The practical application of intestinal antisepsis to surgery of the colon and rectum

Poth, Edgar J.

doi:10.1007/bf02616449

Cited by 15 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 1960, Poth reported a wound infection rate of 3.4% using neomycin-phthalylsulfathiazole in a small series of patients. 21 Nichols and Condon introduced the use of oral neomycin and erythromycin in 1970. 22 The preparation consisted of neomycin and erythromycin base 1 g of each given at 1300, 1400, and 2300 hours on the day prior to surgery for an 0800 case.…”

Section: Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxismentioning

confidence: 99%

Perioperative Antibiotics

Chapman¹,

Harford²

2001

Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

America for elective colon resection is to use a preoperative bowel preparation. This includes a mechanical bowel preparation and antibiotics administered either orally, parenterally, or a combination of both. 1 This article briefly discusses each of these components as well as how they are interrelated. Adjuvant measures are reviewed and recommendations for clinical practice are presented. ABSTRACTThe use of both and oral and systemic antibiotics appears to decrease the rate of postoperative wound infection. Most but not all the studies comparing oral antibiotics alone versus oral plus parenteral antibiotics show a significant reduction in wound infection with a combination of the two. Topical antibiotics seem to confer no advantage over preoperative systemic antibiotics. The use of other adjuvants to prevent wound infections such as the use of filtered blood supplemental oxygen and immunostimulation is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxismentioning

confidence: 99%

Perioperative Antibiotics

Chapman¹,

Harford²

2001

Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, data on 53 patients undergoing elective colon anastomoses and receiving neomycinerythromycin show a postoperative infection rate of 9.4% [17], whereas data on 58 similar patients receiving neomycin-phthalylsulfathiazole show a postoperative infection rate of 3.4% [18].…”

Section: I-d and 1-ementioning

confidence: 99%

Historical development of intestinal antisepsis

Poth

1982

World j. surg.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of intestinal antisepsis has been the concern of the author for the past 40 years. Pioneer studies of sulfanilamide, sulfanilylguanidine, succinylsulfanilamide, succinylsulfathiazole, and phthalylsulfathiazole in dogs are reported, and subsequent clinical trials are detailed. By 1948, intestinal antisepsis had become an established procedure to complement adequate mechanical cleansing. Careful attention to meticulous, gentle handling of tissues, preservation of maximum blood supply, and strict aseptic technique should be continued; intestinal antisepsis is not a substitute for surgical principles. A combination of neomycin‐phthalylsulfathiazole, together with the above‐named practices, has resulted in an abdominal wall wound infection rate below 3%, with no intra‐abdominal complications due to postoperative infection.

show abstract