 |
 |

TE RRAMYCIN AND AUREOMYCIN IN SURGICAL INFECTIONSREPORT OF TWO HUNDRED CASES
Lieutenant Colonel Edwin J. Pulaski;
Major Curtis P. Artz;
Captain Eric Reiss, MC
J Am Med Assoc. 1952;149(1):35-40.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
Although other antibiotics have been introduced since penicillin became generally available, it still remains the most widely used of these agents. This might be expected, since it is unsurpassed in the treatment of many bacterial infections, especially those caused by pyogenic cocci. On the other hand, its scope of usefulness is not all-inclusive. Mixed infections respond poorly to penicillin alone. Many strains of staphylococci are penicillin-resistant.1 Some patients cannot tolerate penicillin because of hypersensitivity, a problem which perhaps may be solved by the introduction of penicillin O, although this new product has not yet been fully investigated.2 Finally, although oral administration would be preferable in the use of antibiotics, the full potentialities of penicillin by this route remain to be established.
The need for an alternative antibiotic agent is therefore clear, and at the present time three possibilities present themselves: (1) chloramphenicol3 and (2) aureomycin,4 which
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
Author Affiliations
United States Army
From the Surgical Research Unit, Brooke Army Hospital, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
Footnotes
The aureomycin used in this study was supplied by Lederle Laboratories Division, American Cyanamid Company. The terramycin was supplied by Charles Pfizer & Company, Inc.
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
|