Irkutsk, Irkutsk region, Russian Federation
Irkutsk, Irkutsk region, Russian Federation
Irkutsk, Irkutsk region, Russian Federation
Irkutsk, Irkutsk region, Russian Federation
Irkutsk, Irkutsk region, Russian Federation
The aim of the work was to establish the significance of complex bacteriological research in the diagnostics of acute appendicitis and to determine an optimal material for the research based on the findings. We examined 19patients with acute phlegmonous or acute gangrenous appendicitis (males, aged 18–60years). We performed bacteriological research of abdominal exudate (n=19) and biopsy specimen (n=19) of appendix wall taken before opening the lumen of the intestine. Both abdominal exudate and appendix wall specimen were taken at the same time. Aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms were detected and identified, antimicrobial susceptibility was tested. In total, we detected 25 strains of aerobic and 13 strains of anaerobic microorganisms. It has been established that a bioptate was most informative for testing (68.4 %); the parallel study of an abdominal exudate gave positive results in 21.1 % of cases. In the structure of clinically significant microflora dominated E.coli (43.3%), then went nonfermentative gram-negative bacteria (13.3%) and Bacteroidesspp. (16.7%). We marked growing resistance of detected strains of gram-negative bacteria to some antibiotics. For instance, 62 % of detected E.c oli strains were resistant to ampicillin, 25 % – to ciprofloxacin. 92 % of strains were resistant to cefepime, 93 % – to ceftriaxone, 77 % – to Amoxiclav, 67 % – to gentamicin, 90 % – to tobramycin. From one bioptate a strain of E. coli ESBL was separated. The study of intraoperative bioptate of appendix wall increases effectiveness of microbiological diagnostics in com-parison with the abdominal exudate research.
acute appendicitis, diagnostics, microscopic flora, exudate, biopsy specimen, antibiotic resistance
1. Abdominal surgical infection (classification, diagnostics, antimi-crobial therapy): Russian national recommendations [Abdominal’naya khirurgicheskaya infektsiya (klassifikat-siya, diagnostika, antimikrobnaya terapiya): Rossiyskie natsional’nye rekomendatsii], 99
2. VolkovAG, ZarivchatskyMF (2014) Microbial picture of abdominal surgical infections in patients of multifield hospital [Mikrobnyy peyzazh abdominal’nykh khirurgich-eskikh infektsiy u bol’nykh mnogoprofil’nogo statsionara]. Permskiy meditsinskiy zhurnal, 31(1), 53-57.
3. GostishchevVK (2007). Infections in surgery [Infekt-sii v khirurgii], 761.
4. KrigerDG, FyodorovAV, VoskresenskyPK, DronovAF (2002). Acute appendicitis [Ostryy appenditsit], 244.
5. SkovlevSV (2006). Abdominal infections: significance of anaerobic microflora in the establishment of empiri-cal abdominal therapy modes [Abdominal’nye infektsii: znachenie anaerobnoy mikroflory v obosnovanii rezhimov empiricheskoy abdominal’noy terapii]. Russkiy meditsins-kiy zhurnal, 14(15), 1066-1068.
6. .FadeevaTV, SadakhMV, VereshchaginaSA, Grigor-ievEG (2010) Data of microbiological monitoring and antibacterial therapy of infected pancreonecrosis [Dannye mikrobiologicheskogo monitoringa i antibakterial’noy terapii infitsirovannogo pankreonekroza]. Infektsii v khirurgii, (3), 17-23.
7. FadeevaTV, VereshchaginaSA, FilatovaLS, SadakhMV, GrigorievEG (2012). Microbiological evaluation of post-operative wound infections in multifield surgical hospital [Mikrobiologicheskaya otsenka posleoperatsionnoy rane-voy infektsii v mnogoprofil’noy khirurgicheskoy klinike]. Infektsii v khirurgii, (4), 14-20.
8. ShatobalovVK (2013). Appendicitis: etiology, patho-genesis, classification, and its recurrent and chronic course [Appenditsit: etiologiya, patogenez, klassifikatsiya, a takzhe varianty ego retsidiviruyushchego i khronich-eskogo techeniya]. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova, (4), 87-91.
9. AldridgeKE, O’BrienM (2002). In vitro suscepti-bilities of the Bacteroides fragilis group species: change in isolation rates significantly affects overall susceptibility data. J. Clin. Microbiol., (40), 4349-4352.
10. BrookI, FrazierEH (2000). Aerobic and anaerobic microbiology in intra-abdominal infections associated with diverticulitis. J. Med. Microbiol., (49), 827-830.
11. BratzlerDW, HuntDR (2006). The surgical infec-tion prevention and surgicalcare improvement projects: national initiatives to improve outcomes forpatients having surgery. Clin. Infect. Dis., (43), 322-330.
12. GladmanMA, KnowlesCH, GladmanLJ, PayneJG (2004). Intra-operative culture in appendicitis: traditional practice challenged. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, (86), 196-201.
13. MaltezouHC, NikolaidisP, LebesiiE, Dimitri-ouL, AndroulakakisE, KafetzisDA (2001). Piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefotaxime plus metronidazole for treatment of children with intra-abdominal infections requiring surgery. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., (20), 643-646.
14. SolomkinJS, MazuskiJE, BradleyJS, RodvoldKA, GoldsteinEJ, BaronEJ, O’NeillPJ, ChowAW, DellingerEP, EachempatiSR, GorbachS, HilfikerM, MayAK, NathensAB, SawyerRG, BartlettJG (2010). Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Surg. Infect., (11), 79-109.
15. StyrudJ, ErikssonS, NilssonI, AhlbergG, Haapa-niemiS, NeoviusG, RexL, BadumeI, GranströmL (2006). Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis. a prospective multicenter randomized con-trolled trial. World J. Surg ., (30), 1033-1037.
