Davey P G, Duncan I D, Edward D, Scott A C
Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland.
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988 Nov;95(11):1170-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1988.tb06796.x.
Four hundred patients (300 abdominal and 100 vaginal hysterectomies) were randomized to receive a single, pre-operative intravenous injection of saline (placebo), 2 g cephradine or 5 g mezlocillin. The frequency of wound and pelvic infections was significantly reduced (P less than 0.05, chi 2- or Fisher's exact test) in the abdominal hysterectomy patients who received cephradine (16% vs 23% mezlocillin, 29% placebo) and in the vaginal hysterectomy patients who received cephradine or mezlocillin (0% mezlocillin, 6% cephradine vs 27% placebo). These results are similar to those of previous studies and suggest that prophylaxis is more effective for vaginal than for abdominal hysterectomy. However, a cost-benefit analysis supported the opposite conclusion. Cephradine prophylaxis for abdominal hysterectomy resulted in cost savings to the hospital and the community health services with measurable benefits to the patient. In contrast, cephradine or mezlocillin prophylaxis for vaginal hysterectomy resulted in increased costs to the hospital, no savings to community services and no significant benefit to the patient. We conclude that cost-benefit analysis provided valuable additional information to the conventional, statistical analysis of wound or pelvic infection rates.
