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]