• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Comparative evaluation of cefotaxime and cephamandole in the prevention of post-operative infective complications following emergency abdominal surgery.

作者信息

Ridley P D, Sagar S

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Clatterbridge Hospital, Bebbington, Wirral, Merseyside.

出版信息

Br J Clin Pract. 1990 Jan;44(1):17-21.

PMID:2180462
Abstract

In previous published work we described 57 patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery, prospectively randomised to receive either cefotaxime or cephamandole as a single-antibiotic, three-dose, peri-operative prophylaxis against post-operative infective complications. This earlier work suggested that cefotaxime might be more effective than cephamandole in preventing wound sepsis in emergency abdominal surgery. We describe here our findings in a further 63 patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery who were similarly allocated into either a cefotaxime or cephamandole antibiotic group. Infective complications occurred in 12/32 (37 per cent) of the cefotaxime group and 15/31 (48 per cent) of the cephamandole group. Wound infections occurred in 5/32 (16 per cent) of the cefotaxime group and 9/31 (29 per cent) of the cephamandole group. The organisms cultured and their sensitivities are discussed in detail. The total of 120 patients studied in the two series showed wound infection to occur in 13 per cent of the 62 patients receiving cefotaxime and 30 per cent of the 58 patients receiving cephamandole. This difference reaches statistical significance (p less than 0.05). Possible mechanisms to explain this finding are discussed. Again we found the regime of 4 g of cefotaxime given peri-operatively to be a simple, safe and effective single agent as prophylaxis for emergency abdominal surgery.

摘要

相似文献

1
Comparative evaluation of cefotaxime and cephamandole in the prevention of post-operative infective complications following emergency abdominal surgery.
Br J Clin Pract. 1990 Jan;44(1):17-21.
2
Clinical trial of prophylaxis of wound sepsis in elective colorectal surgery. Cephamandole with tinidazole versus tinidazole alone.
Med J Aust. 1983 Oct 29;2(9):440-3.
3
A comparison of cefotaxime versus cefamandole in prophylaxis for surgical treatment of the biliary tract.头孢噻肟与头孢孟多在胆道手术治疗预防中的比较。
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1987 Mar;164(3):207-12.
4
Teicoplanin vs cephamandole for antimicrobial prophylaxis in prosthetic joint implant surgery: (preliminary results).替考拉宁与头孢孟多在人工关节置换手术中预防感染的比较:(初步结果)
Eur J Surg Suppl. 1992(567):19-21.
5
[Usefulness of antibiotic prophylaxis in emergency abdominal surgery].
Arch Sci Med (Torino). 1983 Oct-Dec;140(4):361-3.
6
Preoperative intraincisional cefamandole reduces wound infection and postoperative inpatient stay in upper abdominal surgery.术前切口内注射头孢孟多可减少上腹部手术的伤口感染及术后住院时间。
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1985 Jul;67(4):235-7.
7
Prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing total vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy.接受全阴道或腹部子宫切除术患者的预防性抗生素使用
Int Surg. 1985 Oct-Dec;70(4):349-52.
8
Ceftriaxone and cefazolin prophylaxis for hysterectomy.
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1985 Sep;161(3):197-203.
9
Prospective randomized controlled study of prophylaxis with cefamandole in high risk patients undergoing operations upon the biliary tract.头孢孟多预防高危胆道手术患者感染的前瞻性随机对照研究。
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1985 Jan;160(1):27-32.
10
[Antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal surgery].[腹部手术中的抗生素预防]
Chirurgie. 1990;116(4-5):401-3.

引用本文的文献

1
Cefotaxime. An update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use.头孢噻肟。其药理学与治疗应用的最新进展。
Drugs. 1990 Oct;40(4):608-51. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199040040-00008.