Mechanical bowel preparation does not influence outcomes following colonic cancer resection

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.

Evidence-based Prevention of Surgical Site Infection

Surgical site infection (SSI) remains an important complication of surgery. SSI is estimated to affect 2% to 5% of all surgical patients. Local and national efforts have resulted in significant improvements in the incidence of SSI. Familiarity with evidence surrounding high-quality SSI-reduction strategies is desirable. There exists strong evidence for mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in colorectal surgery, smoking cessation before elective surgery, prophylactic antibiotics, chlorhexidine-based skin antisepsis, and maintenance of normothermia throughout the perioperative period to reduce SSI. Use of other practices should be determined by the operating surgeon and/or local hospital policy.

[Current view on variety of bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery]

Mechanical bowel preparation used to be a standard procedure for a long time. Nowadays routine use of MBP seems to be debatable thus alternative approaches, e.g. avoiding any bowel preparation completely or using of MBP with oral antibiotics are considered. Data on performing different kinds of bowel preparation is reviewed in this article.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol enhances early postoperative recovery after pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multimodal, multidisciplinary and evidence-based approach to reduce surgical stress and enhance recovery in the postoperative period. This study aimed to analyze the outcome of ERAS protocol in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

A total of 50 consecutive patients with pancreatic/periampullary cancer who underwent PD between January 2016 to August 2017 were included in the study. As per the institute ERAS protocol, nasogastric tube (NGT) was removed on postoperative day (POD) 1 if output was less than 200 mL and oral sips were allowed; oral liquids were allowed on POD2; semisolid diet by POD3; abdominal drain was removed on POD 4 if output was less than 100 mL with no evidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF); normal diet was allowed on POD5. Discharge criteria on POD6 were afebrile, tolerating oral normal diet, pain free and no surgery related complications (defined as per the ISGPS definitions).

RESULTS

NGT was removed on POD1 in 45 (90%) patients, abdominal drain removed by POD4 in 41 (82%) and 43 (86%) patients were discharged on POD6. There was no 30-day postoperative mortality. Three (6%) patients had delayed gastric emptying (DGE). None had postoperative hemorrhage and POPF. Readmission rate was 8%. A significant relation was found between the length of hospital stay (LOS) with age (P < 0.05) and a marginal relation between LOS and postoperative albumin (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocol can be safely followed in the perioperative care of patients who undergo PD. Early removal of NGT and allowing oral diet restore bowel function early. ERAS decreases the LOS and postoperative complications.

American Society for Enhanced Recovery (ASER) and Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) joint consensus statement on prevention of postoperative infection within an enhanced recovery pathway for elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgery (CRS) patients are an at-risk population who are particularly vulnerable to postoperative infectious complications. Infectious complications range from minor infections including simple cystitis and superficial wound infections to life-threatening situations such as lobar pneumonia or anastomotic leak with fecal peritonitis. Within an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP), there are multiple approaches that can be used to reduce the risk of postoperative infections.

METHODS

With input from a multidisciplinary, international group of experts and through a focused (non-systematic) review of the literature, and use of a modified Delphi method, we achieved consensus surrounding the topic of prevention of postoperative infection in the perioperative period for CRS patients.

DISCUSSION

As a part of the first Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI-1) workgroup meeting, we sought to develop a consensus statement describing a comprehensive, yet practical, approach for reducing postoperative infections, specifically for CRS within an ERP. Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative infection. To reduce SSI, we recommend routine use of a combined isosmotic mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics before elective CRS and that infection prevention strategies (also called bundles) be routinely implemented as part of colorectal ERPs. We recommend against routine use of abdominal drains. We also give consensus guidelines for reducing pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI).

Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients Undergoing Resection of TNM Stage I Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of Tumour and Host Determinants of Outcome

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal cancer improves cancer-specific survival (CSS) through the detection of early-stage disease; however, its impact on overall survival (OS) is unclear. The present study examined tumour and host determinants of outcome in TNM Stage I disease.

METHODS

All patients with pathologically confirmed TNM Stage I disease across 4 hospitals in the North of Glasgow between 2000 and 2008 were included. The preoperative modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) was used as a marker of the host systemic inflammatory response (SIR).

RESULTS

There were 191 patients identified, 105 (55 %) were males, 91 (48 %) were over the age of 75 years and 7 (4 %) patients underwent an emergency operation. In those with a preoperative CRP result (n = 150), 35 (24 %) patients had evidence of an elevated mGPS. Median follow-up of survivors was 116 months (minimum 72 months) during which 88 (46 %) patients died; 7 (8 %) had postoperative deaths, 15 (17 %) had cancer-related deaths and 66 (75 %) had non-cancer-related deaths. 5-year CSS was 95 % and OS was 76 %. On univariate analysis, advancing age (p < 0.001), emergency presentation (p = 0.008), and an elevated mGPS (p = 0.012) were associated with reduced OS. On multivariate analysis, only age (HR = 3.611, 95 % CI 2.049-6.365, p < 0.001) and the presence of an elevated mGPS (HR = 2.173, 95 % CI 1.204-3.921, p = 0.010) retained significance.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing resection for TNM Stage I colorectal cancer, an elevated mGPS was an objective independent marker of poorer OS. These patients may benefit from a targeted intervention.

Colonic transit in the empty colon after defunctioning ileostomy: do we really know what happens?

BACKGROUND

There is disagreement amongst surgeons about the use of oral mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to low anterior resection with diverting ileostomy. Colonic transit in the early post-operative period is an important factor in determining the role of MBP, as propagation of any stool remaining in the defunctioned colon may exacerbate morbidity in the event of anastomotic leak. We studied colonic transit time in the first 7 days following low anterior resection with diverting ileostomy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study of patients with rectal cancer undergoing elective low anterior resection with diverting ileostomy in a tertiary colorectal unit. Twenty radio-opaque markers were inserted into the caecum via the distal limb of the loop ileostomy at surgery. Plain abdominal radiographs were taken on post-operative days 1, 3 and 5. The primary endpoint was passage of the markers to the neorectum. Data were collected on treatment, return of gastrointestinal function and complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (mean age 68.5 years; 18 males) participated in the study. In 20 patients, all markers remained in the right colon on day 7. Three markers were present in the left colon in one patient, and eight markers were present in the neorectum in another patient, on the seventh day.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic transit may be abolished by the presence of diverting ileostomy. It should now be established whether clearance of the left colon alone, using enemas, is sufficient for patients undergoing low anterior resection, thus avoiding the morbidity associated with oral MBP.

The influence of mechanical bowel preparation on long-term survival in patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

In this study, we evaluated long-term survival in patients treated with and without mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery for cancer.

METHODS

Long-term outcome of patients of 2 main participating hospitals in a prior multicenter randomized trial comparing clinical outcome of MBP versus no MBP was reviewed. Primary endpoint was cancer-related mortality and secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 382 patients underwent potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer. One hundred seventy-seven (46%) patients were treated with MBP and 205 (54%) were not before surgery. Median follow-up was 7.6 years (mean 6.6, range .01 to 12.73). There was no significant difference in both cancer-related mortality and all-cause mortality in patients treated with MBP and without MBP (P = .76 and P = .36, respectively). Multivariate analysis, taking account of age, sex, AJCC cancer stage, and ASA classification, also showed no survival difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that MBP does not seem to influence long-term survival in patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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