BACKGROUND: The use of prophylactic antibiotics has been shown to decrease the rate of surgical-site infections after clean neurosurgical operations, although previous clinical trials have provided no evidence that one antibiotic is superior to another for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare the rates of @entity260 with prophylactic @entity2756 and @entity869 / @entity5899 , a less-expensive antibiotic. METHODS: Consecutive @entity1 undergoing neurosurgery between January and December 1998 were recruited for the study. Those who had an @entity166 for which antibiotics were required, who received antibiotics within 48 hours before surgery, were aged <12 or >85 years, had an indwelling catheter for the monitoring of intracranial pressure, or had a history of @entity566 to the study drugs were excluded. Before the operation, eligible @entity1 were randomized to either @entity869 / @entity5899 3 g or @entity2756 2 g. Surgeons and @entity1 were blinded to treatment assignment. The study drugs were administered by the anesthesiologist as an IV bolus after induction of general anesthesia. All @entity1 were followed for 6 weeks postoperatively. If reoperation was required within 6 weeks of the original operation, the @entity1 received the same antibiotic as during the first surgery, without further randomization. RESULTS: Over the 1-year study period, 180 consecutive @entity1 undergoing neurosurgical operations were recruited. @entity281 occurred in 2 (2.3%) @entity1 in the @entity869 / @entity5899 group and 3 (3.3%) in the @entity2756 group; nonsurgical-site infection occurred in 25 (28.4%) @entity1 in the @entity869 / @entity5899 group and 15 (16.3%) in the @entity2756 group. The between-group differences were not statistically significant, with the exception of surgical implantation of foreign material, which was performed sig- nificantly more frequently in the @entity2756 group (P = 0.045). In addition, 2 of 3 surgical-site infections in the @entity2756 group involved foreign-material implantation; however, if these operations are omitted from the analysis, the difference between treatments remains nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that @entity869 / @entity5899 and @entity2756 are of similar prophylactic efficacy in clean neurosurgical operations. Because the acquisition cost of 2 g @entity2756 is approximately 3 times greater than that of 3 g @entity869 / @entity5899 , the latter may be more cost-effective than the former for neurosurgical prophylaxis; however, other relevant hospital-related costs were not assessed in this study.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of @entity869 / XXXX and @entity2756 in the prevention of surgical-site infections after neurosurgery.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity2756 :: ('MESH:D002443', 'Chemical') :: ['ceftriaxone'] @entity566 :: ('MESH:D006967', 'Disease') :: ['allergy'] @entity260 :: ('MESH:D011183', 'Disease') :: ['postoperative infectious complications of neurosurgery'] @entity281 :: ('MESH:D007239', 'Disease') :: ['Surgical-site infection'] @entity869 :: ('MESH:D000667', 'Chemical') :: ['ampicillin'] @entity5899 :: ('MESH:D013407', 'Chemical') :: ['sulbactam'] @entity166 :: ('MESH:D003141', 'Disease') :: ['infectious disease']
@entity5899 :: (MESH:D013407,Chemical) :: ['sulbactam']
