COMPARISON OF IRRIGATION AND INTRAVENOUS ANTIBIOTIC-PROPHYLAXIS AT CESAREAN-SECTION

  • 1 January 1984
    • journal article
    • research article
    • Vol. 63  (6) , 787-791
Abstract
Despite recent enthusiasm for antibiotic prophylaxis by uterine irrigation at the time of cesarean section, no data exists comparing the efficacy of this technique with standard i.v. antibiotic administration. Thus, 124 patients about to undergo cesarean section were entered into a prospective, randomized, double-blind evaluation of uterine irrigation vs. i.v. administration of either normal saline or cefoxitin. All women were considered to be at increased risk for postoperative infection because of the presence of labor or ruptured membranes. The incidence of endometritis and the fever index in patients receiving i.v. cefoxitin (3.2%, 4.6 degree h) was significantly less than in patients receiving i.v. normal saline (21.2%, 22.3 degree h). There was no significant difference between the use of i.v. normal saline and uterine irrigation with either cefoxitin (18.9%, 16.6 degree h) or normal saline (17.4%, 24.6 degree h). Evidently, i.v. infusion is the most effective means of administering cefoxitin as a prophylactic antibiotic.