Cephradine in the prophylactic treatment of dog bites.
Four hundred and twenty patients with one or more open dog bite wounds were studied. Cephradine or no antibiotic was used for treatment. The wounds were debrided, irrigated, and dressed; 3.6% required suturing. Six patients treated prophylactically with cephradine developed wound infections and three of these had to be hospitalized in order to receive parenteral antibiotics. Five of the wounds grew Enterobacter species, and the sixth grew Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In the control group, only two patients developed infections, one with Staphylococcus aureus, and the other with Bacillus subtilis. Both were treated as outpatients with oral antibiotics after wound treatment. Although there is no statistically significant difference between the prophylactic and control groups, there was a trend toward more serious infections in those treated with cephradine. This investigation demonstrates that prophylactic cephradine is not useful in cases of uninfected dog bite wounds.
G J
GJ
Ordog
Ann Emerg Med. 1982 May;11(5):248-51
7073046
JAMA. 1975 Jul 7;233(1):42-5
1173420
Am Fam Physician. 1975 Apr;11(4):93-9
1168014
Bull N Y Acad Med. 1974 Oct;50(9):981-1000
4528520
Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1970 Jun;60(6):1103-8
18018289
J Hand Surg Am. 1982 Jan;7(1):47-52
7061808
Ann Intern Med. 1977 Aug;87(2):248-9
889213
J Trauma. 1973 Jan;13(1):20-3
4568977
Ann Intern Med. 1977 Jan;86(1):1-5
835907
Am Fam Physician. 1977 Jan;15(1):132-7
556659
Ann Emerg Med. 1980 Oct;9(10):508-12
7425403
J Trauma. 1980 Mar;20(3):243-7
7188975
Ann Intern Med. 1970 Sep;73(3):433-8
5466045
Public Health Rep. 1977 Sep-Oct;92(5):425-9
910019
Arch Dermatol. 1972 Mar;105(3):412-6
5062418
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1972 May;49(5):494-500
5063618
Public Health Rep. 1975 May-Jun;90(3):262-7
807942