Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11499/4249
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSaçar, Mustafa-
dc.contributor.authorSaçar, Suzan-
dc.contributor.authorKaleli, İlknur-
dc.contributor.authorÖnem, Gökhan-
dc.contributor.authorTurgut, Hüseyin-
dc.contributor.authorGökşin, İbrahim-
dc.contributor.authorÖzcan, Vefa-
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-16T11:33:00Z-
dc.date.available2019-08-16T11:33:00Z-
dc.date.issued2007-
dc.identifier.issn0022-4804-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11499/4249-
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.10.003-
dc.description.abstractBackground: In this report we describe the in vivo antibacterial activity of linezolid in an experimental graft infection model in rats and compare it with teicoplanin. The objective of this study was also to determine the effects of the interaction of linezolid when it was combined with rifampicin and test this effect against strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Materials and methods: Graft infections were established in the subcutaneous tissue of 130 Wistar rats by implantation of Dacron grafts followed by a topical inoculation with 2 × 107 CFU of clinical isolates of MRSA and MRSE. The study included a control group and six groups for each of the staphylococcal strains: an inoculated group that did not receive any antibiotic prophylaxis, two inoculated groups that received intraperitoneal prophylaxis with teicoplanin or linezolid alone, an inoculated group that received rifampicin-soaked grafts, and two inoculated groups that received a combination prophylaxis consisting of intraperitoneal teicoplanin or linezolid and rifampicin-soaked grafts. Results: There was a reduction in the quantitative bacterial graft cultures in all prophylaxis groups when compared with inoculated control groups. There was not a statistically significant difference between linezolid and teicoplanin prophylaxis groups. The best results were obtained by a combination of rifampicin-soaked grafts with linezolid or teicoplanin. Conclusions: We found no evidence to suggest that linezolid differs from teicoplanin regarding effectiveness in the prevention of prosthetic vascular graft infection. Linezolid plus rifampicin and teicoplanin plus rifampicin are demonstrated to be valuable prophylactic regimens. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Surgical Researchen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectlinezoliden_US
dc.subjectprosthetic graft infectionen_US
dc.subjectrifampinen_US
dc.subjectteicoplaninen_US
dc.subjectrifampicinen_US
dc.subjectanimal experimenten_US
dc.subjectanimal modelen_US
dc.subjectantibiotic prophylaxisen_US
dc.subjectarticleen_US
dc.subjectbacterium cultureen_US
dc.subjectbacterium isolateen_US
dc.subjectblood vessel graften_US
dc.subjectcolony forming uniten_US
dc.subjectcombination chemotherapyen_US
dc.subjectcontrolled studyen_US
dc.subjectdacron implanten_US
dc.subjectdrug potentiationen_US
dc.subjectgraft infectionen_US
dc.subjectin vivo studyen_US
dc.subjectinfection preventionen_US
dc.subjectinoculationen_US
dc.subjectmaleen_US
dc.subjectmethicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureusen_US
dc.subjectmonotherapyen_US
dc.subjectnonhumanen_US
dc.subjectpathogenesisen_US
dc.subjectpriority journalen_US
dc.subjectquantitative analysisen_US
dc.subjectraten_US
dc.subjectStaphylococcus epidermidisen_US
dc.subjectsubcutaneous tissueen_US
dc.subjectAcetamidesen_US
dc.subjectAnimalsen_US
dc.subjectAnti-Bacterial Agentsen_US
dc.subjectAnti-Infective Agentsen_US
dc.subjectBlood Vessel Prosthesisen_US
dc.subjectDrug Synergismen_US
dc.subjectMaleen_US
dc.subjectMethicillin Resistanceen_US
dc.subjectOxazolidinonesen_US
dc.subjectProsthesis-Related Infectionsen_US
dc.subjectRatsen_US
dc.subjectRats, Wistaren_US
dc.subjectRifampinen_US
dc.subjectStaphylococcal Infectionsen_US
dc.subjectStaphylococcus aureusen_US
dc.subjectTeicoplaninen_US
dc.titleLinezolid Alone and in Combination with Rifampicin Prevents Experimental Vascular Graft Infection Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.volume139en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage170-
dc.identifier.startpage170en_US
dc.identifier.endpage175en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jss.2006.10.003-
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.identifier.pmid17292421en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-34047251857en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000245872900003en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1-
dc.ownerPamukkale University-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypeArticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
crisitem.author.dept14.01. Surgical Medicine-
crisitem.author.dept14.02. Internal Medicine-
crisitem.author.dept14.03. Basic Medical Sciences-
crisitem.author.dept14.01. Surgical Medicine-
crisitem.author.dept14.02. Internal Medicine-
crisitem.author.dept14.01. Surgical Medicine-
crisitem.author.dept14.01. Surgical Medicine-
Appears in Collections:PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / PubMed Indexed Publications Collection
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / Scopus Indexed Publications Collection
Tıp Fakültesi Koleksiyonu
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / WoS Indexed Publications Collection
Show simple item record



CORE Recommender

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

22
checked on Nov 16, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

23
checked on Nov 21, 2024

Page view(s)

50
checked on Aug 24, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check




Altmetric


Items in GCRIS Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.