An observational study on peritoneal fluid bacteriology in cases of gastrointestinal perforations, antibiotic management and outcome in tertiary care center


  • Venkata Ravi Kishore R. Department of General Surgery, PESIMSR, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India
  • K. Ashwin Department of General Surgery, PESIMSR, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India
  • S. B. Vasanth Kumar Department of General Surgery, PESIMSR, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India



Antibiotic, Complication, Microorganism, Peritonitis


Background: Perforative peritonitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies in India. Perforation of the intestines results in the potential for bacterial contamination resulting in peritonitis.

Methods: A total of 65 patients (January 2018 to Dec 2018) who presented with features of perforative peritonitis admitted to various surgical units of PES institute of medical sciences, Kuppam were included in this study. The following study was conducted to analyze bacteriology of peritoneal fluid, to assess antibiotic sensitivity pattern, to assess its impact on morbidity, mortality pattern in these cases.

Results: Males outnumbered females with a ratio of 4.9:1. The most common site of perforation was pre-pyloric part of stomach (35.3%), followed by an appendix (33.8%). Peritoneal fluid was negative for culture (21.5%) in the majority of cases. Culture was positive for E. coli in 27.6% of cases and Klebsiella in 18.4% of cases, respectively. Majority of the isolated strains were sensitive to cephalosporins, quinolones, aminoglycosides. Most common postoperative complications were wound infection, respiratory complications, death.

Conclusions: Studies have shown that delay in management and treatment will affect the prognosis. Empiric antimicrobial therapy is initiated and changed accordingly with peritoneal fluid culture sensitivity reports. This may reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, morbidity, and mortality.


Author Biography

Venkata Ravi Kishore R., Department of General Surgery, PESIMSR, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India



Kemparaj T, Khadri S. Gastrointestinal Perforations – our Experience. Inter J Surg. 2010;28 (2):1-5.

Tripathi MD, Nagar AM, Srivastava RD, Partap VK. Peritonitis - study of factors contributing to mortality. Indian J Surg. 1993;55:342-9.

Washington BC, Villalba MR, Lauter CB. Cefamendole-erythromycin-heparin peritoneal irrigation. An adjunct to the surgical treatment of diffuse bacterial peritonitis. Surg. 1983;94(5):76-81.

Nomikos IN, Katsouyanni K, Papaioannou AN. Washing with or without chloremphenicol in the treatment of peritonitis. A prospective clinical trial. Surg. 1986;99:20-5.

Shinagawa N, Muramoto M, Sakurai S, Fukui T, Hon K, Taniguchi M, et al. A bacteriological study of perforated duodenal ulcer. Jap J Surg. 1991;21:17.

Ramakrishnaiah VP, Chandrakasan C, Dharanipragadha K, Sistla S, Krishnamachari S. Community acquired secondary bacterial peritonitis in a tertiary hospital of south India. Trop Gastroenterol. 2012;33(4):75-81.

Sutto A, Jean YL, Fabbro P, Muller L, Jerome T, Francis N, et al. J Antimicrobial Cheamother. 2002;50(4):569-76.

Capoor MR, Nair D, Chintamani MS, Khanna J, Aggarwal P, Bhatnagar D. Role of enteric fever in ileal perforations: An overstated problem in tropics?. Ind J Med Microbiol. 2008;26(1):54-7.

Jhobta RS, Attri AK, Kaushik R, Sharma R. Spectrum of perforation peritonitis in India — Review of 504 consecutive cases. World J Em Surg. 2006;1749-826.

Afridi SP, Malik F, Rahman S, Shameem 5, Samo AK. Spectrum of Perforation Peritonitis in Pakistan; 300 cases eastern Experience. World J Emer Surg. 2008;3:31.






Original Research Articles