Randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before elective left-sided colorectal surgery

Is mechanical bowel preparation necessary to reduce surgical site infection following colon surgery? Protocol for a multicentre Canadian randomized controlled trial

AIM

There is significant practice variation with respect to the use of bowel preparation to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) following colon surgery. Although intravenous antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation + oral antibiotics (IVA + MBP + OA) has been shown to be superior to IVA + MBP and IVA, there are insufficient high-quality data from randomized controlled trails (RCTs) that directly compare these options. This is an important question, because if IVA + OA has similar effectiveness to IVA + MBP + OA, mechanical bowel preparation can be safely omitted, and the associated side effects avoided. The aim of this work is to compare rates of SSI following IVA + OA + MBP (MBP) versus IVA + OA (OA) for elective colon surgery.

METHOD

This is a multicentre, parallel, two-arm, noninferiority RCT comparing IVA + OA + MBP versus IVA + OA. The primary outcome is the overall rate of SSI 30 days following surgery. Secondary outcomes are length of stay and 30-day emergency room visit and readmission rates. The planned sample size is 1062 subjects with four participating high-volume centres. Overall SSI rates 30 days following surgery between the treatment groups will be compared using a general linear model. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with linear regression for continuous outcomes, logistic regression for binary outcomes and modified Poisson regression for count data.

CONCLUSION

It is expected that IVA + OA will work similarly to IVA + MBP + OA and that this work will provide definitive evidence showing that MBP is not necessary to reduce SSI. This is highly relevant to both patients and physicians as it will have the potential to significantly change practice and outcomes following colon surgery in Canada and beyond.

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort

BACKGROUND

Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation.

METHODS

A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

Bowel preparation for elective colectomy in Crohn's disease: results from a global cohort study using the NSQIP database

AIM

The role of bowel preparation before colectomy in Crohn's disease patients remains controversial. This retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation in patients diagnosed with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy.

METHOD

Data were collected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participant user files from 2016 to 2021. A total of 6244 patients with Crohn's disease who underwent elective colectomy were included. The patients were categorized into two groups: those who received combined colon preparation (mechanical and antibiotic) and those who did not receive any form of bowel preparation. The primary outcomes assessed were the rate of anastomotic leak and the occurrence of deep organ infection. Secondary outcomes included all-cause short-term mortality, clinical-related morbidity, ostomy creation, unplanned reoperation, operative time, hospital length of stay and ileus.

RESULTS

Combined colon preparation was associated with significantly reduced risks of anastomotic leak (relative risk 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.95, P = 0.021) and deep organ infection (relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83, P < 0.001). Additionally, patients who underwent colon preparation had lower rates of ostomy creation, shorter hospital stays and a decreased incidence of ileus. However, there was no significant difference in all-cause short-term mortality or the need for unplanned reoperation between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation may have clinical benefits for patients with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy.

Mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Italian colorectal anastomotic leakage (iCral) study group prospective cohorts

Retrospective evaluation of the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on data derived from two prospective open-label observational multicenter studies in Italy regarding elective colorectal surgery. MBP for elective colorectal surgery remains a controversial issue with contrasting recommendations in current guidelines. The Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group, therefore, decided to estimate the effects of no MBP (treatment variable) versus MBP for elective colorectal surgery. A total of 8359 patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis were enrolled in two consecutive prospective studies in 78 surgical centers in Italy from January 2019 to September 2021. A retrospective PSMA was performed on 5455 (65.3%) cases after the application of explicit exclusion criteria to eliminate confounders. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infections (SSI) rates; the secondary endpoints included SSI subgroups, overall and major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. Overall length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was also considered. Two well-balanced groups of 1125 patients each were generated: group A (No MBP, true population of interest), and group B (MBP, control population), performing a PSMA considering 21 covariates. Group A vs. group B resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of AL [42 (3.5%) vs. 73 (6.0%) events; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.84; p = 0.005]. No difference was recorded between the two groups for SSI [73 (6.0%) vs. 85 (7.0%) events; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63-1.22; p = 0.441]. Regarding the secondary endpoints, no MBP resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of reoperation and LOS > 6 days. This study confirms that no MBP before elective colorectal surgery is significantly associated with a lower risk of AL, reoperation rate, and LOS < 6 days when compared with MBP.

Mismatch of populations between randomised controlled trials of perioperative interventions in major abdominal surgery and current clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Demographics of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery are changing. External validity of relevant RCTs may be limited by participants not resembling patients encountered in clinical practice. We aimed to characterise differences in age, weight, BMI, and ASA grade between participants in perioperative trials in major abdominal surgery and patients in a reference real-world clinical practice sample. The secondary aim was to investigate whether time since trial publication was associated with increasing mismatch between these groups.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for multicentre RCTs from inception to September 2022. Studies of perioperative interventions in adults were included. Studies that limited enrolment based on age, weight, BMI, or ASA status were excluded. We compared trial cohort age, weight, BMI, and ASA distribution to those of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery at our tertiary referral hospital during September 2021 to September 2022. We used a local, single-institution reference sample to reflect the reality of clinical practice (i.e. patients treated by a clinician in their own hospital, rather than averaged nationally). Mismatch was defined using comparison of summary characteristics and ad hoc criteria based on differences relevant to predicted mortality risk after surgery.

RESULTS

One-hundred and six trials (44,499 participants) were compared to a reference cohort of 2792 clinical practice patients. Trials were published a median (IQR [range]) 13.4 (5-20 [0-35]) years ago. A total of 94.3% of trials were mismatched on at least one characteristic (age, weight, BMI, ASA). Recruitment of ASA 3 + participants in trials increased over time, and recruitment of ASA 1 participants decreased over time (Spearman's Rho 0.58 and - 0.44, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients encountered in our current local clinical practice are significantly different from those in our defined set of perioperative RCTs. Older trials recruit more low-risk than high-risk participants-trials may thus 'expire' over time. These trials may not be generalisable to current patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, and meta-analyses or guidelines incorporating these trials may therefore be similarly non-applicable. Comparison to local, rather than national cohorts, is important for meaningful on-the-ground evidence-based decision-making.

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation using conventional versus hyperosmolar polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (TLUMP test): a phase III, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

A hyperosmolar ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol-electrolyte (ASC-PEG) lavage solution ensures excellent bowel preparation before colonoscopy; however, no study has demonstrated the efficacy of this lavage solution before surgery. This study aimed to establish the non-inferiority of ASC-PEG to the standard polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial. Overall, 188 patients scheduled for laparoscopic colorectal resection for single colorectal adenocarcinomas were randomly assigned to undergo preparation with different PEG solutions between August 2017 and April 2020 at four hospitals in Japan. Participants received ASC-PEG (Group A) or PEG-ELS (Group B) preoperatively. The primary endpoint was the ratio of successful bowel preparations using the modified Aronchick scale, defined as "excellent" or "good."

RESULTS

After exclusion, 86 and 87 patients in Groups A and B, respectively, completed the study, and their data were analyzed. ASC-PEG was not inferior to PEG-ELS in terms of effective bowel preparation prior to laparoscopic colorectal resection (0.93 vs. 0.92; 95% confidence interval, - 0.078 to 0.099, p = 0.007). The total volume of cleansing solution intake was lower in Group A than in Group B (1757.0 vs. 1970.1 mL). Two and three severe postoperative adverse events occurred in Groups A and B, respectively. Patient tolerance of the two solutions was almost equal.

CONCLUSIONS

ASC-PEG is effective for preoperative bowel preparation in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer and is non-inferior to PEG-ELS.

Effect of preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation on the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery, and does oral antibiotic regime matter? a bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Surgical site infection (SSI) impacts 5-20% of patients after elective colorectal surgery. There are varying reports on the effectiveness of oral antibiotics (OAB) with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in preventing SSI. We aim to determine the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI after elective colorectal surgery. We also determine if a specific OAB regimen will be more effective than others.

METHODS

This study investigated the impact of OAB and MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ACP Journal Club, and Embase databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published by June 2022. All RCTs comparing various preoperative bowel preparation regimens, including pairwise or multi-intervention comparisons, were included. To establish the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis on all RCTs. We further performed subgroup analysis to determine the most effective OAB regimen.

RESULTS

Among included 46 studies with a total of 12690 patients, patients in the MBP + OAB group were less likely to have SSI than those having MBP-only (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.39-0.76), and without MBP and OAB (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.32-0.84). OAB regimen C (kanamycin + metronidazole) and A (neomycin + metronidazole) demonstrated a significantly reduced incidence of SSI, compared to regimen B (neomycin + erythromycin) with OR 0.24 (95% CrI 0.07-0.79) and 0.26 (95% CrI 0.07-0.99) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

OAB with MBP reduces the risk of SSI after elective colorectal surgery. Providing adequate aerobic and anaerobic coverage with OAB may confer better protection against SSI.

Bowel Preparation Before Nonelective Sigmoidectomy for Sigmoid Volvulus: Highly Beneficial but Vastly Underused

BACKGROUND

Although strong evidence exists for combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation before elective colorectal resection, the utility of preoperative bowel preparation for patients undergoing sigmoid resection after endoscopic decompression of sigmoid volvulus has not been previously examined. The goal of this study was to evaluate the association between bowel preparation and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing semielective, same-admission sigmoid resection for acute volvulus.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients from the 2012 to 2019 Colectomy-Targeted American College of Surgeons NSQIP dataset who underwent sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis after admission for sigmoid volvulus were included. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the risk-adjusted 30-day postoperative outcomes of patients who received combined preoperative bowel preparation with those of patients who received either partial (mechanical or oral antibiotic alone) or incomplete bowel preparation. Effort was made to exclude patients whose urgency of clinical condition at hospital admission precluded an attempt at preoperative decompression and subsequent bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Included were 2,429 patients, 322 (13.3%) of whom underwent complete bowel preparation and 2,107 (86.7%) of whom underwent partial or incomplete bowel preparation. Complete bowel preparation was protective against several postoperative complications (including anastomotic leak), mortality, and prolonged postoperative hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a significant benefit for complete bowel preparation before semielective, same-admission sigmoid resection in patients with acute sigmoid volvulus. However, only a small percentage of patients in this national sample underwent complete preoperative bowel preparation. Broader adoption of bowel preparation may reduce overall rates of complication in patients who require sigmoid colectomy due to volvulus.

High-intensity mechanical bowel preparation before curative colorectal surgery is associated with poor long-term prognosis

PURPOSE

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) has been widely used to reduce intestinal feces and bacteria and is considered necessary to prevent surgical infections. However, it is still controversial which intensity level of MBP is the most beneficial for patients before colorectal surgery. Our study aimed to determine the impact of different intensity levels of MBP on the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

METHODS

We evaluated 694 patients pathologically diagnosed with CRC and underwent MBP before surgery at 4 general hospitals from January 2011 to December 2015. The survival status of patients, the disease progression, and the time of death or progression were obtained through telephone follow-up at the deadline October 10, 2018. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox proportional hazard models. Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method followed by the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Of 694 patients included, 462 received low-intensity MBP and 232 received high-intensity MBP. A significantly higher PFS in low-intensity MBP was observed (p = 0.009). PFS at 2000 days was 69.331% in the low-intensity arm and 58.717% in the high-intensity arm. Patients who underwent low-intensity MBP also showed higher OS (p = 0.009). Nine patients in the low-intensity MBP group received secondary surgery, and two patients in the high-intensity MBP group received secondary surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective cohort, low-intensity MBP was associated with better PFS and OS, which could provide a reference for doctors when choosing the intensity of MBP.

Bundles reduce anastomosis leak in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. A propensity score-matched study

Background

anastomosis leak still being a handicap in colorectal surgery. Bowel mechanical preparation and oral antibiotics are not a practice recommended in many clinical practice guides. The aim is to analyse the decrease in frequency and severity of postoperative complications, mainly related to anastomotic leak, after the establishment of a bundle.

Methods

Single-center, before-after study. A bundle was implemented to reduce anastomotic leaks and their consequences. The Bundle group were matched to Pre-bundle group by propensity score matching. Mechanical bowel preparation, oral and intravenous antibiotics, inflammatory markers measure and early diagnosis algorithm were included at the bundle.

Results

The bundle group shown fewer complications, especially in Clavien Dindós Grade IV complications (2.3% vs. 6.2% p < 0.01), as well as a lower rate of anastomotic leakage (15.5% vs. 2.2% p < 0.01). A significant decrease in reinterventions, less intensive unit care admissions, a shorter hospital stay and fewer readmissions were also observed. In multivariate analysis, the application of a bundle was an anastomotic leakage protective factor (OR 0.121, p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The implementation of our bundle in colorectal surgery which include oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation and inflammatory markers, significantly reduces morbidity adjusted to severity of complications, the anastomotic leakage rate, hospital stay and readmissions.

Register study

The study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov Code: nct04632446.

Mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation for elective rectal cancer surgery: A propensity score matching analysis using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan

Aim

The best bowel preparation method for rectal surgery remains controversial. In this study we compared the efficacy and safety of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone and MOABP (MBP combined with oral antibiotic bowel preparation [OABP]) for rectal cancer surgery.

Methods

In this retrospective study we analyzed data from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database on 37 291 patients who had undergone low anterior resection for rectal cancer from 2014 to 2017. Propensity score matching analysis was used to compare postoperative outcomes between MBP alone and MOABP.

Results

A total of 37 291 patients were divided into four groups: MBP alone: 77.7%, no bowel preparation (NBP): 16.9%, MOABP: 4.7%, and OABP alone: 0.7%. In propensity score matching analysis with 1756 pairs, anastomotic leakage (4.84% vs 7.86%, P < 0.001), small bowel obstruction (1.54% vs 3.08%, P = 0.002) and reoperation (3.76% vs 5.98%, P = 0.002) were less in the MOABP group than in the MBP group. The mean duration of postoperative antibiotics medication was shorter in the MOABP group (5.2 d vs 7.5 d, P < 0.001) than in the MBP group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of Clostridium difficile (CD) colitis (0.40% vs 0.68%, P = 0.250) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colitis (0.11% vs 0.17%, P = 0.654). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups (0.00% vs 0.11% respectively, P = 0.157).

Conclusion

MOABP for rectal surgery is associated with a decreased incidence of postoperative complications without increasing the incidence of CD colitis and MRSA colitis.

Mechanical bowel preparation with or without oral antibiotics for rectal resection for cancer (REPCA trial): a study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is still a lack of randomized trials assessing the clinical value of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotics (OA) before rectal surgery. Existing studies are inconsistent regarding OA. The aim of this study is to examine the role of MBP with or without OA (using Alfa Normix^®) on postoperative complications in patients undergoing rectal resection for cancer.

METHODS

We are conducting a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing MBP (Moviprep^®) with OA (Alfa Normix^®) versus MBP alone in patients undergoing elective rectal resection for cancer. Patients with rectal or rectosigmoid cancer are randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint is incisional surgical site infection (SSI) assessed within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints are anastomotic leakage (AL), organ/space SSI, other postoperative complications, intraoperative complications, operation time, bowel preparation quality, bowel preparation adherence. Intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses will be performed.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the REPCA trial will demonstrate whether MBP + OA is superior to MBP alone in rectal cancer surgery. This trial might influence current preoperative practice and improve postoperative outcomes.

Impact of bowel preparation on elective colectomies for diverticulitis: analysis of the NSQIP database

Background

Recent data based on large databases show that bowel preparation (BP) is associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. However, it remains unclear whether BP in elective colectomies would lead to similar results in patients with diverticulitis. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether bowel preparation affected the surgical site infections (SSI) and anastomotic leakage (AL) in patients with diverticulitis undergoing elective colectomies.

Study design

We identified 16,380 diverticulitis patients who underwent elective colectomies from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) colectomy targeted database (2012–2017). Multivariate logistic regression models were employed to investigate the impact of different bowel preparation strategies on postoperative complications, including SSI and AL.

Results

In the identified population, a total of 2524 patients (15.4%) received no preparation (NP), 4715 (28.8%) mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone, 739 (4.5%) antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) alone, and 8402 (51.3%) MBP + ABP. Compared to NP, patients who received any type of bowel preparations showed a significantly decreased risk of SSI and AL after adjustment for potential confounders (SSI: MBP [OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.70–0.96], ABP [0.69, 95%CI: 0.52–0.92]; AL: MBP [OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.51–0.86], ABP [0.56, 95%CI: 0.34–0.93]), where the combination type of MBP + ABP had the strongest effect (SSI:OR = 0.58, 95%CI:0.50–0.67; AL:OR = 0.46, 95%CI:0.36–0.59). The significantly decreased risk of 30-day mortality was observed in the bowel preparation of MBP + ABP only (OR = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.13–0.79). After the further stratification by surgery procedures, patients who received MBP + ABP showed consistently lower risk for both SSI and AL when undergoing open and laparoscopic surgeries (Open: SSI [OR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.37–0.69], AL [OR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.25–0.91]; Laparoscopic: SSI [OR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.47–0.72, AL [OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.35–0.68]).

Conclusions

MBP + ABP for diverticulitis patients undergoing elective open or laparoscopic colectomies was associated with decreased risk of SSI, AL, and 30-day mortality. Benefits of MBP + ABP for diverticulitis patients underwent robotic surgeries warrant further investigation.

A Network Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Effect of Preoperative Oral Antibiotics with and Without Mechanical Bowel Preparation on Surgical Site Infection Rate in Colorectal Surgery

Objective

To compare the effect of different methods of bowel preparation on the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Background

Recent guidelines advise mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (MBP-OA) for the prevention of SSI in colorectal surgery. Recent trials suggest oral antibiotics (OA) alone may be sufficient.

Methods

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched from inception until 10-08-2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple methods of bowel preparation (mechanical bowel preparation [MBP], OA, MBP-OA, or no preparation) with regards to clinical outcomes such as incidence of SSI, AL, and mortality rates. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the network effects of the different treatment options.

Results

We included 48 studies with 13,611 patients. Compared to no preparation, combined direct and indirect network estimates showed a relative risk (RR) for SSI of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.72) for MBP-OA, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49-0.95) for OA, and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.26) for MBP. The RR for MBP-OA compared to OA was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60-1.19); in sensitivity analysis of mainly laparoscopic procedures this effect of MBP-OA was more profound (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99).

Conclusions

This network meta-analysis of RCTs finds that both mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and oral antibiotics alone are comparably effective in the prevention of SSI. The evidence is uncertain about the relative benefit of MBP-OA compared to OA alone. Therefore, it seems justified to use either of the 2 for the prevention of SSI in colorectal surgery.

Factors Associated with Receipt of Oral Antibiotic Agents and Mechanical Bowel Preparation before Elective Colectomy

Background: Pre-operative administration of combined oral antibiotic agents and mechanical bowel preparation has been demonstrated to improve post-operative outcomes after elective colectomy, however, many patients do not receive combined preparation. Patient and procedural determinants of combined preparation receipt remain understudied. Patients and Methods: All patients undergoing elective colectomy within the 2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Participant Use File and Targeted Colectomy datasets were included. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with receipt of combined preparation. Results: A total of 21,889 patients were included, of whom 13,848 (63.2%) received combined preparation pre-operatively. Patients who received combined preparation tended to be younger, male, of white race, and of non-Hispanic ethnicity (all p < 0.05). After multivariable adjustment, male gender, body mass index (BMI) 30-39 kg/m², independent functional status, and laparoscopic and robotic surgical approaches were associated with receipt of combined preparation (all p < 0.05), whereas Asian race, hypertension, disseminated cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease were associated with omission of combined preparation (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Patients with risk factors for infectious complications-including a poor functional status, comorbid conditions, and undergoing an open procedure-are less likely to receive combined preparation before elective colectomy. Similarly, female and Asian patients are less likely to receive combined preparation, emphasizing the need for equitable administration of combined preparation.

Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Lowers Surgical Site Infection in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Results of a Pragmatic Cohort Study in Catalonia

BACKGROUND

The role of oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) after colorectal surgery is still controversial. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of a bundle including both measures in a National Infection Surveillance Network in Catalonia.

METHODS

Pragmatic cohort study to assess the effect of OAP and MBP in reducing SSI rate in 65 hospitals, comparing baseline phase (BP: 2007-2015) with implementation phase (IP: 2016-2019). To compare the results, a logistic regression model was established.

RESULTS

Out of 34,421 colorectal operations, 5180 had SSIs (15.05%). Overall SSI rate decreased from 18.81% to 11.10% in BP and IP, respectively (OR 0.539, CI₉₅ 0.507-0.573, p < 0.0001). Information about bundle implementation was complete in 61.7% of cases. In a univariate analysis, OAP and MBP were independent factors in decreasing overall SSI, with OR 0.555, CI₉₅ 0.483-0.638, and OR 0.686, CI₉₅ 0.589-0.798, respectively; and similarly, organ/space SSI (O/S-SSI) (OR 0.592, CI₉₅ 0.494-0.710, and OR 0.771, CI₉₅ 0.630-0.944, respectively). However, only OAP retained its protective effect at both levels at multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

oral antibiotic prophylaxis decreased the rates of SSI and O/S-SSI in a large series of elective colorectal surgery.

Effect of bowel preparation on intestinal permeability and inflammatory response during postoperative ileus in mice

BACKGROUND

Postoperative ileus entails pathophysiological changes in mucosal permeability and an intestinal inflammatory immune response. We hypothesized that preoperative selective decontamination of the digestive tract combined with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation might be advantageous to prevent or reduce permeability changes and immune response in postoperative ileus.

METHODS

Postoperative ileus was induced in mice by standardized small bowel manipulation. Intervention groups received selective decontamination and/or intestinal lavage with normal saline simulating mechanical bowel preparation before postoperative ileus induction. At 1, 3, and 9 hours after surgery, ileum samples were harvested for measurements of fluorescein (332 Da) permeability, quantification of tumor necrosis factor α-mRNA level, and leukocyte infiltration of the intestinal wall.

RESULTS

Mucosal fluorescein permeability increased at 1 hour (8.6 ± 1.1 vs 5.9 ± 0.9 10^-6 cm/s; P < .01) and 3 hours (8.5 ± 0.6 vs 6.5 ± 0.2 10^-6 cm/s; P < .05) after induction of postoperative ileus. This increase was prevented by mechanical bowel preparation and selective decontamination+mechanical bowel preparation interventions at both points in time. Expression of tumor necrosis factor α was more than 2-fold increased (P < .05) in the very early phase after induction of postoperative ileus but did not occur in mechanical bowel preparation-pretreated animals. Myeloperoxidase staining revealed that mechanical bowel preparation inhibited postoperative ileus-associated leukocyte infiltration of the intestinal muscularis at 3 and 9 hours after surgery, but not selective decontamination + mechanical bowel preparation treatment. The number of leukocytes after mechanical bowel preparation-only treatment remained at the level of sham-controls.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical bowel preparation prevents permeability and leukocyte infiltration of the intestinal wall in the early phase of postoperative ileus in mice.

Mechanical bowel preparation before gynecologic laparoscopic procedures: Is it time to abandon this practice?

AIM

To examine the influence of mechanical bowel preparation on surgical field visualization and patients' quality of life during benign gynecologic laparoscopic procedures.

METHODS

A single blind, randomized, controlled trial was undertaken with laparoscopic gynecologic surgical patients to one of the following three groups: liquid diet on the preoperative day; mechanical bowel preparation with oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution; minimal residue diet for 3 days. Primary outcomes included assessment of the condition of small and large bowel and the overall quality of the surgical field. Additional measures included assessment of patients' preoperative symptoms, tolerance of the preparation method and compliance to the protocol, postoperative symptoms and bowel function.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-four patients were randomized as follows: 49 to liquid diet, 47 to mechanical bowel preparation, and 48 to minimal residue diet. Most characteristics were similar across groups. The intraoperative surgical view and the condition of large and small bowel were equal or inferior at the patients who received mechanical bowel preparation compared with the other groups. The 4-point Likert scale scoring for small bowel (2.51 vs. 2.72 vs. 2.81, p = 0.04), large bowel (2.26 vs. 2.38 vs. 2.48, p = 0.32) and overall operative field quality (2.34 vs. 2.67 vs. 2.67, p = 0.03) demonstrated no advantage from the use of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation over liquid diet and minimal residue diet, respectively. Preoperative discomfort was significantly greater in the mechanical bowel preparation group.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical bowel preparation before gynecologic laparoscopic operations for benign pathology could be safely abandoned.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN59502124 (No 59502124).

The use of an implemented infection prevention bundle reduces the incidence of surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: a retrospective single center analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical-site infections (SSIs) represent the most common complications after colorectal surgery (CS). Role of preoperative administration of oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), alone or in combination, in the prevention of SSIs after CS is debated. Aim of this study was to assess the effect of the introduction of an Implemented Infection Prevention Bundle (IIPB) in preventing SSIs in CS.

METHODS

A group of 251 patients (Group 1) who underwent CS receiving only preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) was compared to a Group of 107 patients (Group 2) who also received the IIPB. The IIPB consisted of the combination of oral administrations of three doses of Rifaximin 400 mg and MBP the day before surgery and in the administration of a cleansing enema the day of the surgical procedure.

RESULTS

At the univariate analysis, Group 2 showed significant lower rates of wound infection (WI) (2.8% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.021) and anastomotic leakage (AL) (2.8% vs. 14.7%; p = 0.001) with shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; p < 0.0001). The probability of postoperative AL was lower in Group 2; patients in this Group resulted protected from AL; a statistically significant Odds ratio of 0.16 (CI 0.05-0.55 p = 0.0034) was found. In diabetic patients, that were at higher risk of WI (OR 3.53, CI 1.49-8.35 p = 0.002), despite having any impact on anastomotic dehiscence, the use of IIPB significantly reduced the rate of WI (0% vs 28.1%; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The use of an IIPB significantly reduces rates of SSIs and post-operative hospital stay after CS.

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

Background

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

Results

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

Conclusions

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00595-020-02181-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Perioperative fluid management for major elective surgery

BACKGROUND

Adequate fluid balance before, during and after surgery may reduce morbidity. This review examines current concepts surrounding fluid management in major elective surgery.

METHOD

A narrative review was undertaken following a PubMed search for English language reports published before July 2019 using the terms 'surgery', 'fluids', 'fluid therapy', 'colloids', 'crystalloids', 'albumin', 'starch', 'saline', 'gelatin' and 'goal directed therapy'. Additional reports were identified by examining the reference lists of selected articles.

RESULTS

Fluid therapy is a cornerstone of the haemodynamic management of patients undergoing major elective surgery. Both fluid overload and hypovolaemia are deleterious during the perioperative phase. Zero-balance fluid therapy should be aimed for. In high-risk patients, individualized haemodynamic management should be titrated through the use of goal-directed therapy. The optimal type of fluid to be administered during major surgery remains to be determined.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative fluid management is a key challenge during major surgery. Individualized volume optimization by means of goal-directed therapy is warranted during high-risk surgery. In most patients, balanced crystalloids are the first choice of fluids to be used in the operating theatre. Additional research on the optimal type of fluid for use during major surgery is needed.

A Review of Bowel Preparation Before Colorectal Surgery

Infectious complications are the biggest problem during bowel surgery, and one of the approaches to minimize them is the bowel cleaning method. It was expected that bowel cleaning could facilitate bowel manipulation as well as prevent infectious complications and further reduce anastomotic leakage. In the past, with the development of antibiotics, bowel cleaning and oral antibiotics (OA) were used together. However, with the success of emergency surgery and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery, bowel cleaning was not routinely performed. Consequently, bowel cleaning using OA was gradually no longer used. Recently, there have been reports that only bowel cleaning is not helpful in reducing infectious complications such as surgical site infection (SSI) compared to OA and bowel cleaning. Accordingly, in order to reduce SSI, guidelines are changing the trend of only intestinal cleaning. However, a consistent regimen has not yet been established, and there is still controversy depending on the location of the lesion and the surgical method. Moreover, complications such as Clostridium difficile infection have not been clearly analyzed. In the present review, we considered the overall bowel preparation trends and identified the areas that require further research.

Prospective randomised controlled trial using the REthinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) platform and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) to compare no preparation versus preoperative oral antibiotics alone for surgical site infection rates in elective colon surgery: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating preoperative oral antibiotics (OA) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) rate following colon surgery, there has never been an RCT published comparing OA alone versus no preparation. Of the four possible regimens (OA alone, MBP alone, OA plus MBP and no preparation), randomised evidence is conflicting for studied groups. Furthermore, guidelines vary, with recommendations for OA alone, OA plus MBP or no preparation. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) has automated data collection for surgical patients. Similarly, the 'REthinking Clinical Trials' (REaCT) platform increases RCT enrolment by simplifying pragmatic trial design. In this novel RCT protocol, we combine REaCT and NSQIP to compare OA alone versus no preparation for SSI rate reduction in elective colon surgery. To our knowledge, this is the first published RCT protocol that leverages NSQIP for data collection. In our feasibility study, 67 of 74 eligible patients (90%) were enrolled and 63 of 67 (94%) were adherent to protocol. The 'REaCT-NSQIP' trial design has great potential to efficiently generate level I evidence for other perioperative interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

SSI rates following elective colorectal surgery after preoperative OA or no preparation will be compared. We predict 45% relative rate reduction of SSI, improvement in length of stay, reduced costs and increased quality of life, with similar antibiotic-related complications. Consent, using the 'integrated consent model', and randomisation on a mobile device are completed by the surgeon in a single clinical encounter. Data collection for the primary end point is automatic through NSQIP. Analysis of cost per weighted case, cost utility and quality-adjusted life years will be done.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by The Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board. Results will be disseminated in surgical conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03663504; Pre-results, recruitment phase.

Early recovery after surgery for radical cystectomy: comprehensive assessment and meta-analysis of existing protocols

Purpose

Different enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols (EP) for radical cystectomy (RC) have been published. Protocols highly differ in number of included items and specific measures.

Materials and methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis on EPs in RC were performed using the databases MedLine, Cochrane Library, Web of science, and Google Scholar. The specific ERAS measures of the protocols were extracted, analyzed, and compared. Pooling of available outcome data was performed for length of stay, complications, readmission rate, and time to defecation.

Results

The search yielded a total of 860 studies of which 25 studies were included in qualitative and 22 in quantitative analysis. Oral bowel preparation (BP) was omitted in 24/25 (96%) EPs, optimized fluid management was administered in 22/25 (88%) EPs and early mobilization (postoperative day 1) in 21/25 (84%). Gum chewing (n = 12, 46%), metoclopramide (n = 11, 44%), and alvimopan (n = 6, 24%) were the most common measures to prevent postoperative ileus. Our meta-analysis revealed a significant benefit in favor of EPs for the outcome parameters length of stay [mean difference (MD) − 3.46 d, 95% confidence interval (CI) − 4.94 to − 1.98, p < 0.01], complications [Odds ratio (OR) = 0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.94, p = 0.01] and time to defecation (MD − 1.37 d, 95% CI − 2.06 to − 0.69, p < 0.01). Readmission rate did not show a significant difference (OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.52–1.03, p = 0.07).

Conclusion

Current EPs focus on omitting oral BP, early mobilization, and optimized fluid management while they differ in methods preventing postoperative ileus. Our meta-analysis revealed a benefit in introducing these protocols into clinical practice.

Surgical site infection prevention measures in General Surgery: Position statement by the Surgical Infections Division of the Spanish Association of Surgery

Surgical site infection is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs, as well as a poorer patient quality of life. Many hospitals have adopted scientifically-validated guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. Most of these protocols have resulted in improved postoperative results. The Surgical Infection Division of the Spanish Association of Surgery conducted a critical review of the scientific evidence and the most recent international guidelines in order to select measures with the highest degree of evidence to be applied in Spanish surgical services. The best measures are: no removal or clipping of hair from the surgical field, skin decontamination with alcohol solutions, adequate systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (administration within 30-60minutes before the incision in a single preoperative dose; intraoperative re-dosing when indicated), maintenance of normothermia and perioperative maintenance of glucose levels.

Association of the Addition of Oral Antibiotics to Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Left Colon and Rectal Cancer Resections With Reduction of Surgical Site Infections

Importance

Surgical site infections (SSIs) after colorectal surgery remain a significant complication, particularly for patients with cancer, because they can delay the administration of adjuvant therapy. A combination of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is a potential, yet controversial, SSI prevention strategy.

Objective

To determine the association of the addition of oral antibiotics to MBP with preventing SSIs in left colon and rectal cancer resections and its association with the timely administration of adjuvant therapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective review was performed of 89 patients undergoing left colon and rectal cancer resections from October 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, at a single institution. A bowel regimen of oral antibiotics and MBP (neomycin sulfate, metronidazole hydrochloride, and magnesium citrate) was implemented August 1, 2015. Patients receiving MBP and oral antibiotics and those undergoing MBP without oral antibiotics were compared using univariate analysis. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for factors that may affect SSIs was used to evaluate the association between use of oral antibiotics and MBP and the occurrence of SSIs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Surgical site infections within 30 days of the index procedure and time to adjuvant therapy.

Results

Of the 89 patients (5 women and 84 men; mean [SD] age, 65.3 [9.2] years) in the study, 49 underwent surgery with MBP but without oral antibiotics and 40 underwent surgery with MBP and oral antibiotics. The patients who received oral antibiotics and MBP were younger than those who received only MBP (mean [SD] age, 62.6 [9.1] vs 67.5 [8.8] years; P = .01), but these 2 cohorts of patients were otherwise similar in baseline demographic, clinical, and cancer characteristics. Surgical approach (minimally invasive vs open) and case type were similarly distributed; however, the median operative time of patients who received oral antibiotics and MBP was longer than that of patients who received MBP only (391 minutes [interquartile range, 302-550 minutes] vs 348 minutes [interquartile range, 248-425 minutes]; P = .03). The overall SSI rate was lower for patients who received oral antibiotics and MBP than for patients who received MBP only (3 [8%] vs 13 [27%]; P = .03), with no deep or organ space SSIs or anastomotic leaks in patients who received oral antibiotics and MBP compared with 9 organ space SSIs (18%; P = .004) and 5 anastomotic leaks (10%; P = .06) in patients who received MBP only. Despite this finding, there was no difference in median days to adjuvant therapy between the 2 cohorts (60 days [interquartile range, 46-73 days] for patients who received MBP only vs 72 days [interquartile range, 59-85 days] for patients who received oral antibiotics and MBP; P = .13). Oral antibiotics and MBP (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.86; P = .04) and minimally invasive surgery (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.89; P = .03) were independently associated with reduced odds of SSIs.

Conclusions and Relevance

The combination of oral antibiotics and MBP is associated with a significant decrease in the rate of SSIs and should be considered for patients undergoing elective left colon and rectal cancer resections.

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus no bowel preparation for elective colectomy (MOBILE): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, single-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

Decreased surgical site infections (SSIs) and morbidity have been reported with mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) compared with no bowel preparation (NBP) in colonic surgery. Several societies have recommended routine use of MOABP in patients undergoing colon resection on the basis of these data. Our aim was to investigate this recommendation in a prospective randomised context.

METHODS

In this multicentre, parallel, single-blinded trial, patients undergoing colon resection were randomly assigned (1:1) to either MOABP or NBP in four hospitals in Finland, using a web-based randomisation technique. Randomly varying block sizes (four, six, and eight) were used for randomisation, and stratification was done according to centre. The recruiters, treating physicians, operating surgeons, data collectors, and analysts were masked to the allocated treatment. Key exclusion criteria were need for emergency surgery; bowel obstruction; colonoscopy planned during surgery; allergy to polyethylene glycol, neomycin, or metronidazole; and age younger than 18 years or older than 95 years. Study nurses opened numbered opaque envelopes containing the patient allocated group, and instructed the patients according to the allocation group to either prepare the bowel, or not prepare the bowel. Patients allocated to MOABP prepared their bowel by drinking 2 L of polyethylene glycol and 1 L of clear fluid before 6 pm on the day before surgery and took 2 g of neomycin orally at 7 pm and 2 g of metronidazole orally at 11 pm the day before surgery. The primary outcome was SSI within 30 days after surgery, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who were randomly allocated to and underwent elective colon resection with an anastomosis) along with safety analyses. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02652637, and EudraCT, 2015-004559-38, and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Between March 17, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 738 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of the 417 patients who were randomised (209 to MOABP and 208 to NBP), 13 in the MOABP group and eight in the NBP were excluded before undergoing colonic resection; therefore, the modified intention-to-treat analysis included 396 patients (196 for MOABP and 200 for NBP). SSI was detected in 13 (7%) of 196 patients randomised to MOABP, and in 21 (11%) of 200 patients randomised to NBP (odds ratio 1·65, 95% CI 0·80-3·40; p=0·17). Anastomotic dehiscence was reported in 7 (4%) of 196 patients in the MOABP group and in 8 (4%) of 200 in the NBP group, and reoperations were necessary in 16 (8%) of 196 compared with 13 (7%) of 200 patients. Two patients died in the NBP group and none in the MOABP group within 30 days.

INTERPRETATION

MOABP does not reduce SSIs or the overall morbidity of colon surgery compared with NBP. We therefore propose that the current recommendations of using MOABP for colectomies to reduce SSIs or morbidity should be reconsidered.

FUNDING

Vatsatautien Tutkimussäätiö Foundation, Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth's Foundation, and Helsinki University Hospital research funds.

Surgical Site Infection After Gastrointestinal Surgery in China: A Multicenter Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

There is no nationwide database of information on surgical site infection (SSI) after gastrointestinal surgery in China. This study aimed to determine the incidence of SSI after gastrointestinal surgery in China and evaluate the related risk factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The multicenter, prospective, observational study enrolled adult patients who underwent gastrointestinal surgery from May 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018 in 30 hospitals in China. The demographic and perioperative characteristics were collected, and the primary outcome was 30-d SSI. Predictors of SSI were determined by multivariable logistic regressions. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine the predictors of SSI in different surgeries.

RESULTS

A total of 1290 patients were enrolled and SSI occurred in 68 patients (5.2%). Multivariate analysis with adjustments revealed that normal body mass index, normal blood glucose level, low national nosocomial infection surveillance risk index score, noncolon surgery, laparoscopic or robotic surgery, and use of mechanical bowel preparation were associated with reduced SSI in gastrointestinal surgery. Subgroup analysis revealed diverse predictors of SSI in diverse surgeries. National nosocomial infection surveillance risk index score of 2 and a high blood glucose level increased the incidence of SSI in colorectal and noncolorectal surgery, respectively. Besides, mechanical bowel preparation and laparoscopic or robotic surgery were protective factors for SSI in colorectal and noncolorectal surgery, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the newest data of SSI after gastrointestinal surgery in China and revealed some predictors of SSI in diverse surgeries, which can be a tool to look for areas to target quality improvement initiatives.

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.

Comparative Effectiveness and Risks of Bowel Preparation Before Elective Colorectal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between bowel preparation and surgical site infections (SSIs), and also other postoperative complications, after elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND

SSI is a major source of postoperative morbidity/costs after colorectal surgery. The value of preoperative bowel preparation to prevent SSI remains controversial.

METHODS

We analyzed 32,359 patients who underwent elective colorectal resections in the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program database from 2012 to 2014. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed; propensity adjustment using patient/procedure characteristics was used to account for nonrandom receipt of bowel preparation.

RESULTS

26.7%, 36.6%, 3.8%, and 32.9% of patients received no bowel preparation, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), oral antibiotics (OA), and MBP + OA, respectively. After propensity adjustment, MBP was not associated with decreased risk of SSI compared with no bowel preparation. In contrast, both OA and OA + MBP were associated with decreased risk of any SSI (adjusted odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.64; and adjusted odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.50, respectively) compared with no bowel preparation. OA and MBP + OA were associated with decreased risks of anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, readmission, and also shorter length of stay (all P < 0.05). Bowel preparation was not associated with increased risk of cardiac/renal complications compared with no preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of MBP alone before elective colorectal resection to prevent SSI is ineffective and should be abandoned. In contrast, OA and MBP + OA are associated with decreased risks of SSI and are not associated with increased risks of other adverse outcomes compared with no preparation. Prospective studies to determine the efficacy of OA are warranted; in the interim, MBP + OA should be used routinely before elective colorectal resection to prevent SSI.

Outcome of no oral antibiotic prophylaxis and bowel preparation in Crohn's diseases surgery

BACKGROUND

Recent studies support the use of mechanical bowel preparation and/or oral antibiotic prophylaxis in patients operated on for Crohn's disease (CD); however, data are scarce, especially for laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, this study was carried out to investigate the effect of laparoscopic surgery on complication rates in patients not undergoing standardized bowel preparation but single shot antibiotics.

METHODS

In this study 255 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic intestinal resection for CD at a tertiary referral center between 1997 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Superficial surgical site infections (SSI), organ/space infections and ileus were recorded and grouped according to the type of resection (colorectal vs. small intestine ± ileocecal).

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the groups were comparable. Colorectal resections showed a significantly increased risk of organ/space infection (4.6% in small intestine ± ileocecal vs. 14.3% in colorectal resections p = 0.039). The superficial SSI rate was low in both groups (1.8% in small intestine ± ileocecal resection vs. 0% in colorectal resections, p = 1.000). Univariate binary logistic regression analysis revealed a statistically significant influence of duration of surgery (p = 0.001) and type of resection (p = 0.031) on organ/space infection. In multivariate analysis, only duration of surgery (OR 1.111, 95% CI 1.026-1.203 for every 10 min, p = 0.009) remained significant for postoperative organ/space infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-shot antibiotic therapy without bowel preparation is safe in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery and was associated with a low number of complications; however, organ/space infections were more common if colorectal resections were performed. Therefore, combined bowel preparation might be beneficial when the (sigmoid) colon or rectum are involved.

Mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: Analysis of evidence and narrative review

The role of oral antibiotic prophylaxis and mechanical bowel preparation in colorectal surgery remains controversial. The lack of efficacy of mechanical preparation to improve infection rates, its adverse effects, and multimodal rehabilitation programs have led to a decline in its use. This review aims to evaluate current evidence on antegrade colonic cleansing combined with oral antibiotics for the prevention of surgical site infections. In experimental studies, oral antibiotics decrease the bacterial inoculum, both in the bowel lumen and surgical field. Clinical studies have shown a reduction in infection rates when oral antibiotic prophylaxis is combined with mechanical preparation. Oral antibiotics alone seem to be effective in reducing infection in observational studies, but their effect is inferior to the combined preparation. In conclusion, the combination of oral antibiotics and mechanical preparation should be considered the gold standard for the prophylaxis of postoperative infections in colorectal surgery.

The role of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics for left-sided laparoscopic and open elective restorative colorectal surgery with and without faecal diversion

BACKGROUND

There is significant variation in the use of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics prior to left-sided elective colorectal surgery. There has been no consensus internationally.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were divided into four groups: those who had mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation alone, oral antibiotics alone and no preparation. The main outcome measures included overall, superficial, deep and organ/space surgical site infections. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, ileus and rate of Clostridium difficile.

RESULTS

A total of 5729 patients were included for analysis. The overall surgical site infection rate (any superficial, deep or organ/space infection) was significantly lower in the mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics approach when compared to no preparation (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.59, P < 0.0001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics maintained a lower risk of overall surgical site infections. MBP and OAB also had a protective effect on anastomotic leak in both the laparoscopic and open cohorts (laparoscopic multivariable adjusted OR = 0.42 (0.19-0.94), P = 0.035; open multivariable adjusted OR = 0.3 (0.12-0.77), P = 0.012). Mechanical bowel preparation alone and oral antibiotics alone was not associated with a significant decrease in surgical site infections. There was no increase in C. difficile occurrences with the use of oral antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics significantly minimised surgical site infections and anastomotic leak following both laparoscopic and open left-sided restorative colorectal surgery. Mechanical bowel preparation alone did not reduce surgical site infections. There was a trend to reduction in surgical site infections with oral antibiotics alone.

Enhanced recovery care versus traditional care following laminoplasty: A retrospective case-cohort study

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been shown to shorten length of hospital stay and reduce perioperative complications in many types of surgeries. However, there has been a paucity of research examining the application of ERAS to major spinal surgery. The current study was performed to compare complications and hospital stay after laminoplasty between an ERAS group and a traditional care group.The ERAS group included 114 patients who underwent laminoplasty managed with an ERAS protocol between January 2016 and June 2017. The traditional care group included 110 patients, who received traditional perioperative care between November 2014 and December 2015. Postoperative hospital stay (POPH), physiological function, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, and postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups.The mean POPH was significantly shorter in the ERAS group than traditional care group (5.75 ± 2.46 vs. 7.67 ± 3.45 d, P < .001). ERAS protocol significantly promoted postoperative early food-taking (8.45 ± 2.94 h vs 21.64 ± 2.66 h, P < .001), reduced the first time of assisted walking (30.79 ± 14.45 vs. 65.24 ± 25.34 h, P < .001), postoperative time of indwelling urinary catheters (24.76 ± 12.34 vs. 53.61 ± 18.16 h, P < .001), and wound drainage catheters (43.92 ± 7.14 vs. 48.85 ± 10.10 h, P < .001), as compared with the traditional care group. Pain control was better in the ERAS group than traditional care group in terms of mean VAS score (2.72 ± 0.46 vs. 3.35 ± 0.46, P < .001) and mean maximum VAS score (3.76 ± 1.12 vs. 4.35 ± 1.15, P < .001) in 3 days after surgery. The morbidity rate was 21.05% (24 of 114 patients) in the ERAS group and 20.90% (23 of 110 patients) in the control group (P = .75).The ERAS protocol is both safe and feasible for patients undergoing laminoplasty, and can decrease the length of postoperative hospitalization without increasing the risk of complications.

Association of Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics Before Elective Colorectal Surgery With Surgical Site Infection: A Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

There has been a resurgence of interest in the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotics (OAB) before elective colorectal surgery. Until now, clinical trials and meta-analyses have not compared all 4 approaches (MBP with OAB, OAB only, MBP only, or no preparation) simultaneously.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a network meta-analysis to clarify which approach in colorectal surgery is associated with the lowest rate of surgical site infection (SSI).

DATA SOURCES

Five electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club. and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness from database inception to November 27, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Only data from randomized clinical trials were included. Inclusion criteria were RCTs that reported on SSI rates or other complications based on MBP or OAB status. Quality of studies was appraised by the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total, incisional, and organ/space SSI rates. Secondary outcomes included rates of anastomotic leak, mortality, readmissions/reoperations, urinary tract infection, and pulmonary complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight randomized clinical trials among 8458 patients (52.1% male) were included, providing 4 direct comparisons and 2 indirect comparisons for 8 outcome measures. On Bayesian analysis, MBP with OAB vs MBP only was associated with reduced SSI (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% equal-tail credible interval [CrI], 0.57-0.88). There was no significant difference between MBP with OAB vs OAB only (OR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.56-1.62). Oral antibiotics without MBP was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in SSI compared with any other group (except for a risk reduction in organ/space SSI when indirectly compared with no preparation) (OR, 0.13; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.55). There was no difference in SSI between MBP only vs no preparation (OR, 0.84; 95% CrI, 0.69-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, MBP with OAB was associated with the lowest risk of SSI. Oral antibiotics only was ranked as second best, but the data available on this approach were limited. There was no difference between MBP only vs no preparation. In addition, there was no difference in rates of anastomotic leak, readmissions, or reoperations between any groups.

Current practice patterns of preoperative bowel preparation in colorectal surgery: a nation-wide survey by the Chinese Society of Colorectal Cancer

Background

The optimal preoperative bowel preparation for colorectal surgery remains controversial. However, recent studies have established that bowel preparation varies significantly among countries and even surgeons at the same institution. This survey aimed to obtain information on the current practice patterns of bowel preparation for colorectal surgery in China.

Methods

A paper-based survey was circulated to the members of the Chinese Society of Colorectal Cancer (CSCC). The survey responses were collected and analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed for all the categorical variables according to the responses to individual questions.

Results

Three hundred forty-one members completed the questionnaire. Regarding surgical practice, 203 (59.5%) performed > 50% of the colorectal operations laparoscopically or robotically; the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone was significantly higher (63.5 vs 31.9%; P < 0.001). The respondents who performed > 200 colonic or rectal resections provided significantly more MBP alone (79.6 vs 39.1%, P < 0.001; 76.6 vs 43.2%, P < 0.001; respectively). Among hospitals with fewer than 500 beds, 52.4% of the respondents used MBP + oral antibiotics preparation (OAP) + enema, a significantly higher percentage than the respondents of hospitals with more than 500 beds (P < 0.001). Nearly 40% of the respondents prescribed OAP in regimens; meanwhile, 74.8% prescribed preoperative intravenous antibiotics.

Conclusions

The study demonstrates considerable variation among members from the CSCC. These findings should be considered when developing multicenter trials and to provide more definitive answers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12957-018-1440-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical outcomes following mechanical plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus oral antibiotics alone in patients undergoing colorectal surgery

Background

Despite growing evidence to support use of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) compared with MBP alone or no bowel preparation before colorectal surgery, evidence supporting use of MBP plus OABP relative to OABP alone is lacking. This study aimed to investigate whether the addition of MBP to OABP was associated with improved clinical outcomes after colorectal surgery compared with outcomes following OABP alone.

Methods

Patients who underwent colorectal surgery and preoperative bowel preparation with either OABP alone or MBP plus OABP were identified using the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Colectomy Targeted Participant Use Data File for 2012-2015. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were compared, estimating the average treatment effect with propensity score matching and inverse probability-weighted regression adjustment.

Results

In the final study population of 20 594 patients, 90·2 per cent received MBP plus OABP and 9·8 per cent received OABP alone. Patients who received MBP plus OABP had a lower incidence of superficial surgical-site infection (SSI), organ space SSI, any SSI, postoperative ileus, sepsis, unplanned reoperation and mortality, and a shorter length of hospital stay (all P < 0·050). After propensity score matching and inverse probability-weighted regression adjusted analysis, MBP plus OABP was associated with a reduction in superficial SSI, any SSI, postoperative ileus and unplanned reoperation (all P < 0·050).

Conclusions

Use of MBP plus OABP before colectomy was associated with reduced SSI, postoperative ileus, sepsis and unplanned reoperations, and shorter length of hospital stay compared with OABP alone.

Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Enhanced Recovery

INTRODUCTION

In the modern era of minimally invasive colorectal surgery and enhanced recovery pathways, the value of preoperative bowel preparation remains debated. In this review, we evaluate evidence regarding the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic bowel preparation to make recommendations for their application in contemporary practice.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database through December 2017 for relevant randomized controlled trials, Cochrane Reviews, American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database studies, and other reviews pertaining to MBP and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery and conducted a narrative review.

RESULTS

The combination of MBP and oral antibiotics reduces the incidence of surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and postoperative sepsis. MBP improves laparoscopic surgical viewing and facilitates intraoperative manipulation of the bowel in minimally invasive surgery.

CONCLUSION

Based on existing data, we recommend that preoperative care includes MBP and oral antibiotics in elective minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

Effectiveness of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation on anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

It has been a standard practice to perform mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to colorectal surgery to reduce the risk of colorectal anastomotic leakages (CAL). The latest Cochrane systematic review suggests there is no benefit for MBP in terms of decreasing CAL, but new studies have been published. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to update current evidence for the effectiveness of preoperative MBP on CAL in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Consequently, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched from 2010 to March 2017 for randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared the effects of MBP in colorectal surgery on anastomotic leakages. The outcome CAL was expressed in odds ratios and analysed with a fixed-effects analysis in a meta-analysis. Quality assessment was performed by the cochrane risk of bias tool and grades of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Eight studies (1065 patients) were included. The pooled odds ratio showed no significant difference of MBP in colorectal surgery on CAL (odds ratio (OR) = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.68-1.94). According to GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence was low. To conclude, MBP for colorectal surgery does not lower the risk of CAL. These results should, however, be interpreted with caution due to the small sample sizes and poor quality. Moreover, the usefulness of MBP in rectal surgery is not clear due to the lack of stratification in many studies. Future research should focus on high-quality, adequately powered RCTs in elective rectal surgery to determine the possible effects of MBP.

Impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis

AIM

To analyse the effect of mechanical bowel preparation vs no mechanical bowel preparation on outcome in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing adult patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation with those receiving no mechanical bowel preparation, subdivided into those receiving a single rectal enema and those who received no preparation at all prior to elective colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies (23 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational studies) including 21568 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery were included. When all studies were considered, mechanical bowel preparation was not associated with any significant difference in anastomotic leak rates (OR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.74 to 1.10, P = 0.32), surgical site infection (OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.24, P = 0.96), intra-abdominal collection (OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.63 to 1.17, P = 0.34), mortality (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.57 to 1.27, P = 0.43), reoperation (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.75 to 1.12, P = 0.38) or hospital length of stay (overall mean difference 0.11 d, 95%CI: -0.51 to 0.73, P = 0.72), when compared with no mechanical bowel preparation, nor when evidence from just randomized controlled trials was analysed. A sub-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation vs absolutely no preparation or a single rectal enema similarly revealed no differences in clinical outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

In the most comprehensive meta-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery to date, this study has suggested that the use of mechanical bowel preparation does not affect the incidence of postoperative complications when compared with no preparation. Hence, mechanical bowel preparation should not be administered routinely prior to elective colorectal surgery.

Prevention of severe infectious complications after colorectal surgery using preoperative orally administered antibiotic prophylaxis (PreCaution): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Colorectal surgery is frequently complicated by surgical site infections (SSIs). The most important consequences of SSIs are prolonged hospitalization, an increased risk of surgical reintervention and an increase in mortality. Perioperative intravenously administered antibiotic prophylaxis is the standard of care to reduce the risk of SSIs. In the last few decades, preoperative orally administered antibiotics have been suggested as additional prophylaxis to further reduce the risk of infection, but are currently not part of routine practice in most hospitals. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a preoperative orally administered antibiotic prophylaxis (Pre-OP) in addition to intravenously administered perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce the incidence of deep SSIs and/or mortality after elective colorectal surgery.

Methods/design

The PreCaution trial is designed as a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that will be carried out in The Netherlands. Adult patients who are scheduled for elective colorectal surgery are eligible to participate. In total, 966 patients will be randomized to receive the study medication. This will either be Pre-OP, a solution that consists of tobramycin and colistin sulphate, or a placebo solution. The study medication will be administered four times daily during the 3 days prior to surgery. Perioperative intravenously administered antibiotic prophylaxis will be administered to all patients in accordance with national infection control guidelines. The primary endpoint of the study is the cumulative incidence of deep SSIs and/or mortality within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints include both infectious and non-infectious complications of colorectal surgery, and will be evaluated 30 days and/or 6 months after surgery.

Discussion

To date, conclusive evidence on the added value of preoperative orally administered antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is lacking. The PreCaution trial should determine the effects of orally administered antibiotics in preventing infectious complications in elective colorectal surgery.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register, ID: NTR6113. Registered on 11 October 2016; EudraCT 2015-005736-17.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2439-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Role of oral antibiotics for prophylaxis against surgical site infections after elective colorectal surgery

Over the past few decades, surgeons have made many attempts to reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI) after elective colorectal surgery. Routine faecal diversion is no longer practiced in elective colonic surgery and mechanical bowel preparation is on the verge of being eliminated altogether. Intravenous antibiotics have become the standard of care as prophylaxis against SSI for elective colorectal operations. However, the role of oral antibiotics is still being debated. We review the available data evaluating the role of oral antibiotics as prophylaxis for SSI in colorectal surgery.