Infection rates in surgical procedures: a comparison of cefalexin vs. a placebo

A. Daude-Lagravei; C. Carozzo; P. Fayolle; E. Yiguier; Y. Viateau; P. Moissonnier

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1632689

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2001; 14(03): 146-150
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632689

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

Infection rates in surgical procedures: a comparison of cefalexin vs. a placebo

A. Daude-Lagravei^*

¹Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort, Department of Surgery, Maisons-Alfort, France

,

C. Carozzo^*

¹Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort, Department of Surgery, Maisons-Alfort, France

,

P. Fayolle

¹Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort, Department of Surgery, Maisons-Alfort, France

,

E. Yiguier

¹Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort, Department of Surgery, Maisons-Alfort, France

,

Y. Viateau

¹Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort, Department of Surgery, Maisons-Alfort, France

,

P. Moissonnier

¹Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort, Department of Surgery, Maisons-Alfort, France

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Summary

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in small animal surgery. Three hundred and twenty-nine dogs and 544 cats were included in a prospective, randomised, blind trial to determine the frequency of wound infection after clean and cleancontaminated surgical procedures. The animals were allocated to one of two groups: group A received a placebo and group B received cefalexin. The infection rate was measured in each group and correlated with different criteria (age, duration and type of the operation, anaesthetic and Altemeier’s class, surgeon’s experience). Globally, seventyeight cases of infection were noted (8.9%). The infection rates in the two groups were not significantly different (9.4% in group A and 8.5% in group B). Infection rate was not affected by the different criteria studied. However, the percentage of animals infected in group B tended to be lower than that of group A as the surgeons’ experience increased.

The results of a study to evaluate the efficacy of the prophylactic use of antibiotics are described. The infection rates in animals that received the placebo and in those that received cefalexin were not significantly different (9.4% vs. 8.5%, p <0.05, respectively). We conclude that the antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for clean and clean-contaminated surgical procedures.

Keywords

Antibiotic prophylaxis - surgery - infection - cephalexin

Volltext

Referenzen

REFERENCES
1 Acar J. L’antibioprophylaxie en chirurgie. Cahiers de la ligue pour la prévention des maladies infectieuses 1986; 03: 128.
2 Altemeier WA, Alexander JW. Surgical infection and choice of antibiotics. In: Sabiston Jr DC. (ed). Christopher’s Textbook of Surgery; The Biological Basis of Modern Surgical Practice. 11th ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1977
3 Bardet J-F. Antibioprévention en chirurgie vétérinaire. Prat Méd Chir Anim Comp 1989; 24: 161-4.
4 Beal MW, Brown DC, Shofer FS. The effects of perioperative hypothermia and the duration of anesthesia on postoperative wound infection rate in clean wounds: a retrospective study. Vet Surgery 2000; 29: 123-7.
5 Bedford PGC. Small animal anaesthesia: the increased-risk patient. Bailliere Tindall limited; London: 1991: 246.
6 Bollaert PE, Canton P. Antibiothérapie prophylactique en chirurgie. Ann Fr Anesth Réanim 1986; 05: 502-17.
7 Bouvet E, Gibert C, Vachon F. Antibiothérapie prophylactique en chirurgie. Méd Mal Infect 1982; 12 (2bis): 154-62.
8 Brown DC, Conzemius MG, Shofer F, Swann H. Epidemiologic evaluation of postoperative wound infections in dogs and cats. JAVMA 1997; 210: 1302-6.
9 Budsberg SC, Elkins AD, Probst CW. Prophylactic use of cefazolin in the treatment of closed, long bone fractures in the dog: preliminary results of a blinded prospective randomized clinical trial. Vet Surgery 1990 ACVS. Annual Meeting; 19. 60.
10 Burke JF. The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery 1961; 50 (01) 161-8.
11 Burke JF. Preventive antibiotic management in surgery. Annual Rev Med 1973; 24: 289-94.
12 Carbon C, Patart O, Dupain F. Antibiothérapie préventive. Encycl Méd Chir Paris Thérapeutique 1980; 10: 25005-10.
13 Chancrin JL, Pantaloni D, Ferullo H. Antibioprophylaxie et antibiocouverture lors d’interventions chirurgicales à risque chez le chien: intérêt de la Céfalexine en chirurgie osseuse. Prat Méd Chir Anim Com 1996; 31: 155-70.
14 Cruse PJ, Foord R. A five-year prospective study of 23649 surgical wounds. Arch Surg 1973; 107: 209.
15 Flynn NM, Lawrence RM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis. Med Chir North Am 1979; 63: 1225-44.
16 Glickman LT. Veterinary nosocomial (hospital-acquired) Klebsiella infections. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1981; 179: 1389-92.
17 Holmberg DL. Prophylactic use of antibiotics in surgery. Vet Clin North Am 1978; 08: 219-27.
18 Holmberg DL. Prophylactic antibiotics, friend or foe. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1990; 01: 18-9.
19 Howard JM, Barker WF, Culbertston WR. Postoperative wound infections: the influence of ultraviolet irradiation of the operating room and various other factors. Ann Surg 1964; 160 (Suppl): 1.
20 Jones RL. Control of nosocomial infections. In: KIRK’S Current veterinary therapy IX. Small animal practice. Bonagura JD. eds Philadelphia: Saunders W. B. Comp; 1986: 19-26.
21 Lewis RT. Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. Can J Surg 1981; 24: 561-6.
22 Lusk RH. Thermoregulation. in Ettinger SJ. (ed): Textbook of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ed 3). Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 1989: 23-6.
23 Moissonier P. L’antibioprophylaxie en chirurgie. Rec Méd Vét 1990; 166: 327-33.
24 Penwick RC. Use of antimicrobial drugs in surgery. In: Slatter DH. Textbook of small animal surgery I. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1985: 52-70.
25 Penwick RC. Perioperative antimicrobial chemoprophylaxis in gastrointestinal surgery. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1986; 24: 133-45.
26 Richer H, Allouche G. Prévention des infections post-opératoires par administration d’une dose unique d’antibiotique; la Céfuroxine en antibioprophylaxie «flash». Ann Chir 1986; 40: 687-91.
27 Riviere JE, Kaufman GM, Bright RM. Prophylactic use of systemic antimicrobial drugs in surgery. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1981; 03: 345-52.
28 Romatowski J. Prevention and control of surgical wound infection. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1989; 194: 107-14.
29 Rosin E, Uphoff TS, Schultz-Darken NJ, Collins MT. Cefazolin antibacterial activity and concentrations in serum and the surgical wound in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54: 1317-21.
30 Tally FP, Gorbach SL. Antibiotics in surgery. Adv Surg 1975; 09: 41-95.
31 Van Den Bogaard AEJM, Weidema WF. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in veterinary surgery. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985; 186: 990-2.
32 Vasseur PB, Paul HA, Enos LR, Hirsh DC. Infection rates in clean surgical procedures: a comparison of Ampicillin prophylaxis vs. a placebo. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985; 187: 825-7.