Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
3
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1987-3-31
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
Fiscal considerations prompted comparison of cefotaxime (a third generation cephalosporin) with cefamandole (a second generation cephalosporin) for prophylaxis in the surgical treatment of the biliary tract. One hundred and eight patients who underwent an operation upon the biliary tract received three 1 gram doses of cefotaxime (54 patients) or cefamandole (54 patients) at induction of anesthesia and then one and three hours later. The study was prospective, blinded and randomized. The groups (cefotaxime versus cefamandole) were statistically comparable for age, sex, diagnosis, type and duration of operation and positive cultures. The most prevalent bacteria isolated from qualitative aerobic and anaerobic cultures of bile and the wall of the gallbladder were Escherichia coli, Streptococcus and Klebsiella. The incidence of bactibilia in patients with one of these conditions was: 75 per cent for cancer; 69 per cent for patients more than 60 years old; 33 per cent for jaundice; 58 per cent for pancreatitis; 60 per cent for exploration of the common bile duct, and 22 per cent for acute cholecystitis. Microbiologic agar diffusion assays of tissue from the wall of the gallbladder, subcutaneous fat and rectus muscle and samples of bile and serum obtained 30 minutes after the second dose of antibiotic showed a statistically significant greater concentration of cefamandole in the wall of the gallbladder. Otherwise there was no difference between the concentration of cefamandole and cefotaxime. The groups showed no statistical difference for temperature of more than or equal to 38 degrees C. on two consecutive measurements, postoperative wound and urinary infections, postoperative hospital stay and days in the intensive care unit and incidence of readmission within a month. Prophylactic use of cefotaxime in a three dose regimen provided no advantage in prophylaxis compared with cefamandole.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
AIM
|
| pubmed:chemical | |
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Mar
|
| pubmed:issn |
0039-6087
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
164
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
207-12
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2009-11-11
|
| pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Adult,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Aged,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Bile,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Cefamandole,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Cefotaxime,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Cholecystectomy,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Clinical Trials as Topic,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Costs and Cost Analysis,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Double-Blind Method,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Female,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Male,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Postoperative Complications,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Premedication,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Prospective Studies,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Random Allocation,
pubmed-meshheading:3103245-Tissue Distribution
|
| pubmed:year |
1987
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
A comparison of cefotaxime versus cefamandole in prophylaxis for surgical treatment of the biliary tract.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Clinical Trial,
Comparative Study,
Randomized Controlled Trial,
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
|