Perioperative anti-infective prophylaxis with teicoplanin compared to cephalosporins in orthopaedic and vascular surgery involving prosthetic material

17Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluated the effectiveness and safety of teicoplanin compared to first- or second-generation cephalosporins for perioperative anti-infective prophylaxis in orthopaedic and vascular surgery involving prosthetic material. No differences were found between teicoplanin and cephalosporins with respect to the development of infection at the site of surgery or in remote areas of the body. In addition, there were no significant differences in reported adverse effects or mortality. These findings indicate that both regimens are equally effective in preventing post-operative infections in orthopaedic and vascular surgery involving prosthetic materials. © 2005 Copyright by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vardakas, K. Z., Soteriades, E. S., Chrysanthopoulou, S. A., Papagelopoulos, P. J., & Falagas, M. E. (2005). Perioperative anti-infective prophylaxis with teicoplanin compared to cephalosporins in orthopaedic and vascular surgery involving prosthetic material. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2005.01177.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free