Abstract
Introduction
Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a rapidly evolving field that provides endoscopic access to the peritoneum via a natural orifice. One important requirement of this technique is the need to minimize the risk of clinically significant peritoneal contamination. We report the bacterial load and contamination of the peritoneal cavity in ten patients who underwent diagnostic transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy.
Methods
Patients participating in this trial were scheduled to undergo diagnostic laparoscopy for evaluation of presumed pancreatic cancer. Findings at diagnostic laparoscopy were compared with those of diagnostic transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy, using an orally placed gastroscope, blinding the endoscopist to the laparoscopic findings. We performed no gastric decontamination. Diagnostic findings, operative times, and clinical course were recorded. Gastroscope and peritoneal fluid aspirates were obtained prior to and after the gastrotomy. Each sample was sent for bacterial colony counts, culture, and identification of species.
Results
Ten patients, with an average age of 63.7 years, have completed the protocol. All patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy followed by successful transgastric access and diagnostic peritoneoscopy. The average time for laparoscopy was 7.2 min, compared with 18 min for transgastric instrumentation. Bacterial sampling was obtained in all ten patients. The average number of colony-forming units (CFU) in the gastroscope aspirate was 132.1 CFU/ml, peritoneal aspirates prior to creation of a gastrotomy showed 160.4 CFU/ml, and peritoneal sampling after gastrotomy had an average of 642.1 CFU/ml. There was no contamination of the peritoneal cavity with species isolated from the gastroscope aspirate. No infectious complications or leaks were noted at 30-day follow-up.
Conclusions
There was no clinically significant contamination of the peritoneal cavity from the gastroscope after transgastric endoscopic instrumentation in humans. Transgastric instrumentation does contaminate the abdominal cavity but, the pathogens do not mount a clinically significant response in terms of either the species or the bacterial load.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kantsevoy SV, Hu B, Jagannath SB et al (2006) Transgastric endoscopic splenectomy: is it possible? Surg Endosc 20(3):522–525
Kantsevoy SV, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H et al (2005) Endoscopic gastrojejunostomy with survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 62(2):287–292
Bergstrom M, Ikeda K, Swain P et al (2006) Transgastric anastamosis by using flexible endoscopy in a porcine model (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 63(2):307–312
Park PO, Bergstrom M, Ikeda K et al (2005) Experimental studies of transgastric gallbladder surgery: cholecystectomy and cholecystogastric anastomosis (videos). Gastrointest Endosc 61(4):601–606
Wagh MS, Merrifield BF, Thompson CC (2006) Survival studies after endoscopic transgastric oophorectomy and tubectomy in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 63(3):473–478
Jagannath SB, Kantsevoy SV, Vaughn CA et al (2005) Peroral transgastric endoscopic ligation of fallopian tubes with long-term survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 61(3):449–453
Rattner D, Kalloo A, ASGE/SAGES Working Group (2006) ASGE/SAGES working group on natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery, October 2005. Surg Endosc 20(2):329–233
Hazey JH, Narula VK, Renton DB et al (2008) Natural-orifice transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy in humans: initial clinical trial. Surg Endosc 22(1):16–20
Narula VK, Hazey JH, Renton DB et al (2008) Transgastric instrumentation and bacterial contamination of the peritoneal cavity. Surg Endosc 22(3):605–611
Williams MD, Champion JK (2004) Experience with routine intraabdominal cultures during laparoscopic gastric bypass with implications for antibiotic prophylaxis. Surg Endosc 18:755–756
Grant SW, Hopkins J, Wilson SE (1995) Operative site bacteriology as an indicator of postoperative infectious complications in elective colorectal surgery. Am Surg 61(10):856–861
Bartlett JG, Condon RD, Gorbach SL et al (1978) VA cooperative study on bowel preparation from elective colorectal operations: impact of oral antibiotic regimen on colonic flora, wound irrigation cultures, and bacteriology of septic complications. Ann Surg 188:249–254
Stone HH, Hooper CA, Kolb LD et al (1976) Antibiotic prophylaxis in gastric, biliary, and colonic surgery. Ann Surg 184(4):443–452
Tornqvist A, Forsgren A, Leandoer L et al (1987) Identification and antibiotic prophylaxis of high-risk patients in elective colorectal surgery. World J Surg 11:115–119
Nichols RL (2001) Preventing surgical site infections: a surgeon’s perspective. Emerging Infectious Diseases, Center for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/nichols.html. Accessed 5 April 2008
Egipan P, Francolin P, Bille J et al (1999) Fluconazole prophylaxis prevents intraabdominal candidiasis in high-risk surgical patients. Crit Care Med 27:1066–1072
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Narula, V.K., Happel, L.C., Volt, K. et al. Transgastric endoscopic peritoneoscopy does not require decontamination of the stomach in humans. Surg Endosc 23, 1331–1336 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0161-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0161-0