3.8 Article

Single-dose vs multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in instrumented lumbar fusion-a prospective study

期刊

SURGICAL NEUROLOGY
卷 70, 期 6, 页码 622-627

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.surneu.2007.08.017

关键词

Lumbar spinal fusion; Infection rate; Antibiotic prophylaxis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This prospective investigation was designed to determine if the postoperative infection rate in instrumented lumbar spinal fusion is affected by postoperative antibiotic use. Methods: Two hundred sixty-nine patients were randomized into either a preoperative only protocol or preoperative with an extended postoperative antibiotic protocol. The preoperative only protocol received a single dose of cefazolin TV. The extended postoperative antibiotic protocol received the same preoperative dose plus postoperative cefazolin IV every 9 hours for 3 days followed by oral cephalexin every 6 hours for 7 days. Because of untoward drug reaction or deviation from the antibiotic protocol, 36 of the 269 patients were eliminated from the study. Therefore, 233 patients completed the entire study. Results: There was no significant difference in infection rates between the 2 antibiotic protocols, The postoperative infection rates were 4.3% for the preoperative only protocol and 1.7% for the preoperative with extended antibiotic protocol. The overall postoperative infection rate was 3%. However, 5 variables of blood transfusion, electrophysiologic monitoring, increased height, increased weight, and increased body mass index appeared to demonstrate a trend toward increase in infection rate. Increased tobacco use trended toward a lower infection rate. Conclusion: Statistical significance was not proven in this prospective Study comparing single-dose preoperative antibiotic protocol vs preoperative with an extended postoperative antibiotic protocol. A larger study of 1400 patients would possibly provide more statistically significant information. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据