Antibiotic prophylaxis during prolonged clean neurosurgery

1990 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Djindjian ◽  
Elisabeth Lepresle ◽  
Jean-Bernard Homs
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Fine Print

✓ The efficacy of oxacillin as a prophylaxis for infection was analyzed in a 27-month randomized double-blind study of 400 patients who had undergone clean neurosurgical interventions lasting longer than 2 hours. Four neurosurgeons took part in the study and 356 patients were eligible for final analysis. Among the 171 patients treated with oxacillin, there was one case of infection (0.6%), compared to nine (4.9%) of the 185 patients given a placebo. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.0398). This study, together with others (randomized or not), clearly demonstrates the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in prolonged clean neurosurgery.

Double-blind evaluation of chemonucleolysis for herniated lumbar discs

1978 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 816-827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert N. Martins ◽  
Archimedes Ramirez ◽  
James Johnston ◽  
P. Robert Schwetschenau
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Conservative Management ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Small Clinical Trial ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Fine Print

✓ Sixty-six patients with symptomatic herniated lumbar discs refractory to the usual conservative management were allocated at random into one of two treatment groups according to a double-blind protocol: 31 received chymopapain intradiscally (chemonucleolysis) and 35 received a placebo intradiscally. Symptoms remained significantly improved 1 year or more after injection for 55% of those treated with chymopapain and for 46% of those treated with placebo. The difference is not statistically significant. However, to discard chemonucleolysis on the basis of this one small clinical trial may be premature. Since continuing controversy has re-established a climate in which another double-blind study of chemonucleolysis is ethically feasible and scientifically desirable, we favor additional clinical trials under a tightly controlled protocol to help resolve the issue.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind study using antibiotic prophylaxis for lung cancer surgery

Lung Cancer ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 174
Author(s):  
C. Lequaglie ◽  
F. Preda ◽  
G. Ravasi ◽  
M. Montorsi ◽  
G. Torzilli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Lung Cancer Surgery ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind

Pharmacological Modulation of Cutaneous Reactivity to Histamine: A Double-Blind Acute Comparative Study between Cetirizine, Terfenadine and Astemizole

1989 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Ghys ◽  
J.-P. Rihoux
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Inhibitory Effect ◽  
Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Single Administration ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Pharmacological Modulation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Cutaneous Reactivity

In a double-blind study performed in 81 healthy volunteers, 10 mg cetirizine and 60 mg terfenadine given orally in a single administration significantly inhibited skin reactivity to histamine. Astemizole (10 mg) was completely ineffective. The inhibitory effect of cetirizine was potent and regular whereas 6/28 (21%) volunteers did not respond to terfenadine. The difference observed beween cetirizine and terfenadine might be due to differences in the metabolism of the two drugs after administration: terfenadine is rapidly and extensively metabolized whereas cetirizine is directly active without the need for biotransformation and, indeed is poorly metabolized.

A double-blind clinical trial of iopamidol versus metrizamide for lumbosacral myelography

1983 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 531-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Burton P. Drayer ◽  
Charles Vassallo ◽  
Abraham Sudilovsky ◽  
J. Scott Luther ◽  
Robert H. Wilkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Water Soluble ◽  
Striking Difference ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Nonionic Contrast Medium ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Accuracy ◽  
Fine Print

✓ A double-blind study was performed to compare metrizamide with the new iodinated water-soluble nonionic contrast medium, iopamidol, for conventional and computerized tomography lumbosacral myelography. Both contrast agents were used in 30 patients, and were equivalent in terms of image quality and clinical accuracy. Headaches and nausea were less severe using iopamidol. The most striking difference was found in adverse neurobehavioral reactions and associated electroencephalographic abnormalities, which were noted in 17% of the metrizamide group but were not seen with the use of iopamidol. Iopamidol appears to be superior to metrizamide for intrathecal applications. An explanation of the differential neurotoxicity is provided.

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of postoperative neurosurgical infections

1987 ◽  
Vol 66 (5) ◽  
pp. 701-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald F. Young ◽  
Pablo M. Lawner
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Foreign Bodies ◽  
The Body ◽  
Wound Infections ◽  
Postoperative Infections ◽  
Dramatic Decrease ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Fine Print

✓ The authors report the results of a randomized, prospective study to assess the effectiveness of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing postoperative infections following clean neurosurgical operations. The study group comprised 846 patients treated between October, 1979, and June, 1984. Antibiotics, including cefazolin and gentamicin, were administered only in the immediate preoperative and intraoperative periods. Sixteen patients, none of whom developed infections, were excluded from final statistical analysis because they had inadvertently been entered into the study while failing to meet entry criteria. Fifteen wound infections (3.64%) developed in the group of 412 patients who did not receive antibiotics, whereas only four infections (0.96%) were identified among the 418 patients who received antibiotics. The difference is statistically significant (p = 0.008) and represents a 74% reduction in infection rate with antibiotics. An analysis of subgroups of surgical procedures revealed a dramatic decrease in craniotomy infections from 6.77% to 0% (p = 0.003). Of the four infections that occurred among the antibiotic-treated patients, three were in cases where foreign bodies had been implanted. No complications of antibiotic usage were identified. The rates of infection in areas of the body other than the surgical wound were no different in the antibiotic-treated and nontreated groups. All wound infections in both antibiotic-treated and nontreated patients involved similar types of Gram-positive organisms, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis did not produce infections with resistant or unusual organisms. This study, combined with other recently published analyses, suggests that routine perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis can significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative neurosurgical infections.

scholarly journals Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Safety and Efficacy Study of Rifalazil Compared with Azithromycin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Genital Chlamydia trachomatis Infection in Women

2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (7) ◽  
pp. 4014-4019 ◽  
Author(s):  
William M. Geisler ◽  
Maria Luz G. Pascual ◽  
Judy Mathew ◽  
William D. Koltun ◽  
Franklin Morgan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chlamydia Trachomatis ◽  
Lower Limit ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Number Of Treatment ◽  
Treatment Emergent Adverse Event

ABSTRACTA randomized, double-blind study comparing single-dose chlamydia therapies of oral rifalazil (25 mg) and azithromycin (1 g) was conducted in 82 women with uncomplicated genitalChlamydia trachomatisinfection. The microbiologic cure rate ofC. trachomatiswith rifalazil (n= 33) was 84.8% at the visit on day 22 to 26 (test-of-cure visit), versus 92.1% with azithromycin (n= 38), and the number of treatment failures in each group was 5 and 3, respectively. The difference in cure rate was −7.3%, with a lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of −22.5, and thus, noninferiority was not established at the prespecified margin (lower limit of CI of −15%). The overall treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and treatment-related TEAE rates were lower in the rifalazil group (68% and 55%) than in the azithromycin group (71% and 62%), respectively. Subjects classified as treatment failures at day 22 to 26 had a lower mean plasma concentration of rifalazil at the visit on day 8 to 12 than those classified as treatment cures, but this difference was not significant; however, the levels were similar for both groups at the visit on day 22 to 26. A single 25-mg dose of rifalazil was well tolerated and eradicatedC. trachomatisin most of these women with uncomplicated genitalC. trachomatisinfection. (The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov under registration no. NCT01631201).

scholarly journals Ertapenem Once a Day Versus Piperacillin–Tazobactam Every 6 Hours for Treatment of Acute Pelvic Infections: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subir Roy ◽  
Iliana Higareda ◽  
Edith Angel-Muller ◽  
Mahmoud Ismail ◽  
Caren Hague ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Pelvic Infection ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Duration Of Therapy ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Cure Rates ◽  
Post Therapy

Objective:To compare ertapenem therapy with piperacillin–tazobactam therapy for the management of acute pelvic infections.Methods:In a multicenter, double-blind study, 412 women with acute pelvic infection were assigned to one of two strata, namely obstetric/postpartum infection or gynecologic/postoperative infection, and were then randomized to ertapenem, 1 g once a day, or piperacillin–tazobactam, 3.375 g every 6 hours, both administered intravenously.Results:In total, 163 patients in the ertapenem group and 153 patients in the piperacillin–tazobactam group were clinically evaluable. The median duration of therapy was 4.0 days in both treatment groups. The most common single pathogen wasEscherichia coli. At the primary efficacy endpoint 2–4 weeks post therapy, 93.9% of patients who received ertapenem and 91.5% of those who received piperacillin–tazobactam were cured (95% confidence interval for the difference, adjusting for strata, –4% to 8.8%), indicating that cure rates for both treatment groups were equivalent. Cure rates for both treatment groups were also similar when compared by stratum and severity of infection. The frequency and severity of drug-related adverse events were generally similar in both groups.Conclusions:In this study, ertapenem was as effective as piperacillin–tazobactam for the treatment of acute pelvic infection, was generally well tolerated, and had an overall safety profile similar to that of piperacillin–tazobactam.

Diphenylpyraline (Lergobine®) in the Treatment of Patients Suffering from Allergic and Vasomotor Rhinitis

1977 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heikki Puhakka ◽  
Torsti Rantanen ◽  
Erkki Virolainen
Keyword(s):  
Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Vasomotor Rhinitis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
The Difference

In a double-blind study, diphenylpyraline (Lergobine®) was given to 63 patients whose main symptoms were stuffiness of the nose, increased secretion of mucus, snuffling, sneezing and redness of the eyes. Fifty-seven patients were given placebo for identical symptoms. Diphenylpyraline was found to have a better effect on all the symptoms than placebo. The difference was statistically significant in respect of the discharge of mucus and redness of the eyes, and when the total symptoms were considered as a whole. In atopic patients the better effect of diphenylpyraline was highly significant.

Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind Study Examining the Effectiveness of an Hypericum Preparation in 105 Mildly Depressed Patients

1994 ◽  
Vol 7 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Sommer ◽  
G. Harrer
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Blind Study ◽  
Active Group ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Hamilton Depression Scale ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Group 13 ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hypericum Extract

One hundred and five outpatients with mild depressions of short duration were treated in a double-blind study with either 3 x 300 mg hypericum extract or placebo. The therapy phase was 4 weeks. The effectiveness was judged according to the Hamilton Depression Scale after 2 and 4 weeks. The values of the mean basic score in these periods fell from 15.8 to 9.6 or 7.2 in the active group, and in the placebo group, from 15.8 to 12.3 and 11.3. The difference between active and placebo groups were statistically significant with P < .05 and P < .01 achieved after 2 and 4 weeks, respectively. In the active group, 28 of 42 patients (67%) and, in the placebo group, 13 of 47 Patients (28%) responded to treatment. Notable side effects were not found.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document