乐虎lehu国际官网

一项前瞻性随机试验来评测比较三抗生素软膏与莫匹罗星乳膏在局部应用预防无并发症软组织伤口感染方面的效果

2025-09-01 0

目前,关于三联抗生素软膏 (TAO) 和莫匹罗星预防无并发症软组织伤口感染的安全性和有效性的比较数据很少。本研究的目的是对这两种制剂的相对安全性、有效性和成本效益进行一项初步研究。这是一项随机、前瞻性、干预性研究,旨在确定在标准伤口护理和缝合后,使用 TAO 和莫匹罗星软膏治疗的受试者的无并发症软组织伤口感染率的差异。如果受试者符合研究纳入标准,则在进入急诊科时入组,并需要到急诊科进行一次随访,以确定他们的伤口状况(感染与未感染)。共有 99 名患者入组,并在随访中接受评估。两组在伤口护理和换药方面的自我报告依从率相似。与 TAO 组患者相比,莫匹罗星组患者的感染迹象发生率(12% vs. 6.1%)和感染发生率(4% vs. 0%)更高,尽管两种差异均未达到统计学意义。两组均未出现严重不良反应。这项初步研究发现,TAO 和莫匹罗星软膏的伤口感染率和不良事件发生率相似。结果应在更大规模的等效性试验中得到证实。(Am J Emerg Med 2004;22:1-3。© 2004 Elsevier Inc. 保留所有权利。)

A Prospective, Randomized Pilot Evaluation of Topical Triple Antibiotic Versus Mupirocin for the Prevention of Uncomplicated Soft Tissue Wound Infection

Little data exists comparing the safety and efficacy of triple antibiotic ointment (TAO) and mupirocin for prevention of uncomplicated soft tissue wound infections. The purpose of this investigation was to conduct a pilot study of the relative safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness of the 2 preparations. This was a randomized, prospective, interventional study to determine the difference in infection rates of uncomplicated soft tissue wounds between subjects treated with TAO and mupirocin ointment after standard wound care and suturing. Subjects were enrolled at presentation to the ED if they met the study inclusion criteria and were required to make one follow-up visit to the ED to determine the status of their wound (infected vs. not infected). A total of 99 patients were enrolled and assessed at the follow-up visit. The groups had similar rates of self-reported compliance with wound care and dressing changes. Patients in the mupirocin group had a greater rate of signs of infection (12% vs. 6.1%), and infection (4% vs. 0%) compared with patients in the TAO group, although neither difference achieved statistical significance. There were no serious adverse effects in either group. This pilot study found a similar rate of wound infection and adverse events between TAO and mupirocin ointments. Results should be confirmed in a larger equivalency trial. (Am J Emerg Med 2004;22:1-3. © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)


To Top