This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (6)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

HARRY E. BACON, M.D.; EDWARD J. LOWELL, Jr., M.D.; EARLE H. SPAULDING, Ph.D.; NUTULAPATY U. RAO, Ph.D.; HOWARD D. TRIMPI, M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1954;68(3):344-349.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

THE NEED for an effective intestinal antiseptic was evidenced as early as 1874, by Billroth¹ in his work on intestinal antisepsis. But no significant advance in this direction occurred until Poth² introduced succinylsulfathiazole as an adjunct in the preparation of the large bowel for surgery. Despite the use of new antibiotics within the past five years, including streptomycin, chlortetracycline (Aureomycin), chloramphenicol, and oxytetracycline (Terramycin), no single agent has proved completely satisfactory for all cases. A variety of unfavorable reactions, including diarrhea, proctitis, pruritus ani, pseudomembranous colitis with fatalities,* and outgrowth of resistant organisms has been noted with the use of certain antibiotics as intestinal antiseptics.

For effective use in the preparation of the colon or rectum, Poth⁵ has set forth the properties of an ideal intestinal antiseptic. It is unlikely that any single antimicrobial drug will be found which fulfills all of these criteria, but it is . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PHILADELPHIA

From the Departments of Proctology and Microbiology, Temple University School of Medicine, and Temple University Hospital.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?