This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

GARY D. BECKER, MD; G. JOSEPH PARELL, MD
Los Angeles

Arch Otolaryngol. 1982;108(7):461.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—We believe it is necessary to correct several erroneous statements made by Rice and Maceri in their rebuttal published in the February ARCHIVES (1982;108:125) to our comments on their article entitled "The Use of Povidone-Iodine to Prevent Postoperative Infection," published in the May ARCHIVES (1981;107:287).

They state that we chose a 24-hour prophylaxis because of a "decisive period of approximately three hours after bacterial invasion during which antibiotics are important." This is false. This decisive period is when antibiotic prophylaxis should begin and has no meaning as to the duration of prophylaxis. We stated in our article¹ that "antibiotics given after this time will not prevent infection." When our cefazolin study was designed, there were no data in the head and neck literature on which to base a decision as to length of prophylaxis. We chose 24 hours because, among various other reasons, general surgical experience did . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?