ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Risk of infection after iatrogenic perforation of the gut wall? Evaluation of preventive strategies in a randomized controlled animal trial.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterventional 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.
methodsForty 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.
resultsNo 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).
conclusionOnly 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.
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.