Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transgastric instrumentation and bacterial contamination of the peritoneal cavity

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a rapidly evolving technique providing access to the peritoneum utilizing an endoscope via a natural orifice. One of the most significant requirements 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 patients requiring a gastrotomy Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LSRYGB).

Methods

We prospectively studied 50 patients undergoing a gastrotomy with creation of a gastrojejunostomy during LSRYGB. We recorded the patient’s proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) utilization preoperatively and sampled gastric contents without lavage. We also sampled peritoneal fluid prior to and after gastrotomy, noting the length of time the gastrotomy was open to the peritoneum. Each of the three samples was sent for bacterial colony counts, and culture with identification of species.

Results

Fifty patients underwent LSRYGB with a mean operative time of 93 min. The gastrotomy was open to the peritoneal cavity for an average of 18 min. Seventeen of 50 patients were on PPIs preoperatively, resulting in a significant difference in postgastrostomy peritoneal bacterial counts. The average number of colony-forming units (CFU) of the gastric aspirate was 22,303 CFU/ml. Peritoneal aspirates obtained for examination prior to creation of a gastrotomy showed no CFUs in 44 of 50 patients. Peritoneal sampling after gastrotomy showed contamination of the abdomen with an average of 1102 CFU/ml. There was no correlation between the bacterial load in the stomach and peritoneal load after gastrotomy. No infectious complications or leaks developed. One complication of rhabdomyolysis in a patient with no peritoneal bacterial contamination developed.

Conclusions

Transgastric instrumentation does contaminate the abdominal cavity but pathogens are clinically insignificant due to species or bacterial load. Patients on PPIs do have an increased bacterial load in the gastric aspirate, with no clinical significant infection.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kantsevoy SV, Hu B, Jagannath SB, et al. (2006) Transgastric endoscopic splenectomy: is it possible? Surg Endosc 20:522–525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kantsevoy SV, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, et al. (2005) Endoscopic gastrojejunostomy with survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 62:287–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wagh MS, Merrifield BF, Thompson CC (2005) Endoscopic transgastric abdominal exploration and organ resection: initial experience in a porcine model. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:892–896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Park PO, Bergstrom M, Ikeda K, Fritscher-Ravens A, Swain P (2005) Experimental studies of transgastric gallbladder surgery: cholecystectomy and cholecystogastric anastomosis (videos). Gastrointest Endosc 61:601–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 61:449–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wagh MS, Merrifield BF, Thompson CC (2006) Survival studies after endoscopic transgastric oophorectomy and tubectomy in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 63:473–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Williams MD, Champion JK (2004) Experience with routine intraabdominal cultures during laparoscopic gastric bypass with implications for antibiotic prophylaxis. Surg Endosc 18:755–756

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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):856–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bartlett JG, Condon RD, Gorbach SL, et al. (1978) 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stone HH, Hooper CA, Kolb LD, et al. (1976) Antibiotic prophylaxis in gastric, biliary, and colonic surgery. Ann Surg 184(4):443–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tornqvist A, Forsgren A, Leandoer L, et al. (1987) Identification and antibiotic prophylaxis of high-risk patients in elective colorectal surgery. World J Surg 11:115–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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)

  13. Egipan P, Francolin P, Bille J, et al. (1999) Fluconazole prophylaxis prevents intraabdominal candidiasis in high-risk surgical patients. Critical Care Med 27:1066–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Surgery, The Ohio State University School of Medicine and Public Health, 410 West 10th Avenue, Ohio, Columbus, 43210-1228, USA

    Vimal K. Narula, Jeffrey W. Hazey, David B. Renton, Kevin M. Reavis, Christopher M. Paul, Kristen E. Hinshaw, Bradley J. Needleman & Dean J. Mikami

  2. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University School of Medicine and Public Health, 410 West 10th Avenue, Ohio, Columbus, USA

    E. Christopher Ellison

  3. Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, The Ohio State University School of Medicine and Public Health, 410 West 10th Avenue, Ohio, Columbus, USA

    W. Scott Melvin

  4. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Medical Center, N723 Doan Hall 410 West 10th Avenue, Ohio, Columbus, 43210-1228, USA

    Vimal K. Narula

Authors
  1. Vimal K. Narula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey W. Hazey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David B. Renton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kevin M. Reavis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christopher M. Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kristen E. Hinshaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bradley J. Needleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Dean J. Mikami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. E. Christopher Ellison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. W. Scott Melvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vimal K. Narula.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Narula, V.K., Hazey, J.W., Renton, D.B. et al. Transgastric instrumentation and bacterial contamination of the peritoneal cavity. Surg Endosc 22, 605–611 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9661-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9661-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation