These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A prospective, randomized pilot evaluation of topical triple antibiotic versus mupirocin for the prevention of uncomplicated soft tissue wound infection.
    Author: Hood R, Shermock KM, Emerman C.
    Journal: Am J Emerg Med; 2004 Jan; 22(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 14724869.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]