SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 4

Travmatik yaralarda oral antibiyotiklerin enfeksiyon profilaksisindeki etkileri

The effects of oral antibiotics on infection prophylaxis in traumatic wounds

BÜLENT ERBİL
Gürkan ERSOY
Aydan ÖZKÜTÜK
FUNDA KARBEK AKARCA
Tanzer KORKMAZ
Ömer Faruk DEMİR
GÜÇLÜ SELAHATTİN KIYAN
Pages
231–235
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found among the groups in terms of induration.CONCLUSION: Oral prophylactic antibiotics have been found to be effective in the prevention of wound infection in the traumatic crushed wound model infected with S. aureus in rats

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to examine the effectiveness of oral antibiotics in the prevention of infection development in traumatic wounds.METHODS: Forty Wistar albino rats were divided into five groups of eight animals.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After the crushed wound model was made on the back of the rats, wounds were closed with a simple suture and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 strain was used to create infection.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found among the groups in terms of induration.CONCLUSION: Oral prophylactic antibiotics have been found to be effective in the prevention of wound infection in the traumatic crushed wound model infected with S. aureus in rats
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to examine the effectiveness of oral antibiotics in the prevention of infection development in traumatic wounds.METHODS: Forty Wistar albino rats were divided into five groups of eight animals. After the crushed wound model was made on the back of the rats, wounds were closed with a simple suture and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 strain was used to create infection. All rats apart from the controls were given oral gavage with antibiotics, including cephalexin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, clarithromycin (CAM), or levofloxacin for 5 days. Wounds were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively on 5th day approximately 18 h after the last treatment.RESULTS: In the quantitative evaluation, no infection was observed in the treatment groups with amoxicillin-clavulanate, CAM, cephalexin, or levofloxacin. There was no significant difference on the numbers of bacteria found in the wounds among the groups. In terms of quantitative inflammation findings, no hyperemia or pus was detected in the groups that were given medication. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found among the groups in terms of induration.CONCLUSION: Oral prophylactic antibiotics have been found to be effective in the prevention of wound infection in the traumatic crushed wound model infected with S. aureus in rats

Özet

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmanın amacı, travmatik yaralarda enfeksiyon gelişiminin önlenmesinde oral antibiyotiklerin etkinliğini incelemektir. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Kırk adet Wistar albino sıçan sekizerli beş gruba ayrıldı. Sıçanların sırtında ezik yara modeli oluşturulduktan sonra, yaralar basit sütür ile kapatıldı. Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 suşları enfeksiyon oluşturulmak için kullanıldı. Kontrol grubu dışındakilere oral gavaj ile beş gün sefaleksin, amoksisilin-klavulanat, klaritromisin ve levofloksasini içeren antibiyotikler verildi. Yaralar, son tedavi verildikten sonra 18. saatinde kalitatif ve kantitatif olarak değerlendirildi. BULGULAR: Kantitatif değerlendirmede amoksisilin-klavulanat, klaritromisin, sefaleksin, levofloksasin ile tedavi edilen gruplarda enfeksiyon tespit edilmedi. Guruplar arasında yaralardaki bakteri sayısı açısından anlamlı fark bulunmadı. Kantitatif enflamasyon bulgularına göre değerlendirildiğinde, medikasyon uygulanan dört grubun hiçbirinde hiperemi ve püy belirlenmedi. Endürasyon açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı fark bulunmadı. TARTIŞMA: Sıçanlarda Staphylococcus aureus ile oluşturduğumuz enfekte travmatik ezik yara modelinde; oral proflaktik antibiyotiklerin yara enfeksiyonunu önlemede etkin olduğu bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERBİL, B., ERSOY, G., ÖZKÜTÜK, A., AKARCA, F. K., KORKMAZ, T., DEMİR, Ö. F., KIYAN, G. S. (2014). Travmatik yaralarda oral antibiyotiklerin enfeksiyon profilaksisindeki etkileri. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 4, 231–235. https://ajindex.com/articles/324072

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Hollander JE, Singer AJ, Valentine SM, Shofer FS. Risk factors for infec- tion in patients with traumatic lacerations. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:716- 20. Lammers RL, Hudson DL, Seaman ME. Prediction of traumatic wound infection with a neural network-derived decision model. Am J Emerg Med 2003;21:1-7.
  2. Singer AJ, Dagum AB. Current management of acute cutaneous wounds. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1037-46.
  3. Baker MD, Lanuti M. The management and outcome of lacerations in urban children. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:1001-5.
  4. Berk WA, Osbourne DD, Taylor DD. Evaluation of the 'golden period' for wound repair: 204 cases from a Third World emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1988;17:496-500.
  5. Morgan WJ, Hutchison D, Johnson HM. The delayed treatment of wounds of the hand and forearm under antibiotic cover. Br J Surg 1980;67:140-1.
  6. Hollander JE, Singer AJ. Evaluation of wounds. In: Tintinalli JE, Kelen GD, Stapczynski JS, Ma OJ, Cline DM, editors. Tintinalli's Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide. 7 ed. New York: McGraw- Hill Companies; 2010. p. 299-301.
  7. Hollander JE, Richman PB, Werblud M, Miller T, Huggler J, Singer AJ. Irrigation in facial and scalp lacerations: does it alter outcome? Ann Emerg Med 1998;31:73-7.
  8. Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writ- ers Workgroup. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory state- ment from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg 2005;189:395-404.
  9. Desai S, Stone SC, Carter WA. Wound preparation. In: Tintinalli JE, Stapczynski JS, Ma OJ, Cline DM, Cydulka RK, Meckler GD, editors. Tintinalli's Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide. 7 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies; 2010. p. 301-306.
  10. Moran GJ, Talan DA, Abrahamian FM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for wounds and procedures in the emergency department. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2008;22:117-43.
  11. Lammers R, Henry C, Howell J. Bacterial counts in experimental, con- taminated crush wounds irrigated with various concentrations of cefazo- lin and penicillin. Am J Emerg Med 2001;19:1-5.
  12. Gisby J, Bryant J. Efficacy of a new cream formulation of mupirocin: comparison with oral and topical agents in experimental skin infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:255-60.
  13. Bergamini TM, Lamont PM, Cheadle WG, Polk HC Jr. Combined topi- cal and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in experimental wound infection. Am J Surg 1984;147:753-6. Vital statistics and miscellaneous information. In: Waynforth HB, Fleck- nell PA, editors. Experimental