Abstract
In a prospective, controlled, single-blind study the efficacy of teicoplanin versus cefamandole in preventing infections in total hip replacement was investigated in 496 consecutive patients. A single intravenous dose of teicoplanin (400 mg) was as effective as two intravenous doses of cefamandole (2 g before and 1 g after surgery). No major complications were observed in either group. Infective wound complications were observed only in the cefamandole group. These infections, although not dangerous for the patients, required supplementary antibiotic treatment in all cases. Teicoplanin is a reasonable choice as a prophylactic agent in orthopaedic surgery when a high risk of infection due to staphylococci is present.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altemeier WA, Culbertson WR, Vetto M: Prophylactic antibiotic therapy. Archives of Surgery 1955, 71: 2–10.
Boyd RJ, Burke JF, Colton T: A double blind clinical trial of prophylactic antibiotics in hip fracture. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1973, 55: 1251–1259.
Carlsson AS, Lidgren L, Lindberg L: Prophylactic antibiotics against early and late infections after total hip replacements. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1977, 48: 405–503.
Lidgren L, Lindberg L: Post-operative wound infections in clean orthopaedic surgery. A review of a 5-year material. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1974, 45: 161–173.
Wilson PD Jr, Salvati EA, Blumenfeld EL: The problem of infection in total prosthetic arthroplasty of the hip. Surgical Clinics of North America 1975, 55: 1431–1445.
Inman R, Gallegos K, Brause B, Redecha P, Christian C: Clinical and microbial features of prosthetic joint infection. American Journal of Medicine 1984, 77: 47–53.
De Benedictis K, Rowan NM, Boyer BL: A double-blind study comparing cefonicide with cefazolin as prophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1984, 6, Supplement 4: 901–904.
Periti P, Stringa G, Donati L, Mazzei T, Mini E, Novelli A, andParticipants from the Italian Study Groups for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Orthopaedic Surgery and Burns: Teicoplanin — its role as systemic therapy of burns infections and as prophylaxis for orthopaedic surgery. European Journal of Surgery 1992, 567: 3–8.
Gatell JS, Riba J, Lozano L, Maña J, Ramon R, San-Miguel JG: Prophylactic cefamandole in orthopaedic surgery. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1984, 66: 1219–1222.
Schurman DJ, Hirshman HP, Burton DS: Cephalothin and cefamandole penetration into bone, synovial fluid and wound drainage. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1980, 62: 981–985.
Henley M, Jones R, Wyatt R, Hofmann A, Cohen R: Prophylaxis with cefamandole nafate in elective orthopaedic surgery. Clinic Orthopaedics and Related Research 1986, 209: 249–256.
Bombelli R, Giangrande A, Malacrida V, Puricelli G: The control of infection in orthopaedic surgery. Orthopaedic Review 1981, 10: 65–72.
Townsend DE, Ashdown N, Bolton S, Bradley J, Duckworth G, Moorhouse EC, Grubb WB: The international spread of methicillin resistantStaphylococus aureus. Journal of Hospital Infection 1987, 9: 60–71.
Gristina AG, Kolkin J: Total joint replacement and sepsis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1983, 65: 128–134.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Suter, F., Avai, A., Fusco, U. et al. Teicoplanin versus cefamandole in the prevention of infection in total hip replacement. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 13, 793–796 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02111338
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02111338