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

Preoperative bowel preparation for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery: a clinical practice guideline endorsed by the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) does not reduce the rate of postoperative complications, many surgeons still use MBP before surgery. We sought to appraise and synthesize the available evidence regarding preoperative bowel preparation in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients who received a bowel preparation with those who did not. Two authors reviewed the abstracts to identify articles for critical appraisal. We used the methods of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to grade study quality and level of evidence, as well as formulate the final recommendations. Outcomes assessed included postoperative infectious complications, such as anastomotic dehiscence and superficial surgical site infections.

RESULTS

Our review identified 14 RCTs and 8 meta-analyses. Based on the quality and content of these original manuscripts, we formulated 6 recommendations for various aspects of bowel preparation in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Taking into account the lack of difference in postoperative infectious complication rates when MBP is omitted and the adverse effects of MBP, we believe that, based on the literature, MBP before surgery should be omitted.

Mechanical bowel preparation for gynecologic laparoscopy: a prospective randomized trial of oral sodium phosphate solution vs single sodium phosphate enema

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of mechanical bowel preparation using oral sodium phosphate (NaP) solution vs single NaP enema on the quality of the surgical field in patients undergoing advanced gynecologic laparoscopic procedures.

DESIGN

Single-blind randomized controlled trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).

SETTING

Academic teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Administration of either oral NaP solution or single NaP enema for preoperative bowel preparation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

One hundred fifty-six women were enrolled, and 145 were randomized to receive either oral NaP solution (n = 72) or NaP enema (n = 73). Sixty-eight women in the oral solution group and 65 in the enema group completed the study. Assessment of the quality of the surgical field and bowel characteristics was performed using a surgeon questionnaire using Likert and visual analog scales. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in evaluation of the surgical field, bowel handling, degree of bowel preparation, or surgical difficulty. Surgical field quality was graded as excellent or good in 85% of women in the oral solution group and 91% of women in the enema group (p = .43). When surgeons were asked to guess the type of preparation used, they were correct only 52% of the time (κ = 0.04). Assessment of patient quality of life in the preoperative period was performed using a self-administered questionnaire using a visual analog scale. Severity of abdominal bloating and swelling, weakness, thirst, dizziness, nausea, fecal incontinence, and overall discomfort were significantly greater in the oral solution group. Women in the oral solution group also rated the preparation as significantly more difficult to administer, and were significantly less willing to try the same preparation in the future.

CONCLUSION

Quality of the surgical field in patients undergoing advanced gynecologic laparoscopic procedures is similar after mechanical bowel preparation using either oral NaP solution and NaP enema. Adverse effects are more severe with oral NaP solution compared with NaP enema administration.

Rectal cancer surgery with or without bowel preparation: The French GRECCAR III multicenter single-blinded randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess with a single-blinded, multicenter, randomized trial, the postoperative results in patients undergoing sphincter-saving rectal resection for cancer without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP).

BACKGROUND

The collective evidence from literature strongly suggests that MBP, before elective colonic surgery, is of no benefit in terms of postoperative morbidity. Very few data and no randomized study are available for rectal surgery and preliminary results conclude toward the safety of rectal resection without MBP.

METHODS

From October 2007 to January 2009, patients scheduled for elective rectal cancer sphincter-saving resection were randomized to receive preoperative MBP (ie, retrograde enema and oral laxatives) or not. Primary endpoint was the overall 30-day morbidity rate. Secondary endpoints included mortality rate, anastomotic leakage rate, major morbidity rate (Dindo III or more), degree of discomfort for the patient, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 178 patients (103 men), including 89 in both groups (no-MBP and MBP groups), were included in the study. The overall and infectious morbidity rates were significantly higher in no-MBP versus MBP group, 44% versus 27%, P = 0.018, and 34% versus 16%, P = 0.005, respectively. Regarding both anastomotic leakage and major morbidity rates, there was no significant difference between no-MBP and MBP group: 19% versus 10% (P = 0.09) and 18% versus 11% (P = 0.69), respectively. Moderate or severe discomfort was reported by 40% of prepared patients. Mortality rate (1.1% vs 3.4%) and mean hospital stay (16 vs 14 days) did not differ significantly between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This first randomized trial demonstrated that rectal cancer surgery without MBP was associated with higher risk of overall and infectious morbidity rates without any significant increase of anastomotic leakage rate. Thus, it suggests continuing to perform MBP before elective rectal resection for cancer.

Intra-abdominal healing: gastrointestinal tract and adhesions

The abdominal cavity represents one of the most active areas of surgical activity. Surgical procedures involving the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are among the most common procedures performed today. Healing of the GI tract after removal of a segment of bowel and healing of the peritoneal surfaces with subsequent adhesion formation remain vexing clinical problems. Interventions to modify both the responses are myriad, yet a full understanding of the pathophysiology of these responses remains elusive. Different aspects of GI and peritoneal healing, with associated factors, are discussed in this article.

Preoperative optimization of Crohn's disease

Patients with Crohn's disease often present to the surgeon for operative intervention in poor overall condition. They may be taking multiple immunomodulators to attempt to manage their disease, may have significant weight loss and evidence of malnutrition, and 10 to 30% of the time will have intraabdominal sepsis in the form of an abscess or fistula. Preoperative optimization of these patients, when possible, may decrease morbidity and mortality, and may avoid formation of stomas for fecal diversion. Enhancing nutritional status and streamlining immunomodulator therapy prior to surgery may improve outcomes. Medical management of intraabdominal sepsis with percutaneous drainage of abdominal or pelvic abscesses may decrease postoperative septic complications, and may even avert the need for surgical intervention altogether.

Difficult vaginal hysterectomy

A difficult vaginal hysterectomy can challenge the most accomplished pelvic surgeon. Large uterine size or prior pelvic surgery is commonly thought to make a vaginal hysterectomy more difficult, but more common issues such as large body habitus or extensive prolapse may make performing a vaginal hysterectomy even more technically challenging. The knowledge and expertise needed to perform a routine vaginal hysterectomy are prerequisites for managing more difficult cases. As techniques in pelvic surgery continue to evolve, it is critical that this minimally invasive procedure continue to be taught and performed.

Efficacy of mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol in prevention of postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) in prevention of postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery.

METHOD

A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was done to identify randomized controlled trials involving comparison of postoperative complications after mechanical bowel preparation with PEG (PEG group) and no preparation (control group). A meta-analysis was set up to distinguish overall difference between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of five randomized controlled trials was identified according to our inclusion criteria. The use of PEG for mechanical bowel preparation did not significantly reduce the rate of surgical site infection (SSI; odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.39 (0.85-2.25); P = 0.19) including incisional SSI (OR 95% CI, 1.44 (0.88-2.33); P = 0.15), organ/space SSI (OR 95% CI, 1.10 (0.43-2.78); P = 0.49), anastomotic leak (OR 95% CI,1.78 (0.95-3.33; P = 0.07), mortality (OR 95% CI, 1.24 (0.37-4.14; P = 0.73), infectious complications (OR 95% CI, 1.14 (0.62-2.08); P = 0.67), and hospital stay (weighted mean difference 95% CI, 2.17 (-2.90-7.25); P = 0.40) except main complications (OR 95% CI, 1.76 (1.09-2.85); P = 0.02), of which the rate increased significantly in the PEG group.

CONCLUSION

The use of mechanical bowel preparation with PEG does not significantly lower postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery.

The influence of mechanical bowel preparation in elective lower colorectal surgery

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on anastomosis below the peritoneal verge and questions the influence of MBP on anastomotic leakage in combination with a diverting ileostomy in lower colorectal surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

In a previous large multicenter randomized controlled trial MBP has shown to have no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in overall colorectal surgery. The role of MBP in lower colorectal surgery with or without a diverting ileostomy remains unclear.

METHODS

This study is a subgroup analysis of a prior multicenter (13 hospitals) randomized trial comparing clinical outcome of MBP versus no MBP. Primary end point was the occurrence of anastomotic leakage and secondary endpoints were septic complications and mortality.

RESULTS

Total of 449 Patients underwent a low anterior resection with a primary anastomosis below the peritoneal verge. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was 7.6% for patients who received MBP and 6.6% for patients who did not. Significant risk factors for anastomotic leakage were the American Society of Anesthesiologists-classification (P = 0.005) and male gender (P = 0.007). Of total, 48 patients received a diverting ileostomy during initial surgery; 27 patients received MBP and 21 patients did not. There were no significant differences regarding septic complications and mortality between both groups.

CONCLUSION

MBP has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in low colorectal surgery. Furthermore, omitting MBP in combination with a diverting ileostomy has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage, septic complications, and mortality rate.

Incidence of Anastomotic Leak in Patients Undergoing Elective Colon Resection without Mechanical Bowel Preparation: Our Updated Experience and Two-year Review

Mechanical bowel preparation before elective colon resection has recently been questioned in the literature. We report a prospective study evaluating the anastomotic leak rate in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. One hundred fifty-three patients undergoing elective colon resection from July 2006 to June 2008 were enrolled into this Institutional Review Board-approved study. All patients were operated on by a single surgeon at a single institution. No patients received mechanical bowel preparation. Of the 153 patients enrolled, 51.6 per cent had a colorectostomy, 32 per cent had an ileocolostomy, 10.4 per cent had a colocolostomy 5.2 per cent had an ileoanal anastomosis, and 0.6 per cent had an ileorectostomy performed. A total of eight patients (5.2%) developed an anastomotic leak. Of these patients, four required reoperation, three were managed with percutaneous drainage, and one was managed with antibiotics alone. Five of the eight patients who developed an anastomotic leak had significant preoperative comorbidities, including neoadjuvant radiation therapy, diabetes mellitus, end-stage renal disease, prior anastomotic leak, and tobacco use. Elective colon resection can be performed safely without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. Vigilance for anastomotic leak must be maintained at all times, especially in patients with comorbidities that predispose to anastomotic leak.

Systematic review of intraoperative colonic irrigation vs. manual decompression in obstructed left-sided colorectal emergencies

AIMS

A systematic review was conducted to determine if manual decompression is a safe alternative to intraoperative colonic irrigation prior to primary anastomosis in obstructed left-sided colorectal emergencies.

METHODS

Search for relevant articles from 1980 to 2007 was conducted on Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using the keywords "colonic lavage, irrigation, decompression, washout, obstructed and bowel preparation", either singularly or in combination. Trials in English publications with similar patient characteristics, inclusion criteria and outcome measures were selected for analysis. Thirty-day mortality, anastomotic leak rates and post-operative wound infection were studied as outcome variables. Analysis was performed with RevMan 4.2 software.

RESULTS

Seven trials were identified for systematic review, with a total of 449 patients. Data from the single randomised controlled trial and one prospective comparative trial were analysed separately. Results from the remaining five studies were pooled into two arms of a composite series, one with colonic irrigation and one without. Results showed no significant difference in the anastomotic leak rates and mortality rates between the colonic irrigation and manual decompression arms in the randomised and comparative trials. The composite series, however, showed significantly better results with manual decompression (RR 6.18, 95% CI 1.67-22.86). The post-operative infection rate was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Manual decompression was comparable to colonic irrigation for primary anastomosis in obstructed left-sided colorectal emergencies, with no significant increase in mortality, leak or infection rates.

Incidence of Surgical Site Infections Postcolorectal Resections without Preoperative Mechanical or Antibiotic Bowel Preparation

This study was performed to determine the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) after colorectal resection in patients without mechanical or antibiotic bowel preparation. A retrospective review of the medical records of 136 consecutive patients undergoing an elective colorectal resection between April 2004 and April 2006 was performed. Indications for colon resection in this series were malignant neoplasia (48%), inflammatory bowel disease (18%), diverticular disease (17%), or other benign disease (17%). Overall, an SSI occurred in 31 patients (23%). An SSI occurred in 16 of 90 patients (17.8%) who received antibiotics within 1 hour before surgery and in 15 of 46 patients (33.3%) who did not receive antibiotics in a timely manner ( P < 0.05). An SSI occurred in seven of 15 patients (46.7%) who received bowel preparation but in only 24 of 121 patients (19.8%) who did not receive either mechanical or antibiotic bowel preparation ( P < 0.029). SSIs were not associated with age, gender, diagnosis, length of procedure, preoperative steroid use, diabetes mellitus, or previous celiotomy. This series shows administration of perioperative antibiotics within 1 hour before surgery is associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of SSI and bowel preparation can be safely omitted.

Plasma magnesium should be monitored perioperatively in patients undergoing colorectal resection

OBJECTIVE

Hypomagnesemia has been shown to have several clinically important sequelae. The aims of this study were: to assess the impact of bowel preparation, with sodium picosulphate (Picolax), on plasma electrolytes, with particular regard to plasma magnesium, in patients undergoing bowel preparation for colonoscopy and colorectal resection and to evaluate the influence of perioperative magnesium levels on postoperative cardiac dysrhythmias.

METHOD

Sixty-one patients receiving sodium picosulphate (Picolax) bowel preparation were studied in two groups: Colonoscopy (31 patients) and Colorectal resection (30 patients). Plasma sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, urea, creatinine and blood haematocrit were measured in all patients prior to commencement of bowel preparation, at the time of colonoscopy or colorectal resection and 24 h postoperatively (surgery group only). Mean electrolyte and haematocrit levels were then compared. Postoperative cardiac dysrhythmias were recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

No significant changes following bowel preparation were observed in plasma sodium, potassium, calcium or creatinine. Plasma urea fell following bowel preparation (colonoscopy P < 0.001, resection P = 0.004) and rose following resection (P = 0.002). Magnesium levels increased following bowel preparation in both groups (colonoscopy P < 0.001, resection P = 0.007) and fell following resection (P < 0.001). Thirty-four per cent (21/60 patients) were hypermagnesemic following bowel preparation and 20% (6/30 patients) became hypomagnesemic following surgery. Postoperative cardiac dysrhythmias were associated with lower magnesium levels at induction and postoperatively (P = 0.022 and P = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

Bowel preparation with Picolax does not appear to cause significant electrolyte disturbance, except in elevating plasma magnesium. Postcolorectal resection plasma magnesium dropped significantly suggesting perioperative monitoring and replacement should be routine following colorectal surgery.

Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials on the role of mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Earlier meta-analyses of small randomized trials suggested that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) should be omitted before colorectal surgery because it does not affect complication rates 0 mortality and may be even harmful; however, more recent large randomized trials suggested an increased occurrence of pelvic abscesses in the absence of MBP. Therefore, an updated large meta-analysis was conducted to re-evaluate the role of MBP in colorectal surgery. Furthermore, the influence of different kind of MBP regimes on infectious outcomes was examined.

METHODS

The meta-analysis was conducted according to the QUOROM statement; the inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing MBP with no MBP before colorectal surgery. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage; secondary outcomes were other septic complications.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included with a total number of 4859 patients: 2452 in the MBP group and 2407 in the no MBP group. We found no statistical difference between the groups for anastomotic leakage [OR = 1.12 (0.82-1.53), P = 0.46], pelvic or abdominal abscess (P = 0.75), and wound sepsis (P = 0.11). When all surgical site infections were considered, the meta-analysis favored no MBP [OR = 1.40 (1.05-1.87), P = 0.02].Sensitivity analyses showed similar results for all subgroups but when poor or small trials were excluded, there was a slightly higher risk of deep abdominal abscesses with no MBP, however, the number needed to harm was as high as 333 patients, suggesting this difference to be not clinically relevant. The use of different MBP regimes did not influence primary and secondary outcomes. The main limitation concerned rectal surgery for which the limited data preclude any interpretation.

CONCLUSION

Although it did not confirm the harmful effect of mechanical bowel preparation (suggested by previous meta-analyses), this meta-analysis including almost 5000 patients, demonstrates with a high level of evidence that any kind of mechanical bowel preparation should be omitted before colonic surgery.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The presence of bowel contents during 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.

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, and The Cochrane Library; by handsearching relevant medical journals and conference proceedings, and through personal communication with colleagues.Searches were performed March 13, 2008.

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

Four new trials were included at this update (total 13 RCTs with 4777 participants; 2390 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2387 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery) .Anastomotic leakage occurred:(i) in 10.0% (14/139) of Group A, compared with 6.6% (9/136) of Group B for low anterior resection; Peto OR 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73 to 4.10).(ii) in 2.9% (32/1226) of Group A, compared with 2.5% (31/1228) of Group B for colonic surgery; Peto OR 1.13 (95% CI: 0.69 to 1.85). Overall anastomotic leakage occurred in 4.2% (102/2398) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (82/2378) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 (95% CI: 0.941 to 1.69). Wound infection occurred in 9.6% (232/2417) of Group A, compared with 8.3% (200/2404) of Group B; Peto OR 1.19 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.45). Sensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from MBP. The belief that MBP is necessary before elective colorectal surgery should be reconsidered. Further research on patients submitted for elective colorectal surgery in whom bowel continuity is restored, with stratification for colonic and rectal surgery, is still warranted.

End-to-end versus end-to-side stapled anastomoses after anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Sphincter-saving procedures for resection of mid and, in some cases, of distal rectal tumors have become prevalent as their safety have been established. Increased anastomotic leak rate, associated with the type of anastomosis and the distance from the anal verge, has been reported. To compare surgical outcomes of end-to-end and end-to-side anastomosis after anterior resection for T1-T2 rectal cancer.

METHODS

During the study period, a total of 298 rectal cancer patients were treated. Patients with T1-T2 rectal cancer (i.e., tumor level < or =15 cm from the anal verge) fit for surgery were asked to participate in the study. Patients were randomized to receive either an end-to-end anastomosis or an end-to-side anastomosis using the left colon. Surgical results and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were randomized. Thirty-seven end-to-end anastomoses and 40 end-to-side anastomoses were performed. Anastomotic leakage after end-to-end anastomosis was 29.2%, while after end-to-side anastomosis was 5% (P = 0.005). In the end-to-end group 11 patients had anastomotic leaks: nine patients needed a re-intervention with colostomy creation subsequently closed in seven cases. Two patients of the end-to-side group experienced anastomotic leakage and were successfully treated conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding postoperative surgical complications, end-to-side anastomosis is a safe procedure.

Single-blinded randomized trial of mechanical bowel preparation for colon surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis

INTRODUCTION

We report the final analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial designed to investigate whether omission of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation increases the rate of surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure after elective colon surgery with intraperitoneal anastomosis by a single surgeon.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo an elective colon or proximal rectal resection with a primary anastomosis by a single surgeon were randomized to receive either oral polyethylene glycol (Group A) or no mechanical bowel preparation (Group B). Patients were followed by an independent surgeon.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty nine patients were enrolled. Three patients (2%) were preoperatively excluded because of active immunosuppression and 13 (9%) were excluded from the final analysis. Of the remaining 129 patients, 65 were assigned to Group A and 64 to Group B. Thirty patients (23.2%) developed wound infection, (Group A = 24.6% and Group B = 17.2%; NS). There were three cases of intra-abdominal sepsis a (Group A 4.6%). The anastomotic failure rate was 5.4% (n = 7), four patients in Group A (6.2%) vs. three patients in Group B (4.7%) (NS). When SSI and anastomotic failure were combined, the complication rate in Group A was 35.4% vs. 21.9% for Group B. The NNH was 7.4.

CONCLUSION

Our final analysis shows that a single surgeon will not have a higher rate of either surgical-site infection or anastomotic failure if he/she routinely omits preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.

Mechanical bowel preparation for colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis on abdominal and systemic complications on almost 5,000 patients

BACKGROUND

Several studies concluded that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) does not confer any advantage on reducing the anastomotic leak rate or wound infections. The aim of this meta-analysis was to review all prospective randomised controlled trials on the use of MBP before colorectal surgery in order to find differences in the rates of abdominal and systemic complications in view of recent published articles.

METHODS

Review of all randomised prospective trials compare MBP vs. non-MBP. Primary outcome measures were anastomotic leakages, abdomino-pelvic abscesses and postoperative ileus. Secondary outcomes were wound infections, extra-abdominal complications (urinary infections, pulmonary infections, deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, cardiac events), sepsis and mortality.

RESULTS

Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria with 4,919 patients. The non-MBP group showed no significant increase of the anastomotic leakages (3.4% vs. 4.1%; p = NS) and wound infections (8.7% vs. 9.6%; p = NS) but had a lower rate of postoperative cardiac events (2.5% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

The evidence from recent studies, combined with previous ones, further suggests that the dogma of the necessity of mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery should be reconsidered.

Mechanical bowel preparation in intestinal surgery: a meta-analysis and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Despite several meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials showing no benefit to patients, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) remains the standard of practice for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature of trials that prospectively compared MBP with no MBP for patients undergoing elective colorectal resection. We searched MEDLINE, LILACS, and SCISEARCH, abstracts of pertinent scientific meetings and reference lists for each article found. Experts in the field were queried as to knowledge of additional reports. Outcomes abstracted were anastomotic leaks and wound infections. Meta-analysis was performed using Peto Odds ratio.

RESULTS

Of 4,601 patients (13 trials), 2,304 received MBP (Group 1) and 2,297 did not (Group 2). Anastomotic leaks occurred in 97(4.2%) patients in Group 1 and in 81(3.5%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.214, CI 95%:0.899-1.64, P = 0.206). Wound infections occurred in 227(9.9%) patients in Group 1 and in 201(8.8%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.156, CI 95%:0.946-1.413, P = 0.155).

DISCUSSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that MBP provides no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, thus, supporting elimination of routine MBP in elective colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, MBP is of no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal resection and need not be recommended to meet "standard of care."

Clinical trial: alvimopan for the management of post-operative ileus after abdominal surgery: results of an international randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled clinical study

BACKGROUND

Post-operative ileus (POI) affects most patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

AIM

To evaluate the effect of alvimopan, a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, on POI by negating the impact of opioids on gastrointestinal (GI) motility without affecting analgesia in patients outside North America.

METHODS

Adult subjects undergoing open abdominal surgery (n = 911) randomly received oral alvimopan 6 or 12 mg, or placebo, 2 h before, and twice daily following surgery. Opioids were administered as intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) or bolus injection. Time to recovery of GI function was assessed principally using composite endpoints in subjects undergoing bowel resection (n = 738).

RESULTS

A nonsignificant reduction in mean time to tolerate solid food and either first flatus or bowel movement (primary endpoint) was observed for both alvimopan 6 and 12 mg; 8.5 h (95% CI: 0.9, 16.0) and 4.8 h (95% CI: -3.2, 12.8), respectively. However, an exploratory post hoc analysis showed that alvimopan was more effective in the PCA (n = 317) group than in the non-PCA (n = 318) group. Alvimopan was well tolerated and did not reverse analgesia.

CONCLUSION

Although the significant clinical effect of alvimopan on reducing POI observed in previous trials was not reproduced, this trial suggests potential benefit in bowel resection patients who received PCA.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation is a common practice before elective colorectal surgery. We aimed to compare the rate of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal resections and primary anastomoses between patients who did or did not have mechanical bowel preparation.

METHODS

We did a multicentre randomised non-inferiority study at 13 hospitals. We randomly assigned 1431 patients who were going to have elective colorectal surgery to either receive mechanical bowel preparation or not. Patients who did not have mechanical bowel preparation had a normal meal on the day before the operation. Those who did were given a fluid diet, and mechanical bowel preparation with either polyethylene glycol or sodium phosphate. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage, and the study was designed to test the hypothesis that patients who are given mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery do not have a lower risk of anastomotic leakage than those who are not. The median follow-up was 24 days (IQR 17-34). We analysed patients who were treated as per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00288496.

FINDINGS

77 patients were excluded: 46 who did not have a bowel resection; 21 because of missing outcome data; and 10 who withdrew, cancelled, or were excluded for other reasons. The rate of anastomotic leakage did not differ between both groups: 32/670 (4.8%) patients who had mechanical bowel preparation and 37/684 (5.4%) in those who did not (difference 0.6%, 95% CI -1.7% to 2.9%, p=0.69). Patients who had mechanical bowel preparation had fewer abscesses after anastomotic leakage than those who did not (2/670 [0.3%] vs 17/684 [2.5%], p=0.001). Other septic complications, fascia dehiscence, and mortality did not differ between groups.

INTERPRETATION

We advise that mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery can safely be abandoned.

Rectal cancer surgery without mechanical bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

: Eight randomized clinical trials and two meta-analyses recently questioned the value of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colorectal surgery. However, very few patients having rectal surgery were included in these studies. The aim of this study was to assess whether rectal cancer surgery can be performed safely without MBP.

METHODS

The postoperative course was assessed in 52 consecutive unselected patients who underwent rectal cancer resection and sphincter preservation without MBP. This group was compared with a group of 61 matched patients in whom MBP was performed before surgery.

RESULTS

The overall morbidity rate after rectal resection was higher in patients who had MBP than in those who did not (51 versus 31 per cent; P = 0.036). The incidence of symptomatic anastomotic leakage was similar in the two groups (8 versus 10 per cent respectively; P = 1.000). Although not significant, peritonitis occurred more frequently in the absence of MBP (2 versus 6 per cent; P = 0.294). A trend towards a higher rate of infectious complications was noted in patients who had MBP (23 versus 12 per cent; P = 0.141), but MBP was associated with a significantly higher rate of infectious extra-abdominal complications (11 versus 0 per cent; P = 0.014). Mean hospital stay was significantly longer in the MBP group (12 versus 10 days; P = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Elective rectal surgery for cancer without MBP may be associated with reduced postoperative morbidity.

Nerve-Sparing Radical Cystectomy and Orthotopic Bladder Replacement in Female Patients

OBJECTIVES

Orthotopic diversion, initially performed solely in men, has now become a viable option in women. Approximately 15 yr ago, at several centres, urethra-sparing cystectomy and orthotopic diversion were initiated in women with bladder cancer. Several studies have since addressed both the oncologic and functional outcomes of this procedure.

METHODS

We describe our surgical technique of cystectomy and orthotopic urinary diversion in female patients, with an emphasis on how we preserve the neurovascular bundle.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

An improved understanding of the anatomic neurovascular and fascial planes related to the rhabdosphincter has facilitated identification of elements needed for orthotopic diversion in female patients. The technique of en bloc anterior exenteration includes the anterior portion of the vagina; however, preservation of the rhabdosphincter and its autonomic nerve supply necessitates specific modifications of the standard operation. The video provides a detailed description of our surgical technique with attention to anatomic details necessary to avoid damage to the proximal urethra and to preserve the autonomic innervation of the rhabdosphincter.

The use of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to elective colorectal surgery has been in use for many years. It is considered important in preventing post-operative infectious complications after colorectal surgery. The evidence to support these claims is lacking within the medical literature and yet this still remains standard practice in many hospitals. A literature search was undertaken to ascertain the evidence available regarding the use of MBP in elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The search included the databases PubMed, Medline and Embase using the keywords "mechanical bowel preparation", "bowel cleansing" and "elective colorectal surgery", a search of recent issues of relevant journals including Diseases of the Colon and Rectum and British Journal of Surgery and backward chaining from articles obtained.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Most authors recommend that colorectal surgery is safe without pre-operative MBP but that there may some situations in which it may be beneficial (e.g. if there is a small tumour or the possible need for intra-operative colonoscopy). The implication for clinical practice in this situation is that there is not enough strength of evidence at present to recommend a change in practice. There is a need for further higher powered trials to try to answer this question definitively.

Multicentre randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colonic resection

Background

Recent studies have suggested that MBP does not lower the risk of postoperative septic complications after elective colorectal surgery. This randomized clinical trial assessed whether preoperative MBP is beneficial in elective colonic surgery.

Methods

A total of 1505 patients, aged 18–85 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists grades I–III, were randomized to MBP or no MBP before open elective surgery for cancer, adenoma or diverticular disease of the colon. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular, general infectious and surgical-site complications within 30 days, and secondary endpoints were death and reoperations within 30 days.

Results

A total of 1343 patients were evaluated, 686 randomized to MBP and 657 to no MBP. There were no significant differences in overall complications between the two groups: cardiovascular complications occurred in 5·1 and 4·6 per cent respectively, general infectious complications in 7·9 and 6·8 per cent, and surgical-site complications in 15·1 and 16·1 per cent. At least one complication was recorded in 24·5 per cent of patients who had MBP and 23·7 per cent who did not.

Conclusion

MBP does not lower the complication rate and can be omitted before elective colonic resection. Registration number: ISRCTN28535118 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Laparoscopic resection of curable colon and rectal cancer: an evidence-based review

The initial enthusiastic application of laparoscopic techniques to colorectal surgical procedures was tempered in the early 1990s by reports of tumor implants in the laparoscopic incisions. Substantial evidence has accumulated, including evidence from randomized controlled trials, to support that laparoscopic resection results in oncologic outcomes similar to open resection, when performed by well-trained, experienced surgeons. This review was developed in conjunction with guidelines published by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Data from the surgical literature concerning laparoscopic resection of curable colorectal cancer was evaluated regarding diagnostic evaluation, preoperative preparation, operative techniques, prevention of tumor implants, and training and experience. Recommendations are accompanied by an assessment of the level of supporting evidence available at the time of the development of the guidelines.

Preoperative mechanical preparation of the colon: the patient's experience

Background

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation can be questioned as standard procedure in colon surgery, based on the result from several randomised trials.

Methods

As part of a large multicenter trial, 105 patients planned for elective colon surgery for cancer, adenoma, or diverticulitis in three hospitals were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding perceived health including experience with bowel preparation. There were 39 questions, each having 3 – 10 answer alternatives, dealing with food intake, pain, discomfort, nausea/vomiting, gas distension, anxiety, tiredness, need of assistance with bowel preparation, and willingness to undergo the procedure again if necessary.

Results

60 patients received mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and 45 patients did not (No-MBP). In the MBP group 52% needed assistance with bowel preparation and 30% would consider undergoing the same preoperative procedure again. In the No-MBP group 65 % of the patients were positive to no bowel preparation. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to postoperative pain and nausea. On Day 4 (but not on Days 1 and 7 postoperatively) patients in the No-MBP group perceived more discomfort than patients in the MBP group, p = 0.02. Time to intake of fluid and solid food did not differ between the two groups. Bowel emptying occurred significantly earlier in the No-MBP group than in the MBP group, p = 0.03.

Conclusion

Mechanical bowel preparation is distressing for the patient and associated with a prolonged time to first bowel emptying.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis by a single surgeon: interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial

We report an interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial designed to investigate whether preoperative mechanical bowel preparation influences the rate of surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure after elective colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis performed by a single surgeon. Patients scheduled to undergo an elective colorectal procedure with a primary intraperitoneal anastomosis were randomized to receive either oral polyethylene glycol lavage solution and enemas (group A) or no preparation (group B). Surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure were investigated. Of 97 patients included, 48 were assigned to group A and 49 to group B. Twelve (12.4%) developed wound infections, six in each group (12.5 vs. 12.2%; NS). Intra-abdominal sepsis was only seen in group A (n = 3, 6.3%). Anastomotic failure occurred in four patients in group A (8.3%) vs. two patients in group B (4.1%) (NS). The overall complication rate in group A was 27.1%, vs. 16.3% in group B. The number needed to harm was 9.3. Our interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial suggests that a surgeon may have the same or even worse outcomes when mechanical bowel preparation is routinely used for colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis.

Preparar el colon para la cirugía. ¿Necesidad real o nada más (y nada menos) que el peso de la tradición?

Mechanical bowel preparation is a traditional procedure for preparing patients for colorectal surgery. This practice aims to reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications since colonic fecal content has classically been related to stool spillage during surgery and anastomotic disruption. However, increasing evidence against its routine use can be found in experimental studies, clinical observations, prospective studies, and meta-analyses. We performed a review of the literature on mechanical bowel preparation and its consequences. There is no clear evidence that preoperative bowel cleansing reduces the septic complications of surgery and routine use of this procedure may increase anastomotic leaks and morbidity. Therefore, the results suggest that mechanical preparation is not required in elective colon and rectal surgery and that its use should be restricted to specific indications such as small nonpalpable tumors to aid their localization during laparoscopic procedures or to enable intraoperative colonoscopy. The role of mechanical bowel preparation in rectal surgery is not well defined and further trials with a larger number of patients are required.

Laparoscopic colectomy without mechanical bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation prior to colorectal surgery may reduce infectious complications, facilitate tumor localization, and allow intraoperative colonoscopy, if required. However, recent data suggest that mechanical bowel preparation may not facilitate a reduction in infectious complications. During laparoscopic colectomy, manual palpation is blunt, thereby potentially compromising tumor localization. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of mechanical bowel preparation in laparoscopic colectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective medical record review of all patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: those who had preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (Group A) or those who did not (Group B). All relevant perioperative data were reviewed and compared.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy; 68 (34%) were in Group A and 132 (66%) were in Group B. Sixteen (8%) patients required intraoperative colonoscopy for localization and were evenly distributed between the two groups. The incidence of conversion to laparotomy was slightly higher in Group B (14 vs 9%) due to difficult localization in some cases; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the postoperative complication rate between the two groups. Specifically, an anastomotic leak and a wound infection were recorded in 4 and 12% of patients in Group A compared to 3 and 17% in Group B, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colectomy may be safely performed without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation, although difficult localization may lead to a slightly higher conversion rate. Appropriate patient selection for laparoscopic colectomy without mechanical bowel preparation is essential. Furthermore, bowel preparation should be considered in cases of small and nonpalpable lesions.

Anastomotic disruption after large bowel resection

Anastomotic disruption is a feared and serious complication of colon surgery. Decades of research have identified factors favoring successful healing of anastomoses as well as risk factors for anastomotic disruption. However, some factors, such as the role of mechanical bowel preparation, remain controversial. Despite proper caution and excellent surgical technique, some anastomotic leaks are inevitable. The rapid identification of anastomotic leaks and the timely treatment in these cases are paramount.

Randomized clinical trial of bowel preparation with a single phosphate enema or polyethylene glycol before elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

A recent meta-analysis has questioned the value of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colorectal resection. The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate whether a single phosphate enema was as effective as oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in preventing anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive either a single phosphate enema or 3 litres of oral PEG solution before surgery. Patients were followed for a minimum of 6 weeks to detect anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

There were 147 patients in each group and the groups were evenly matched for putative risk factors at baseline. Patients in the enema group had more anastomotic leaks requiring reoperation than those in the PEG group (4.1 versus 0 per cent, P = 0.013; relative risk 2.04 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1.82 to 2.30)). The mortality rate was higher in the PEG group (2.7 versus 0.7 per cent, P = 0.176; odds ratio 1.62 (95 per cent c.i. 0.45 to 36.98)).

CONCLUSION

Bowel preparation with a phosphate enema was associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage requiring reoperation compared with oral PEG. These results do not support the routine use of a phosphate enema in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Preoperative evaluation of colorectal cancer

Surgery is a primary modality for the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. Before any surgical therapy, patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer require an evaluation. This preoperative evaluation can be used to assess the patient's risk associated with surgery, plan the surgical resection, and stage the patient's cancer. Staging of the cancer preoperatively is primarily of concern in rectal cancer patients. This article focuses on the elective surgical setting and the recommended preoperative evaluation of patients who have been diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

Management of civilian extraperitoneal rectal injuries

OBJECTIVE

The mortality and morbidity of rectal injuries are highly unsatisfactory. We retrospectively reviewed our experience with rectal injuries to draw some practical guidelines for management of such injuries.

METHODS

The medical records of all patients diagnosed at our hospitals with full-thickness rectal injuries between 1994 and 2003 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Full-thickness rectal injuries were identified in 23 patients; 19 patients had extraperitoneal injuries and four had both intra- and extraperitoneal injuries. The mean age was 33.5 years (range, 5-73 years). The mechanism of injury was penetrating in 11 patients, blunt in six, impalement in three and iatrogenic in three. Injuries were closed primarily in 17 patients, with variable combinations of adjunct procedures. Eight patients were treated without colostomy. Drainage and rectal washout were performed in 11 and six patients, respectively. Overall, 11 patients developed complications, including eight wound infections and five pelvic septic complications related to the rectal injury. Four of the five pelvic septic complications and all three deaths occurred in patients with shock, at least two associated-organ injuries and more than 6 hours' delay in treatment.

CONCLUSION

Rectal injuries are serious additive mortality and morbidity factors in multi-injured patients. Regardless of treatment modality, wound infection is associated with shock at presentation and more than 6 hours' delay in treatment.

[Feasibility of colorectal surgery without colonic preparation. A prospective study]

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), aimed at reducing the infectious complications of colorectal surgery, was considered as indispensable. This benefit is actually disputed. The aim of this study was to report an experience of colorectal surgery without MBP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hundred ninety patients without MBP and without low residue diet, who underwent colorectal surgery with primary anastomosis not requiring a diverting stoma were included. The main outcome were the rate of mortality, anastomotic leak, wound infection and intra-abdominal abscess. Secondary outcomes were duration of intravenous perfusion, nasogastric aspiration, total hospitalisation stay and time to realimentation.

RESULTS

The procedure was performed by laparotomy (n=142) or laparoscopy (n=48). Forty-eight patients underwent emergency surgery. Ninety-two patients were operated for malignancy. The rate of mortality was 6.3% in correlation with the scale of AFC. The rate of anastomotic leak was 3.7%. The rate of specific morbidity was independent of scale of AFC on the contrary to the frequency of non-specific complications. The mean duration of intravenous perfusion and nasogastric suction were 6 days and 0.3 day. The patient had normal diet to the 4th day (4+/-3 days). The mean hospital stay was 13.4 days.

CONCLUSION

The colorectal surgery without MBP may be safely performed and could improve the quality of life of patients in the perioperatory period.

Surgical decision-making: integrating evidence, inference, and experience

Evidence-based medicine provides a well-developed framework for evaluation of clinical research. Well-designed and adequately powered randomized controlled trials provide the best information on therapeutic efficacy; however, extrapolation of the trials' conclusions to individual patients may be difficult, and for many important surgical problems, trial data are unavailable. A complementary approach of inferential decision-making helps address these limitations, and increases the clinician's confidence in the safety of an approach of unknown efficacy. Experience establishes norms and expectations, and emphasizes events that are uncommon but clinically important. Although it cannot eliminate uncertainty or controversy, the integration of analytic techniques of evidence, inference, and experience provides the surgeon with the best means of adapting treatment to the unique circumstances of the individual patient.

Mechanical bowel preparation before gynecologic laparoscopy: a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before gynecologic laparoscopy, using as the primary endpoint the appropriateness of the surgical field as judged by the surgeon.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blind clinical trial.

SETTING

Academic department specializing in gynecologic surgery.

PATIENT(S)

One-hundred sixty-two patients scheduled for laparoscopy.

INTERVENTION(S)

The evening before laparoscopy, patients were randomized to either MBP with 90 mL of oral sodium phosphate (NaP) or no bowel preparation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Patient discomfort was evaluated with a visual analogue scale. Bowel preparation was evaluated by a surgeon (blind to bowel-preparation status) using a 5-point scale. Surgical difficulty, operating times, and postoperative complications were recorded.

RESULT(S)

Preoperative discomfort was significantly greater in the MBP group. No significant difference in the evaluation of the surgical field, operative difficulty, operative time, and postoperative complications was present between the two groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

Bowel preparation with oral NaP does not offer any significant advantage in patients undergoing laparoscopy for benign gynecologic conditions. In addition, MBP significantly increases preoperative discomfort.

Randomized clinical trial of multimodal optimization of surgical care in patients undergoing major colonic resection

BACKGROUND

The aim of this trial was to compare multimodal optimization with conventional perioperative management in a consecutive series of patients undergoing a wide range of colorectal procedures.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients undergoing major elective colonic resection were recruited prospectively. Patients were randomized to receive a ten-point multimodal optimization package or conventional perioperative care. All patients were administered epidural analgesia and opiates were avoided. Outcome measures recorded related to length of hospital stay, physical and mental function, and gut function.

RESULTS

Optimization was associated with a significantly shorter median (interquartile range) hospital stay compared with conventional care (5 (4-9) versus 7.5 (6-10) days; P = 0.027). Duration of catheterization (P = 0.022) and duration of intravenous infusion (P = 0.007) were also less. Optimization was associated with a quicker recovery of gut function (P = 0.042). Grip strength was maintained in the postoperative period in the optimized group (P = 0.241) but not in the control group (P = 0.049). There were no differences in morbidity or mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Optimization is safe and results in a significant reduction in postoperative stay along with other improved endpoints. This cannot be directly attributed to improvement in any single outcome measure or to the use of epidural analgesia. Improvements are more likely to be multifactorial and may relate to an earlier return of gut function.

Prospective, randomised study on antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Is it really necessary to use oral antibiotics?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of prophylactic antibiotics in addition to mechanical cleansing is the current standard of care prior to colonic surgery. The question of whether the antibiotics should be administered intravenously or orally, or by both routes, remains controversial. Our aim was to compare three methods of prophylactic antibiotic administration in elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred consecutive elective colorectal resections were studied. All patients had preoperative mechanical colon cleansing with oral sodium phosphate and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis with cefoxitin (one dose before skin incision and two postoperative doses). Patients were randomised to one of the following three groups: group A: three doses of oral antibiotic (neomycin and metronidazole) at the time of mechanical colon cleansing; group B: one dose of oral antibiotic; group C: no oral antibiotics. All patients were followed during their hospital stay and at 7, 14 and 30 days post-surgery.

RESULTS

Vomiting occurred in 31%, 11% and 9% of the studied patients (groups A, B and C, respectively) (p<0.001). Nausea was present in 44%, 18% and 13% of patients (p<0.001). Abdominal pain was recorded in 13%, 10% and 4% of patients (p: 0.077). Wound infection was present in 7%, 8% and 6% and suture dehiscence occurred in 2%, 2% and 3% of the patients in the three groups (no differences among them). Neither were differences found among the three groups in terms of urinary infections, pneumonia, postoperative ileus or intra-abdominal abscess.

CONCLUSION

The addition of three doses of oral antibiotics to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with lower patient tolerance in terms of increased nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain, and has shown no advantages in the prevention of postoperative septic complications. Therefore, we recommend that oral antibiotics should not be used prior to colorectal surgery.

Complete single-stage management of left colon cancer obstruction with a new device

BACKGROUND

A newly developed device that enables easy intraoperative colonic irrigation and subsequent colonoscopy was introduced recently.

METHODS

To evaluate the efficacy of the single-stage procedure with a new device and the significance of on-table colonoscopy, 112 patients with obstructive left colon cancer were recruited.

RESULTS

Primary anastomosis after tumor resection was performed in 104 cases. The volume of saline used for irrigation averaged 13.5 l over 12.1 min. Subsequent colonoscopic examination added an average of 10.4 min to the operative time. There were three anastomotic leaks, two wound infections, four acute renal failures, and two operative mortalities. On-table colonoscopy resulted in extended resection in 17 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The new device enabled safe, simple, and time-saving, single-stage surgical management of left colon cancer obstruction. The ability to perform on-table colonoscopy enabled treatment and recognition of synchronous bowel pathology.

Mortality and morbidity after surgery of mid and low rectal cancer. Results of a French prospective multicentric study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to assess both mortality and morbidity following resection of mid and low rectal cancers in a French prospective multicentric study.

PATIENTS

From June to September 2002, consecutive patients undergoing resection for cancer of the mid- or lower rectum were prospectively included in a multicentric study. Both postoperative mortality and morbidity were recorded. Multivariate statistical analysis was performed in order to assess risk factors predictive of postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

238 patients with a mean age of 66 +/- 13 years (range: 26-88) were included. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was performed in 68% of the patients. Total mesorectal excision was performed in 218 patients (92%), of whom 151 (63%) had a sphincter saving procedure. Six patients died (2.5%). Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 43%, including anastomotic leakage (11%) and reoperation (5%). Mean hospital-in-stay was 20 +/- 16 days (range: 3191). Four independent risk factors of morbidity were found: perioperative fecal contamination (OR = 3.9 [1.1; 13.5]), mean operating time longer than 6 hours (OR = 4.5 [1.7; 12.1]), ASA score > 2 (OR = 3.2 [1.6; 7.9]), and smocking (OR = 3.3 [1.2; 8.9]).

CONCLUSIONS

Resection of cancer involving the middle or lower rectum with sphincter saving procedures was possible in two-thirds of the patients and was associated with 2.5% mortality and 43% morbidity.