Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococci in Clean Surgery

Is There a Role for Prophylaxis?

  • Published:
Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The incidence of infection in clean surgery (i.e. surgery with no major contamination of the operative site) should be less than 2%, although the incidence of postoperative infections can be higher in patients with various risk factors (namely insertion of foreign bodies, a compromised immune status or prolonged duration of surgery). Although antibiotic prophylaxis has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative infections in clean surgery, there is still no consensus regarding its use in this area. However, for clean surgical procedures that involve implantation of foreign material, grafts or prosthetic devices, prophylaxis is well accepted and justifiable, since this practice is indicated when the benefits exceed the expected risks. Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci are responsible for 70 to 90% of wound infections in this type of surgery.

First and second generation cephalosporins are considered the drugs of choice for surgical prophylaxis. Cefazolin and other cephalosporins have good tissue penetration but poor coverage against methicillin-resistant staphylococci. The frequency with which methicillin-resistant staphylococci have been recovered in nosocomial infections has increased steadily during recent years. This provides a rationale for the use of alternative antibiotics, such as the glycopeptides (van-comycin and teicoplanin), for prophylaxis in clean surgery in hospitals where the prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococci is high.

The effectiveness and tolerability of teicoplanin as prophylaxis for orthopaedic surgery involving joint replacement were analysed in 4 randomised controlled trials. Two compared teicoplanin with cefamandole, while the others compared teicoplanin with either cefuroxime or cefazolin. The overall early wound infection rates (within 3 months) in these studies were 1.1% for teicoplanin and 1.7% for the comparator cephalosporin. The overall late infection rate was 0.2% for both treatment groups. Adverse events were attributed to the drug in 1% of patients in both treatment groups. Therefore, on the basis of these trials, single dose teicoplanin is as efficacious and as well tolerated as multiple dose cephalosporin regimens for prophylaxis in prosthetic joint surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Caputo GM, Singer M, White S, et al. Infections due to antibiotic-resistant Gram-positive cocci. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 626–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Neu HC. Emerging trends in antimicrobial resistance in surgical infections. A review. Eur J Surg Suppl. 1994; 573: 7–18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thornsberry C. Epidemiology of staphylococcal infections. A USA perspective. J Chemother 1994; 6 Suppl. 2: 61–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Voss A, Milatovic D, Wallrauch-Schwarz C, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Europe. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 13: 50–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Division of Medical Sciences, Ad Hoc Committee on Trauma. Postoperative wound infections: the influence of ultraviolet irradiation on the operating room and of various other factors. Ann Surg 1964; 160 Suppl. 2: 1–196

    Google Scholar 

  6. Page CP, Bohnen JM, Fletcher R, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical wounds. Guidelines for clinical care. Arch Surg 1993; 128: 79–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cruse PJE, Foord R. A five-year prospective study of 23,649 wounds. Arch Surg 1973; 107: 206–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Olson M, O’Connor M, Schwartz ML. Surgical wound infections: a 5-year prospective study of 20,193 wounds at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. Ann Surg 1984; 199: 253–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Haley RW, Culver DH, Morgan WM, et al. Identifying patients at high risk of surgical wound infection. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121: 206–15

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Culver DH, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, et al. National nosocomial infections surveillance system: surgical wound infection rates by wound class operative procedure, and patient risk index. Am J Med 1991; 91 Suppl. 3B: 152–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Garibaldi RA, Cushing D, Lerer T. Risk factors for postoperative infection. Am J Med 1991; 91 Suppl. 3B: 158–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sherentz RJ, Morosok RD, Garibaldi RA, et al. Consensus paper on the surveillance of surgical wound infections. The Society of Hospital Epidemiology of America, the Association for Practitioners in Infection Control, the Centers for Disease Control, the Surgical Infection Society. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992; 13: 599–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. American Medical Association. Drug Evaluations Annual 1994. Antimicrobial chemoprophylaxis for surgical patients 1994; 32: 1317–21

    Google Scholar 

  14. American Society of Hospital Pharmacists Commission on Therapeutics. ASHP therapeutic guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Clin Pharmacokinet 1992; 11: 483–513

    Google Scholar 

  15. Anonymous. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Med Lett Drugs Ther 1995; 37: 79–82

    Google Scholar 

  16. Burnakis TG. Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis: principles and guidelines. Pharmacotherapy 1984; 4: 248–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gorbach SL, Condon RE, Conte Jr JE, et al. Evaluation of new anti-infective drugs for surgical prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15 Suppl. 1: S313–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hopkins CC. Antibiotic prophylaxis in clean surgery: peripheral vascular surgery, noncardiovascular thoracic surgery, herniorrhaphy, and mastectomy. Rev Infect Dis 1991; 13 Suppl. 10: S869–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kernodle DS, Kaiser AB. Postoperative infections and antimicrobial prophylaxis. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 4th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1995: 2742–56

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nichols RC. Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1994; 7: 647–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Strachan CJL. Antibiotic prophylaxis in ‘clean’ surgical procedures. World J Surg 1982; 6: 273–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Strachan CJL. Antibiotic prophylaxis in peripheral vascular and orthopaedic prosthetic surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31 Suppl. B: 65–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dickinson GM, Bisno AL. Antimicrobial prophylaxis of infection. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1995; 9: 783–804

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Haas DW, Kaiser AB. Antimicrobial prophylaxis of infections associated with foreign bodies. In: Bisno AL, Waldvogel FA, editors. Infections associated with indwelling medical devices. Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology Press, 1994: 375

    Google Scholar 

  25. Coit DG, Peters M, Brennan MF. A prospective randomized trial of perioperative cefazolin treatment in axillary and groin dissection. Arch Surg 1991; 126: 1366–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Platt R, Zaleznik DF, Hopkins CC, et al. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for herniorrhaphy and breast surgery. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 153–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Platt R, Zucker JR, Zaleznik DF, et al. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and wound infection following breast surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31 Suppl. B: 43–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ranaboldo CJ, Karran SE, Bailey IS, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in ‘clean’ surgery: hernia repair. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31 Suppl. B: 35–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Graninger W, Wenisch C, Hasenhündl M. Treatment of staphy-lococcal infection. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1995; 8 Suppl. 1: 520–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Martin C. The French Study Group on Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery & the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: general concepts and clinical guidelines. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994; 15: 463–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Gorbach SL. The role of cephalosporins in surgical prophylaxis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 23 Suppl. D: 61–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Brogden RN, Peters DH. Teicoplanin. A reappraisal of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 1994; 47: 823–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mollan RAB, Webb CH, Haddock M. A comparison of teicoplanin vs cefamandole in orthopaedic surgical prophylaxis [abstract 758]. In: Program and Abstracts of the 7th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: 1995: Vienna. Vienna: Excerpta Medica, 1995: 147

    Google Scholar 

  34. Periti P, Stringa G, Mazzei T, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in prosthetic joint implant surgery: a comparative multicentre trial between teicoplanin and cefazolin [abstract K4]. In: Abstracts of the 34th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: 1994 Oct 4–7: Orlando. Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1994: 5

    Google Scholar 

  35. Periti P, Stringa G, Mazzei T, et al. Comparison of prophylactic use of teicoplanin or cefazolin in prevention of infectious complications of hip and knee prosthesis insertion. In: Einhorn J, Nord, CE, Norrby SR, editors. Recent advances in chemotherapy. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Chemotherapy: 1993 Jun 27-Jul 2: Stockholm. Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1994: 557–8

  36. Suter F, Avai A, Fusco U, et al. Teicoplanin versus cefamandole in the prevention of infection in total hip replacement. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 13: 793–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Wall RA, Klenerman L, McCullough C, et al. A comparison of teicoplanin and cefuroxime as prophylaxis for orthopedic implant surgery: a preliminary report. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21 Suppl. A: 141–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cooper GL, Given DB. Vancomycin: a comprehensive review of 30 years of clinical experience. New York: John Wiley, 1986: 1–79

    Google Scholar 

  39. Delia Monica P, Bernard E. Fluoroquinolones and surgical prophylaxis. Drugs 1993; 45 Suppl. 3: 102–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. van Rosenstiel N, Adam D. Quinolone antibacterials. An update of their pharmacology and therapeutic use. Drugs 1994; 47: 872–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wood MJ. The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 209–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Sahai J, Healy DP, Sheldon MJ, et al. Comparison of vancomycin-and teicoplanin-induced histamine release and ‘red man syndrome’. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 765–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Southorn PA, Plevak DJ, Wright AJ, et al. Adverse effects of vancomycin administered in the perioperative period. Mayo Clin Proc 1986; 61: 721–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Valero R, Gomar C, Fita G, et al. Adverse reactions to vancomycin prophylaxis in cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vase Anesth 1991; 5: 574–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Benet LZ, Oie S, Schwartz JB. Design and optimization of dosage regimens: pharmacokinetic data. In: Molinoff PB, Ruddon RW, editors. Goodman & Gilman’s The pharmacological basis of therapeutics. 9th ed. Hardman JG, Limbird LE, editors in chief; Goodman Gilman A, consulting editor. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996: 1707–92

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mader JT, Cierny III G. The principles of the use of preventive antibiotics. Clin Orthop 1984; 190: 75–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Neu HC. Cephalosporin antibiotics as applied in surgery of bones and joints. Clin Orthop 1984; 190: 50–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Campoli-Richards DM, Brogden RN, Faulds D. Teicoplanin. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs 1990; 40: 449–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Cunha BA. The use of penicillins in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop 1984; 190: 36–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Matzke GR, Zhanel GG, Guay DRP. Clinical pharmacokinetics of vancomycin. Clin Pharmacokinet 1986; 11: 257–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Rowland M. Clinical pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Clin Pharmacokinet 1990; 18: 184–209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Bressolle F, Gonçalves F, Gouby A, et al. Pefloxacin clinical pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1994; 27: 418–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Graziani AL, Lawson LA, Gibson GA, et al. Vancomycin concentrations in infected and non infected human bone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988; 32: 1320–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Kondell PA, Nord CE, Nordeniam A. Concentrations of cloxacillin, dicloxacillin and flucloxacillin in dental alveolar serum and mandibular bone. Int J Oral Surg 1982; 11: 40–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Leigh DA. Determination of serum and bone concentrations of cephradine and cefuroxime by HPLC in patients undergoing hip and knee joint replacement surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 23: 877–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Leigh DA, Marriner J, Nisbet D, et al. Bone concentrations of cefuroxime and cephamandole in the femoral head in 96 patients undergoing total hip replacement surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 9: 303–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Roncoroni AJ, Manuel C, Nedjar C, et al. Cefamandole bone diffusion in patients undergoing total hip replacement. Chemotherapy 1981; 27: 166–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Rosina R, Avai A, Suter F, et al. Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin (t) in human bone [abstract 249]. In: Rubinstein E, Adams D, editors. Program and Abstracts of the 16th International Congress of Chemotherapy: 1989: Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Lewis Epstein Ltd, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  59. Saul Th, Wittmann DH, Fock R, et al. Serum, bone and tissue fluid concentrations of ceftriaxone. In: Spitzy KH, Karrer K, editors. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Chemotherapy: 1983 Aug 28-Sep 2: Vienna, Austria: Egermann Druckereigesellschaft, 1983: 4.2/3–10

  60. Schurman DJ, Hirschman HP, Kajiyma G, et al. Cefazolin concentrations in bone and synovial fluid. J Bone Joint Surg 1978; 60A: 359–62

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Schurman DJ, Hirschman HP, Burton DS. Cephalothin and cefamandole penetration into bone, synovial fluid, and wound drainage fluid. J Bone Joint Surg 1980; 62A: 981–5

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sinot J, Drive L, Lopitaux R, et al. Étude de la diffusion de la rifampicine dans le tissu osseux spongieux et compact au cours de prothèses totales de hanches. Pathol Biol 1983; 31: 438–41

    Google Scholar 

  63. Soudry B, Sirot J, Lopitaux R, et al. Diffusion de la ceftriaxone dans le tissu osseux humain. Pathol Biol 1986; 34: 859–62

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Wilson APR, Taylor B, Treasure T, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery: serum and tissue levels of teicoplanin, flucloxacillin and tobramycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21: 201–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Classen DC, Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, et al. The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 281–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Sanderson PJ. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: microbiological factors. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31 Suppl.: 1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Bisno AL, Waldvogel FA, editors. Infections associated with indwelling medical devices. Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  68. Sugarman B, Young EJ, editors. Infections associated with prosthetic devices. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press: 1984

    Google Scholar 

  69. Christensen GD, Simpson WA, Bison AL, et al. Adherence of slime producing strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis to smooth surfaces. Infect Immun 1982; 37: 318–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Peters G, Locci R, Pulvever G. Adherence and growth of coag-ulase-negative staphylococci on surfaces of intravenous catheters. J Infect Dis 1982; 146: 479–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Sugarman B, Young EJ. Infections associated with prosthetic devices: magnitude of the problem. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1989; 3: 187–98

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Norden CW. Antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery. Rev Infect Dis 1991; 13 Suppl. 10: S842–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Young EJ. Prevention of infection in prosthetic joints. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1990; 3: 666–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Trippel SB. Antibiotic-impregnated cement in total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1986; 68A: 1297–302

    Google Scholar 

  75. Wininger DA, Fass RJ. Antibiotic-impregnated cement and beads for orthopedic infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40: 2675–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Blackburn WD, Alarcòn GS. Prosthetic joint infections. A role for prophylaxis. Arthritis Rheum 1991; 34: 110–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Periti P, Mini E. The rationale for antimicrobial prophylaxis in prosthetic knee implant surgery. International Meeting Knee Prostheses. In: Monteleone V, Magri R, Gison L, et al., editors. Italy: Microprint, S.B.R., Portici (NA), 1994: 165–77

    Google Scholar 

  78. Chung R, Bivins BA. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. A synopsis. Infect Dis Newsl 1991; 10: 1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Taylor GJS, Bannister GC, Calder S. Perioperative wound infection in elective orthopaedic surgery. J Hosp Infect 1990; 16: 241–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Eron LJ. Prevention of infection following orthopaedic surgery. Antibiot Chemother 1985; 33: 140–64

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Oishi CS, Carrion WV, Hoaglund FT. Use of parenteral prophylactic antibiotics in clean orthopaedic surgery. A review of the literature. Clin Orthop 1993; 296: 249–55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Bryan CS, Morgan SL, Caton RJ, et al. Cefazolin versus cefamandole for prophylaxis during total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1988; 228: 117–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. De Benedictis KJ, Rowan NM, Boyer BL. A double-blind study comparing cefonicid with cefazolin as prophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. Rev Infect Dis 1984; 6 Suppl. 4: 901–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Evrard J, Doyon F, Acar JF, et al. Two-day cefamandole versus five-day cefazolin prophylaxis in 965 total hip replacements. Report of a multicentre double blind randomized trial. Int Orthop 1989; 12: 69–73

    Google Scholar 

  85. Hill C, Mazas F, Flamant R. Prophylactic cefazolin versus placebo in total hip replacement. Report of a multicentre double-blind randomized trial. Lancet 1981; 224: 795–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Nelson JP, Fitzgerald Jr RH, Jaspers MT, et al. Prophylactic antimicrobial coverage in arthroplastic patients. J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72A: 1

    Google Scholar 

  87. Sanderson PJ. Preventing infection in orthopaedic implants. J Antibiot Chemother 1989; 24: 277–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Cartillier JC, Balay B, Charlet C, et al. Pefloxacin as a prophylactic treatment against infection in total hip replacement. Comparison of two dosage schedules [abstract 208]. In: Abstracts of the 3rd International Symposium on New Quinolones: 1990 Jul 12–14: Vancouver, 1990: 262

  89. Fihlo JL, Trigueiro G, Turibio F. Pefloxacin versus cefazolin in the prophylaxis of postoperative infections after total hip or knee replacement. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1991; Special Issue: 637–8

  90. Gujot A, Martens M, Gillet P, et al. Pefloxacin and ceftazidime in the perioperative prophylaxis of patients undergoing endoprosthetic hip or knee replacement. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1991; Special Issue: 638–9

  91. Hoogland T. Comparative study of pefloxacin and cefamandole in the antimicrobial prophylaxis of orthopaedic surgery. 2nd International Symposium on New Quinolones; 1988 Aug 25–27: Geneva. Book of Abstracts: 420

  92. Periti P, Stringa G, Mini E, and other Participants to the Italian Study Group for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Orthopaedic Surgery (1990). Antimicrobial prophylactic activity of pefloxacin in orthopaedic surgery: preliminary results of a controlled multicenter study. In: Montorsi M, Zennaro F, editors. Second World Work of Professional Updating in Surgery and in Surgical and Oncological Disciplines of the University of Milan. Monduzzi editore, 1990: 869–71

  93. Cafferkey MT. Therapy for staphylococcal infection. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1991; 4: 757–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Mulligan ME, Murray-Leisure KA, Ribner BS, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a consensus review of the microbiology, pathogenesis, and epidemiology with implications for prevention and management. Am J Med 1993; 94: 313–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Turaidge J, Grayson ML. Optimum treatment of staphylococcal infections. Drugs 1993; 45: 353–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Wilson APR, Grüneberg RN. Use of teicoplanin in community medicine. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 13: 701–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Kloos WE, Bannerman TL. Update on clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Clin Microbiol Rev 1994; 7: 117–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Thornsberry C. The development of antimicrobial resistance in staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21 Suppl. C: 9–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Ritter MA, Barzilauskas CD, Faris PM, et al. Vancomycin prophylaxis and elective total joint arthroplasty. Orthopaedics 1989; 12: 1333–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Greenwood D, Bidgood K, Turner M. A comparison of the responses of staphylococci and streptococci to teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 20: 155–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Hackbarth CJ, Chambers HF. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci: detection methods and treatment of infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 995–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Davey PG, Williams AH. A review of the safety profile of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27 Suppl. B: 69–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Garaud JJ, Cavenaghi L, Girat T. Diffusion of teicoplanin into bone tissue. Data on file, Merrell Dow Research Institute, 1991

  104. Baiocchi P, Capone A, Venditti M. Changes in susceptibilities to teicoplanin, vancomycin and other antibiotics among Staphylococcus aureus isolates in a tertiary-care university hospital. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1996; 7: 93–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Johnson AD, Uttley AHC, Woodford NW, et al. Resistance to vancomycin and teicoplanin: an emerging clinical problem. Clin Microbiol Rev 1990; 3: 280–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Shlaes DM, Shlaes JH. Teicoplanin selects for Staphylococcus aureus that is resistant to vancomycin. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 20: 1071–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Edmond MB, Wenzel RP, Pasculle W. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: perspective on measures needed for control. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 329–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. The Hospital Infection Control Practice Advisory Committee (1995). Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance: recommendations from the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Am J Infect Contr 1995; 23: 87–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Mantel H, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22: 719–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cattedra di Chemioterapia, Dipartimento di Farmacologia Preclinica e Clinica, Universita degli Studi di Firenze, Italy

    Enrico Mini, Stefania Nobili & Piero Periti

Authors
  1. Enrico Mini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefania Nobili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Piero Periti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mini, E., Nobili, S. & Periti, P. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococci in Clean Surgery. Drugs 54 (Suppl 6), 39–52 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-199700546-00008

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-199700546-00008

Keywords

Search

Navigation