Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is a syndrome unrelated to pregnancy or surgery and characterized by lower abdominal pain and tenderness, cervical motion tenderness, and adnexal tenderness. Fever, leukocytosis, and the results of laboratory tests are used to support the diagnosis. Participants in clinical trials should be stratified into two groups: those with and those without tubo-ovarian abscess—i.e., those with complicated and those with uncomplicated PID. Diagnostic studies and treatment should be directed at four major groups of pathogens: Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, anaerobic bacteria, and facultative bacteria such as Escherichia coli. Women requiring hospitalization should generally be treated as inpatients for at least 4–7 days; outpatient therapy should then be instituted to complete a 14- to 21-day course. Clinical and laboratory evaluations should be conducted daily during hospitalization and both 2–4 days and 2–4 weeks after the completion of therapy.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between postoperative abdominal incision problems and opening subcutaneous tissues with electrocautery or scalpel. Women scheduled for elective abdominal hysterectomy who gave informed consent were randomly assigned to subcutaneous abdominal wall tissue incision by electrocautery or scalpel. Postoperative abdominal wound problem diagnoses included seroma, hematoma, infection, or dehiscence without identifiable etiology. Fifteen of 380 women (3.9%) developed a wound problem; six had scalpel and nine had electrosurgical subcutaneous incisions ( P = 0.4). Thicker subcutaneous tissues ( P = 0.04) and concurrent pelvic infection (P < 0.001) were significant risk factors for postoperative wound problems. Only two women (0.5%) developed an infection. We conclude that the method of subcutaneous tissue incision was unrelated to the development of postoperative abdominal incision problems in 380 women undergoing elective abdominal hysterectomy.
Meropenem, a new carbapenem with improved stability in the presence of human dehydropeptidase-I [1], was evaluated in three prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trials in North America. We compared the in vitro activity of meropenem and conventional antimicrobial agents for the treatment of intraabdominal, obstetric/gynecologic, and skin or soft tissue infections as well as the responses of pathogens to all of these agents. The trials of the drug for intraabdominal infection were double blind, and those for the obstetric/gynecologic and soft tissue infections were open labeled. Overall, MICs of meropenem for pathogens were lower, and the pathogen response rates were at least comparable to those for the following comparative agents: clindamycin plus tobramycin (for intraabdominal infections); clindamycin plus gentamicin (for obstetric/gynecologic infections); and imipenem and cilastatin (for skin or soft tissue infections). Meropenem has high in vitro potency and covers a broad spectrum of anaerobic and aerobic pathogens.
In Brief Objective To determine the bacteriology of lower genital tract cancers to direct potential treatment modalities and to determine the impact of treatment on quality of life. Methods Gram stain, saline preparations, tumor pH determinations, and anaerobic and aerobic tumor cultures were obtained from 13 consecutive patients with malodorous gynecologic cancers and 13 patients (controls) with non-malodorous tumors. All patients with odor were treated with topical metronidazole for 7 days. Odor assessment questionnaires were administered daily in the treatment group. Quality-of-life evaluation was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy questionnaire before and after treatment. Results Cancer of the cervix (n = 21) was the most common primary site and accounted for 81% (95% confidence interval 61%, 93%) of malodorous gynecologic cancers. Eight of 13 (62%) patients with malodorous tumors had bacterial vaginosis compared with four of 13 (31%) of those without odor (P = .11). Aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were isolated with equal frequency from malodorous gynecologic cancers. Results of odor assessment questionnaires showed a graded improvement with topical antibiotic therapy (P < .001). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy questionnaire indicated improved quality of life after therapy (P = .02). Conclusion Most patients with odor had bacterial vaginosis and had an improvement in odor with topical metronidazole. Therefore, this treatment might be useful for patients with malodorous pelvic tumors. Most patients with malodorous lower reproductive tract gynecologic cancers had bacterial vaginosis and showed improvement in odor with topical antibiotic therapy.
Patients with presumed acute gynaecological infections were randomized (2 : 1) to receive cefepime 2 g every 12 h (n = 159) or cefotaxime 2 g every 8 h (n = 72), both im or by a 30-min iv infusion. For evaluation of efficacy, patients were required to have a bacteriologically documented infection, with at least one pathogen isolated susceptible to both drugs. Duration of treatment was 2–8 days in the 95 cefepime-treated patients and 3–10 days in the 36 cefotaxime-treated patients with evaluable infections; approximately three-quarters of the patients in each group were treated for 4–5 days. Clinical response was satisfactory in 81/95 (85%) of the evaluable cefepime recipients and 30/36 (83%) of the evaluable cefotaxime recipients (P = 0-802). In total, 211 (85%) of the 247 pathogens isolated from evaluable cefepime recipients were eradicated, compared with 98 (90%) of 109 pathogens isolated from evaluable cefotaxime recipients. All pathogens were eradicated in 77 (81%) cefe-pime-treated patients and in 31 (86%) cefotaxime-treated patients (P = 0.379). Overall response to treatment, calculated by combining clinical response and individual patient bacteriological response, was considered effective, partially effective or ineffective in 77%, 13% and 11% of cefepime-treated patients respectively and in 75%, 19% and 6% of cefotaxime-treated patients respectively (P = 0.932 for effective response). Adverse clinical events were reported by 68 (43%) of 159 cefepime recipients and by 26 (36%) of 72 cefotaxime recipients (P = 0.342); adverse events were deemed drug-related in 6% of cefepime recipients (diarrhoea, rash and headache) and in 1% of cefotaxime recipients (diarrhoea, pruritus and rash). Treatment was discontinued prematurely due to adverse events in five cefepime-treated patients and in one cefotaxime-treated patient (P = 0.476). Local intolerance was reported by 33 (21%) of the 159 cefepime-treated patients and by 14 (19%) of the 72 cefotaxime-treated patients receiving drug via the iv route alone; none of the patients discontinued treatment because of local intolerance. Laboratory test abnormalities were observed in a small number of patients in each group (1–8%), but none warranted discontinuation of treatment. Cefepime 2 g bd appears to have efficacy and safety comparable to that of cefotaxime 2 g tid in the treatment of acute obstetric and gynaecological infections.
