ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2012
An ex vivo bacteriologic study comparing antiseptic techniques for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) via the gastrointestinal tract.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gnotobiotic Human ColonGastroenterology research · 2015Article
- Review of Pure Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract.Gut and liver · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNOTES via the gastrointestinal tract raises the specter of intra-peritoneal infection. Various anti-microbial techniques have been employed in animal and human survival studies, including saline lavage, intravenous and topical antibiotics, and povidone-iodine, although there is a paucity of data regarding their general effectiveness.
aimTo assess the effectiveness of existing sterilization techniques for NOTES by quantifying and speciating colony-forming units (CFUs) before and after treatment.
designEx vivo animal studies; bacteriological study.
methodsStomachs and distal colons were harvested en bloc from ten fasted adult white pigs following euthanasia. Half received cefazolin 1 g intravenously prior to killing. Multiple tissue samples were obtained from each resected organ. Each tissue sample was then assigned to one of five treatment arms: (1) normal saline, (2) Betadine, (3) cefazolin/metronidazole suspension, (4) chlorhexidine, (5) no treatment. Fifteen samples were used per arm. After treatment, the mucosal surface of each sample was swabbed and inoculated in normal saline, followed by serial dilutions, which were then plated onto sheep's blood agar plates and incubated under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. CFUs were quantified and speciated.
resultsMedian bacterial density was estimated to be 8.0 × 10(5) CFUs/ml (stomach) and 1.9 × 10(6) CFUs/ml (colon). The predominant organisms were Escherichia coli (stomach) and both E. coli and Enterococcus sp. (colon). Saline and antibiotic suspension lavages caused a 1-log reduction in stomach and colon. Betadine/chlorhexidine lavage resulted in a 4-log reduction. Intravenous antibiotics alone resulted in a 4-log reduction. Combining intravenous antibiotics and either Betadine or chlorhexidine decreased counts to the 10(1) level. By Kruskal-Wallis method, differences were statistically significant (p = 0.001).
conclusionsThe use of intravenous antibiotics in addition to topical Betadine or chlorhexidine effectively reduced microbial burden in both gastric and colonic mucosa in this porcine model to the 10(1) level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.