Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:26:26.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis of Cesarean Section

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Ronald N. Jones
Ronald N. Jones*
Affiliation:
Anti-infectives Research Center, The University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa
*
Anti-infectives Research Center, The University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 11 , Issue 5 , May 1990 , pp. 233 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

References

1. Frank, E. Prophylaxis of cesarean sections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11:228.10.2307/30147033Google Scholar
2. Dougherty, SH, Williams, VS. Prophylaxis for cesarean section: where to turn? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:9.10.2307/30144248CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 1989;31:105–108.Google Scholar
4. Moro, M, Andrews, M. Prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1974;44:668–692.Google Scholar
5. Gall, SA. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979;134:506–511.10.1016/0002-9378(79)90830-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Silver, HG, Forward, KR, Livingstone, RA. Multicenter comparison of cefoxitin versus cefazolin for prevention of infectious morbidity after nonelective cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;145:158–163.Google Scholar
7. Gonik, B. Single- versus three-dose cefotaxime prophylaxis for cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;65:189–193.Google Scholar
8. McGregor, JA, French, JL, Makowski, E. Single-dose cefotetan versus multi-dose cefoxitin for prophylaxis in cesarean section in high-risk patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986;154-955–960.10.1016/0002-9378(86)90497-7Google Scholar
9. Galask, RP, Weiner, C, Petzold, CR. Comparison of single-dose cefmet-azole and cefotetan prophylaxis in women undergoing primary cesarean section. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989;23(suppl D):105–108.10.1093/jac/23.suppl_D.105Google Scholar
10. Griffith, DL, Novak, E, Greenwald, CE, Metzler, CM, Paxton, LM. Clinical experience with cefmetazole sodium in the United States: an overview. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989;23(suppl D):21–33.10.1093/jac/23.suppl_D.21Google Scholar
11. Jones, RN, Slepack, JM, Wojeski, WV Cefotaxime single-dose surgical prophylaxis in a prepaid group practice: comparisons with other cephalosporins and ticarcillin/clavulanic acid. Drugs. 1988;35(suppl 2):116–123.10.2165/00003495-198800352-00025Google Scholar
12. Jones, RN. Review of the in-vitro spectrum and characteristics of cefmetazole (CS-1170), a cephamycin antimicrobial agent. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989;23(suppl D):1–12.10.1093/jac/23.suppl_D.1Google Scholar
13. Ohm-Smith, MF, Sweet, RL. In vitro activity of cefmetazole, cefotetan, amoxacillin-clavulanic acid, and other antimicrobial agents against anaerobic bacteria from endometrial cultures of women with pelvic infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;31:1434–1437.10.1128/AAC.31.9.1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Jones, RN. Cefotetan: a review of the microbiologic properties and antimicrobial spectrum. Am J Surg. 1988a;155:16–23.10.1016/S0002-9610(88)80207-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Jones, RN. Cefmetazole(CS-1170), a “new” cephamycin with a decade of clinical experience. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989;12:367–379.10.1016/0732-8893(89)90106-5Google Scholar
16. Barry, AL, Jones, RN. Cross-susceptibility between cefotetan and cefoxitin: absence ofcross-resistance. J Clin Microbiol. 1987;25:1570–1571.10.1128/jcm.25.8.1570-1571.1987Google Scholar
17. Jones, RN, Thornsberry, C. Cefotaxime (HR756): a review of the in vitro antimicrobial properities and spectrum of activity. Rev Infect Dis. 1982;4(suppl):S300–S315.10.1093/clinids/4.Supplement_2.S300Google Scholar
18. Jones, RN, Barry, AL. Optimal dilution susceptibility testing conditions, recommendations for MIC interpretation and orality control guidelines for the ampicillin/sulbactam combination. J Clin Microbiol. 1987:25:1920–1925.10.1128/jcm.25.10.1920-1925.1987Google Scholar