Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1983 Jul 15;129(2):132-5.

[Use of cephalosporins as antibiotic prophylaxis in cesarean section]

[Article in French]
Clinical Trial

[Use of cephalosporins as antibiotic prophylaxis in cesarean section]

[Article in French]
P Fugère et al. Can Med Assoc J. .

Abstract

Cefoxitin, a second-generation cephalosporin, was compared with cefazolin, a first-generation cephalosporin, and a placebo in a prospective, double-blind study of antibiotic prophylaxis in women undergoing nonelective cesarean section. In the groups that received cefazolin or the placebo there eas no statistically significant change in colonization of the cervix by aerobic bacteria by the fourth day after the operation, but there was a statistically significant increase in colonization by anaerobes. Cefoxitin had the opposite effect. Of the 14 postoperative infections in 11 patients, significantly more were in patients who had received the placebo; the numbers were too small to show a difference in effectiveness between the two antibiotics. Of the microorganisms implicated as the infectious agents, group B Streptococcus was the most frequent aerobe, and Peptostreptococcus and Bacteroides bivius were the most frequent anaerobes. Among the 15 patients for whom at least one perioperative specimen yielded positive culture results, a postoperative infection developed in 5 of the 6 who received the placebo, 2 of the 4 who received cefazolin and 1 of the 5 who received cefoxitin.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1973 Oct 1;117(3):419-22 - PubMed
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 1974 Nov;44(5):688-92 - PubMed
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Apr;51(4):407-11 - PubMed
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Sep;52(3):279-84 - PubMed
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Dec;52(6):656-61 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources