Colon and rectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation: a randomized prospective trial

Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect Clinical Severity of Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous multicenter randomized trials demonstrated that omitting mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) did not increase anastomotic leakage rates or other infectious complications. However, the most serious concern regarding the omission of MBP is ongoing fecal peritonitis after anastomotic leakage occurs. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical manifestations and severity of anastomotic leakage between patients who underwent MBP and those who did not.

METHODS

This study was a single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. From January 2006 to September 2013, 1369 patients who underwent elective rectal cancer resection with primary anastomosis were identified and analyzed.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage rates were not significantly different between patients who did not undergo MBP (77/831, 9.27%) and those who did (42/538, 7.81%). However, a significantly lower rate of clinical leakage requiring surgical exploration was observed in the leakage without MBP group (30/77, 39.0%) compared with the leakage with MBP group (30/42, 71.4%) (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage as assessed by the length of hospital stay, time to resuming a normal diet, length of antibiotic use, ileus rate, transfusion rate, ICU admission rate, and mortality rate between the leakage without MBP and leakage with MBP groups.

CONCLUSION

MBP was not found to affect the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage in elective rectal cancer surgery.

Bowel Preparation Is Associated with Reduced Morbidity in Elderly Patients Undergoing Elective Colectomy

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation in elderly patients is associated with physiologic derangements that may result in postoperative complications. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of bowel preparation on postoperative outcomes in elderly patients.

METHODS

Patients age 75 years and older who underwent elective colectomy were identified from the 2012-2014 American College of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP database). Patients were grouped into no bowel preparation, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), oral antibiotic preparation (OABP), or combined MBP + OABP. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to calculate risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 4829 patients included in the analysis. Morbidity was 34.3% in no bowel prep, 32.4% in MBP, 24.8% in OABP, and 24.6% in MBP + OABP groups (p < 0.001). The MBP + OABP group compared with no bowel prep was associated with reduced rates of anastomotic leak, ileus, superficial surgical site infection (SSI), organ space SSI, respiratory compromise, and reduced length of stay. There was no difference in the rate of acute kidney injury between the groups.

CONCLUSION

MBP + OABP was associated with reduced morbidity compared with no bowel preparation in elderly patients undergoing elective colorectal resection. MBP alone was not associated with differences in outcomes compared with no bowel preparation. The use of MBP + OABP is safe and effective in elderly patients undergoing elective colectomy.

Effectiveness of Minimal Bowel Preparation With Oral Bisacodyl Before Laparoscopic Radical Proctectomy: Case-Control Comparison of Bisacodyl and Polyethylene Glycol as Oral Laxative Agents

The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of minimal mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) using oral bisacodyl before laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Preoperative MBP using conventional oral laxatives in laparoscopic proctectomy may detrimentally affect morbidity and surgical outcomes. Between March 2010 and December 2014, 272 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic proctectomy were included in the current study. A total of 85 patients undergoing bowel preparation with oral bisacodyl (bisacodyl group) were individually matched to patients receiving polyethylene glycol (PEG group) using propensity score matching. Operative outcomes, morbidity, and mortality were compared between the matched groups. The quality of bowel cleansing was much poorer in the bisacodyl group than in the PEG group (excellent, 43.5% versus 68.2%; fair, 41.2% versus 16.5%; and poor, 15.3% versus 15.3%; P &lt; 0.001). The degree of small bowel distension (collapsed, 56.4% versus 52.9%; mildly distended, 41.2% versus 40.0%; and severely distended, 2.4% versus 7.1%; P = 0.452) and postoperative outcomes, including time to first flatus (3.0 versus 3.0 days, P = 0.426); hospital stay (16.0 versus 15.0 days, P = 0.215); anastomotic leakage rate (8.2% versus 5.9%, P = 0.549); and mortality (0 versus 1.2%, P = 1.000), were similar between the bisacodyl group and the PEG group, respectively. MBP using oral bisacodyl before laparoscopic proctectomy was feasible and safe with respect to morbidity and surgical outcomes. Minimal bowel preparation with bisacodyl seems to be a useful preparation method for laparoscopic proctectomy.

New WHO recommendations on preoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most preventable health-care-associated infections and are a substantial burden to health-care systems and service payers worldwide in terms of patient morbidity, mortality, and additional costs. SSI prevention is complex and requires the integration of a range of measures before, during, and after surgery. No international guidelines are available and inconsistencies in the interpretation of evidence and recommendations of national guidelines have been identified. Given the burden of SSIs worldwide, the numerous gaps in evidence-based guidance, and the need for standardisation and a global approach, WHO decided to prioritise the development of evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSIs. The guidelines take into account the balance between benefits and harms, the evidence quality, cost and resource use implications, and patient values and preferences. On the basis of systematic literature reviews and expert consensus, we present 13 recommendations on preoperative preventive measures.

Preoperative Bowel Preparation before Elective Bowel Resection or Ostomy Closure in the Pediatric Patient Population Has No Impact on Outcomes: A Prospective Randomized Study

The role of preoperative bowel prep in the pediatric surgical population is uncertain. We performed a randomized prospective study to evaluate noninferiority between the presence or absence of a preoperative bowel prep in elective pediatric bowel surgery on postoperative outcomes. Patients aged three months to 18 years were recruited and randomized to the bowel prep group or the no bowel prep group. Patients were evaluated in-hospital and at postoperative clinic visits. Thirty-two patients were recruited; 18 in the bowel prep group and 14 in the no bowel prep group. There was no statistical difference (P > 0.05) in complications between the groups. Complications were observed in five patients in each group (27.8% and 35.7%, respectively). In the bowel prep group, two (11.1%) had wound infection (vs three, 21.4%), 0 had an intra-abdominal abscess (vs one, 7.1%), one (5.6%) had sepsis (vs one, 7.1%), one (5.6%) had an anastomotic leak (vs 0), and three (16.7%) had a bowel obstruction (vs one, 7.1%). There were no extra-abdominal complications. There were no significant differences in complications between the two groups. Further research is warranted, but may require a multi-institutional trial to recruit sufficient numbers to make conclusions about the significance of the need for bowel prep.

Preoperative Bowel Preparation before Elective Bowel Resection or Ostomy Closure in the Pediatric Patient Population Has No Impact on Outcomes: A Prospective Randomized Study

The role of preoperative bowel prep in the pediatric surgical population is uncertain. We performed a randomized prospective study to evaluate noninferiority between the presence or absence of a preoperative bowel prep in elective pediatric bowel surgery on postoperative outcomes. Patients aged three months to 18 years were recruited and randomized to the bowel prep group or the no bowel prep group. Patients were evaluated in-hospital and at postoperative clinic visits. Thirty-two patients were recruited; 18 in the bowel prep group and 14 in the no bowel prep group. There was no statistical difference ( P > 0.05) in complications between the groups. Complications were observed in five patients in each group (27.8% and 35.7%, respectively). In the bowel prep group, two (11.1%) had wound infection (vs three, 21.4%), 0 had an intra-abdominal abscess (vs one, 7.1%), one (5.6%) had sepsis (vs one, 7.1%), one (5.6%) had an anastomotic leak (vs 0), and three (16.7%) had a bowel obstruction (vs one, 7.1%). There were no extra-abdominal complications. There were no significant differences in complications between the two groups. Further research is warranted, but may require a multi-institutional trial to recruit sufficient numbers to make conclusions about the significance of the need for bowel prep.

Impact of perioperative care on the post-operative recovery of women undergoing surgery for gynaecological tumours

To assess perioperative care in patients undergoing abdominal surgery for gynaecological tumours and how it relates to post-operative (PO) complications and oral PO feeding. Ninety-one women undergoing major abdominal surgery for gynaecological tumours were enrolled. Data included mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), prescribed diet, length of fast, start date of oral diet and progression of food consistency, anaesthetic technique, use of opioids and intravenous hydration (IH). Outcomes evaluated were nausea, vomiting and abdominal distension. The median pre-operative length of fast was 11.4 h. PO digestive complications occurred in 46.2% of the patients. Median intraoperative total IH and crystalloids were significantly higher in patients with abdominal distension during the first and second PO day. MBP with mannitol implied greater intraoperative IH and was significantly associated with a higher incidence of immediate PO nausea. Post-operative IH was also associated with gastrointestinal complications. The best cut-off point for the cumulative fluid load PO for determining a longer PO hospital stay was 4 L. Performing MBP before surgery and excessive IH are factors related to major digestive complications in our study population. Changes in pre-operative fasting time and PO refeeding should be considered to reduce the gastrointestinal complications and PO recovery time.

Meta-analysis of the laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery within fast track surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic methods and fast-track surgery (FTS) can enhance recovery and reduce postoperative hospital stay. However, whether laparoscopic surgery can provide short-term benefits within FTS is controversial. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate the effect of laparoscopic colorectal surgery within FTS.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases for eligible studies. Endpoints were duration of postoperative hospital stay, time to first bowel movement, total postoperative complication rate, readmission rate, mortality within 30 days after surgery, and conversation rate of laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and six clinical controlled trials (1510 patients) were eligible for analyses. Duration of postoperative hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -1.65 days; p < 0.001), time to first bowel movement (-1.13 days; p < 0.001), total postoperative complication rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.65; p < 0.001), readmission rate (0.46; p < 0.001), and mortality (0.45; p < 0.001) were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic surgery group. Overall conversion rate of laparoscopic surgery was 11.1%. Subgroup analyses based on each FT element demonstrated that studies without the element "prevention of hypothermia," "no bowel preparation," or "no routine use of drains" did not show significant differences between two groups with regard to duration of postoperative hospital stay or total prevalence of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Within FTS, laparoscopic methods can significantly shorten postoperative hospital stay, accelerate postoperative recovery, and enhance safety in colorectal surgery. The FT elements "prevention of hypothermia," "no bowel preparation," and "no routine use of drains" may play important parts in the combined effect of these two methods.

Rectal enema is an alternative to full mechanical bowel preparation for primary rectal cancer surgery

AIM

According to the French GRECCAR III randomized trial, full mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for rectal surgery decreases the rate of postoperative morbidity, in particular postoperative infectious complications, but MBP is not well tolerated by the patient. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a preoperative rectal enema (RE) might be an alternative to MBP.

METHODS

An analysis was performed of 96 matched cohort patients undergoing rectal resection with primary anastomosis and protective ileostomy at two different university teaching hospitals, whose rectal cancer management was comparable except for the choice of preoperative bowel preparation (MBP or RE). Prospective databases were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

Patients were well matched for age, gender, body mass index and Charlson index. The surgical approach and cancer characteristics (level above anal verge, stage and use of neoadjuvant therapy) were comparable between the two groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 10% of patients having MBP and in 8% having RE (P = 1.00). Pelvic abscess formation (6% vs 2%, P = 0.63) and wound infection (8% vs 15%, P = 0.55) were also comparable. Extra-abdominal infection (13% vs 13%, P = 1.00) and non-infectious abdominal complications such as ileus and bleeding (27% and 31%, P = 0.83) were not significantly different. Overall morbidity was comparable in the two groups (50% vs 54%, P = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

A simple RE before rectal surgery seems not to be associated with more postoperative infectious complications nor a higher overall morbidity than MBP.

The use of mechanical bowel preparation in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a decision analysis

OBJECTIVE

The use of mechanical bowel preparation prior to laparoscopy is common in gynecology, but its use may affect the rates of perioperative events and complications. Our objective was to compare different mechanical bowel preparations using decision analysis techniques to determine the optimal preparation prior to laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

A decision analysis was constructed modeling perioperative outcomes with the following mechanical bowel preparations: magnesium citrate, sodium phosphate, polyethylene glycol, enema, and no bowel preparation. Comparisons were made using published utility values. Secondary analyses included the percentages that had 1 or more preoperative events and 1 or more intra- or postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Overall, the highest utility values were for no bowel preparation (0.98) and magnesium citrate (0.97), whereas the other values were as follows: enema (0.95), sodium phosphate (0.94), and polyethylene glycol (0.91). The difference between no bowel preparation and magnesium citrate was less than the published minimally important differences for utilities, so there is likely no real difference between these strategies. The probability of having at least 1 preoperative event was lowest for no bowel preparation (1%), whereas the probability of having at least 1 intra- or postoperative complication was lowest with magnesium citrate (8%).

CONCLUSION

The highest utilities were seen with no bowel preparation, but the absolute difference between no bowel preparation and magnesium citrate was less than the minimally important difference. With similar overall utilities, our model raises questions as to whether mechanical bowel preparation is a necessary step prior to laparoscopic gynecological surgery. However, if a surgeon prefers a bowel preparation, magnesium citrate is the preferred option.

Laparoscopic colon resection: To prep or not to prep? Analysis of 1535 patients

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before elective open colon resection does not reduce the rate of postoperative anastomotic leakage. However, MBP is still routinely used in many countries, and there are very limited data regarding the utility of preoperative MBP in patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection (LCR). The aim of this study was to challenge the use of MBP before elective LCR.

METHODS

It is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. All patients undergoing elective LCR with primary anastomosis and no stoma were included. Preoperative MBP with polyethylene glycol solution was used routinely between April 1992 and December 2004, and then it was abandoned. The early postoperative outcomes in patients who had preoperative MBP (MBP group) and in patients who underwent LCR without preoperative MBP (No-MBP group) were compared.

RESULTS

From April 1992 to December 2014, 1535 patients underwent LCR: 706 MBP patients and 829 No-MBP patients. There were no differences in demographic data, indication for surgery and type of procedure performed between MBP and No-MBP group patients. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was similar between the two groups (3.4 vs. 3.6 %, p = 0.925). No differences were observed in intra-abdominal abscesses (0.6 vs. 0.8 %, p = 0.734), wound infections (0.6 vs. 1.4 %, p = 0.149), infectious extra-abdominal complications (1.8 vs. 3 %, p = 0.190), and non-infectious complications (6.1 vs. 6.8 %, p = 0.672). The overall reoperation rate was 4.6 % for MBP patients and 5 % for No-MBP patients (p = 0.813).

CONCLUSION

The use of preoperative MBP does not seem to be associated with lower incidence of intra-abdominal septic complications after LCR.

Pelvic Trauma

The leading cause of death in the pediatric population is trauma, of which pelvic injuries make up a very small percentage. Trauma to the pelvis can result in multiple injuries to the bony pelvis, rectum, bladder, and or the urethra. Although mortality in the pediatric population is typically secondary to associated injuries, pelvic hemorrhage can be a life-threatening event. The management of patients with complex pelvic injuries requires a multidisciplinary approach in order to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Oral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral mechanical bowel preparation is often used before elective colorectal surgery to reduce postoperative complications.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of oral mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation or enema.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and CINAHL without any language restrictions (last search on September 6, 2013). We also searched the US Food and Drug Administration Web site and ClinicalTrials.gov and supplemented our searches by asking technical experts and perusing reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

We included English-language, full-text reports of randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized comparative studies of patients undergoing elective colon or rectal surgery. For adverse events we also included single-group cohort studies of at least 200 participants.

INTERVENTIONS

Interventions included oral mechanical bowel preparation, oral mechanical bowel preparation plus enema, enema only, and no oral mechanical bowel preparation or enema.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Anastomotic leakage, all-cause mortality, wound infection, peritonitis/intra-abdominal abscess, reoperation, surgical site infection, quality of life, length of stay, and adverse events were measured. We synthesized results across studies qualitatively and with Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 18 randomized clinical trials, 7 nonrandomized comparative studies, and 6 single-group cohorts were included. In meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, the credibility intervals of the summary OR included the null value of 1.0 for comparisons of oral mechanical bowel preparation and either no oral preparation or enema for overall mortality, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, peritonitis, surgical site infection, and reoperation. These results were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses. Evidence on adverse events was sparse.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by weaknesses in the underlying evidence, such as incomplete reporting of relevant information, exclusion of non-English and relevant unpublished studies, and possible missed indexing of nonrandomized studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results could not exclude modest beneficial or harmful effects of oral mechanical bowel preparation compared with no preparation or enema.

The comparison of saline enema and bisacodyl in rectal preparation before anorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Given the limited data on the need of mechanical bowel preparation application before anorectal surgeries and the preferred method for bowel preparation, we aimed to compare saline enema and bisacodyl in rectal preparation before anorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a randomized clinical trial study. Seventy-nine hospitalized patients for anorectal surgery (hemorrhoid, fissure, and fistula) were recruited by convenient sampling and then randomly allocated to receive 500 cc Saline by rectal enema or six bisacodyl tablets (Sobhan company) beginning from a day before the operation in order to prepare the bowel. After surgery, surgeons' satisfaction of the surgery and patients' satisfaction of the preparation process were evaluated in the ward using Likert score by a nurse blind to the study. Also, the patients were interviewed for pain after the first defecation, using numeric rating scale based on a 0-10 scores. All patients were actively followed-up after discharge for 1 mo concerning postoperative complications. The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS software (version 16), Mann-Whitney, chi-squared, and Fisher exact tests at the significant level of P < 0/0.5.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients participated in the study, 38 received 500-cc saline by rectal enema and 41 bisacodyl tablets. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in most variables except for pain after the first defecation (P = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results, the bisacodyl approach results in less pain in the first postoperative defecation and fewer complications than the rectal enema. Thus, bisacodyl can be suggested as a superior counterpart for enema.

Nationwide analysis of outcomes of bowel preparation in colon surgery

BACKGROUND

There are limited data comparing the outcomes of preoperative oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OBP) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colorectal surgery. We sought to identify the relationship between preoperative bowel preparations (BP) and postoperative complications in colon cancer surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

The NSQIP database was used to examine the clinical data of colon cancer patients undergoing scheduled colon resection during 2012 to 2013. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify correlations between BP and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

We evaluated a total of 5,021 patients who underwent elective colon resection. Of these, 44.8% had only MBP, 2.3% had only OBP, 27.6% had both MBP and OBP, and 25.3% of patients did not have any type of BP. In multivariate analysis of data, MBP and OBP were not associated with decreased risk of postoperative complications in right side (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.80, 0.30, p = 0.08, 0.10, respectively) or left side colon resections (AOR 1.02, 0.68, p = 0.81, 0.24, respectively). However, the combination of MBP and OBP before left side colon resections resulted in a significantly decreased risk of overall morbidity (AOR 0.63, p < 0.01), superficial surgical site infection (AOR 0.31, p < 0.01), anastomosis leakage (AOR 0.44, p < 0.01), and intra-abdominal infections (AOR 0.44, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed that solitary mechanical bowel preparation and solitary oral bowel preparation had no significant effects on major postoperative complications after colon cancer resection. However, a combination of mechanical and oral antibiotic preparations showed a significant decrease in postoperative morbidity.

Prevention of infectious complications after elective colorectal surgery in children: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee comprehensive review

OBJECTIVE

This goal of this review was to examine the clinical evidence in support of commonly utilized measures intended to reduce complications following elective colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCE

Literature searches were performed to identify relevant studies from Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane databases.

STUDY SELECTION

The American Pediatric Surgery Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee selected eight questions to address this topic systematically in the context of three management areas: 1) appropriate utilization of systemic antibiotics for colorectal procedures, 2) reduction of stool burden through mechanical bowel preparation, and 3) intraluminal gut decontamination through use of enteral nonabsorbable antibiotics. Primary outcomes of interest included the occurrence of infectious and mechanical complications related to stool burden and intraluminal bacterial concentration (incisional surgical site infection, anastomotic leakage, and intraabdominal abscess).

RESULTS

The evidence in support of each management category was systematically reviewed, graded, and summarized in the context of the review's primary outcomes. Practice recommendations were made as deemed appropriate by the committee.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical evidence in support of interventions to reduce infectious complications following colorectal surgery is derived almost exclusively from the adult literature. High-quality evidence to guide clinical practice in children is sorely needed, as the available data may have only limited relevance to pediatric colorectal diseases.

Impact of mechanical bowel preparation on survival after colonic cancer resection

BACKGROUND

A randomized study in 1999-2005 of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) preceding colonic resection found no decrease in postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term effect of MBP regarding cancer recurrence and survival after colonic resections.

METHODS

The cohort of patients with colonic cancer in the MBP study was followed up for 10 years. Data were collected from registers run by the National Board of Health and Welfare. Register data were validated against information in patient charts. Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariable analysis of factors predictive of cancer-specific survival.

RESULTS

Register analysis showed significantly fewer recurrences, and better cancer-specific and overall survival in the MBP group. After validation, 839 of 1343 patients remained for analysis (448 MBP, 391 no MBP). Eighty (17·9 per cent) of 448 patients in the MBP group and 88 (22·5 per cent) of 391 in the no-MBP group developed a cancer recurrence (P = 0·093). The 10-year cancer-specific survival rate was 84·1 per cent in the MBP group and 78·0 per cent in the no-MBP group (P = 0·019). Overall survival rates were 58·8 and 56·0 per cent respectively (P = 0·186).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving MBP before elective colonic cancer surgery had significantly better cancer-specific survival after 10 years.

The impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) based on the occurrence of anastomosis leakage, surgical site infection (SSI), and severity of surgical complication when performing elective colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MBP and non-MBP patients were matched using propensity score. The outcomes were evaluated according to tumor location such as right- (n=84) and left-sided colon (n=50) and rectum (n=100). In the non-MBP group, patients with right-sided colon cancer did not receive any preparation, and patients with both left-sided colon and rectal cancers were given one rectal enema before surgery.

RESULTS

In the right-sided colon surgery, there was no anastomosis leakage. SSI occurred in 2 (4.8%) and 4 patients (9.5%) in the non-MBP and MBP groups, respectively. In the left-sided colon cancer surgery, there was one anastomosis leakage (4.0%) in each group. SSI occurred in none in the rectal enema group and in 2 patients (8.0%) in the MBP group. In the rectal cancer surgery, there were 5 anastomosis leakages (10.0%) in the rectal enema group and 2 (4.0%) in the MBP group. SSI occurred in 3 patients (6.0%) in each groups. Severe surgical complications (Grade III, IV, or V) based on Dindo-Clavien classification, occurred in 7 patients (14.0%) in the rectal enema group and 1 patient (2.0%) in the MBP group (p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Right- and left-sided colon cancer surgery can be performed safely without MBP. In rectal cancer surgery, rectal enema only before surgery seems to be dangerous because of the higher rate of severe postoperative complications.

Cellular changes of the colon after mechanical bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on the intracellular environment, specifically evaluating butyrate transport, within the colon of the Sprague-Dawley rat.

METHODS

Sixty-eight Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized to either an MBP group (n = 34) or a control group (n = 34). Twenty-four hours after the completion of the MBP, both groups were euthanized, and the colons were harvested. The level of cellular apoptosis was investigated after DNA fragmentation, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase cleavage, and caspase assays. Western blot analysis was performed to measure the expression of the butyrate transporter protein, monocarboxylate transporters 1, and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (a marker for tissue proliferation). Immunohistochemical staining was performed to further investigate cellular proliferation. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) was determined using two-tailed t-test.

RESULTS

Apoptosis was detected without significant differences in both groups. Western Blot analysis demonstrated that the expression of the monocarboxylate transporters 1 protein is downregulated in the MBP group (10.18 ± 3.09) compared with the control group (16.73 ± 7.39, P = 0.001), and proliferating cell nuclear antigen levels showed a decrease in cellular proliferation in the MBP group (13.35 ± 5.88) compared with the control (20.07 ± 7.55, P = 0.018). Immunohistochemistry confirmed a decrease in cellular proliferation after MBP with 23.4 ± 7.8% of the cells staining positive for Ki-67 in the MBP group versus 28.6 ± 7.9% in the control group (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

MBP has a negative impact on cellular proliferation and intracellular transport of butyrate within the rat colon, not related to apoptosis. This is the first study to demonstrate the intracellular effects that MBP has on the rat colon.

Fast-track surgery versus traditional perioperative care in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

Background

Both laparoscopic and fast-track surgery (FTS) have shown some advantages in colorectal surgery. However, the effectiveness of using both methods together is unclear. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the effects of FTS with those of traditional perioperative care in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases for eligible studies until April 2014. The main end points were the duration of the postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus after surgery, time of first bowel movement, total postoperative complication rate, readmission rate, and mortality.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials and 5 clinical controlled trials with 1,317 patients were eligible for analysis. The duration of the postoperative hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD], –1.64 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], –2.25 to –1.03; p < 0.001), time to first flatus (WMD, –0.40 day; 95% CI, –0.77 to –0.04; p = 0.03), time of first bowel movement (WMD, –0.98 day; 95% CI, –1.45 to –0.52; p < 0.001), and total postoperative complication rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56–0.80; p < 0.001) were significantly reduced in the FTS group. No significant differences were noted in the readmission rate (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41–1.01; p = 0.06) or mortality (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.42–5.71; p = 0.51).

Conclusion

Among patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery, FTS is associated with a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay, more rapid postoperative recovery, and, notably, greater safety than is expected from traditional care.

Mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before colorectal surgery: A randomized prospective trial in a tertiary care institute

Background:

In the first half of 20^th century; mortality from colorectal surgery often exceeded 20%, mainly due to sepsis. Modern surgical techniques and improved perioperative care have significantly lowered the mortality rate. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is aimed at cleansing the large bowel of fecal content thus reducing morbidity and mortality related to colorectal surgery. We carried out a study aimed to investigate the outcomes of colorectal surgery with and without MBPs, to avoid unpleasant side-effects of MBP and also to design a protocol for preparation of a patient for colorectal surgery.

Materials and Methods:

This was a prospective study over a period of March 2008-May 2010 carried out at Department of General Surgery of our institution. A total of 63 patients were included in this study; among those 32 patients were operated with MBPs and 31 without it; admitted in in-patient department undergoing resection of left colon and rectum for benign and malignant conditions in both emergency and elective conditions.

Results:

Anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal collections was detected clinically and radiologically in 2 and 4 patients in each group respectively. P > 0.5 in both situations, indicating statistically no difference between results of two groups. Wound infections were detected in 12 (37.5%) patients with MBP group and 11 (35.48%) patients without MBP.

Conclusion:

The present results suggest that the omission of MBP does not impair healing of colonic anastomosis; neither increases the risk of leakage.

Abdominal Cellulitis following a Laparoscopic Procedure: A Rare and Severe Complication

Advantages of laparoscopic approach in Hirschsprung disease have been already published decreasing the hospital stay and postoperative adhesions. To our knowledge, we report the first case of postoperative abdominal cellulitis after laparoscopic procedure. A laparoscopic Duhamel pull through was done on a 3-month-old child. Full-thickness biopsy under laparoscopy was performed with intraperitoneal inoculation. Large peritoneal irrigation was used. Abdominal necrotizing cellulitis starting from a port site occurred few days after the procedure requiring repeat surgical excision, broad spectrum antibiotics, and hyperbaric oxygen.

[Prevention of surgical site infection in abdominal surgery. A critical review of the evidence]

Surgical site infection (SSI) is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased morbidity, mortality and sanitary costs, and reduced patients quality of life. Many hospitals have adopted guidelines of scientifically-validated processes for prevention of surgical site and central-line catheter infections and sepsis. Most of these guidelines have resulted in an improvement in postoperative results. A review of the best available evidence on these measures in abdominal surgery is presented. The best measures are: avoidance of hair removal from the surgical field, skin decontamination with alcoholic antiseptic, correct use of antibiotic prophylaxis (administration within 30-60 min before incision, use of 1(st) or 2(nd) generation cephalosporins, single preoperative dosis, dosage adjustments based on body weight and renal function, intraoperative re-dosing if the duration of the procedure exceeds 2 half-lives of the drug or there is excessive blood loss), prevention of hypothermia, control of perioperative glucose levels, avoid blood transfusion and restrict intraoperative liquid infusion.

Bowel preparation for colorectal surgery: with and without mannitol

Introduction

In our country due to some limitations, mannitol is widely used for bowel preparation. Bowel preparation with mannitol has several side effects.

Aim

To compare complication of mechanical bowel preparation with and without mannitol.

Material and methods

This case control study was carried out in Imam Khomeini and Abuzar children’s hospitals. Sixty cases of patients who underwent colorectal surgery were included in this study. Pull-through, colostomy closure, and anorectoplasty were the surgical procedures. Subjects were randomly placed in the case or control group. Infection, electrolyte disturbances, fever, and leukocytosis were recorded. Multivariate analysis was done using PRISM. Odds ratio was calculate with CI = 95%.

Results

Fourteen boys and 16 girls were included in group I. Ten boys and 20 girls were included in group II. Twenty colostomies, 6 pull-throughs, and 4 anorectoplasties were performed in group I. Twenty-one colostomies, 5 pull-throughs, and 4 anorectoplasties were done in group II. Mean age of the patients was 2.63 ±1.9 and 2.66 ±1.68 for group I and group II respectively (p = 0.262). Following bowel preparation with mannitol, 14 patients had mild fever with mean body temperature of 38.1°C. Three subjects had postsurgical fever within 48 h of surgery. In group II, postoperative fever was found in 2 subjects.

Conclusions

Hypernatremia, hypokalemia, and leukocytosis were more common in patients who underwent bowel preparation with mannitol.

Mechanical bowel preparation and prophylactic antibiotic administration in colorectal surgery: a survey of the current status in Korea

PURPOSE

The usefulness of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colon surgery was recently challenged by many multicenter clinical trials and meta-analyses. The objectives of this study were to investigate current national opinions about MBP and prophylactic antibiotics (PA) and to provide preliminary data for developing future Korean guidelines for MBP and PA administration in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A questionnaire was mailed to 129 colorectal specialists. The questionnaires addressed the characteristics of the hospital, the MBP methods, and the uses of oral and intravenous antibiotics.

RESULTS

A total of 73 questionnaires (56.6%) were returned. First, in regard to MBP methods, most surgeons (97.3%) used MBP for a mean of 1.36 days. Most surgeons (98.6%) implemented whole bowel irrigation and used polyethylene glycol (83.3%). Oral antibiotic use was indicated in over half (52.1%) of the responses, the average number of preoperative doses was three, and the mean time of administration was 24.2 hours prior to the operation. Finally, the majority of responders stated that they used intravenous antibiotics (95.9%). The responses demonstrated that second-generation cephalosporin-based regimens were most commonly prescribed, and 75% of the surgeons administered these regimens until three days after the operation.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that most surgeons used MBP and intravenous antibiotics and that half of them administered oral PA in colorectal surgery preparations. The study recommends that the current Korean guidelines should be adapted to adequately reflect the medical status in Korea, to consider the medical environment of the various hospitals, and to establish more accurate and relevant guidelines.

Mechanical bowel preparation for esophagocoloplasty in children: is it really necessary?

Esophagocoloplasty is a commonly performed procedure for esophageal replacement in children. Traditionally, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is performed before this operation. However, this practice has been questioned, initially in adults and now in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of MBP on esophagocoloplasty in a series of children. Data collected from 164 patients who underwent esophagocoloplasty in the Pediatric Surgery Division, University of São Paulo Medical School, from February 1978 to July 2011 were reviewed for postoperative complications. In 134 patients, at least one kind of MBP was performed before the surgery (PREP group). MBP was omitted in 30 patients (NO-PREP group). There was no statistical difference between the groups in the rates of evisceration, colocolic, or cologastric anastomotic dehiscence and death. However, in the NO-PREP group, the incidence of cervical leakage (6.6%) was significantly decreased in comparison with the classical PREP group (25.3%) (P= 0.03). The results of this study suggest that the omission of MBP has a positive impact on the incidence of postoperative complications in esophagocoloplasty.

Colectomy without mechanical bowel preparation in the private practice setting

BACKGROUND

Despite randomized trials and meta-analyses demonstrating the safety of omitting mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery, private practice surgeons may hesitate to eliminate MBP for fear of being outside community standards. This study evaluated the safety of eliminating MBP before colectomy in a private practice setting.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included elective abdominal colorectal operations from one surgeon's practice from October 2008 to June 2011. MBP was not routinely utilized after November 2009. Postoperative 30-day complication rates and length of hospital stay were compared in patients with and without MBP. Multivariable regression models were developed to compare outcomes among study groups, adjusting for demographics, diagnoses, procedures, and year.

RESULTS

A total of 165 patients were analyzed. Demographics were similar between groups. Laparoscopic procedures were more common in patients without MBP due to increased laparoscopy over time (43 vs. 61 %, p = 0.03). As regards complications, infection rates were similar between groups (MBP 10.5 % vs. no MBP(NMBP) 11.4 %, adj p = 0.57). Patients without MBP had a shorter length of hospital stay (median: 6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.01), but those differences were not statistically significant after adjustment (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Private practice surgeons should embrace evidence-based practice changes and make efforts to quantitatively evaluate the safety of those changes. Omission of MBP for most elective colectomy procedures appears to be safe with no significant increase in complications or length of hospital stay. Because MBP has substantial drawbacks, there is little justification for its routine use in the majority of elective abdominal colorectal procedures.

Our experiences with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: orthotopic neobladder by the suprapubic incision method

PURPOSE

To report our technique for and experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (RARC) with orthotopic neobladder (ON) formation in a cohort of bladder cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2007 and December 2011, a total of 35 patients underwent RARC. The patients' mean age was 63.3 years and their mean body mass index was 23.7 kg/m(2). Thirty patients had a clinical stage of T2 or higher. Postoperative mean follow-up duration was 25.5 months. In 5 patients, a 4-cm midline infraumbilical skin incision was made for an ileal conduit (IC) and the stoma formation was similar to the open procedure. In 30 patients undergoing the ON procedure, the skin for specimen removal and extracorporeal enterocystoplasty was incised infraumbilically in the early 5 cases with redocking (ON-I) and suprapubically in the latter 25 cases without redocking (ON-S).

RESULTS

The mean operative times of the IC, ON-I, and ON-S groups were 442.5, 646.0, and 531.3 minutes, respectively (p=0.001). Mean console and lymph node dissection time were not significantly different between the groups. Mean urinary diversion times in each group were 68.8, 125.0, and 118.8 minutes, respectively (p=0.001). In the comparison between the ON-I and ON-S group, only operative time was significant. Four patients required a blood transfusion. We had no cases of intraabdominal organ injury or open conversion. Thiry-three patients (94.2%) had a pathologic stage of T2 or higher. Two patients (5.7%) had lymph node-positive disease. Postoperative complications included ileus (n=4), stricture in the uretero-ileal junction (n=2), and vesicovaginal fistula (n=1).

CONCLUSIONS

Our robotic neobladder-suprapubic incision without redocking procedure is easier and more rapid than that of infraumbilical incision with redocking.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: updated systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgery has been practiced as a clinical routine for many decades. However, earlier randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses suggest that MBP should be abandoned before colorectal surgery because of the futility in reducing postoperative complications and motility. The new published results from three RCTs comparing MBP with no MBP in colorectal surgery in 2010 make the updating of systemic review and meta-analysis necessary. The aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of MBP in prevention of postoperative complications for elective colorectal surgery.

METHOD

A literature search was performed mainly in electronic database including Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing MBP with no MBP before colorectal surgery. Septic complications, reoperation, and death were recorded as primary and secondary outcomes. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the QUOROM statement.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs were included in our analysis with a total number of 5,373 patients: 2,682 with MBP and 2,691 without. Comparing with no MBP for elective colorectal surgery, our study showed that MBP had not reduce any postoperative complications when concerning anastomotic leak [odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08 (0.82-1.43); P = 0.56]; overall SSI [OR 95% CI, 1.26 (0.94-1.68); P = 0.12]; extra-abdominal septic complications [OR 95% CI, 0.98 (0.81-1.18); P = 0.81]; wound infections [OR 95% CI, 1.21 (1.00-1.46); P = 0.05]; reoperation or second intervention rate [OR 95% CI, 1.11 (0.86-1.45); P = 0.42]; and death [OR 95% CI, 0.97(0.63-1.48); P = 0.88].

CONCLUSION

No evidence was noted supporting the use of MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. MBP should be omitted in routine clinical practice.

A multicenter evaluation of the role of mechanical bowel preparation in pediatric colostomy takedown

BACKGROUND

In response to studies in adults that have failed to demonstrate a benefit for mechanical bowel preparation in colonic surgery, we sought to evaluate the utility of mechanical bowel preparation in a multicenter, retrospective study of children who underwent colostomy takedown.

METHODS

The records of 272 children who underwent colostomy takedown at 3 large children's hospitals were reviewed, and the utilization of mechanical bowel preparation and perioperative antibiotics was noted. Length of stay and the incidences of wound, anastomotic, and other complications were compared.

RESULTS

A polyethylene glycol bowel prep was administered to 187 children. All subjects received perioperative, intravenous antibiotics, and 52% of those with bowel preps received preoperative oral antibiotics. Subjects in the bowel prep group had a significantly higher incidence of wound infection (P = .04) and longer length of stay (P = .05). Oral antibiotics did not affect outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a mechanical bowel preparation in children before colostomy takedown was associated with a greater risk for wound infection, no protection from other complications, and a longer length of stay. This suggests that bowel preparation may be safely omitted in many children who undergo colonic surgery, thereby reducing cost and discomfort.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols: Time to change practice?

Radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection remains the standard treatment for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. Despite improvements in surgical technique, anesthesia and perioperative care, radical cystectomy is still associated with greater morbidity and prolonged in-patient stay after surgery than other urological procedures. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are multimodal perioperative care pathways designed to achieve early recovery after surgical procedures by maintaining preoperative organ function and reducing the profound stress response following surgery. The key elements of ERAS protocols include preoperative counselling, optimization of nutrition, standardized analgesic and anesthetic regimens and early mobilization. Despite the significant body of evidence indicating that ERAS protocols lead to improved outcomes, they challenge traditional surgical doctrine, and as a result their implementation has been slow.The present article discusses particular aspects of ERAS protocols which represent fundamental shifts in surgical practice, including perioperative nutrition, management of postoperative ileus and the use of mechanical bowel preparation.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage, but the belief that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications is based on observational data and expert opinions only.An enema before the rectal surgery to clean the rectum and facilitate the manipulation for the mechanical anastomosis is used for many surgeons. This is analysed separately

OBJECTIVES

To determine the security and effectiveness of MBP on morbidity and mortality in colorectal surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Publications describing trials of MBP before elective colorectal surgery were sought through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IBECS and The Cochrane Library; by handsearching relevant medical journals and conference proceedings, and through personal communication with colleagues.Searches were performed December 1, 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants submitted for elective colorectal surgery. Eligible interventions included any type of MBP compared with no MBP. Primary outcomes included anastomosis leakage - both rectal and colonic - and combined figures. Secondary outcomes included mortality, peritonitis, reoperation, wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, and overall surgical site infections.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of randomisation, blinding, type of analysis, and number lost to follow up were recorded. For analysis, the Peto-Odds Ratio (OR) was used as the default (no statistical heterogeneity was observed).

MAIN RESULTS

At this update six trials and a new comparison (Mechanical bowel preparation versus enema) were added. Altogether eighteen trials were analysed, with 5805 participants; 2906 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2899 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation Versus No Mechanical Bowel Preparation results were:1. Anastomotic leakage for low anterior resection: 8.8% (38/431) of Group A, compared with 10.3% (43/415) of Group B; Peto OR 0.88 [0.55, 1.40].2. Anastomotic leakage for colonic surgery: 3.0% (47/1559) of Group A, compared with 3.5% (56/1588) of Group B; Peto OR 0.85 [0.58, 1.26].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (101/2275) of Group A, compared with 4.5% (103/2258) of Group B; Peto OR 0.99 [0.74, 1.31].4. Wound infection: 9.6% (223/2305) of Group A, compared with 8.5% (196/2290) of Group B; Peto OR 1.16 [0.95, 1.42].Sensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation (A) Versus Rectal Enema (B) results were:1. Anastomotic leakage after rectal surgery: 7.4% (8/107) of Group A, compared with 7.9% (7/88) of Group B; Peto OR 0.93 [0.34, 2.52].2. Anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery: 4.0% (11/269) of Group A, compared with 2.0% (6/299) of Group B; Peto OR 2.15 [0.79, 5.84].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (27/601) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (21/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.32 [0.74, 2.36].4. Wound infection: 9.9% (60/601) of Group A, compared with 8.0% (49/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 [0.85, 1.88].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the inclusion of more studies with a total of 5805 participants, there is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation, nor the use of rectal enemas. In colonic surgery the bowel cleansing can be safely omitted and induces no lower complication rate. The few studies focused in rectal surgery suggested that mechanical bowel preparation could be used selectively, even though no significant effect was found. Further research on patients submitted for elective rectal surgery, below the peritoneal verge, in whom bowel continuity is restored, and studies with patients submitted to laparoscopic surgeries are still warranted.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage, but the belief that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications is based on observational data and expert opinions only.An enema before the rectal surgery to clean the rectum and facilitate the manipulation for the mechanical anastomosis is used for many surgeons. This is analysed separately

OBJECTIVES

To determine the security and effectiveness of MBP on morbidity and mortality in colorectal surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Publications describing trials of MBP before elective colorectal surgery were sought through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IBECS and The Cochrane Library; by handsearching relevant medical journals and conference proceedings, and through personal communication with colleagues.Searches were performed December 1, 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants submitted for elective colorectal surgery. Eligible interventions included any type of MBP compared with no MBP. Primary outcomes included anastomosis leakage - both rectal and colonic - and combined figures. Secondary outcomes included mortality, peritonitis, reoperation, wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, and overall surgical site infections.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of randomisation, blinding, type of analysis, and number lost to follow up were recorded. For analysis, the Peto-Odds Ratio (OR) was used as the default (no statistical heterogeneity was observed).

MAIN RESULTS

At this update six trials and a new comparison (Mechanical bowel preparation versus enema) were added. Altogether eighteen trials were analysed, with 5805 participants; 2906 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2899 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation Versus No Mechanical Bowel Preparation results were:1. Anastomotic leakage for low anterior resection: 8.8% (38/431) of Group A, compared with 10.3% (43/415) of Group B; Peto OR 0.88 [0.55, 1.40].2. Anastomotic leakage for colonic surgery: 3.0% (47/1559) of Group A, compared with 3.5% (56/1588) of Group B; Peto OR 0.85 [0.58, 1.26].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (101/2275) of Group A, compared with 4.5% (103/2258) of Group B; Peto OR 0.99 [0.74, 1.31].4. Wound infection: 9.6% (223/2305) of Group A, compared with 8.5% (196/2290) of Group B; Peto OR 1.16 [0.95, 1.42].Sensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation (A) Versus Rectal Enema (B) results were:1. Anastomotic leakage after rectal surgery: 7.4% (8/107) of Group A, compared with 7.9% (7/88) of Group B; Peto OR 0.93 [0.34, 2.52].2. Anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery: 4.0% (11/269) of Group A, compared with 2.0% (6/299) of Group B; Peto OR 2.15 [0.79, 5.84].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (27/601) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (21/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.32 [0.74, 2.36].4. Wound infection: 9.9% (60/601) of Group A, compared with 8.0% (49/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 [0.85, 1.88].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the inclusion of more studies with a total of 5805 participants, there is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation, nor the use of rectal enemas. In colonic surgery the bowel cleansing can be safely omitted and induces no lower complication rate. The few studies focused in rectal surgery suggested that mechanical bowel preparation could be used selectively, even though no significant effect was found. Further research on patients submitted for elective rectal surgery, below the peritoneal verge, in whom bowel continuity is restored, and studies with patients submitted to laparoscopic surgeries are still warranted.

Standard perioperative management in gastrointestinal surgery

INTRODUCTION

The outcome of patients who are scheduled for gastrointestinal surgery is influenced by various factors, the most important being the age and comorbidities of the patient, the complexity of the surgical procedure and the management of postoperative recovery. To improve patient outcome, close cooperation between surgeons and anaesthesiologists (joint risk assessment) is critical. This cooperation has become increasingly important because more and more patients are being referred to surgery at an advanced age and with multiple comorbidities and because surgical procedures and multimodal treatment modalities are becoming more and more complex.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to provide clinicians with practical recommendations for day-to-day decision-making from a joint surgical and anaesthesiological point of view. The discussion centres on gastrointestinal surgery specifically.

Mechanical bowel preparation does not influence outcomes following colonic cancer resection

Background

Meta-analyses have indicated that preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) confers no clear benefit and may indeed be harmful for patients with colorectal cancer. The effects of bowel preparation on longer-term outcomes have not been reported. The aim was to compare long-term survival and surgical complications in patients who did or did not receive MBP before surgery for colonic cancer.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing potentially curative surgery for colonic cancer after routine hospital admission in the West of Scotland between January 2000 and December 2005. Clinical audit data were linked to cancer registrations and death certificates. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used to explore determinants of survival.

Results

A total of 1730 patients underwent potentially curative surgery for colonic cancer, of whom 886 (51·2 per cent) were men. The mean(s.d.) age was 69·7(10·6) years. Some 1460 patients (84·4 per cent) received MBP. Median follow-up was 3·5 (range 0·1–6·7) years. There were no statistically significant differences in 30-day postoperative complication rates between groups. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death from all causes for patients treated with MBP (versus no MBP) was 0·72 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·57 to 0·91). Multivariable analysis with adjustment for age, sex, socioeconomic circumstances, disease stage and presentation for surgery showed that MBP had no independent effect on all-cause mortality (HR 0·85, 0·67 to 1·10).

Conclusion

Neither postoperative complications nor long-term survival are improved by MBP before colonic cancer surgery.

Pediatric surgery and the human microbiome

Bold advances in the past decade have made it possible to carefully study the contributions of microbes to normal human development and to disease pathogenesis. The intestinal microbiota has been implicated in adult diseases ranging from obesity to cancer, but there have been relatively few investigations of bacteria in surgical diseases of infancy and childhood. In this review, we discuss how novel culture-independent approaches have been harnessed to profile microbes present within clinical specimens. Unique features of the pediatric microbiota and innovative approaches to manipulate the gut flora are also reviewed. Finally, we detail the contributions of gut microbes to 3 diseases relevant to pediatric surgeons: necrotizing enterocolitis, obesity, and inflammatory bowel disease. Current and future research regarding the pediatric microbiota is likely to translate to improved outcomes for infants and children with surgical diseases.