• 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

腋窝淋巴结清扫术中预防性使用抗生素的前瞻性、随机、双盲研究

Prospective, randomized, double-blind study of prophylactic antibiotics in axillary lymph node dissection.

作者信息

Bold R J, Mansfield P F, Berger D H, Pollock R E, Singletary S E, Ames F C, Balch C M, Hohn D C, Ross M I

机构信息

Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston 77030, USA.

出版信息

Am J Surg. 1998 Sep;176(3):239-43. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(98)00154-8.

DOI:10.1016/s0002-9610(98)00154-8
PMID:9776150
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic prophylaxis is controversial in patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). We determined whether preoperative antibiotics decreased incidence or treatment cost of infectious complications following ALND.

METHODS

Two hundred patients entered this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients received either placebo or cefonicid preoperatively. Loco-regional signs of infection were monitored for 4 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

There was a trend toward fewer infections in the prophylactic group (placebo 13% versus cefonicid 6%; P = 0.080). Cefonicid significantly decreased severe infections requiring hospitalization (placebo 8% versus cefonicid 1%; P = 0.033). Cefonicid also decreased the treatment cost of infection per patient ($49.80 versus $364.87).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated a trend toward fewer overall infections and significantly fewer severe infections in patients given prophylactic antibiotics, which translated into a decrease in the cost of treatment for infectious complications. These findings support antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing ALND.

摘要

背景

抗生素预防在接受腋窝淋巴结清扫术(ALND)的患者中存在争议。我们确定术前使用抗生素是否会降低ALND后感染并发症的发生率或治疗成本。

方法

200名患者进入这项前瞻性、随机、双盲试验。患者术前接受安慰剂或头孢尼西治疗。术后4周监测局部感染体征。

结果

预防组感染趋势较少(安慰剂组13%,头孢尼西组6%;P = 0.080)。头孢尼西显著降低了需要住院治疗的严重感染发生率(安慰剂组8%,头孢尼西组1%;P = 0.033)。头孢尼西还降低了每位患者的感染治疗成本(49.80美元对364.87美元)。

结论

我们证明了接受预防性抗生素治疗的患者总体感染趋势较少,严重感染显著减少,这转化为感染并发症治疗成本的降低。这些发现支持对接受ALND的患者进行抗生素预防。

相似文献

1
Prospective, randomized, double-blind study of prophylactic antibiotics in axillary lymph node dissection.腋窝淋巴结清扫术中预防性使用抗生素的前瞻性、随机、双盲研究
Am J Surg. 1998 Sep;176(3):239-43. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(98)00154-8.
2
Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for herniorrhaphy and breast surgery.疝修补术和乳房手术的围手术期抗生素预防
N Engl J Med. 1990 Jan 18;322(3):153-60. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199001183220303.
3
The efficacy of a single dose antibiotic regimen in adults undergoing tonsillectomy.单剂量抗生素方案对接受扁桃体切除术的成人的疗效。
J Miss State Med Assoc. 1996 Nov;37(11):817-21.
4
Comparison of single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in uncomplicated transurethral resection of the prostate.
J Urol. 1992 May;147(5):1303-6. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37548-1.
5
A double-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare cefazolin and cefonicid for antimicrobial prophylaxis in clean orthopedic surgery.
Isr J Med Sci. 1995 Jan;31(1):62-4.
6
Long-acting versus short-acting cephalosporins for preoperative prophylaxis in breast surgery: A randomized double-blind trial involving 1,766 patients.长效与短效头孢菌素用于乳腺手术术前预防:一项纳入1766例患者的随机双盲试验。
Chemotherapy. 1999 May-Jun;45(3):217-23. doi: 10.1159/000007186.
7
Single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in patients at high risk for infection in biliary surgery: a prospective and randomized study comparing cefonicid with mezlocillin.
Surgery. 1990 Mar;107(3):327-34.
8
Cefamandole versus cefonicid prophylaxis in cardiovascular surgery: a prospective study.头孢孟多与头孢尼西在心血管手术中的预防性应用:一项前瞻性研究。
Ann Thorac Surg. 1990 Mar;49(3):435-9. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(90)90250-a.
9
Oral ciprofloxacin versus intravenous cefuroxime as prophylaxis against postoperative infection in vascular surgery: a randomised double-blind, prospective multicentre study.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1995 Oct;10(3):346-51. doi: 10.1016/s1078-5884(05)80055-3.
10
Cefonicid versus clindamycin prophylaxis for head and neck surgery in a randomized, double-blind trial, with pharmacokinetic implications.头孢尼西与克林霉素用于头颈外科手术预防的随机双盲试验及药代动力学意义
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Jul;35(7):1360-4. doi: 10.1128/AAC.35.7.1360.

引用本文的文献

1
Antibiotic prophylaxis in breast cancer surgery (PAUS trial): randomised clinical double-blind parallel-group multicentre superiority trial.乳腺癌手术中的抗生素预防(PAUS 试验):随机临床双盲平行组多中心优效性试验。
Br J Surg. 2022 Nov 22;109(12):1224-1231. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znac280.
2
Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery.预防乳腺癌手术后手术部位感染的预防性抗生素。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Sep 26;9(9):CD005360. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005360.pub5.
3
Identifying the superior antibiotic prophylaxis strategy for breast surgery: A network meta-analysis.
确定乳房手术的最佳抗生素预防策略:一项网状荟萃分析。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Apr;98(17):e15405. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015405.
4
Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing surgical-site infection.术前使用抗生素预防手术部位感染的成本效益的系统评价
BJS Open. 2018 Apr 14;2(3):81-98. doi: 10.1002/bjs5.45. eCollection 2018 Jun.
5
Surgical Site Infections in Breast Surgery: The Use of Preoperative Antibiotics for Elective, Nonreconstructive Procedures.乳腺手术中的手术部位感染:择期非重建手术术前抗生素的使用
Int J Breast Cancer. 2016;2016:1645192. doi: 10.1155/2016/1645192. Epub 2016 Oct 5.
6
A randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial of the routine use of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in modified radical mastectomy.一项在改良根治性乳房切除术常规应用术前抗生素预防的随机、双盲、安慰剂对照临床试验。
World J Surg. 2013 Jan;37(1):59-66. doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1816-5.
7
Clinical consequences and cost of limiting use of vancomycin for perioperative prophylaxis: example of coronary artery bypass surgery.限制使用万古霉素进行围手术期预防的临床后果及成本:以冠状动脉搭桥手术为例
Emerg Infect Dis. 2001 Sep-Oct;7(5):820-7. doi: 10.3201/eid0705.010508.