Mehdi Momeni - Emergency Medicine Research Center, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Elnaz Vahidi - Emergency Medicine Research Center, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Neda Karimi Tafti - Emergency Medicine Research Center, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Zeinab Naderpour - Internal Medicine Department, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Javad Seyedhosseini - Emergency Medicine Research Center, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Morteza Saeedi - Emergency Medicine Research Center, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Objective: Hand lacerations are among the most frequent causes of visiting emergencydepartments (EDs). Wound infection is one of its complications. There is still an ongoingdisagreement on the administration of oral versus intravenous (IV) antibiotics (ABs). Theobjective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of oral versus IV ABs in preventingwound infection of hand lacerations.Methods: In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial, we enrolled all patients with handlacerations (based on the inclusion criteria) during ۶ months in the EDs of ۲ tertiary referralcenters. Convenient sampling was done. Finally, in the first group, ۳۸۲ patients receivedoral AB (two ۵۰۰ mg cephalexin capsules) and the other ۳۸۲ patients in the second groupreceived IV AB (۱ gr IV cefazolin) before wound management. Both groups were followedand received oral cephalexin during ۴۸ hours after suturing. Rates of wound infection anddifferent complications were compared between the two groups. T-test, Mann-Whitney Utest, Chi square and Fisher analysis were used.Results: Both groups had the same age and gender distribution rate (۷۹.۸% of males withthe mean age of ۳۰.۸ years in the first group, and ۸۳.۵% of males with the mean age of ۳۲.۶years in the second group (P = ۰.۱۹ and ۰.۳۹, respectively). In our study, wound infectiondeveloped in ۲.۶% and ۱.۸% of patients in the first and second groups, respectively (P =۰.۴۶).Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, oral and IV ABs were not significantlydifferent in terms of preventing wound infection

Hand laceration, Oral antibiotic, Intravenous antibiotic, Wound infection