Surgical endoscopy · 2015
Risk of infection after iatrogenic perforation of the gut wall? Evaluation of preventive strategies in a randomized controlled animal trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ellrichmann Mark, Dhar Shantiswaroop, Hadeler Klaus-Gerd, Seehusen Frauke, Cuming Tamzin, Feßler Andrea T, Niemann Heiner, Schwarz Stefan, Fritscher-Ravens Annette
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Interventional endoscopies entail a risk of infection secondary to perforation of the luminal wall. Thereby, bacteria may be introduced into the sterile environment of the peritoneal cavity (PC). Limited data are available regarding the efficacy of prophylactic anti-infective treatments. The aim of the study was to examine the efficacy/safety of anti-infective means in the prevention of infection by interventional endoscopies in a randomized controlled animal trial.
METHODS: Forty pigs were randomized to: 1: control; 2: oral lavage; 3: gastric lavage; 4: oral/gastric lavage; 5: i.m. antibiotics. Lavage was performed with Octenisept prior to the operation. After gastric wall perforation, peritoneoscopy was performed. Before the procedure, after closure and prior to autopsy, intraabdominal lavage for bacterial culture was taken using mini-laparoscopy. At autopsy, macroscopic appearance of the PC was scored. Lavage fluids were grown to identify/quantify bacterial load. Concentration of intraperitoneal bacteria at autopsy was defined as main outcome parameter.
RESULTS: No major complications occurred in any of the procedures. Bacterial load of the PC at autopsy was significantly reduced with antibiotics compared to all other groups, whereas it did not differ between the lavage groups and control. Macroscopic scoring of the PC showed significant lower rate of intraabdominal abscesses in the antibiotic group compared to the lavage groups and control (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Only antibiotic prophylaxis is effective for the prevention of infection after iatrogenic perforation of the gastrointestinal wall. There was no difference between any form of lavage and the control group. Further studies in humans are required to prove these animal data.
METHODS: Forty pigs were randomized to: 1: control; 2: oral lavage; 3: gastric lavage; 4: oral/gastric lavage; 5: i.m. antibiotics. Lavage was performed with Octenisept prior to the operation. After gastric wall perforation, peritoneoscopy was performed. Before the procedure, after closure and prior to autopsy, intraabdominal lavage for bacterial culture was taken using mini-laparoscopy. At autopsy, macroscopic appearance of the PC was scored. Lavage fluids were grown to identify/quantify bacterial load. Concentration of intraperitoneal bacteria at autopsy was defined as main outcome parameter.
RESULTS: No major complications occurred in any of the procedures. Bacterial load of the PC at autopsy was significantly reduced with antibiotics compared to all other groups, whereas it did not differ between the lavage groups and control. Macroscopic scoring of the PC showed significant lower rate of intraabdominal abscesses in the antibiotic group compared to the lavage groups and control (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Only antibiotic prophylaxis is effective for the prevention of infection after iatrogenic perforation of the gastrointestinal wall. There was no difference between any form of lavage and the control group. Further studies in humans are required to prove these animal data.