Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Colorectal Surgery”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

The significance of the intraoperative repeated dosing of antimicrobials for preventing surgical wound infection in colorectal surgery.

PURPOSE: It is widely accepted that antimicrobial prophylaxis is useful for the prevention of surgical wound infection, especially in colorectal surgery. While many reports support the finding that the first dose should be administered immediately before surgery, there is less evidence concerning the ideal timing for the second dose. The purpose of this study is to examine the significance of intraoperative repeated dosing. METHODS: A surgical series of 131 patients with primary colorectal cancer was retrospectively analyzed for 14 parameters, including the protocols of antimicrobial administration to determine the clinical risk factors for surgical wound infection. RESULTS: The overall surgical wound infection rate of the 131 patients was 16.0% (21/131). When the operation finished within 4 h after the first dose (n = 29), wound infection was observed in only one patient (3.4%). In a prolonged operation exceeding 4 h after the first dose, the surgical wound infection rates were 8.5% and 26.5%, respectively, for those with (n = 47) and without (n = 49) intraoperative repeated dosing, which were significantly different based on both a univariate analysis (P = 0.031) and a multivariate analysis (P = 0.0079). CONCLUSION: Intraoperative repeated antimicrobial dosing is therefore recommended to prevent the surgical wound infection for prolonged colorectal surgery.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Comparison of the possum, P-POSSUM and Cr-POSSUM scoring systems as predictors of postoperative mortality in patients undergoing major colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Physiologic and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM), 'Portsmouth'-physiologic and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM) and 'Colorectal'-physiologic and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (Cr-POSSUM) are three related scoring systems, which uses individual patient parameters to predict postoperative mortality. POSSUM overpredicts mortality in low-risk patients and underpredicts mortality in elderly and emergency patients. P-POSSUM was developed to compensate for these weaknesses. Cr-POSSUM was developed specifically for colorectal surgery. We aim to establish which of these scoring systems would be most useful in an Australasian context. METHODS: Data were collected for 308 patients and predicted mortality risk values were generated using each of the three systems. The Mann-Whitney U-test was then carried out on the scores for each system. Receiver-operator characteristic curves were designed to determine the relative accuracy of each approach at discriminating between death and survival. RESULTS: All three POSSUM scoring systems showed a statistically significant ability to predict postoperative mortality. Additionally, in each system there was a significant difference in the raw physiologic and operative severity scores between survivors and those who died. A risk-stratification model was applied to each set of data, showing a correlation between an increase in risk and an increase in mortality rate. Finally, the receiver-operator characteristic curves generated showed that in this study group POSSUM, P-POSSUM and Cr-POSSUM were all satisfactory predictive tools although the latter tended to be relatively less accurate. CONCLUSION: Physiologic and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity, P-POSSUM and Cr-POSSUM are all reliable predictors of postoperative mortality in the Australasian context; although there was a trend towards POSSUM and P-POSSUM being better predictors than Cr-POSSUM. However, Cr-POSSUM requires fewer individual patient parameters to be calculated and is thus easier to generate. An ideal preoperative scoring system remains to be developed for predicting mortality in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Neostigmine increases postoperative colonic motility in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal motility is frequently impaired after abdominal surgery. We investigated the effects of neostigmine on colonic motility in patients after colorectal surgery and in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Colonic motility was recorded by a manometry/barostat system in 12 patients after left colonic or rectal resection during baseline and after the intravenous administration of increasing doses of neostigmine on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. In addition, colonic motility was recorded in 7 healthy volunteers. RESULTS: Neostigmine increased the colonic motility index. This increase was from 135 +/- 28 mm Hg/min at baseline to 574 +/- 219 mm Hg/min after administration of 5 microg/kg neostigmine on day 3 after surgery (mean +/- SEM, P <.05). In healthy volunteers, neostigmine at a dose of 5 microg/kg increased the colonic motility index from 184 +/- 73 to 446 +/- 114 mm Hg/min (P <.05). Barostat bag volumes decreased dose-dependently after neostigmine administration in patients as well as in volunteers, indicating an increase in colonic tone. CONCLUSIONS: Colonic motility and tone increased after neostigmine administration at a dose of 5 microg/kg in postoperative patients and in healthy volunteers. Neostigmine can be used to stimulate colonic motility after colorectal surgery and has a similar effect postoperatively as in healthy volunteers.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Recent pressures to decrease the cost of medical care have mandated preoperative outpatient bowel preparation (OBP) for elective colorectal surgery without any data documenting equivalent quality of care. This study examined the safety and efficacy of OBP compared with inpatient bowel preparation (IBP). METHODS: Records of all patients who underwent OBP for elective colorectal resection since the inception of the OBP program from July 1993 to June 1994 were compared with records of all patients who received IBP for elective procedures from January to June 1993. RESULTS: The two groups, 90 patients who underwent OBP and 98 patients who had IBP, were well matched for age, sex, diagnosis, and operations performed. The OBP group had a shorter length of hospital stay (median, 7 vs. 9 days; P < 0.0001; chi-squared analysis), whereas the complication rate was similar (19 percent in the OBP group vs. 18 percent in the IBP group), including infectious complications (10 percent in the OBP group vs. 7 percent in the IBP group). Although operating time was similar (mean, 199 vs. 213 minutes) and estimated blood loss (mean, 528 vs. 536 ml), the OBP group had significantly higher perioperative fluid requirements: intraoperative fluids (median, 4300 vs. 3700 ml; P < 0.05; Student's t-test), intraoperative colloid administration (48 vs. 29 percent; P < 0.0002; chi-squared), 24-hour postoperative fluids (3224 vs. 2700 ml; P < 0.0001; Student's t-test), and postoperative fluid challenges (50 vs. 20 percent; P < 0.0001; chi-squared analysis). CONCLUSION: Outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery is safe and effective. It offers shorter hospital stay, and, therefore, potentially reduces medical care cost. Patients with multiple medical problems may not tolerate extensive fluid shifts; therefore, other preoperative arrangements, such as inpatient or outpatient intravenous fluid therapy, need to be considered to minimize complications that may outweigh potential cost savings.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed1997

[Laparoscopy-assisted colorectal surgery. Early outcome in benign and malignant diseases--a prospective study of 120 patients].

We present our results with laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in 120 patients during the time from January 1993 to September 1996. The types of procedures cover almost the whole spectrum of colorectal surgery. They included hemicolectomies, signmoid resections, low anterior resections, Hartmann closures, proctocolectomies and rectopexies. 127 patients were subjected to laparoscopic operation, 7 needed conversion to open surgery (7% conversion rate). Average operation time was 145 +/- 58 min, length of postoperative stay 12 +/- 4 days. Oral food intake was started at the second day postoperatively without major problems. We observed perioperative complications in 21 cases (17%). There were 5 anastomotic leaks, 4 wound infections, 1 pneumothorax and 2 postoperative bleedings, 4 patients had clinical signs of prolonged bowel paralysis, 2 patients died as a consequence of anastomotic leaks, 2 of other reasons. In the postoperative period we saw a marked faster recovery and a lower complication rate compared to our conventionally operated patients and postoperative pain was less. In cases of malignant disease no rise in rate of recurrence was observed during follow-up (average 18 months) compared to open surgery. Until the results of long-term studies are published laparoscopic procedures should still be restricted to early tumor stages and palliative procedures.

Adult↗
PubMed1987

Polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS). A rapid, safe mechanical bowel preparation for colorectal surgery.

The use of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) as a whole-bowel irrigation for colorectal surgery is retrospectively evaluated in 65 consecutive patients. Sixty-three (97%) of the patients were able to complete the lavage. Fifty-five (85%) of these tolerated the preparation without event. Unpleasant reactions of nausea, vomiting, or fullness resolved in most patients by decreasing the rate of ingestion. Twenty-seven patients had associated medical illnesses that may have been aggravated by volume overload, but none of these experienced any adverse effects from the lavage. Most patients completed the total lavage ingestion of 4 L in 4 hours, which resulted in a 1-day preparation prior to operation. There were no wound or septic complications in any of the lavage patients. This clinical review indicates that PEG-ELS is a safe, rapid, and effective mechanical bowel preparation that should be able to reduce in-hospital preparation time for most patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

Povidone-iodine enema as a preoperative bowel preparation for colorectal surgery. A bacteriologic study.

To evaluate the effects of povidone-iodine (PI) enema on the bacterial flora of colorectal mucosa, the authors studied 113 patients who were candidates for colorectal surgery. The study of the rectum included 72 patients. Total bacterial concentrations after a PI enema (N = 44) were significantly lower than after a simple water enema (N = 12, P less than 0.001), or than after a water enema associated with intravenous metronidazole (N = 16, P less than 0.01). The study of the colon included 41 patients. Total bacterial concentrations did not differ after a PI enema (N = 24) than after a water enema (N = 11); both groups were associated with intravenous metronidazole. In contrast, both preparations significantly reduced bacterial concentrations when compared with oral administration of polyethyleneglycol (N = 6, P less than 0.01). Similar results were observed in rectal and colonic studies, when analysis was restricted to the anaerobic flora. PI is an antiseptic that, when administered alone in an enema or in association with metronidazole, significantly reduces bacterial concentrations in the mucosa of the colon and rectum. It may be proposed as a simple preoperative preparation for colorectal surgery.

Bacteria, Aerobic↗
PubMed1993

Nasogastric decompression following elective colorectal surgery: a prospective randomized study.

A prospective, randomized study was conducted to determine the need for nasogastric decompression following elective colorectal surgery for malignant and premalignant lesions. Seventy-seven consecutive patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Group 1--nasogastric decompression was maintained postoperatively until resumption of bowel function; Group 2--the nasogastric tube was removed in the recovery room. Forty patients were assigned to Group 1 (21 males, 19 females) and 37 to Group 2 (22 males and 15 females). Eleven patients in Group 1 (28%) developed nausea postoperatively, with six patients (15%) having an average of less than two emeses and five (12%) requiring nasogastric reintubation. Thirteen patients in Group 2 (35%) developed nausea, with 10 patients (27%) having an average of two emeses and three (8%) requiring nasogastric intubation (P = 0.80). Abdominal distention was observed in 13 patients (32%) in both Group 1 (32%) and Group 2 (35%). Two of the latter patients required nasogastric reintubation. Postoperative fever was noted in 23 patients (58%) in Group 1 and 14 (38%) in Group 2 (P = 0.13); atelectasis was diagnosed in 38 per cent of patients in Group 1 and 14 per cent in Group 2 (P = 0.03). These data support that nasogastric decompression is not necessary following elective colorectal surgery for malignant and premalignant lesions.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Randomized clinical trial of the effect of postoperative intravenous fluid restriction on recovery after elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Use of intravenous fluids is an important part of perioperative management. The aim of this study was to compare outcome following administration of restricted or standard postoperative intravenous fluids and sodium in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: Eighty patients were randomized to restricted fluids (less than 2 litres water and 77 mmol sodium for 24 h after surgery) or a standard postoperative fluid regimen (3 litres water and 154 mmol sodium per day for as long as necessary). The primary endpoint was hospital stay. RESULTS: The median (i.q.r.) total intravenous fluid intake in the restricted group was 4.50 (4.00-5.62) litres compared with 8.75 (8.00-9.80) litres in the standard group (P < 0.001). Intravenous sodium intake was also significantly less in the restricted group (229 (131-332) versus 560 (477-667) mmol; P < 0.001). There was no difference in median time to first flatus (2.9 versus 2.9 days; hazard ratio (HR) 0.85 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.54 to 1.32); P = 0.466) or first bowel motion (4.7 versus 4.9 days; HR 1.06 (95 per cent c.i. 0.68 to 1.65); P = 0.802) between the restricted and standard groups, or in median hospital stay (7.2 versus 7.2 days; HR 1.03 (95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.61); P = 0.902). CONCLUSION: Restriction of postoperative intravenous fluid and sodium does not reduce hospital stay following elective colorectal surgery.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

[Arterial to end-tidal carbon dioxide tension difference during laparoscopic colorectal surgery].

BACKGROUND: Determination of end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure (PET(CO2)) is effective to confirm adequate ventilation, because arterial to end-tidal carbon dioxide tension difference (deltaa-ET(CO2)) does not change normally during operation. But deltaa-ET(CO2) may change during laparoscopic surgery, because peritoneal insufflation of CO2 will increase CO2 production and reduce functional residual volume. Changes in deltaa-ET(CO2) were reported in laparoscopic cholecystectomy with cardiovascular complication, but there is controversy about how deltaaET(CO2) will change in more complicated and long laparoscopic surgery. In this prospective study, we examined changes in deltaa- ET(CO2) during laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: Fifty patients received combined general and epidural anesthesia. CO2 pneumoperitoneum was initiated after obtaining arterial blood for gas analysis. Mechanical ventilation was used to maintain PET(CO2) at a stable value between 30 and 40 mmHg during the procedure. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed 10, 60, 120 minutes after CO2 insufflation, and 10 minutes after the termination of insufflation. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD for deltaa-ET(CO2) was 5.8 +/- 4.1 before pneumoperitoneum, 7.1 +/- 4.8, 8.1 +/- 5.4, 6. 4 +/- 4.9 in 10, 60, 120 minutes after pneumoperitoneum, and 6.4 +/- 4.9 in 10 minutes after the termination of pneumoperitoneum. deltaa-ET(CO2) increased significantly during pneumoperitoneum, but did not increase further even if CO2 insufflation was longer than 60 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: In laparoscopic colorectal surgery, Pa(CO2) should be checked for at least the first 60 minutes to confirm adequate ventilation.

Aged↗
PubMed1986

Clinical studies of 4 methods of bowel preparation in colorectal surgery.

A prospective study was carried out to compare the effectiveness of 4 commonly employed methods of bowel preparation before colorectal surgery: mechanical, mechanical with an antibiotic against aerobes (neomycin), mechanical with another antibiotic against anaerobes (metronidazole), and finally mechanical with a combination of neomycin and metronidazole. The use of mechanical preparation as the sole method was discontinued half-way through the study for ethical reasons. 53 bowel preparations were carried out on 31 patients, 7 adults and 24 children with mainly Hirschsprung's disease and imperforate anus. The incidence of postoperative infections ranged from 40 to 46% in the first 3 groups, in contrast to only 6% in the fourth group (p less than 0.05). The majority of the organisms isolated were gram-negative bacteria. The results show that a combination of mechanical bowel washout with oral neomycin and metronidazole is a most effective method of bowel preparation before colorectal surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed1988

Single-dose cefotetan versus multiple-dose cefoxitin as prophylaxis in colorectal surgery.

The safety and effectiveness of a single 2 g preoperative dose of cefotetan to reduce postoperative infectious complications after colorectal surgery was compared with multiple 2 g perioperative doses of cefoxitin in 289 patients enrolled in a multicenter trial; of the 239 evaluable patients, 164 received cefotetan and 75, cefoxitin. No statistically significant difference was detected in the successful clinical response rates for cefotetan and cefoxitin (88 percent and 92 percent, respectively). The difference in median increase in oral body temperature before and after the study (2.5 degrees F for cefotetan and 2 degrees F for cefoxitin) was statistically but not clinically significant (p = 0.03). Although nearly four times as many cefotetan patients as cefoxitin patients had surgery lasting 4 hours or more, the satisfactory bacteriologic response rates for cefotetan and cefoxitin were similar (88 percent and 93 percent, respectively). Nonobese patients and patients whose surgical procedures lasted less than 4 hours treated with either drug had significantly higher success rates (p less than 0.01). The incidence of major wound infection was approximately 8 percent for both treatment groups. Mean concentrations of cefotetan in plasma, specimens of colon, and subcutaneous fat were 128 +/- 61.8 micrograms/ml, 57.2 +/- 40.4 micrograms/g, and 26.8 +/- 19.4 micrograms/g, respectively. The incidence of adverse reactions was 12 percent for each group, and no reaction was considered treatment-related, including changes in results of clinical laboratory tests. A single 2 g preoperative dose of cefotetan was as safe and effective as multiple doses of cefoxitin in the reduction of postoperative wound infections after colorectal surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Bowel preparation or not for elective colorectal surgery.

The importance of bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery has often been stressed. We have surveyed the current practice of bowel preparation and chemoprophylaxis amongst surgeons in Wales and the south-west of England. From this we identified one surgeon who used no preoperative preparation and his results are reported in detail. One hundred consecutive colorectal cases were studied from one surgeon (J.M.P-T.). There was a 7% incidence of wound infection and one anastomosis leaked. None of these patients had mechanical bowel preparation but all had antibiotic chemoprophylaxis. Mechanical bowel preparation is usual in the UK. These results demonstrate that its importance as a factor in wound infection and anastomotic dehiscence may be overstated.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

A double-blind, randomized study of three antimicrobial regimens in the prevention of infections after elective colorectal surgery.

The objective of this study was to assess the prophylactic efficacy of cefoxitin, ceftizoxime, and metronidazole-gentamicin in colorectal surgery. A double-blind, randomized prospective clinical trial design was used in a Canadian tertiary care teaching hospital. Patients were randomized to one of three treatment groups and received three doses of a study drug (30 min preoperative and 2 postoperative doses at 12 and 24 h). Cefoxitin and ceftizoxime were given as 1000-mg doses. Metronidazole-gentamicin was given as 500 mg of metronidazole plus 120 mg of gentamicin in a minibag. High-risk patients (bowel ischemia, diabetic, current steroid use, etc.) received 10 postoperative doses. Patients with infections, prior antibiotics, or study drug allergies were excluded. Over 30 months, 153 patients were enrolled. Thirty-one patients were excluded for protocol violations. Of the 122 evaluable patients (38 ceftizoxime, 45 metronidazole-gentamicin, 39 cefoxitin), there was no difference across groups regarding sex, age, weight, preoperative Apache II score, and prior history of bowel surgery. Groups were equivalent regarding surgeon, nursing unit, high-risk status (six ceftizoxime, seven metronidazole-gentamicin, seven cefoxitin), bowel preparation, and procedure (including blood loss, drains, organ injury, intraoperative complications). Clinically significant infection requiring systemic antibiotics (7-day hospital and 30-day follow-up) was identified in 0% of ceftizoxime, 15% of metronidazole-gentamicin, and 26% of cefoxitin receiving patients (p = 0.005). Mean ASEPSIS scores for each group were 2.3 (range 0-15) for ceftizoxime, 9.2 (range 0-45) for metronidazole-gentamicin, and 10.4 (range 0-75) for cefoxitin (p = 0.01). Ceftizoxime patients tended to have a shorter total hospital stay (12.2 days versus 19.7 days for cefoxitin versus 13.9 days for metronidazole-gentamicin; p = 0.04), although the procedure to discharge interval was not significantly different (p = 0.09). There was no difference in clinical outcome according to risk status. Anaerobic bacteria were observed more commonly in the ceftizoxime and cefoxitin groups, whereas enteric Gram-negative aerobes were observed most often in the metronidazole-gentamicin group. The study regimens were generally well tolerated. Drug costs were equivalent between ceftizoxime and cefoxitin and lowest with the metronidazole-gentamicin regimen. Ceftizoxime appears to be more effective for the prevention of infection in colorectal surgery than either cefoxitin or metronidazole-gentamicin in the dosage regimens studied.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

Colorectal cancer remains the second most common cause of cancer death in the USA and western Europe, with more than 34,000 new cases per year in the UK alone. Annual expenditure is in excess of pounds sterling 300 million, required for surgical, adjuvant and palliative treatment. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has yet to gain the widespread support observed with gallbladder surgery. Randomized controlled trials are ongoing, evaluating the short- and long-term risks and benefits of laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery. Although long-term results are awaited, there is evidence of short-term benefits and no obvious evidence of laparoscopic techniques conferring any additional harm in terms of tumor recurrence or disease-free survival. This review explores the likely benefits and areas of continued concern. Information resources provide a background to colorectal cancer for nonclinicians and new strategies and a 5-year view are presented.

Colorectal Neoplasms↗
PubMed2004

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese and nonobese patients: do differences in body mass indices lead to different outcomes?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective study was to compare the outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese and nonobese patients. METHODS: All patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for both benign and malignant disease within the past 5 years were entered into the prospective database registry. Body mass index (BMI; kg/m(2)) was used as the objective measure to indicate morbid obesity. Patients with a BMI >30 were defined as obese, and patients with a BMI <30 were defined as nonobese. The parameters analyzed included age, gender, comorbid conditions, diagnosis, procedure, duration of surgery, transfusion requirements, conversion rate, overall morbidity rate including major complications (requiring reoperation), minor complications (conservative treatment) and late-onset complications (postdischarge), stay on intensive case unit, hospitalization, and mortality. For objective evaluation, only laparoscopically completed procedures were analyzed. Statistics included Student's t test and chi-square analysis. Statistical significance was assessed at the 5% level (p < 0. 05 statistically significant). RESULTS: A total of 589 patients were evaluated, including 95 patients in the obese group and 494 patients in the nonobese group. There was no significant difference in conversion rate (7.3% in the obese group vs 9.5% in the nonobese group, p > 0.05) so that the laparoscopic completion rate was 90.5% (n = 86) in the obese and 92.7% (n = 458) in the nonobese group. The rate of females was significantly lower among obese patients (55.8% in the obese group vs 74.2% in the nonobese group, p = 0.001). No significant differences were observed with respect to age, diagnosis, procedure, duration of surgery, and transfusion requirements (p > 0.05). In terms of morbidity, there were no significant differences related to overall complication rates with respect to BMI (23.3% in the obese group vs 24.5% in the nonobese group, p > 0.05). Major complications were more common in the obese group without showing statistical significance (12.8% in the obese group vs 6.6% in the nonobese group, p = 0.078). Conversely, minor complications were more frequently documented in the nonobese group (8.1% in the obese group vs 15.5% in the nonobese group, p = 0.080). In the postoperative course, no differences were documented in terms of return of bowel function, duration of analgesics required, oral feeding, and length of hospitalization (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: These data indicate that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is feasible and effective in both obese and nonobese patients. Obese patients who are thought to be at increased risk of postoperative morbidity have the similar benefit of laparoscopic surgery as nonobese patients with colorectal disease.

Body Mass Index↗
PubMed1990

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery and appendicitis.

The purpose of this presentation is to evaluate the role of anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms in postoperative infections after colorectal surgery and appendicitis, and to evaluate when antimicrobial agents should be administered prophylactically in conjunction with these operations. In one multicenter study, prophylactic regimens against anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms were compared for durations of one and three days after colorectal surgery. In another multicenter study, the effect of a regimen against anaerobes used alone or in combination with an agent against aerobes in one preoperative dose were compared. The different types of operations had different potential for postoperative infections. An antimicrobial agent against anaerobic microorganisms given as one preoperative dose may suffice in surgery on the upper part of the colon, but a combination with an agent against aerobic bacteria is recommended in rectal surgery. The effectiveness of agents against anaerobic and aerobic bacteria in preventing postoperative infections after appendectomy in cases of gangrenous or perforated appendicitis without general peritonitis were compared in another study. This concluded that an agent against anaerobes is recommended when the appendix is gangrenous or perforated.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗