Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T07:32:31.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis of Cesarean Section

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

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

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

References

1.Frank, E. Prophylaxis of cesarean sections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11:228.Google Scholar
2.Dougherty, SH, Williams, VS. Prophylaxis for cesarean section: where to turn? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:9.Google Scholar
3.Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 1989;31:105108.Google Scholar
4.Moro, M, Andrews, M. Prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1974;44:668692.Google Scholar
5.Gall, SA. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979;134:506511.Google Scholar
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;145:158163.Google Scholar
7.Gonik, B. Single- versus three-dose cefotaxime prophylaxis for cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;65:189193.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;154-955960.Google 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):105108.Google 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):2133.Google Scholar
11.Jones, RN, Slepack, JM, Wojeski, WVCefotaxime single-dose surgical prophylaxis in a prepaid group practice: comparisons with other cephalosporins and ticarcillin/clavulanic acid. Drugs. 1988;35(suppl 2):116123.Google 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):112.Google 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;31:14341437.Google Scholar
14.Jones, RN. Cefotetan: a review of the microbiologic properties and antimicrobial spectrum. Am J Surg. 1988a;155:1623.Google Scholar
15.Jones, RN. Cefmetazole(CS-1170), a “new” cephamycin with a decade of clinical experience. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989;12:367379.Google Scholar
16.Barry, AL, Jones, RN. Cross-susceptibility between cefotetan and cefoxitin: absence ofcross-resistance. J Clin Microbiol. 1987;25:15701571.Google 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):S300S315.Google 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. 1987:25:19201925.Google Scholar