Electrolyzed Water Shows Promise for Treating Severe Abdominal Infections
- Authors
- Akio Kubota, Keisuke Nose, Takeo Yonekura, Takuya Kosumi, Katsuji Yamauchi, Harumasa Oyanagi
- Journal
- Surgery Today
- Year
- 2009
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00595-008-3914-4
- Study Type
- Rat
- Outcome
- Positive
- Peer Reviewed
- Yes
- Country
- Japan
- Health Condition
- Perforated Peritonitis
- Body System
- Digestive System
TL;DR
Washing the abdominal cavity with electrolyzed strong acid water (ESAW) significantly improved survival and reduced bacteria in rats with a severe abdominal infection compared to using just saline.
Key Finding
In rats with perforated peritonitis, peritoneal irrigation with electrolyzed strong acid water achieved an 85.7% survival rate compared to 25% with saline, and reduced bacterial counts in abdominal fluid by over 20-fold.
Summary
Researchers tested whether electrolyzed strong acid water (water treated with electricity to create a solution with strong germ-killing properties) could help treat a serious abdominal infection in rats. Rats with a perforated (punctured) intestine were treated with either regular salt water or electrolyzed strong acid water to rinse out their abdominal cavity. The electrolyzed water treatment resulted in much higher survival rates (86% versus 25%) and killed significantly more bacteria than salt water, with no harmful side effects observed.
Practical Takeaway
This is an animal study only and does not directly apply to humans or to hydrogen water consumption. The study tested electrolyzed strong acid water as a surgical rinse for a life-threatening abdominal infection, not as a drinking water or general health product. Much more research, including human clinical trials, would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn about potential medical applications.
Abstract
Electrolyzed strong acid water (ESAW) is generated by the electrolysis of a weak sodium chloride solution. Although ESAW is known to have a strong bactericidal activity and to be harmless to the living body, its effectiveness and safety in the treatment of perforated peritonitis has not been well established. Male Wistar rats were used for the study. Three hours after cecal ligation and puncture, the cecum was resected and the peritoneal cavity was irrigated with 50 ml of saline (Group S, n=12) or ESAW (Group E, n=14). The 5-day survival rate was compared between the two groups. In another pair of animals (n=10 each), bacteria in the ascitic fluid were counted at 6 and 18 h after irrigation. No adverse effects of ESAW were observed in the experimental group. The 5-day survival rate was 25% (3/12) and 85.7% (12/14) in Groups S and E, respectively (P < 0.01). The bacterial count at 18 h after the irrigation in Groups S and E was (5.0 +/- 2.5) x 10(5)/ml and (2.2 +/- 2.0) x 10(4)/ml, respectively (P < 0.0001). Peritoneal lavage with ESAW had no adverse effect, and achieved more effective decontamination than saline for perforated peritonitis. Therefore, the results of this study are considered to warrant and support the clinical application of ESAW.