Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The rubber dam as a means to isolate contaminated peritoneal defects after colonic resection

  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

After colonic resections, peritoneal defects exposed to colonic flora and blood may become the seat of localized peritonitis and cause smallbowel adhesions and obstruction. In the past five years, we have seen 14 patients where one or both of these complications was anticipated for one of the following reasons: presence of an abscess cavity, local infection or accidental tear of the colon. In these patients a rubber sheet was stitched to the edges of the peritoneal defect with absorbable sutures and brought out through the abdominal wall. In all patients the rubber dam functioned as a passive drain and as a barrier between the peritoneal defect and the small bowel. Three weeks later the rubber dam was removed by traction. None of these patients developed small-bowel obstruction and no adverse effects from the rubber sheet were seen. The working mechanism of the rubber dam was investigated in female Wistar rats. After removing the peritoneum between the left kidney and pelvis, the defect was covered with a rubber dam. A capsule with a standard solution ofEscherichia coli, Bacteriodes fragilis, and autoclaved feces was used to initiate peritonitis under the rubber dam. The rubber proved to act as an efficient drain and barrier. No abscesses or small-bowel adhesions were seen. In the control group, 75 per cent of the animals died from generalized peritonitis or developed an abscess.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Robbins GF, Brunschwig A, Foste FF. Deperitonealization: clinical and experimental observations. Ann Surg 1949;9:466–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Buckman RF Jr, Maj MC, Buckman D, et al. A physiologic basis for the adhesion-free healing of deperitonealized surfaces. J Surg Res 1976;21:67–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ellis H, Heddle R. Does the peritoneum need to be closed at laparotomy? Br J Surg 1977;64:733–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Warshaw AL, Ottinger LW, Bartlett MK. Primary perineal closure after proctocolectomy for inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Surg 1979;133:414–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kasur BML, Daneswar A, Chopra P. Evaluation of peritoneal closure at laparotomy. Am J Surg 1979;137:650–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Verschueren RC, Lavery IC, Fazio VW, Jagelman DG. The curative treatment of rectal cancer at the Cleveland Clinic. Arch Chir Neerl 1979;1:29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Han T, Hoffman R, Simmons RL. Mechanism of the adjuvant effect of hemoglobin in experimental peritonitis: I.In vitro inhibition of peritoneal leucocytosis. Surgery 1978;223–9.

  8. Berliner SD, Burson LC, Lear PE. Use and abuse of intraperitoneal drains in colon surgery. Arch Surg 1964;89:686–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Moss JP. Historical and current perspectives on surgical drainage. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981;152:517–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Onderdonk AB, Bartlett JG, Lonie T, Sullivan-Seigler N, Gorbach SL. Microbial surgery in experimental intra-abdominal abscess. Infect Immun 1976;13:22–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Meijer, R.W., Verschueren, R.C.J. & Oldhoff, J. The rubber dam as a means to isolate contaminated peritoneal defects after colonic resection. Dis Colon Rectum 27, 703–706 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02554592

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02554592

Key words

Navigation