Mechanical bowel preparation for colonic resection and anastomosis

The effect of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound related complications: A meta-analysis

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), a routine nursing procedure before paediatric bowel surgery, is widely should in clinical practice, but its necessity remains controversial. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the effect of preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound-related complications in order to analyse the clinical application value of MBP in paediatric bowel surgery. As of November 2023, we searched four online databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. Two investigators screened the collected studies against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and ROBINS-I was used to evaluate the quality of studies. Using RevMan5.3, a meta-analysis of the collected data was performed, and a fixed-effect model or a random-effect model was used to analyse OR, 95% CI, SMD, and MD. A total of 11 studies with 2556 patients were included. Most of studies had moderate-to-severe quality bias. The results of meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications related to postoperative infections in children with MBP before bowel surgery versus those with No MBP, wound infection (OR 1.11, 95% CI:0.76 ~ 1.61, p = 0.59, I2 = 5%), intra-abdominal infection (OR 1.26, 95% CI:0.58 ~ 2.77, p = 0.56, I2 = 9%). There was no significant difference in the risk of postoperative bowel anastomotic leak (OR 1.07, 95% CI:0.68 ~ 1.68, p = 0.78, I2 = 12%), and anastomotic dehiscence (OR 1.67, 95% CI:0.13 ~ 22.20, p = 0.70, I2 = 73%). Patients' intestinal obstruction did not show an advantage of undergoing MBP preoperatively, with an incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR 1.95, 95% CI:0.55 ~ 6.93, p = 0.30, I2 = 0%). Based on existing evidence that preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery did not reduce the risk of postoperative wound complications, we cautiously assume that MBP before surgery is unnecessary for children undergoing elective bowel surgery. However, due to the limited number of study participants selected for this study and the overall low quality of evidence, the results need to be interpreted with caution. It is suggested that more high quality, large-sample, multicenter clinical trials are required to validate our findings.

The Role of Bowel Preparation in Colorectal Surgery: Results of the 2012-2015 ACS-NSQIP Data

OBJECTIVE

To analyze potential benefits with regards to infectious complications with combined use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and ABP in elective colorectal resections.

BACKGROUND

Despite recent literature suggesting that MBP does not reduce infection rate, it still is commonly used. The use of oral antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) has been practiced for decades but its use is also controversial.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective colorectal resection in the 2012 to 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program cohorts were selected. Doubly robust propensity score-adjusted multivariable regression was conducted for infectious and other postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 27,804 subjects were analyzed; 5471 (23.46%) received no preparation, 7617 (32.67%) received MBP only, 1374 (5.89%) received ABP only, and 8855 (37.98%) received both preparations. Compared to patients receiving no preparation, those receiving dual preparation had less surgical site infection (SSI) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.39, P < 0.001], organ space infection (OR = 0.56, P ≤ 0.001), wound dehiscence (OR = 0.43, P = 0.001), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P < 0.001). ABP alone compared to no prep resulted in significantly lower rates of surgical site infection (OR = 0.63, P = 0.001), organ space infection (OR = 0.59, P = 0.005), anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P = 0.002). MBP showed no significant benefit to infectious complications when used as monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined MBP/ABP results in significantly lower rates of SSI, organ space infection, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leak than no preparation and a lower rate of SSI than ABP alone. Combined bowel preparation significantly reduces the rates of infectious complications in colon and rectal procedures without increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection. For patients undergoing elective colon or rectal resection we recommend bowel preparation with both mechanical agents and oral antibiotics whenever feasible.

Routine preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with additive oral antibiotics is associated with a reduced risk of anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing elective oncologic resection for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) following colorectal resection is a serious issue. AL in oncologic patients might negatively affect the overall survival. Recently, mechanical bowel preparation with additive oral antibiotics (MBP + AB) prior to surgery has been suggested as a means of reducing AL. However, it is unclear whether this positive effect is secondary to MBP alone or secondary to the additive oral antibiotic (MBP + AB). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of mechanical bowel preparation with additive oral antibiotics (MBP + AB) and without additive oral antibiotics (MBP - AB) on the rate of AL following colorectal resection for cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing surgical management for colorectal cancer with anastomosis from January 2014 till September 2017 were included for analysis. Cases undergoing MBP + AB were included in the study group. Patients undergoing MBP - AB were included in the control group. Both groups were compared with regard to the rate of AL.

RESULTS

Four hundred and ninety-six patients: 125 undergoing MBP + AB and 371 undergoing MBP - AB were included for analysis. Significantly, more male patients were included in the MBP - AB group compared to the MBP + AB group: 60.1% vs. 45.6% respectively (p = 0.03). Both groups were similar with regard to age distribution and clinicopathological findings (p > 0.05). The rate of AL was significantly higher in the control group (MBP - AB) compared to study group (MBP + AB) (9.1% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Mechanical bowel preparation with additive oral antibiotics prior to elective colorectal resection with anastomosis significantly reduces the risk of AL. Therefore, mechanical bowel preparation with additive non-absorbable oral antibiotics should be recommended in all cases prior to elective colorectal surgery.

Benefits of Bowel Preparation Beyond Surgical Site Infection: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether the administration of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) was associated with reduced surgical site infections (SSIs), which in turn leads to a reduction of non-SSI-related postoperative complications.

BACKGROUND

Administration of MBP/OABP before elective colectomy reduces the incidence of SSI. We hypothesized that reduction of SSI is on causal pathway between the use of MBP/OABP and the reduction of other postoperative complications.

METHODS

The study population consisted of all colectomy cases in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Colectomy Targeted Participant Use Data File for 2012 and 2013. Postoperative outcomes were compared based on the type of bowel preparation: none, MBP only, OABP only, and MBP plus OABP adjusting for other covariates.

RESULTS

The cohort included 19,686 patients. Of these 5060 (25.7%) patients did not receive any form of bowel preparation, 8020 (40.7%) received MBP only, 641 (3.3%) received OABP only, and 5965 (30.3%) received MBP plus OABP. Patients who received MBP plus OABP had a lower incidence of superficial SSI, deep SSI, organ space SSI, any SSI, anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, sepsis, readmission, and reoperation compared with patients who received neither (all P < 0.01). The reduction in SSI incidence was associated with a reduction in wound dehiscence, anastomotic leak, pneumonia, prolonged requirement of mechanical ventilator, sepsis, septic shock, readmission, and reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined MBP plus OABP before elective colectomy was associated with reduced SSI, which ultimately was associated with a reduction in non-SSI-related complications.

The Colectomy Improvement Project: Do Evidence-Based Guidelines Improve Institutional Colectomy Outcomes?

This study evaluates whether increased adherence to eight specific practice parameters leads to improved outcomes in patients undergoing elective colorectal resections. In addition, we analyzed whether physicians with better compliance achieved better patient outcomes. Compliance to practice parameters and subsequent outcomes were compared between two groups relative to an educational intervention promoting the eight best practice guidelines selected. A total of 485 patients were identified over a 4-year period and were separated into a pre- (n = 273) and post-education (n = 212) group. After the educational intervention, there was increased compliance in five of the eight practice parameters ( P < 0.05). When outcomes where examined, the readmission rate (2.4% vs 8.4%; P = 0.005) and the incidence of deep surgical infections (0% vs 1.8%; P = 0.01) were significantly decreased when comparing the posteducational group to that of the group before intervention. A lower rate of anastomotic leaks were identified in the posteducation group, but this did not reach significance (1.9% vs 5.1%; P = .09). When analyzed individually, the most compliant physicians achieved better patient outcomes than their peers. Education of the operative team improved adherence to practice parameters and this may have contributed to improving patient outcomes.

The effects of preoperative oral antibiotic use on the development of surgical site infection after elective colorectal resections: A retrospective cohort analysis in consecutively operated 90 patients

PURPOSE

The influence of oral antibiotic use together with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on surgical site infection (SSI) rate, length of hospital stay and total hospital costs in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery were evaluated in this study.

METHODS

Data from 90 consecutive patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between October 2006 and September 2009 was analyzed retrospectively. All patients received MBP. Patients in group A were given oral antibiotics (a total 480 mg of gentamycin, 4 gr of metronidazole in two divided doses and 2 mg of bisacodyl PO), whereas patients in group B received no oral antibiotics. Exclusion criteria were emergent operations, laparoscopic operations, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, intraoperative colonoscopy prior to the creation of an anastomosis or antibiotic use within the previous 10 days. SSI, length of hospital stays and total hospital charges were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patients in both study groups, group A (n = 45) and group B (n = 45), were similar in terms of age, BMI, diverting ileostomy creation, localization and stage of the disease. Patients receiving oral antibiotics demonstrated a lower rate of wound infections (36% vs. 71%, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (8.1 ± 2.4 days vs. 14.2 ± 10.9 days, respectively, p < 0.001) and similar rates for anastomotic leakage (2% vs. 11%, p = 0.20). The mean ± SD total hospital charges were significantly lower in Group A (2.699 ± 0.892$) than that in Group B (4.411 ± 4.995$, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative oral antibiotic use with MBP may provide faster recovery with less SSI and hospital charges.

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.

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.

The role of mechanical bowel preparation before ileal urinary diversion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is still widely promoted as the dogma before patients undergo ileal urinary diversion, an increasing number of clinical trials have suggested that there is no benefit. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of MBP in ileal urinary diversion surgery.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded as well as the Cochrane Library and the Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, from 1966 to January 1, 2013. Clinical trials comparing outcomes of MBP versus no MBP for ileal urinary diversion surgery were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed- or random-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, two randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes, such as bowel leak and bowel obstruction, showed no statistical difference between the two groups. Additionally, the overall mortality rate and death rate related to operation also manifested that MBP does not offer an advantage over the no MBP.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that MBP does not reduce the incidence of perioperative complications in urinary diversion compared with no MBP. However, large randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm this finding.

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.

Early detection of anastomotic leakage after elective low anterior resection

BACKGROUND

Colorectal anastomotic leakage is a serious complication leading to major postoperative morbidity and mortality. In the present study, we investigated the early detection of anastomotic leakage before its clinical presentation.

METHOD

Fifty-six patients with rectal cancer were included prospectively in this study. All patients underwent elective low anterior resection. Peritoneal samples were collected from the abdominal drains at the first, third, and fifth days postoperatively for bacteriological study (quantitative cultures for both aerobes and anaerobes) and cytokines (IL-6, IL-10, TNF) measurement. Patients were divided into two groups: those without symptomatic or clinical evidence of anastomotic leakage (AL; group 1) and those with clinical evidence of AL (group 2). Study variables included hospital stay, wound infection, operative time, blood loss, height of anastomosis, intraperitoneal cytokines, and microbiological study of peritoneal fluid.

RESULT

Clinically evident AL occurred in eight patients (14.3%) and diagnosed postoperatively on median day 6. Intraperitoneal bacterial colonization and cytokine levels were significantly higher in patients with clinical evidence of AL. Wound infection was significantly higher in anastomotic leakage group. The hospital stay for the patients with anastomotic leakage was significantly longer than those without AL (14 ± 1.41 vs. 5.43 ± 0.89 days). A significant difference among two groups was observed regarding operative time, blood loss, blood transfusion, and height of the anastomosis.

CONCLUSION

The peritoneal cytokines levels and intraperitoneal bacterial colonization might be an additional diagnostic tool that can support the decision making of surgeons for early detection of anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery.

Bowel preparation: current status

Despite emerging evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses questioning its use, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to hold an accepted place among surgeons. MBP has been administered to patients for over a century, and though the methods and agents used for intestinal cleansing have evolved over time, many surgeons still embrace MBP as a necessary, essential regimen. The accepted rationale for MBP includes evacuation of stool to allow visualization of the luminal surfaces as well as to reduce the fecal flora, which is believed to translate into lower risk of infectious and anastomotic complications at surgery. The authors describe the history of MBP as it relates to colorectal surgery and review the agents currently used for mechanical bowel preparation. Additionally, they summarize the recent trials, meta-analyses, and other emerging data from the medical literature that suggest MBP offers no benefit as a preoperative measure and question its place in current surgical practice.

[A prospective, randomised, controlled study on the need to mechanically prepare the colon in scheduled colorectal surgery]

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical preparation of the colon (MPC) in colorectal surgery has been a dogma that has been questioned over the last few years. The objective of this study is to demonstrate that morbidity in scheduled colorectal surgery is the same or lower without MPC.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Patients subjected to scheduled left colon and rectal surgery with primary anastomosis randomised into two groups. The "Preparation" group (MPC) received MPC and the "non-preparation" group (No-MPC) had only cleaning enemas. The variables collected were: demographic, oncological, nutritional, risk prediction models and morbidity-mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 193 patients included: 69 received MPC and 71 did not; 89 patients with colocolic anastomosis (MPC, 38; no MPC, 51) and 50 colorectal (MPC, 31; no MPC, 19). Statistically significant differences were seen in the overall analysis in favour of "no preparation" as regards morbidity (43.55 % with MPC and 27% with No MPC) and nosocomial infection (27.5% and 11.4%). There was 11.6% wound infections in the MPC compared to 5.7% in the no MPC, which was not statistically significant. The only mortalities were in the MPC group 2/69 (2.9% of patients). As regards the location of the anastomosis, in the colocolics the differences were more pronounced, with statistically significant differences in the morbidity, anastomosis dehiscence, and nosocomial infection variables. The effect of no MPC was not so evident in colorectal anastomosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that there is no benefit in MPC before surgery in colocolic anastomosis. No-MPC is not associated with a higher morbidity in wound infection or anastomotic dehiscence. In colorectal anastomosis the differences are not so evident, therefore a much bigger series needs to be studied.

[A prospective, randomised, controlled study on the need to mechanically prepare the colon in scheduled colorectal surgery]

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical preparation of the colon (MPC) in colorectal surgery has been a dogma that has been questioned over the last few years. The objective of this study is to demonstrate that morbidity in scheduled colorectal surgery is the same or lower without MPC.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Patients subjected to scheduled left colon and rectal surgery with primary anastomosis randomised into two groups. The "Preparation" group (MPC) received MPC and the "non-preparation" group (No-MPC) had only cleaning enemas. The variables collected were: demographic, oncological, nutritional, risk prediction models and morbidity-mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 193 patients included: 69 received MPC and 71 did not; 89 patients with colocolic anastomosis (MPC, 38; no MPC, 51) and 50 colorectal (MPC, 31; no MPC, 19). Statistically significant differences were seen in the overall analysis in favour of "no preparation" as regards morbidity (43.55 % with MPC and 27% with No MPC) and nosocomial infection (27.5% and 11.4%). There was 11.6% wound infections in the MPC compared to 5.7% in the no MPC, which was not statistically significant. The only mortalities were in the MPC group 2/69 (2.9% of patients). As regards the location of the anastomosis, in the colocolics the differences were more pronounced, with statistically significant differences in the morbidity, anastomosis dehiscence, and nosocomial infection variables. The effect of no MPC was not so evident in colorectal anastomosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that there is no benefit in MPC before surgery in colocolic anastomosis. No-MPC is not associated with a higher morbidity in wound infection or anastomotic dehiscence. In colorectal anastomosis the differences are not so evident, therefore a much bigger series needs to be studied.

Treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies: a comparison of US, UK and Australian surgeons

BACKGROUND

This study sought to identify and compare the current practice of surgeons in Australia, the UK and the US when presented with a left-sided colonic emergency.

METHODS

Questionnaires were posted to 500 US, 500 UK and 500 Australian surgeons. Demographic data were collected regarding the surgeon's age and surgical interest, as well as their preferred method of managing left-sided colonic emergencies (namely obstruction and perforation in stable and unstable patients). The results were analysed using the chi-squared test.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were received from 224 UK surgeons (45%), 180 US surgeons (36%) and 259 Australian surgeons (52%). All the US surgeons had an interest in gastrointestinal surgery, while 31% of the UK surgeons and 22% of Australian surgeons had an interest in colorectal surgery. In a haemodynamically stable patient with a good anaesthetic risk presenting with a complete sigmoid obstruction, significantly more UK (84%) and Australian surgeons (70%) would perform a resection and anastomosis than US surgeons (54%, p<0.0001). Of those with a colorectal interest, 97% of UK surgeons and 80% of Australian surgeons would opt for resection and anastomosis. In a haemodynamically stable patient with a good anaesthetic risk with a perforation of the sigmoid colon and purulent peritonitis, 46% of UK surgeons, 32% of Australian surgeons and 33% of US surgeons would opt for resection and anastomosis, and among colorectal surgeons, 68% of UK surgeons and 50% of Australian surgeons would opt for resection and anastomosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of left-sided colonic emergencies varies depending on geographic location and degree of colorectal subspecialization. While the literature suggests that single-stage procedures are accepted and safe, the reasons for this variation are explored.

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.

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 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.

One stage procedure in the management of acute sigmoid volvulus without colonic lavage

BACKGROUND

There is a growing acceptance of one-stage primary resection and anastomosis of left-sided colon obstruction with on-table antegrade colonic lavage to reduce the risk of post-operative infectious complications and anastomotic dehiscence. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of single-stage resection and anastomosis for acute left-sided colonic obstruction due to acute sigmoid volvulus, without intraoperative colonic lavage, in a consecutive series of patients admitted to our department.

METHODS

Emergency resection of acute sigmoid volvulus was performed by an experienced senior surgeon (consultant grade). This was followed by primary anastomosis without on-table colonic lavage after a manual decompression.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients underwent bowel decompression, resection and primary colorectal anastomosis. Two of the patients who had ileosigmoid knotting and gangrenous bowel had double resection with primary ileoileal and colorectal anastomosis. There were two superficial wound infections. No death or clinical anastomotic failure were recorded in this series. The mean hospital stay was 10.3 days.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that resection of acute sigmoid volvulus and primary anastomosis after decompression alone can be carried out safely in reasonably fit patients.

Pilot study on one-stage colonic resection without lavage in obstructed left colon in children in an emergency setting

Classically, left-sided colon obstruction is managed by a multi-staged resection and defunctioning colostomy. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of single-stage resection and anastomosis without intraoperative colonic lavage for acute left-sided colonic obstruction in children. Between October 2000 and May 2006, nine consecutive patients who had a one-stage left-sided colon resection without preceding colonic lavage were evaluated. The main outcome measures were anastomotic leakage, wound infection and death. There were nine patients: six were males and three were females (M:F = 2:1). Their ages ranged from 2-10 years (mean age 6 years). The obstruction was due to irreducible colo-colic intussusceptions in two patients and colo-colic intussusceptions with colonic perforation in four patients, and colo-colic intussusceptions with gangrene in three. All the patients had resection and primary anastomosis without on-table colonic lavage. There were no anastomotic leakages or deaths. Postoperative complications included superficial wound infections in two patients and dry cough in four other patients. Three patients were lost to follow up after 3 years of follow up, but the remaining six are presently doing well. Primary anastomosis without colonic lavage is safe for resection of the left colon in children in an emergency setting.

Exteriorized colon anastomosis for unprepared bowel: An alternative to routine colostomy

AIM: To see the possibility of avoiding routine colostomy in patients presenting with unprepared bowel.

METHODS: The cohort is composed of 103 patients, of these, 86 patients presented as emergencies (self-inflected and iatrogenic colon injuries, stab wounds and blast injury of the colon, volvulus sigmoid, obstructing left colon cancer, and strangulated ventral hernia). Another 17 patients were managed electively for other colon pathologies. During laparotomy, the involved segment was resected and the two ends of the colon were brought out via a separate colostomy wound. One layer of interrupted 3/0 silk was used for colon anastomosis. The exteriorized segment was immediately covered with a colostomy bag. Between the 5^th and 7^th postoperative day, the colon was easily dropped into the peritoneal cavity. The defect in the abdominal wall was closed with interrupted nonabsorbable suture. The skin was left open for secondary closure.

RESULTS: The mean hospital stay (± SD) was 11.5 ± 2.6 d (8-20 d). The exteriorized colon was successfully dropped back into the peritoneal cavity in all patients except two. One developed a leak from oesophago-jejunostomy and from the exteriorized colon. She subsequently died of sepsis and multiple organ failure (MOF). In a second patient the colon proximal to the exteriorized anastomosis prolapsed and developed severe serositis, an elective ileo-colic anastomosis (to the left colon) was successfully performed.

CONCLUSION: Exteriorized colon anastomosis is simple, avoids the inconvenience of colostomy and can be an alternative to routine colostomy. It is suitable where colostomy is socially unacceptable or the facilities and care is not available.

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).

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.

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.

Mechanical bowel preparation or not? Outcome of a multicenter, randomized trial in elective open colon surgery

PURPOSE

Mechanical bowel preparation is common practice in elective colon surgery. In recent literature the value of this procedure is under discussion. To verify the value of mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery, a randomized clinical trial was conducted.

METHODS

During a prospective, multicenter, randomized study, 250 patients undergoing elective open colon surgery were randomized between receiving mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG group, 125 patients) and having a normal meal preoperatively (normal meal preoperatively group, 125 patients). Outcome parameters were wound infection with bacterial results of intraoperative swabs and anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

In the polyethylene glycol group there were a total of nine wound infections (7.2 percent) and seven anastomotic leaks (5.6 percent) compared with seven wound infections (5.6 percent) (P = 0.61) and six anastomotic leaks (4.8 percent) (P = 0.78) in the normal meal preoperatively group. Bacterial results showed 52 percent sterile subcutis swabs in the PEG group and 63 percent sterile subcutis swabs in the normal meal preoperatively group (P = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

In the present study we could not detect a difference in outcome parameters between patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery and patients without preoperative treatment of the bowel. The present study, although underpowered, did not show a difference in the primary outcome of bacterial wound cultures between patients receiving preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and patients receiving no preoperative bowel treatment. We conclude that there may be no need to continue the use of mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery.

Pre-operative mechanical bowel cleansing or not? an updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation has been considered an efficient regimen against leakage and infectious complications, after colorectal resections. This dogma is based only on observational data and experts' opinions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library and abstracts from major gastroenterological congresses were searched. No language restrictions were applied. The selection criterion used was randomised clinical trials (RCT) comparing any kind of mechanical bowel preparation with no preparation in patients submitted to elective colorectal surgery and where anastomotic leakage, mortality, and wound infection were outcome measurements. Data were independently extracted by the reviewers and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same reviewers. For meta-analysis the Peto-Odds ratio was used.

RESULTS

Of 1592 patients (9 RCTs), 789 were allocated to mechanical bowel preparation (Group A) and 803 to no preparation (Group B) before elective colorectal surgery. Anastomotic leakage developed in 48 (6%) of 772 patients in A compared with 25 (3.2%) of 777 patients in B; Peto OR 2.03, 95% (CI: 1.28-3.26; P = 0.003). Wound infection occurred in 59 (7.4%) of 791 patients in A and in 43 (5.4%) of 803 patients in B; Peto OR 1.46, 95% (CI: 0.97-2.18; P = 0.07); Five (1%) of 509 patients died in group in A compared with 3 (0.61%) of 516 patients in group B; Peto OR 1.72, 95% (CI: 0.43-6.95; nonsignificant).

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation. On the contrary taking colorectal surgery as a whole, pre-operative bowel cleansing leads to a higher rate of anastomotic leakage. The dogma that mechanical bowel preparation is necessary before elective colorectal surgery has to be reconsidered.

One-stage resection without colonic lavage in emergency surgery of the left colon

OBJECTIVE

Intra-operative colonic lavage is a widespread procedure introduced to decompress and clean the colon of its faecal load during emergency surgery of the left colon in order to perform a safe anastomosis. This type of lavage is never performed at our institution. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and acceptability of emergency left-sided colectomy without colonic lavage in a consecutive series of patients admitted at our department for perforation and obstruction of the left colon.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All 44 patients (29 with obstruction and 15 with perforation) on whom a one-stage left-sided colon resection was performed without colonic lavage between January 1998 and June 2004 were evaluated in a retrospective review. During this period all patients with acute disease of the left colon underwent a one stage resection without colonic lavage. The only exclusion criteria for anastomosis were: haemodynamic instability, ASA > 3, unresectable tumour. Death, anastomotic leakage and wound infection were main outcome measures.

RESULT

The leak rate was 4.5% and mortality 2.3% due to one case of postoperative myocardial infarction. A 16% morbidity rate was recorded due to 4 wound infections and 3 minor complications.

CONCLUSION

The procedure is safe. The low morbidity and mortality of one stage resection without colonic lavage can justify future prospective studies enrolling a large number of patients to compare its results with those obtained by one stage resection with colonic lavage.

Mechanical and Antibacterial Bowel Preparation in Colon and Rectal Surgery

Colorectal surgery performed prior to 1970 was fraught with postoperative infectious complications which occurred in more than 30-50% of all operations. Diversion of the fecal stream appeared mandatory when operating on an urgent or emergent basis, thereby requiring the performance of multiple, staged operations instead of a single surgery encompassing resection and primary anastomosis as is performed commonly today. Multiple studies conducted in the early 1970s determined that anaerobic colonic microflora were causative agents in postoperative infections in colon and rectal surgery, and these studies initiated the development of effective oral preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in combination with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. This dual-tier regimen significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative infectious complications, thus allowing most uncomplicated colon and rectal surgeries to be performed in a single stage without the need for the diversion of the fecal stream and multiple operations. Therefore, a preoperative mechanical and antibacterial bowel regimen serves as the cornerstone of modern elective colorectal surgery, and these regimens now comprise three therapeutic directives. The first step is preoperative mechanical cleansing of the bowel, which is then followed by preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis. Finally, perioperative parenteral antibiotics directed against aerobic and anaerobic colonic microflora are utilized.

Effect of mechanical bowel preparation with polyethyleneglycol on bacterial contamination and wound infection in patients undergoing elective open colon surgery

Mechanical bowel preparation is common practice in elective colon surgery. In order to verify the effect of mechanical bowel preparation on the colonic flora, this study followed 185 patients undergoing elective open colon surgery, 90 of whom were assigned randomly to receive mechanical bowel preparation with polyethyleneglycol. Swabs of the anastomosis and the subcutis were taken during surgery. Further swabs were taken of any subsequent wound infections. Mechanical bowel preparation did not reduce contamination of the peritoneal cavity or the subcutis during surgery, and there appeared to be more sterile subcutaneous swabs in the control group.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

For over a century the presence of bowel content during surgery has been linked to anastomotic leakage. Mechanical bowel preparation has been considered an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications. This dogma is not based on solid evidence, but on observational data and expert's opinions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mechanical bowel preparation for morbidity and mortality rates in elective colorectal surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We also searched relevant medical journals, and conference proceedings from major gastroenterological congresses and contacted experts in the field. We used the search strategy described by the Colorectal Cancer Review Group, without limitations for date of publication and language. I SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, clinical trials that compared any strategy in mechanical bowel preparation with no mechanical bowel preparation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by the reviewers and cross-checked. The same reviewers assessed the methodological quality of each trial. Details of the randomisation (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done, and the number of patients lost to follow-up was recorded. For analysis the Peto odds ratio (OR) was used as defaults.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 1592 patients (9 trials), 789 were allocated to mechanical bowel preparation (Group A) and 803 to no preparation (Group B) before elective colorectal surgery. For anastomotic leakage (main outcome) the results were: - Low anterior resection: 9.8% (11 of 112 patients in Group A) compared with 7.5% (9 of 119 patients in Group B); Peto OR 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57 to 3.67 (non-significant); - Colonic surgery: 2.9% (Group A) compared with 1.6% (Group B) ; Peto OR 1.80, 95% CI: 0.68 to 4.75 (non-significant); Overall anastomotic leakage: 6.2% (Group A) compared with 3.2% (Group B); Peto OR 2.03, 95% CI: 1.276 to 3.26 (p=0.003). For the secondary outcome of wound infection the result was: 7.4% (Group A) compared with 5.4% (Group B); Peto OR 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97 - to 2.18 (p=0.07); Sensitivity analyses excluding studies with dubious randomisation, studies published as abstracts only, and studies involving children did not change the overall conclusions

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no convincing evidence that mechanical bowel preparation is associated with reduced rates of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery. On the contrary, there is evidence that this intervention may be associated with an increased rate of anastomotic leakage and wound complications. It is not possible to be conclusion on the latter issue because of the clinical heterogeneity of trial inclusion criteria, methodological inadequacies in trial (in particular, poor reporting of concealment and allocation), potential performance biases, and failure of intention-to-treat analyses. Nevertheless, the dogma that mechanical bowel preparation is necessary before elective colorectal surgery should be reconsidered.

Bowel Preparation before Microvascular Free Colon Transfer for Head and Neck Reconstruction: Is It Necessary?

Mechanical bowel preparation before any intestinal operation, especially when the large intestine is involved, is routine practice for most surgeons. This practice has been questioned by many colorectal surgeons, with convincing data showing the lack of benefit of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. Free microvascular transfer of the large intestine is occasionally performed for reconstruction of the upper esophagus, as it provides a better size match for the oropharynx than other visceral organs. Nine patients underwent reconstruction of the cervical esophagus and voice tube using a segment of ileocolon. In all patients, the cervical esophagus was reconstructed using the ascending colon and the voice tube was reconstructed using the ileal segment. Both were transferred as one free flap. All patients underwent the procedure without any form of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. The patients were able to tolerate a solid diet at the end of the mean follow-up period of 7 months, and all esophagograms showed no evidence of stricture formation. One patient developed a fistula at the recipient site that was treated with a regional flap, one patient developed a superficial wound infection of the abdominal wall, and one patient developed a postoperative abdominal wound dehiscence after several episodes of excessive coughing. Microvascular transfer of a large intestinal segment without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation for the reconstruction of the esophagus is a safe procedure. It can avoid the discomfort and complications associated with mechanical bowel preparation. If preoperative mechanical bowel preparation is preferred, the results of this study, which are based on nine patients, demonstrate the safety of this practice in cases where the patient did not follow proper instructions or in cases where the use of the colon was not anticipated preoperatively.

Restorative resection of unprepared left-colon in gangrenous vs. viable sigmoid volvulus

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Emergency resection and primary anastomosis of unprepared left-colon is a controversial subject. Although this approach has been reported in several series, there is paucity of data on the relative safety of it in viable vs. gangrenous colon especially when the gut is unprepared.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Case records of 57 consecutive patients with acute sigmoid volvulus were reviewed; there were 27 with gangrenous colon (group G) and 30 with viable colon (group V). All of them had undergone emergency resection and primary anastomosis without on-table lavage or caecostomy.

RESULTS

Group G had a lower mean haemoglobin value (8.4 vs. 9.7 g/dl) and higher incidence of circulatory shock on admission (26% vs. 7%) and required more blood transfusion (85% vs. 53%) than group V. Mean hospital stay (16 vs. 12 days), overall anastomotic leak (15% vs. 27%) and mortality (3.5% vs. 3%) did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the rate of wound infection in Group G was four times greater than that of group V.

CONCLUSION

One-stage restorative resection without on-table lavage or caecostomy appears to be a promising alternative in the emergency management of acute sigmoid volvulus. Comparison of primary anastomosis in gangrenous vs. viable colon did not reveal any significant difference in hospital stay, rate of anastomotic leak or mortality. However, the risk of wound infection was more in patients with gangrenous sigmoid volvulus.

Prophylaxis of Infection for Elective Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Influenced by the key results of the clinical trials conducted in the early 1970s by Condon, Nichols, and Gorbach, surgeons have adopted the routine use of mechanical bowel prep and antimicrobial prophylaxis prior to elective colorectal procedures as a widely established practice. Recent clinical trial data, however, led us to reexamine the benefits of mechanical bowel preparation, methods of antimicrobial prophylaxis and to assess the role of new, specific risk factors for surgical site infection after colorectal operations.

METHODS

Pertinent studies on antimicrobial prophylaxis for elective colorectal surgery were identified from a Medline search of English language publications since 1966.

RESULTS

We found credible clinical trial data that mechanical bowel preparation prior to elective colorectal surgery may not be essential. Timing of the administration of prophylactic antimicrobials is often inaccurate in current practice and suggests the need for a long-acting, broad-spectrum agent that would deemphasize precision in time of preoperative infusion. New risk factors have been identified that increase infection after colorectal surgery, including patient core temperature and tissue oxygenation. Independent observers identify postoperative surgical site infection at a higher rate than physician self-reporting and should be incorporated into future clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

The once settled area of antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery is again controversial. Cooperative clinical trials will be needed to resolve key questions such as the efficacy for bowel preparation and how to obtain effective timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis.

Duodenogastric reflux after biliary surgery: scintigraphic quantification and improvement with erythromycin

BACKGROUND

Persistence of dyspeptic symptoms after cholecystectomy or choledochoduodenostomy is common. There is -evidence that at least some of these symptoms may be attributed to duodenogastric reflux (DGR). The aim of the study was to quantify DGR before and after cholecystectomy, with or without choledochoduodenostomy, and endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones, and to assess the effect of erythromycin on the increased DGR.

METHODS

Forty-seven patients before and after cholecystectomy, 26 after cholecystectomy and choledochoduodenostomy and nine after sphincterotomy had postprandial (300 mL of fresh milk, 4% fat) duodenogastric reflux measured by 99mTc-hepatic imino diacetic acid scintigraphy. Patients with a DGR index (DGRi) >20% were considered as having pathological DGR that justifies symptoms, and their DGRi was reassessed after administration of 200 mg of erythromycin intravenously.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients before cholecystectomy (57%) showed a normal DGRi <7%. In five cases DGRi was greater than 20%. After cholecystectomy, duodenogastric refluxes increased, so that only 16 patients (32%) showed a normal DGRi, while a DGRi >20% was observed in 10 cases. Only eight patients after cholecystectomy and choledochoduodenostomy (23%) presented with a DGRi within the normal range. The remaining 18 had a DGRi >7%. Five of them exhibited a DGRi >20%. Of the nine patients with sphincterotomy, three showed a DGRi >20%. Erythromycin almost completely normalized DGRi in all 18 patients with pathological DGR (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Duodenogastric reflux is common after biliary surgery, including endoscopic sphincterotomy. Erythromycin appears to decrease duodenogastric reflux to normal levels.

Is mechanical bowel preparation necessary in patients undergoing cystectomy and urinary diversion?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcome in patients with or with no bowel preparation before cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion, specifically assessing local and systemic complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion between January 1991 and December 1999 were assessed retrospectively. Twenty-two receive no bowel preparation (group 1) and were compared with 64 who had (group 2). Patients had similar demographic characteristics, stage and grade of tumour. Patients in group 2 received a standard 4-day bowel preparation and group 1 received no lavage or enemas. All patients underwent a standard iliac and obturator lymph node dissection, and cystoprostatectomy or anterior exenteration and ileal conduit urinary diversion. All patients received intraoperative metronidazole and gentamicin intravenously, and two further doses after surgery.

RESULTS

Deaths after surgery were comparable in the two groups (two in group 1 and four in group 2) and the incidence of wound infection was similar (three and seven, respectively). There were no significant differences between the respective groups for fistula and anastomotic dehiscence (two and six) or sepsis (three and six). Group 2 had a higher incidence of wound dehiscence (one) than in group 1 (none). The incidence of prolonged postoperative ileus was lower in group 1 (one vs 12), as was the length of hospital stay (31.6 days vs 22.8 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel preparation had no advantage for the surgical outcome but it increased the length of hospital stay.