Sarap M D, Scher K S, Jones C W
Am J Surg. 1986 Feb;151(2):213-5. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(86)90072-3.
An experimental wound model has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of cefazolin and cefoxitin in the prevention of wound infection. Incisions were contaminated with Staph. aureus, E. coli, or a standardized fecal suspension. Regardless of the contaminant employed, the prophylactic use of either cefazolin or cefoxitin yielded lower wound bacterial concentrations and fewer infections compared with treatment with placebo. Cefazolin proved just as effective as cefoxitin in preventing infection when wounds were contaminated with Staph. aureus or E. coli. Although cefoxitin is the only cephalosporin that offers anaerobic coverage, its prophylactic administration when wounds were contaminated with a standardized fecal suspension did not significantly alter wound bacterial concentrations or infection rates compared with cefazolin. The data from our animal wound model suggest that prophylactic anaerobic coverage is not necessary.
一种实验性伤口模型已被用于评估头孢唑林和头孢西丁预防伤口感染的有效性。切口用金黄色葡萄球菌、大肠杆菌或标准化粪便悬液污染。无论使用何种污染物，与安慰剂治疗相比，头孢唑林或头孢西丁的预防性使用均能降低伤口细菌浓度并减少感染。当伤口被金黄色葡萄球菌或大肠杆菌污染时，头孢唑林在预防感染方面与头孢西丁同样有效。尽管头孢西丁是唯一提供厌氧菌覆盖的头孢菌素，但当伤口被标准化粪便悬液污染时，与头孢唑林相比，其预防性给药并未显著改变伤口细菌浓度或感染率。我们动物伤口模型的数据表明预防性厌氧菌覆盖并非必要。
