with polypropylene mesh: the randomized, double-bl<strong>in</strong>d, prospective trial. Ann Surg2001;233:26-33.145. Whitby M, Johnson BC, Atk<strong>in</strong>son RL, Stuart G. The comparative efficacy of<strong>in</strong>travenous cefotaxime and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole <strong>in</strong> prevent<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>fectionafter neurosurgery: a prospective, randomized study. Brisbane NeurosurgicalInfection Group Br J Neurosurg 2000;14:13-18.146. Zhu XL, Wong WK, Yeung WM et al. A randomized, double-bl<strong>in</strong>d comparisonof ampicill<strong>in</strong>/sulbactam and ceftriaxone <strong>in</strong> the prevention of surgical-site <strong>in</strong>fectionsafter neurosurgery. Cl<strong>in</strong> Ther 2001;23:1281-91.147. Sag<strong>in</strong>ur R, Croteau D, Bergeron MG. Comparative efficacy of teicoplan<strong>in</strong> andcefazol<strong>in</strong> for cardiac operation <strong>prophylaxis</strong> <strong>in</strong> 3.027 patients. The ESPRIT Group. JThorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;120:1120-30.148. Kriaras I, Michalopoulos A, Tur<strong>in</strong>a M, Geroulanos S. Evolution of antimicrobial<strong>prophylaxis</strong> <strong>in</strong> cardiovascular surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000;18:440-46.149. F<strong>in</strong>kelste<strong>in</strong> R, Rab<strong>in</strong>o G, Mashiah T, Bar-El Y, Adler Z, kertzman V, Cohen O,Milo S. Vancomyc<strong>in</strong> versus cefazol<strong>in</strong> prophylaxix for cardiac surgery <strong>in</strong> the sett<strong>in</strong>gof a high prevalence of methicill<strong>in</strong>-resistant staphylococcal <strong>in</strong>fections. J Thor CardiovSurg 2002;123:326-32.150. Dietrich ES, Bieser U, Frank U, Schwarzer G, Daschner FD. Ceftriaxone versusother cephalospor<strong>in</strong>s for perioperative <strong>antibiotic</strong> <strong>prophylaxis</strong>: A meta-analysis of 43randomized controlled trials. Chemotherapy 2002;48:49-56.151. Esposito S, Noviello S, Vanasia A, Ventur<strong>in</strong>o P. Ceftriaxone versus OtherAntibiotics for Surgical Prophylaxis: A Meta-Analysis. Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Drug Investigation2004;24:29-39.152. Goldmann DA, We<strong>in</strong>ste<strong>in</strong> RA, Wenzel RP, Tablan OC, Duma RJ, Gaynes RP etal. Strategies to prevent and control the emergence and spread of antimicrobialresistant microorganisms <strong>in</strong> hospitals. A challenge to hospital leadership. JAMAI996;275:234-40.
153. Ballow CH, Schentag JJ. Trends <strong>in</strong> <strong>antibiotic</strong> utilisation and bacterial resistance.Report of the National Nosocomial Resistance Surveillance Group. Diagn MicrobiolInfect Dis 1992;15:37S-42S.154. Salm<strong>in</strong>en US, Viljanen TU, Valtonen VV, Ikonen TE, Sahlman AE, Harjula AL.Ceftriaxone versus vancomyc<strong>in</strong> <strong>prophylaxis</strong> <strong>in</strong> cardiovascular surgery. J AntimicrobChemother 1999;44:287-90.155. den Hoed PT, Boelhouwer RU, Veen HF, Hop WC, Bru<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g HA. Infectionsand bacteriological data after laparoscopic and open gallbladder surgery. J HospInfect 1998;39:27-37.156. Sanderson PJ. Prophylaxis <strong>in</strong> orthopaedic implant surgery - should we use aglycopeptide? J Antimicrob Chemother 1998;41:322-25.157. Scottish Office Department of Health. Hospital acquired <strong>in</strong>fection - a frameworkfor a national system of surveillance for the NHS <strong>in</strong> Scotland. Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh: ScottishOffice, 1999.158. Marroni M, Cao P, Fiorio M, Magh<strong>in</strong>i M, Lenti M, Repetto A, Menichetti F.Prospective, randomized, double-bl<strong>in</strong>d trial compar<strong>in</strong>g teicoplan<strong>in</strong> and cefazol<strong>in</strong> as<strong>antibiotic</strong> <strong>prophylaxis</strong> <strong>in</strong> prosthetic vascular surgery. Eur J Cl<strong>in</strong> Microbiol Infect Dis1999;18:175-78.159. Periti P, Str<strong>in</strong>ga G, M<strong>in</strong>i E. Comparative multicenter trial of teicoplan<strong>in</strong> versuscefazol<strong>in</strong> for antimicrobial <strong>prophylaxis</strong> <strong>in</strong> prosthetic jo<strong>in</strong>t implant surgery. ItalianStudy Group for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis <strong>in</strong> Orthopedic Surgery. Eur J Cl<strong>in</strong>Microbiol Infect Dis 1999;18:113-19.160. Vuorisalo S, Pokela R, Syrjala H.Comparison of vancomyc<strong>in</strong> and cefuroximefor <strong>in</strong>fection <strong>prophylaxis</strong> <strong>in</strong> coronary artery bypass surgery. Infect Control HospEpidemiol 1998;19:234-39.161. Bolon MK, Morlote M, Weber SG, Koplan B, Carmeli Y, WrightSB.Glycopeptides are no more effective than beta-lactam agents for prevention ofsurgical site <strong>in</strong>fection after cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis. Cl<strong>in</strong> Infect Dis2004;38:1357-63.
- Page 1 and 2:
SNLG17Perioperative antibiotic prop
- Page 3 and 4:
Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxi
- Page 5:
In this regard, the website of the
- Page 9 and 10:
MULTIDISCIPLINARY PANELFulvio Calis
- Page 11 and 12:
Società Italiana di Ortopedia e Tr
- Page 13 and 14:
RCT: Randomised Clinical (controlle
- Page 15 and 16:
Implementation strategies most wide
- Page 17 and 18:
1. Proper ventilation systems in th
- Page 19 and 20:
VI/B Clean-contaminated procedures
- Page 21 and 22:
# Radical prostatectomyRadical cyst
- Page 23 and 24:
I/A Antibiotic prophylaxis should b
- Page 25 and 26:
contact with the surgical field dur
- Page 27 and 28:
3. Management of colonised or infec
- Page 29 and 30:
*measures strongly recommended and
- Page 31 and 32:
included (this issue has been marke
- Page 33 and 34:
possible, the evidence base for the
- Page 35 and 36:
The working group considered that t
- Page 37 and 38:
omission of more recent studies was
- Page 39 and 40:
particular circumstances. Nonethele
- Page 41 and 42:
Dirty:encountered or there is visib
- Page 43 and 44:
• the duration of surgery (when t
- Page 45 and 46:
colitis or diarrhoea. The prevalenc
- Page 47 and 48:
Where evidence of efficacy is avail
- Page 49 and 50:
(1-expected baseline risk) x expect
- Page 51 and 52: Contamination of the operative site
- Page 53 and 54: • exanthema (rash)Other less spec
- Page 55 and 56: The steady increase in the frequenc
- Page 57 and 58: impact is the same, preference shou
- Page 59 and 60: II/A In most cases antibiotic proph
- Page 61 and 62: For heart surgery performed with ex
- Page 63 and 64: Implementation of the guidelineDeve
- Page 65 and 66: in the field, and the distribution
- Page 67 and 68: If the recommendations indicated in
- Page 69 and 70: - type of antibiotic, dosage and ro
- Page 71 and 72: diagnostic or surgical procedures a
- Page 73 and 74: RESPIRATORY TRACT PROCEDURES AND OP
- Page 75 and 76: - cephalexin § 2 g 30-60 minutes b
- Page 77 and 78: • Vascular graftsNo randomised co
- Page 79 and 80: • infection of both superficial a
- Page 81 and 82: - myocarditis, pericarditis- endoca
- Page 83 and 84: Other CNS surgeryCaesarean sectionA
- Page 85 and 86: 2. Preparation of the surgical team
- Page 87 and 88: - For how many hours does the proto
- Page 89 and 90: 11. Jobe BA, Grasley A, Deveney KE,
- Page 91 and 92: 30. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidel
- Page 93 and 94: 52. Wilcox MH, Cunniffe JG, Trundle
- Page 95 and 96: 71. Aznar R, Mateu M, Miro JM, Gate
- Page 97 and 98: 93. Preclik G, Grune S, Leser HG, L
- Page 99 and 100: 113. Sawaya GF, Grady D, Kerlikowsk
- Page 101: 133. Pitt HA, Postier RG, MacGowan
- Page 105 and 106: 170. van Dijk-van Dam MS, Moll FL,
- Page 107 and 108: 188. Crowe MJ, Cooke EM. Review of
- Page 109 and 110: 205. White A, Schneider T Improving