• 1

    American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP therapeutic guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56:18391888.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Alerany C, Campany D, Monterde J, et al. Impact of local guidelines and an integrated dispensing system on antibiotic prophylaxis quality in a surgery centre. J Hosp Infect 2005;60:111117.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    van Kasteren ME, Kullberg BJ, de Boer AS, et al. Adherence to local hospital guidelines for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis: a multicentre audit in Dutch hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;51:13891396.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Widdison AL, Pope NR, Brown EM. Survey of guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. J Hosp Infect 1993;25:199205.

  • 5

    Bratzler DW, Houck PM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg 2005;189:395404.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Oishi CS, Carrion WV, Hoaglund FT. Use of parenteral prophylactic antibiotics in clean orthopaedic surgery. A review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993:249255.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Marcellin-Little DJ, Papich MG, Richardson DC, et al. Pharmacokinetic model for cefazolin distribution during total hip arthroplasty in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1996;57:720723.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Petersen SW, Rosin E. Cephalothin and cefazolin in vitro antibacterial activity and pharmacokinetics in dogs. Vet Surg 1995;24:347351.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Plumb DC. Veterinary drug handbook. 4th ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Press, 2002.

  • 10

    Morgan MR, Gaynor JS, Monnet E. The effects of sodium ampicillin, sodium cefazolin, and sodium cefoxitin on blood pressures and heart rates in healthy, anesthetized dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2000;36:111114.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Stone HH, Hooper CA, Kolb LD. Antibiotic prophylaxis in gastric, biliary and colonic surgery. Ann Surg 1976;184:443452.

  • 12

    Vasseur PB, Paul HA, Enos LR, et al. Infection rates in clean surgical procedures: a comparison of ampicillin prophylaxis vs a placebo. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985;187:825827.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Whittem TL, Johnson AL, Smith CW, et al. Effect of perioperative prophylactic antimicrobial treatment in dogs undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999;215:212216.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Vasseur PB, Levy J, Dowd E, et al. Surgical wound infection rates in dogs and cats. Data from a teaching hospital. Vet Surg 1988;17:6064.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Perioperative administration of antimicrobials associated with elective surgery for cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs: 83 cases (2003–2005)

J. Scott WeeseDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.

Search for other papers by J. Scott Weese in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, DVSc, DACVIM
and
Krista B. HallingDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.

Search for other papers by Krista B. Halling in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, DACVS

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate perioperative antimicrobial use associated with elective surgery for cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—83 dogs.

Procedures—Medical records were reviewed and antimicrobial use practices were evaluated for dogs with no other problems that would affect antimicrobial use decisions.

Results—Antimicrobials were administered before or during surgery to 75 of 83 (90%) dogs. Timing of administration with respect to first incision, intraoperative administration, and duration of administration were variable. Antimicrobial administration began after surgery in 3 (3.6%) dogs. Fifty-five of 65 (85%) dogs treated before surgery received the first dose within 60 minutes of the first incision. Time from first antimicrobial administration to closure of the incision ranged from 15 to 285 minutes (mean ± SD, 141 ± 53 minutes). If a guideline of repeated administration every 2 hours after first administration until closure of the surgical site was used, 22 of 43 (51%) dogs received the required intraoperative dose, whereas 6 of 32 (19%) dogs that did not require intraoperative treatment were treated. Twenty-four (29%) dogs received antimicrobials after surgery.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Certain discrepancies between antimicrobial use practices in this study and standard guidelines used in human medicine were evident.

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate perioperative antimicrobial use associated with elective surgery for cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—83 dogs.

Procedures—Medical records were reviewed and antimicrobial use practices were evaluated for dogs with no other problems that would affect antimicrobial use decisions.

Results—Antimicrobials were administered before or during surgery to 75 of 83 (90%) dogs. Timing of administration with respect to first incision, intraoperative administration, and duration of administration were variable. Antimicrobial administration began after surgery in 3 (3.6%) dogs. Fifty-five of 65 (85%) dogs treated before surgery received the first dose within 60 minutes of the first incision. Time from first antimicrobial administration to closure of the incision ranged from 15 to 285 minutes (mean ± SD, 141 ± 53 minutes). If a guideline of repeated administration every 2 hours after first administration until closure of the surgical site was used, 22 of 43 (51%) dogs received the required intraoperative dose, whereas 6 of 32 (19%) dogs that did not require intraoperative treatment were treated. Twenty-four (29%) dogs received antimicrobials after surgery.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Certain discrepancies between antimicrobial use practices in this study and standard guidelines used in human medicine were evident.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence Dr. Weese.