The American Journal of Surgery
Volume 185, Issue 1 , Pages 45-49 , January 2003

A comparison of the prophylactic efficacy of ceftriaxone and cefotaxime in abdominal surgery

  • John C Woodfield

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, P.O. Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand
    • ,
  • Andre M Van Rij

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, P.O. Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +64-3-474-0999; fax: +64-3-474-7622.
    • ,
  • Ross A Pettigrew

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, P.O. Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand
    • ,
  • Antje J van der Linden

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
    • ,
  • Clive Solomon

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, P.O. Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand
    • ,
  • Donna Bolt, R.N.

Received 16 October 2001 ,Revised 3 July 2002

References 

  1. Burke JF. The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery. 1961;50:161–168
  2. Polk HC, Trachtenberg L, Finn MP. Antibiotic activity in surgical incisions. The basis of prophylaxis in selected operations. JAMA. 1980;244:1353–1354
  3. Polk HC, Trachtenberg L, George CD. A randomized, double-blind trial of single dose piperacillin verses multiple dose cefoxitin in alimentary tract operations. Am J Surg. 1986;152:517–521
  4. Benigno BB, Ford LC, Ledger WJ, et al.  A double-blind, controlled comparison of piperacillin and cefoxitin in the prevention of postoperative infection in patients undergoing cesarean section. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1986;162:1–7
  5. Chambers ST. Which cephalosporin?. NZ Med J. 1992;105:498–500
  6. Chau PY, Ng WWS. Ceftriaxone in-vitro activity against important clinical isolates in comparison with other new cephalosporins. Symposium: Progress in therapy of bacterial infections. A new cephalosporin: ceftriaxone. Excerpta Medica Asia Pacific Congress series No. 19
  7. Jones RN, Barry AL, Aldridge KE, Gerlach EH. Comparative antimicrobial activity of aminothiazolyl methoxyimino cephalosporins against anaerobic bacteria, including 100 cefoxitin-resistant isolates. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1987;8:157–163
  8. Stoekel K, McNamara PJ, Brandt R, et al.  The effects of concentration dependent plasma protein binding on the pharmacokinetics of ceftriaxone, a new parenteral cephalosporin. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;29:650
  9. Mazzei T, Periti P. Comparative evaluation of ceftriaxone tissue penetration. Update on antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. 33rd World Congress of Surgery, Toronto, Canada, International Society of Surgery, 17–21
  10. Esmieu F, Guilbert J, Rosenkilde HC, et al.  Pharmacokinetics of cefotaxime in normal human volunteers. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1980;6:A83–92
  11. Jones RN, Erwin ME, Bale M. New insights into the activity of third generation cephalosporins against pneumonia causing bacteria. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992;15:73–80
  12. Burman LG, Ostensson R. Time and media saving testing and identification of microorganisms by multipoint innoculation on undivided agar plates. J Clin Microbiol. 1978;8:219–227
  13. Ballows A, Haasler WJ. Manual of clinical microbiology. 5th ed. ASM Press, 1991
  14. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests—fourth edition (approved standard). NCCLS document; M7-A2; v10, no. 8. Villanova, PA: NCCLS, 1990.
  15. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests—fourth edition (approved standard). NCCLS document; M2-A6; v10, no. 7. Villanova, PA: NCCLS, 1990.
  16. Wittmann DH, Condon RE. Prophylaxis of postoperative infections. Infection. 1991;19(suppl 6):S337–344
  17. Lumley JW, Siu SK, Pillay SP, et al.  Single dose ceftriaxone as prophylaxis for sepsis in colorectal surgery. Aust NZ J Surg. 1992;62:292–296
  18. Lang SDR, Morris AJ, Charlesworth PM. Prophylaxis in appendicectomy with cefoxitin or ceftriaxone. NZ Med J. 1988;101:781–783
  19. Stratton CW, Kernodle DS, Eades SC, Weeks LS. Evaluation of cefotaxime alone and in combination with desacetylcefotaxime against strains of Staphylococcus aureus that produce variants of Staphylococcal β-lactamase. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989;12:57–65
  20. Canawati HN. A reassessment of the activity of the third generation cephalosporins against anaerobes and Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg. 1992;164(suppl 4):A24–27
  21. Marshall JC, Christou NV, Meakins JL. The gastrointestinal tract. The “undrained abscess” of multiple organ failure. Ann Surg. 1993;218:111–119
  22. Morris WT. Effectiveness of ceftriaxone versus cefoxitin in reducing chest and wound infections after upper abdominal operation. Am J Surg. 1994;167:391–395
  23. de la Hunt M, O’Malley V, Reddy P, Karran SJ. Effective prophylaxis in biliary surgery using single dose ceftriaxone. Chemoteropia. 1984;4(suppl 2):729–730
  24. Morris WT. Ceftriaxone is more effective than gentamicin plus metronidazole prophylaxis in reducing wound and urinary tract infections after bowel operations. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:826–833
  25. Yamakawa T, Patin S, Sobel S, Morgenstern L. Healing of colonic anastomoses following resection for experimental “diverticulitis”. Arch Surg. 1971;103:17–20
  26. Irvin TT. Collagen metabolism in infected colonic anastomoses. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1976;143:220–223
  27. Gutman M, Klausner JM, Lelcuk S. Fecal peritonitis–the effect on anastomotic healing. Eur Surg Res. 1993;25:366–369
  28. Irvin TT, Goligher JC. Aetiology of disruption of intestinal anastomoses. Br J Surg. 1973;60:461–464
  29. Peoples JB, Vilk DR, Maguire JP, et al.  Reassessment of primary resection of the perforated segment for severe colonic diverticulitis. Am J Surg. 1990;159:291–293
  30. Wittmann DH. Antibiotic concentrations in tissue fluid during the vulnerable period as a rational basis for prophylaxis of postoperative infections: focus on infections after operations of the colon, biliary tree and bone. In:  Ishigami J editors. Recent advances in chemotherapy, antimicrobial section 1. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press; 1985;p. 189–192
  31. Shinagawa N. Comparative pharmacokinetics of ceftriaxone, cefmetazole and moxalactam during abdominal surgery. J Chemother 1988;(suppl 4):524–5
  32. Brook I. Enhancement of growth of aerobic and facultative bacteria in mixed infections with bacteroides species. Infect Immun. 1985;50:929–931
  33. Rowe-Jones DC, Peel ALG, Kingston RD, et al.  Single dose cefotaxime plus metronidazole versus three dose cefuroxime plus metronidazole as prophylaxis against wound infection in colorectal surgery (multicentre prospective randomized study). BMJ. 1990;300:18–22
  34. McDonald M, Grabsch E, Marshall C, Forbes A. Single versus multiple dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery (a systematic review). Aust NZ J Surg. 1998;68:388–396
  35. McDonald PJ, Sanders R, Turnidge J, et al.  Optimal duration of cefotaxime prophylaxis in abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. Drugs. 1988;35(suppl 2):216–220

PII: S0002-9610(02)01125-X

The American Journal of Surgery
Volume 185, Issue 1 , Pages 45-49 , January 2003

Article Tools