Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T01:46:14.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recolonization and colonization resistance of the large bowel after three methods of preoperative preparation of the gastrointestinal tract for elective colorectal surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

A. E. J. M. van den Bogaard ,
W. F. Weidema ,
C. P. A. van Boven  and
D. van der Waay
A. E. J. M. van den Bogaard
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Limburg, The Netherlands
W. F. Weidema
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, University of Limburg, The Netherlands
C. P. A. van Boven
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Limburg, The Netherlands
D. van der Waay
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The impact of three current types of preoperative large bowel preparation on the microbial flora and the colonization resistance (CR) was investigated in 15 volunteers. In the first group a whole gut irrigation was performed without administration of antibiotics (group WGI). In the second group 0·5 g/1 metronidazole and 1 g/1 neomycin was added to the irrigation fluid (group WGI + AB). A whole gut irrigation with prior oral administration of 1 l mannitol 10% was performed in the third group. The antibiotic prophylaxis in this group consisted of two doses of 80 mg gentamiein i.v. and 500 mg metronidazole orally 24 h after lavage (group Mann + AB). One hour after the mechanical cleansing procedure was finished all volunteers were orally contaminated with one dose of an Escherichia coli test strain. The aerobic faccal reduction due to the cleansing procedure was 2–3 logs, while for the anaerobes it was 4–5 logs. The anaerobic flora in group WGI recovered within 24 h, while the aerobes showed a transient ‘overgrowth‘ for the period of 2 days. The overgrowth of aerobes in group WGI + AB was observed for more than a week and the total numbers of aerobes started gradually to decline after the anaerobic flora had reached pretreatment levels at day three or four. Despite the normal numbers of anaerobes present 24 h after treatment, overgrowth of E. coli was seen in the group Mann + AB, probably due to residual mannitol left in the intestinal tract. The test strain of E. coli was excreted for a period of 1 week by the volunteers in the groups WGI and Mann + AB, but it was isolated for more than 10 weeks in the group WGI + AB. It is thought that all three methods of preoperative large bowel preparation decreased the CR of the gastrointestinal tract because of a disturbance of the interaction between aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms and alterations of the colonic wall. The anaerobic microflora. however, appeared to be primarily responsible for the maintenance of the CR. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should consist of a high dose, short term. systemic antibiotic regimen, not only because an adequate serum level of an appropriate drug at the time of operation substantially decreases the incidence of postoperative septic complications but also because a systemic regimen scarcely influences the CR of the gastrointestinal tract. β-Aspartylglycine appeared to be a specific but not very sensitive marker for decreased CR.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 97 , Issue 1 , August 1986 , pp. 49 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

References

REFERENCES

Ababi, Y., Dimock, F., Burdon, D. W., Alexander-Williams, J. & Keighley, M. R. B. (1978). Influence of bowel preparation and antimicrobials on colonic flora. British Journal of Surgery 64, 555–559.Google Scholar
Barker, K., Graham, N. J., Mason, M. C., de Dombal, F. T. & Gligher, J. C. (1971). The relative significance of preoperative oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation and preoperative peritoneal contamination in the avoidance of sepsis after radical surgery for ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease of the large bowel. British Journal of Surgery 58, 270–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Bogaard, A. E., Hazen, M. J. & van Boven, C. P. (1986). Quantitative gas chromatographic analysis of volatile fatty acids in spent culture media and body fluids. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 23, 523–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornside, G. & Cohn, I. (1969). Intestinal antisepsis. Gastroenterology 57, 569–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brass, C., Richards, G. K., Ruedy, J., Prentis, J. & Hinchey, E. J. (1979). Preventing infection at the operation site. British Medical Journal 2, 773–778.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. & Dankert, J. (1979). Volatile fatty acids and aerobic flora in the gastro-intestinal tract of mice under various conditions. Infection and Immunity 23, 559–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J. S., Condon, R. E., Bartlett, J. G., Gorbach, S. L., Nichols, R. L. & Ochi, S. (1977). Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce septic complications of colon operations. Annals of Surgery 186, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garlock, J. H. & Seley, G. P. (1939). The use of sulfanilamido in surgery of the colon and rectum. Surgery 5, 787–790.Google Scholar
Gorbach, S. L., Neale, G., Levitan, R. & Hepner, G. W. (1970). Alterations in human intestinal microflora during experimental diarrhoea. Oat 11, 1–12.Google ScholarPubMed
Hewitt, J., Reeve, J., Rigby, J. & Cox, A. G. (1973). Whole gut irrigation in preparation for large bowel surgery. Lancet 2, 337–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollender, L. F., Caldekoli, H., Philipides, J. & Jamart, J. (1980). Advantages of whole gut irrigation in colorectal surgery. Current Surgery 6, 227–233.Google Scholar
Huk, L., Starlinger, M., Schiessel, R., Wewalka, G. & Rotter, M. (1980). Orthograde Darmspülung zur prüoperatieven Darmvorbereitung. Der Chirurg 51, 106–109.Google Scholar
Keighly, M. R. & Burdon, D. W. (1979). Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery. London: Pitman Medical.Google Scholar
Lonostreth, G. F. & Newcomer, A. D. (1975). Drug-induced malnbsorption. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 50, 284–290.Google Scholar
McGowan, K. & Gorbach, S. L. (1981). Anaerobes in mixed infections. Journal of Infectious Diseases 2, 181–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, R. L., Condon, R. E., Gorbach, S. L. & Nyhus, L. M. (1972). Efficacy of preoperative antimicrobial preparation of the bowel. Annals of Surgery 186, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onderdonk, A. B., Bartlett, J. G. & Louie, T. (1976). Microbial synergy in experimental intra-abdominal abcess. Infection and Immunity 13, 22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, W., Hint, H. J., Schaal, K. P. & Pichlamaier, H. (1977). Die prüoperatieven Darmkeimverminderung durch orthograde Dickdarmspülung. Der Chirurg 48, 161–165.Google Scholar
van der Waay, D., Berghuis-de Vries, J. M. & Lekkerkerk-van der Wees, J. E. C. (1971). Colonization resistance of the digestive tract in conventional and antibiotic-treated mice. Journal of Hygiene 69, 405–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, L. (1947). The spontaneous occurrence of new bacterial infections during the course of treatment with streptomycin or penicillin. American Journal of the Medical Sciences 214, 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welling, G. W. & Groen, G. (1978). β-Aspartylglycine, a substance unique to caecal contents of germ-free and antibiotic treated mice. Biochemical Journal 175, 807–812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welling, G. W. (1979). β-Aspartylglycine, an indicator of decreased colonization resistance? In Proceedings of a Symposium, Utrecht (ed. Waay, D. van der & Verhoef, J.), pp. 65–73. Amsterdam, Oxford: Excerpta Medica.Google Scholar
Wensinck, F. & van Ruseler-Embden, J. G. H. (1971). The intestinal flora of colonizationresistant mice. Journal of Hygiene 69, 413–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willis, A. T., Jones, P. H. & Reilly, S. (1981). Management of Anaerobic Infections: Prevention and Treatment. Research Study Press; Letchworth: John Wiley.Google Scholar