Entrar/Registro  
HOME SPANISH
 
Cirugía y Cirujanos
   
MENU

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board






>Journals >Cirugía y Cirujanos >Year 2011, Issue 3


Arteaga-Torres R, Escartín-Chávez M, Gutiérrez-Samperio C, Ruiz-Acosta JM, Alonso-Gallegos M, Lerma-Alvarado R
Enzymatic detergent in rat peritoneum. A comparative study with physiological solution
Cir Cir 2011; 79 (3)

Language: Español
References: 34
Page: 250-256
PDF: 345.72 Kb.

[Full text - PDF]

ABSTRACT

Background: Peritoneal washing out with physiological solution added with different substances is useful in peritoneal infections, but the effect of enzymatic detergents such as quaternary didecyl-dimethyl ammonium compounds (DDAC) used in the sterilization of surgical material is unknown. We undertook this study to determine histological changes (inflammation, fibrosis and new vessel formation) in peritoneum of Wistar rats after the application of physiological solution or DDAC.
Methods: The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of DDAC for E. coli (512 µg/ml) and E. faecalis (128 µg/ml) was determined. Sixty three Wistar rats weighing 200 ± 20 g were studied. They were divided into three groups: control—7 rats were instilled with 3 ml of physiological solution in peritoneal cavity; groups 1 and 2 were instilled with 3 ml of MIC for E. coli and E. faecalis, respectively. These groups were divided into four subgroups of seven animals. In every rat, 1 cm² of peritoneum was obtained at 2, 7, 14, and 21 days for histological study with hematoxylin-eosin. Ten fields were evaluated. Data obtained were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney test.
Results: There were no significant differences in inflammation, fibrosis and new vessel formation with the physiological solution vs. DDAC at 2, 7, 14, and 21 days (p ›0.05), except for inflammation at 2 days in group 2 (p = 0.026), which remitted.
Conclusions: There was no significant difference in changes in rat peritoneum after physiological solution or DDAC application.


Key words: Peritoneum, rats, inflammation, quaternary didecyl dimethyl ammonium compound.


REFERENCES

  1. Hall JC, Heel KA, Papadimitriou JM, Platell C. The pathobiology of peritonitis. Gastroenterology 1998;114:185-196.

  2. Carrasco RA, Hernández CJR, García RLE. Fisiología de la peritonitis. En: AMCG, CMCG, eds. Tratado de cirugía general. Segunda edición. México: Manual Moderno; 2008. pp. 295-304.

  3. Wittman DH, Schein M, Condon R. Management of secondary peritonitis. Ann Surg 1996;24:10-17.

  4. Ordoñez C, Puyana J. Management of peritonitis in critically ill patient. Surg Clin North Am 2006;86:1323-1349.

  5. Broche F, Tellado JM. Defense mechanism of the peritoneal cavity. Curr Opin Crit Care 2001;7:105-116.

  6. Holzheimer RG, Dralle H. Paradigm change in 30 years peritonitis treatment: a review on source control. Eur J Med Res 2001;6:161-168.

  7. Foley JA, Herrick ES. Evidence for incorporation of free floating mesothelial cell as a mechanism of serosal healing. J Cell Sci 2002;115:1383-1389.

  8. Blot S, De Waele J. Critical issues in the clinical management of complicated intrabdominal infections. Drugs 2005;65:1611-1620.

  9. Salas RJ, Ruiz SO. Peritonitis. En: Gutiérrez-Samperio C, Arrubarrena AVM, Campos CSF, eds. Fisiopatología quirúrgica del aparato digestivo. Tercera edición. México: Manual Moderno; 2006. pp. 501-512.

  10. Van Goor H. Interventional management of abdominal sepsis: when and how. Arch Surg 2002;387:191-200.

  11. Anaya DA, Nathens AB. Risk factors for severe sepsis in secondary peritonitis. Surg Infect 2003;4:355-362.

  12. Alfa MJ, Jackson M. A new hydrogen peroxide-based medical-device detergent with germicidal properties: comparison with enzymatic cleaners. Am J Infect Control 2001;29:168-177.

  13. Selkon JB, Babb JR, Morris R. Evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of a new superoxidized water, Sterilox, for the disinfection of endoscopies. J Hosp Infect 1999;41:59-70.

  14. Ayala LA. Lavado peritoneal como solución salina vs. yodopovidona en peritonitis experimental. En: Patino JF. Infección quirúrgica. Bogotá: Centro Médico de los Andes; 1989. pp. 191-198.

  15. Mares SJ, Tejeda TH, Garibay GF, Valenzuela RM. Polietilenglicol vs. solución salina para la prevención de adherencias peritoneales postoperatorias en ratas. Estudio experimental. Rev Sanid Milit Mex 2006;60:401-405.

  16. Marsall J, Innes M. Intensive care unit management of in abdominal infection. Crit Care Med 2003;3:2228-2237.

  17. Rodríguez HR, Quintana ChR, Sánchez PM. El procedimiento de limpieza como garantía del proceso de esterilización. Rev Cubana Hig Epidemiol 2002;40:176-188.

  18. Mona A, Therti A, Faik A. Assessment of enzymatic agents and disinfectants against bacterial films. J Pharmaceut Sci 2004;7:55-84.

  19. Parikh C, Sippy BD, Martin DF, Edelhauser HF. Effects of enzymatic sterilization detergents on the corneal endothelium. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:165-172.

  20. Hobson D, White E, Anderson L. Use of a new quantitative method to evaluate the action of enzymatic, wound debriding agents in vitro. Wounds 1996;73:15-22.

  21. Woods A, Moyer S, Jackson S. Amazing stability of phosphate-quaternary amine interactions. J Proteom Res 2008;7:3423-342.

  22. Hutchisson B, LeBlanc C. The truth and consequences of enzymatic detergents. Gastroenterol Nurs 2005;28:373-376.

  23. Aguayo MJ. Cómo seleccionar correctamente un detergente enzimático. Desarrollo Cientif Enferm 200;10:280-281.

  24. Allen G. Enzymatic detergent use for gastroscope cleaning; surgical hand disinfectants; instrument decontamination; residual protein levels. Evidence Practice 2006;84:863-868.

  25. NCCLS. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria that Grow Aerobically. 4th ed. Approved Standard. NCCLS Document M7-A4; 1997 (ISBN 1-56238-309-4).

  26. Baker CN, Thornsberry C, Hawkinson RW. Inoculum standardization in antimicrobial susceptibility tests: evaluation of the overnight agar cultures and the rapid inoculum standardization system. J Clin Microbiol 1983;17:450-457.

  27. Daniel WW. Bioestadística. Base para el análisis de las ciencias de la salud. Cuarta edición. México: Limusa Wiley; 2006. pp. 678-684.

  28. Gutiérrez-Samperio C. El paciente quirúrgico en estado crítico. Avances en el proceso diagnóstico terapéutico. Gac Med Mex 2000;136:353-360.

  29. Dellinger P, Carlet J, Masur H. Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2004;32:858-873.

  30. Rocha-Almazán H, Sánchez-Aguilar M, Belmares-Taboada J, Esmer-Sánchez D, Tapia-Pérez JH, Gordillo-Moscoso A. Infección en el sitio operatorio en cirugía abdominal no traumática. Cir Cir 2008;76:127-131.

  31. Nachón GF, Díaz TJ, Nachón GG. Tolerancia peritoneal a la solución de alta selectividad iónica con pH neutro en ratas macho Wistar. Rev Med Univ Veracruz 2005;5:15-19.

  32. Maleckas A, Daubaras D, Vaitkus V, Aniulene A, Dirzinauskas E, Rakauskas M, et al. Increased postoperative peritoneal adhesion formation after the treatment of experimental peritonitis with clothexidine. Arch Surg 2004;389:256-260.

  33. Rutala AW, Webe JD. New disinfection and sterilization method. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:2-5.

  34. Schein M, Saadia R. Peritonitis: contamination and infection, principles of treatment. In: Schein M, Rogers P, eds. Schein’s Common Sense Emergency Abdominal Surgery. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2005. pp. 95-101






>Journals >Cirugía y Cirujanos >Year 2011, Issue 3
 

· Journal Index 
· Links 
       
Copyright 2010