4.4 Article

Determination of cephazolin, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone distribution in nucleus pulposus

期刊

ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY
卷 132, 期 7, 页码 969-973

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-012-1514-7

关键词

Nucleus pulposus; Cephazolin; Ceftazidime; Ceftriaxone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intervertebral disc is the largest avascular structure in the adult body and minimal blood flow through capillary beds only supplying the outer regions of the disc, which relies on the passive diffusion as a major factor for nutrition and uptake of molecules, including antibiotics. This study is to detect the serum and nucleus pulposus (NP) levels of cephazolin, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone and to assess this antibiotic permeability into the intervertebral disc. Forty-five consecutive patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion surgery were divided into three groups to participate in the study. Approximately 30 min before the procedures, a bolus dose 2 g antibiotic of cephazolin, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone was administered intravenously. The NP tissue and serum sample levels of antibiotic were assayed by high performance liquid chromatography. Three cases failed in the ceftriaxone group because the NP tissue contaminates the blood. Average time between antibiotic injection and tissue/blood collection was 41 min (range 27-57 min). The antibiotic concentration level of cephazolin, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone was 144.26 +/- A 29.15, 127.19 +/- A 30.22, and 227.81 +/- A 51.48 mu g/ml in serum and 2.33 +/- A 0.45, 3.74 +/- A 1.91, and 2.23 +/- A 1.86 mu g/g in NP, respectively. The antibiotic penetration in to NP of cephazolin was 1.67 +/- A 0.44, 2.99 +/- A 1.99 of ceftazidime, and 1.08 +/- A 1.44 of ceftriaxone. The antibiotics of cephazolin, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone had concentration in the NP tissue, which was higher than the stated MIC. Ceftazidime had highest penetration in to NP tissue, and ceftriaxone had the lowest penetration in to NP tissue.

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

4.4
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