Anaerobic coverage for wound prophylaxis. Comparison of cefazolin and cefoxitin.
An experimental wound model has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of cefazolin and cefoxitin in the prevention of wound infection. Incisions were contaminated with Staph. aureus, E. coli, or a standardized fecal suspension. Regardless of the contaminant employed, the prophylactic use of either cefazolin or cefoxitin yielded lower wound bacterial concentrations and fewer infections compared with treatment with placebo. Cefazolin proved just as effective as cefoxitin in preventing infection when wounds were contaminated with Staph. aureus or E. coli. Although cefoxitin is the only cephalosporin that offers anaerobic coverage, its prophylactic administration when wounds were contaminated with a standardized fecal suspension did not significantly alter wound bacterial concentrations or infection rates compared with cefazolin. The data from our animal wound model suggest that prophylactic anaerobic coverage is not necessary.
D000818:Animals; D002437:Cefazolin / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D002440:Cefoxitin / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D004927:Escherichia coli Infections / Q000517:prevention & control; D005243:Feces / Q000382:microbiology; D005260:Female; D051379:Mice; D008815:Mice, Inbred Strains; D011292:Premedication; D013203:Staphylococcal Infections / Q000517:prevention & control; D013530:Surgical Wound Infection / Q000517:prevention & control*
D002440:Cefoxitin; D002437:Cefazolin