Ofloxacin versus parenteral therapy for chronic osteomyelitis. Oral ciprofloxacin compared with standard parenteral antibiotic therapy for chronic osteomyelitis in adults. Oral ciprofloxacin compared with parenteral antibiotics in the treatment of osteomyelitis. Efficacy of oral antibiotics following parenteral antibiotics for serious infections in obstetrics and gynecology. [Parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis or oral antimicrobial bowel preparation for colorectal surgery (author's transl)]. Does prophylactic administration of systemic antibiotics prevent postoperative inflammatory complications after third molar surgery? Effect of topical antibiotic therapy on recovery after tonsillectomy in adults. Oral ofloxacin versus parenteral imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of osteomyelitis.
We conducted a randomized comparison of oral ofloxacin (400 mg twice a day) and parenteral agents (cefazolin, 1.0 g intravenously every 8 h, or ceftazidime, 2.0 g intravenously every 12 h) in biopsy-confirmed, nonprosthesis osteomyelitis. A total of 19 subjects received ofloxacin for an average of 8 weeks, and 14 received parenteral antibiotics for an average of 4 weeks; both therapies were well tolerated. Infections were due to Staphylococcus aureus (40%), Enterococcus spp. (3%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15%), and other gram-negative organisms (42%). At the completion of therapy, one P. aeruginosa infection in the ofloxacin group persisted and the organism acquired resistance, accompanied by a resistant Acinetobacter superinfection. In the parenteral group, one S. aureus infection persisted, and there was a resolved superinfection due to S. aureus as well. Eighteen-month follow-up data have been obtained. Among those treated with ofloxacin, four subjects whose initial response to therapy was successful suffered relapses of infection, three due to S. aureus and one due to P. aeruginosa, while in the parenteral group, one subject with a P. aeruginosa infection relapsed. Long-term response to therapy was successful for 14 of 19 (74%) subjects who received ofloxacin and 12 of 14 (86%) who received parenteral antibiotics; the difference was not significant. Oral ofloxacin appears comparable to parenteral antibiotics in chronic osteomyelitis due to susceptible organisms, and oral ofloxacin offers advantages in economics and convenience. A group of fourteen patients who had chronic osteomyelitis and were treated with oral ciprofloxacin was compared with a group of twelve patients of similar age who had chronic osteomyelitis and received standard parenteral antibiotic therapy consisting of nafcillin, clindamycin, and gentamicin, singly or in combination. The osteomyelitis was arrested at the end of therapy and on follow-up examination of eleven patients in the first group and ten in the second group. The average duration of antibiotic therapy (thirty-eight days) and follow-up (approximately thirty months) were about the same for both groups. Oral administration of ciprofloxacin was as effective and safe as parenteral therapy for the treatment of osteomyelitis in these adults. We undertook a prospective, randomized comparison of oral ciprofloxacin with standard parenteral therapies for the treatment of biopsy-proven osteomyelitis caused by susceptible organisms. Following surgical debridement, the ciprofloxacin patients received 750 mg twice a day, and the other patients received a broad-spectrum cephalosporin or a nafcillin-aminoglycoside combination intravenously (i.v.). There were 31 evaluable patients in the ciprofloxacin group, treated an average of 56 days, and 28 in the i.v. group, treated an average of 47 days. Clinical success rates were 24 of 31 (77%) for the ciprofloxacin group and 22 of 28 (79%) for the i.v. group. Of the seven failures in the ciprofloxacin group, one was due to a persistent Klebsiella pneumoniae infection and six were due to relapse of the infection within 1 year of therapy. Of the six failures in the i.v. group, one was due to an Enterobacter aerogenes strain which emerged resistant and five were due to relapse. The most troublesome etiology was polymicrobial osteomyelitis involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa, in which five of six (83%) regimens failed. Adverse reactions occurred infrequently, i.e., in 1 of 31 (3%) of the ciprofloxacin patients and in 4 of 28 (14%) of the i.v. patients, yet all reactions responded to therapy and none required protocol deviation. Our data indicate that oral ciprofloxacin monotherapy is as safe and effective as conventional parenteral therapy in cases of osteomyelitis caused by susceptible organisms. Patients with serious soft-tissue infections in obstetrics and gynecology are frequently treated with parenteral antibiotics until afebrile and clinically well for 48-72 hours, and then discharged on a broad-spectrum oral antibiotic. To evaluate the efficacy of this type of management, we designed a prospective, randomized single-blinded study comparing a group of patients who received oral antibiotics after hospital discharge (N = 80) with a group who did not (N = 83). No significant differences in age, race, parity, diagnosis, or pathogen isolated were observed between the patients in the two groups. No significant difference was noted in delayed morbidity between those who did and those who did not take oral antibiotics (P greater than .06). In light of the cost of oral antibiotics and the chance of drug-induced side effects, the data suggest that oral antibiotics after parenteral antibiotics are not indicated. A prospective randomized trial was designed to establish whether parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis was as effective as oral antimicrobial bowel preparation in preventing sepsis after colorectal surgery. Patients scheduled for elective resection of colorectal cancer received metronidazole and kanamycin either orally in the preoperative phase or parenterally as a short-term perioperative prophylaxis. The former regimen resulted in reduction of the microbial concentrations in the bowel contents in the absence of therapeutic serum concentrations at the time of operation, whereas the latter achieved therapeutic intraoperative serum levels without altering the colonic microflora. 72 patients were studied. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative sepsis between the two groups (a total of 72 patients). These results differ from those obtained at the Birmingham General Hospital using the same protocol, in which postoperative sepsis was significantly more common in the group of patients having oral bowel preparation. This difference was most probably due to an overgrowth of kanamycin-resistant coliforms during the period of oral antibiotic preparation. The presence of resistant organisms did not, however, result in failure of systemic prophylaxis. The authors conclude that short-term parenteral application is the safer method of antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery and is to be preferred to oral antimicrobial bowel preparation. To estimate and compare the frequencies of inflammatory complications after third molar (M3) surgery in subjects receiving intravenous prophylactic antibiotics or saline placebo.
                Using a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, the investigators enrolled a sample composed of subjects who required extraction of at least 1 impacted M3 and requested intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. The predictor variable was treatment group classified as active treatment (penicillin or clindamycin for penicillin-allergic subjects) or placebo (0.9% saline). Study medications were randomly assigned. Both surgeon and subject were blinded to treatment assignment. The medication was administered intravenously prior to any incision. The outcome variable was postoperative inflammatory complication classified as present or absent and included alveolar osteitis (AO) or surgical site infection (SSI). Other variables were demographic, anatomic, or operative. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed. Statistical significance was set at P < or = .05, single-tailed test of hypothesis.
                The sample was composed of 118 subjects (n = 59 per study group). In the active treatment group, there were no postoperative inflammatory complications. In the placebo group, 5 subjects (8.5%) were diagnosed with SSI, (P = .03). No subject met the case definition for AO. All SSIs were associated with the removal of partial bony or full bony impacted mandibular M3s.
                In the setting of third molar removal, these results suggest that the use of intravenous antibiotics administered prophylactically decrease the frequency of SSIs. The authors cannot comment on the efficacy of intravenous antibiotics in comparison to other antibacterial treatment regimens, eg chlorhexidine mouthrinse or intrasocket antibiotics. Systemic antibiotics given during the first week after tonsillectomy appear to be effective in reducing postoperative morbidity. We assessed the effectiveness of perioperative topical antibiotic rinses in reducing posttonsillectomy morbidity.
                A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot study of 36 patients undergoing tonsillectomy was used to evaluate the effects of a standard 7-day systemic regimen of perioperative intravenous ampicillin/oral amoxicillin and 2 single-day topical antibiotic regimens: (1) clindamycin (Cleocin) and (2) amoxicillin/clavulanate (Augmentin) and ticarcillin/clavulanate (Timentin).
                Mean aerobic and anaerobic oral bacterial counts were decreased in both topical treatment groups compared with the placebo group on the first postoperative day, achieving statistical significance with Augmentin/Timentin (aerobic and anaerobic bacterial counts) and Cleocin (aerobic counts). Significantly less postoperative pain and mouth odor were reported for both Cleocin (P = 0.014 and P = 0.005, respectively) and Augmentin/Timentin (P = 0.026 and P = 0.05, respectively) topical treatment groups when compared with the placebo group.
                Preliminary results indicate a reduction in oral bacterial counts and postoperative morbidity in adult patients receiving topical antibiotics compared with patients receiving placebo; further investigation is warranted. We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label trial, comparing oral ofloxacin with intravenous imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis in order to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance. Hospitalized patients with diagnosis of chronic osteomyelitis and isolation of susceptible organisms to ofloxacin and imipenem/cilastatin were eligible for enrollment. Ofloxacin was administered orally (400 mg every 12 hours), and imipenem-cilastatin was given intravenously (500 mg every 6 hours). Organisms were considered susceptible to ofloxacin when the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) was <2 micrograms/ml, and to imipenem-cilastatin when the MIC was <4 micrograms/ml. Thirty-two patients were enrolled, 16 in each group. In the intent to treat analysis 11 (69%) patients in the ofloxacin group and eight (50%) in the imipenem-cilastatin group were cured (p = 0.473; 95% confidence interval of the difference from -14.7% to 52.2%). In the per protocol analysis 10 (91%) patients in the ofloxacin group and seven (70%) in the imipenem/cilastatin group were cured (p = 0.311; 95% confidence interval of the difference from -12.2% to 54%). Our trial suggests that oral ofloxacin is as effective as parenteral therapy with betalactam antibiotics in the treatment of osteomyelitis, which could allow a reduction of the period of hospitalization and economic costs.
Limited evidence suggests that the method of antibiotic administration (oral versus parenteral) does not affect the rate of disease remission if the bacteria are sensitive to the antibiotic used. However, this and the lack of statistically significant differences in adverse effects need confirmation. No or insufficient evidence exists for other aspects of antibiotic therapy for chronic osteomyelitis.