The Effectiveness of Linezolid and Teicoplanin for Managing Infections After Burn Injuries: A Retrospective Study

Background and Aims Gram‐positive infections in burn patients present significant treatment challenges. This study compared the efficacy and safety of linezolid vs. teicoplanin for managing such infections in a clinical setting. Methods We conducted a retrospective study involving 77 burn patients with confirmed Gram‐positive infections at Shahid Motahari Hospital (2020–2022). Participants were allocated to: linezolid 600 mg BID ( n = 40), teicoplanin 400 mg daily ( n = 32), or combination therapy ( n = 5). Primary endpoints were treatment duration and mortality; secondary endpoints included safety outcomes. Statistical analyses used SPSS v25 with two‐tailed tests ( α = 0.05). Results Linezolid demonstrated superior outcomes compared to teicoplanin: treatment duration was significantly shorter (5.68 ± 2.88 vs. 10.53 ± 6.86 days; mean difference −4.85 [95% CI −7.12 to −2.58], p < 0.001), mortality lower (5.0% vs. 40.6%; OR = 0.09 [0.02–0.42], p = 0.002), and time to clinical improvement faster (4.94 ± 2.21 vs. 9.88 ± 5.95 days, p < 0.001). Safety profiles were comparable (thrombocytopenia: 5.0% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.602). Conclusion Linezolid showed significantly better efficacy than teicoplanin for Gram‐positive burn infections, with reduced treatment duration and mortality while maintaining similar safety. Teicoplanin remains an alternative for specific cases.