Antibiotikaprofylax vid kirurgiska ingrepp - SBU

Table 4.5.7 continued
Author
Year
Reference
Country
Study design
Population
characteristics
Intervention/
Method (I)
Control Results Withdrawal
Drop outs
Study quality
and relevance
Comments
Evrard
1985, 1988
[52,53]
France
RCT, double
blind, multicenter.
Power calculation
for surrogate
endpoint
THR
No ab cement, regular
operating room
Excluded: Re-op,
infected, malignancy.
Follow-up 1 year
I: Cefamandole 1.5 g at
induction of aneshesia
followed by 0.75 g
x 4 x II followed by
placebo (n=488)
C: Cefazolin 1 g
at induction of
aneshesia and
then x 4 x V
(n=477)
Positive cultures
in drains
I: 44/488 (9.2%)
C: 35/477 (7.5%) ns
Deep wound infection
I: 5/488 (2.5%)
C: 3/477 (1.7%) ns
18 protocol
violations in
each group
Death 16,
8.6% lost to
follow-up
Moderate
Frajman
1991
[27]
France
RCT, open THR or TKR C: Cefotiam 2 g at
induction of anesthesia
with option of another
if operation >4 h
(n=89)
C: Cefazolin 1 g
at induction of
anesthesia, then
1 g x 4 x II
(n=118)
Wound infection
I: 0/89
C: 0/118
ns
Not reported
Moderate
No power calculation.
No events in
either group
Mauerhan
1994
[55]
USA
RCT, double blind,
mulitcenter
THR or TKR including
revision operation
Excluded: Renal failure,
neutropenia, recent ab