Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2026
06:51
Cefoperazone-treated Mouse Model of Clinically-relevant Clostridium difficile Strain R20291
Published on: December 10, 2016
Ceftriaxone versus cefazolin in peripheral arterial operations: a randomized, prospective trial
C B Ross1, W G Wheeler, M J Jones
1Department of Surgery, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Ky, USA.
Southern Medical Journal
|January 1, 1997
Summary
Ceftriaxone and cefazolin are equally effective in preventing surgical wound infections after peripheral vascular surgery. This study found similar infection rates between the two prophylactic antibiotics, offering valuable insights for clinical practice.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Infectious Disease Prevention
- Clinical Pharmacology
Background:
- Postoperative wound infections pose significant risks in peripheral vascular surgery.
- Prophylactic antibiotics are standard, necessitating evaluation of optimal agents.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy of ceftriaxone versus cefazolin in preventing surgical site infections.
- To identify patient risk factors for developing postoperative wound infections.
Main Methods:
- Prospective, randomized study comparing cefazolin and ceftriaxone prophylaxis.
- Data collected from patients undergoing peripheral arterial operations between October 1991 and February 1993.
- Analysis of wound infection rates and associated patient characteristics.
Main Results:
- Overall wound infection rate was 3.85%.
- Cefazolin group: 5.7% infection rate; Ceftriaxone group: 1.9% infection rate.
- Diabetes and prior aortocoronary bypass history were linked to higher infection risks.
Conclusions:
- Ceftriaxone demonstrates therapeutic equivalence to cefazolin in preventing surgical wound infections.
- Findings support the use of either antibiotic for prophylaxis in this patient population.
