Patzakis M J, Bains R S, Lee J, Shepherd L, Singer G, Ressler R, Harvey F, Holtom P
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles 90033, USA.
J Orthop Trauma. 2000 Nov;14(8):529-33. doi: 10.1097/00005131-200011000-00002.
The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of a single agent, ciprofloxacin, with that of combination antibiotic therapy consisting of cefamandole and gentamicin in all types of open fracture wounds.
A prospective double-blind randomized clinical trial.
A Level 1 trauma center.
One hundred ninety-five consecutive patients with 203 open fractures were enrolled over a twenty-month period. Twenty-nine fractures from low-velocity gunshot wounds were excluded, and three other patients were excluded because of protocol violations. Our final number of patients were 163, with 171 open fractures.
The infection rates for Type I and Type II open fractures for both antibiotic groups were calculated. The infection rate of Type III open fractures for both antibiotic groups was also calculated. Chi-square analysis with Yates correction was used to assess statistical significance of two treatment groups.
The infection rate for Types I and II open fractures in the ciprofloxacin group was 5.8 percent and 6 percent for the cefamandole/gentamicin group (p = 1.000). The infection rate for Type III open fractures for the ciprofloxacin group was 31 percent (8 of 26) versus 7.7 percent (2 of 26) for the cefamandole/gentamicin group (p = 0.079). There were no statistically significant differences in infection rate between the group treated with ciprofloxacin and that treated with cefamandole/gentamicin for Types I and II open fracture wounds. However, there appeared to be a high failure rate for the ciprofloxacin Type III open fracture group, with patients being 5.33 times more likely to become infected than those in the combination therapy group. Although this difference was not statistically significant, possibly because of the small sample size, there was a definite trend toward statistical significance.
Single-agent antibiotic therapy with ciprofloxacin is effective in treatment of Type I and Type II open fracture wounds. However, on the basis of our results, we cannot recommend ciprofloxacin alone for Type III wounds. Possibly one can use fluoroquinolones in combination therapy, specifically as an alternate to an aminoglycoside.
本研究旨在比较单一药物环丙沙星与由头孢孟多和庆大霉素组成的联合抗生素疗法对所有类型开放性骨折伤口的疗效。
一项前瞻性双盲随机临床试验。
一级创伤中心。
在20个月期间,连续纳入195例患有203处开放性骨折的患者。排除29处低速枪伤所致骨折,另外3例患者因违反方案被排除。最终患者数量为163例,开放性骨折171处。
计算两个抗生素组I型和II型开放性骨折的感染率。同时计算两个抗生素组III型开放性骨折的感染率。采用Yates校正的卡方分析评估两个治疗组的统计学显著性。
环丙沙星组I型和II型开放性骨折的感染率分别为5.8%,头孢孟多/庆大霉素组为6%(p = 1.000)。环丙沙星组III型开放性骨折的感染率为31%(26例中的8例),而头孢孟多/庆大霉素组为7.7%(26例中的2例)(p = \0.079)。对于I型和II型开放性骨折伤口,环丙沙星治疗组与头孢孟多/庆大霉素治疗组之间的感染率无统计学显著差异。然而,环丙沙星治疗III型开放性骨折组似乎失败率较高,患者感染的可能性是联合治疗组患者的5.33倍。尽管这种差异无统计学显著性,可能是由于样本量小,但有明显的统计学显著性趋势。
环丙沙星单一药物抗生素疗法对I型和II型开放性骨折伤口有效。然而,根据我们的结果,我们不推荐单独使用环丙沙星治疗III型伤口。可能可以将氟喹诺酮类药物用于联合治疗,特别是作为氨基糖苷类药物的替代品。