Prospective Comparative Trial of Ceftriaxone versus Ceftazidime as Prophylactic Perioperative Antimicrobials in Neurosurgery
Background: Previous reports have suggested that both ceftriaxone and ceftazidime are effective as prophylactic perioperative antibiotics in neurosurgery. This study was designed to compare the infection rates following the use of these antibiotics as prophylactic agents during neurological surgery...
Saved in:
Published in | East and Central African journal of surgery Vol. 12; no. 1 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Published |
Uganda
Association of Surgeons of East Africa and College of Surgeons of East Central and Southern Africa
07.06.2007
|
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Background: Previous reports have suggested that both ceftriaxone and
ceftazidime are effective as prophylactic perioperative antibiotics in
neurosurgery. This study was designed to compare the infection rates
following the use of these antibiotics as prophylactic agents during
neurological surgery in our centre. In a tertiary hospital Methods:
This was a prospective study in which patients were allocated into two
groups. One group received ceftriaxone (Roche-rocephine) and the other
group received ceftazidime (GlaxoSmithKline - fortum). Patients were
followed up for evidence of surgical site infections for up to 6 weeks
after discharge. Clinical and or laboratory evidence of wound infection
were used as outcome measure. Results: There were 118 patients, 58
patients received ceftriaxone and 60 patients received ceftazidime.
Infection occurred in 4 (6.9%) in the ceftriaxone group and in 9 (15%)
in the ceftazidime group. The difference was not statistically
significant. The infection rate following ventriculoperitoneal (VP)
shunting procedure was similar (11.8%) in both groups. Conclusion: Our
study confirmed the efficacy of ceftriaxone and ceftazidime in
preventing surgical site infection that may follow neurosurgical
procedures, but the difference in infection rates following the use of
their use was not statistically significant. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1024-297X |