Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Antimicrobial bowel preparation

Oral, Parenteral, or Both?
Authors: M J, Playforth; G M, Smith; M, Evans; A V, Pollock;

Antimicrobial bowel preparation

Abstract

It has been suggested that wound infection rates after colorectal operations are influenced more by the presence of adequate tissue levels of antimicrobials at the time of contamination than by the extent of bacterial colonization of the intestinal lumen. There are, however, theoretical grounds for the belief that both levels are important. The authors therefore conducted a random control trial in 119 consecutive patients undergoing elective colorectal operations, comparing the results in a group receiving purely parenteral antimicrobial prophylaxis with those in one having a combined oral and parenteral regimen. The results in 83 contemporary nonrandomized patients, all of whom had the combined prophylactic regimen, are also reported. Oral bowel preparation resulted in a significantly smaller number of operation cultures showing growth of fecal gram-negative aerobes and anaerobes than did the purely parenteral regimen. There were more isolations of enterococci in the combined group but the excess did not achieve statistical significance. The rates of infective complications were higher in the parenteral than in the combined group, the difference in wound infection rates being statistically significant; the figures were 27.6 percent and 13.9 percent, respectively (P = .04). It is concluded that, in colorectal operations, it is advisable not only to ensure adequate tissue levels of antimicrobials but also to reduce the risk of endogenous bacterial infection by partially decontaminating the bowel.

Keywords

Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Male, Clinical Trials as Topic, Colon, Premedication, Rectum, Administration, Oral, Neomycin, Middle Aged, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Random Allocation, Metronidazole, Humans, Surgical Wound Infection, Female, Infusions, Parenteral, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    41
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
41
Average
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!