Laparoscopic colon resection: To prep or not to prep? Analysis of 1535 patients. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:2523-2529. [PMID: 26304106 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4515-0]

Analysis of outcomes of penetrating colonic injuries managed with or without fecal diversion

Traumatic colorectal injuries can be managed by either fecal diversion or primary repair / resection and anastomosis. We aimed to study differences in outcomes in adult patients managed with or without fecal diversion at time of initial operation. The National Trauma Databank (NTDB) was used to identify adult patients (ages 18-64 years) with penetrating colonic injuries for the years 2013-2015. We included patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9-24 excluding patients with concomitant extra-abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 3 or more. Subjects arriving without signs of life, expiring in ER or with missing data were excluded. Data was collected for age, gender, vital signs on presentation, discharge disposition and length of stay (LOS). Patients were divided into two groups based on whether or not fecal diversion was performed within 1 day of presentation. Primary outcome assessed was in-hospital mortality and unplanned return to OR. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), pneumonia, organ surgical site infection (SSI), deep SSI, severe sepsis and unplanned intubation. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS for windows. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Of 2,598,467 patients, 5344 (0.21%) sustained a penetrating colonic injury. 2339 (43.8%) patients met criteria for age, ISS, AIS, signs of life and ED outcome. 173 patients underwent fecal diversion within 24 h of presentation (Group 1) while 708 did not (Group 2). Patients with missing data were excluded leaving 162 patients in Group 1 and 657 patients in Group 2. Groups 1 and 2 were noted to be similar in terms of ISS (median of 10 in both), age (median of 31 vs 29 years), percentage of male patients (85.2% vs 87.8%; p = 0.44), mean systolic blood pressure (127 mmHg vs 126 mmHg; p = 0.54), mean pulse rate (95.4 vs 94.5; p = 0.60) and mean respiratory rate (20.4 vs 20.1; p = 0.56) respectively. Median LOS was 10 days in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between groups 1 and 2 in the primary outcomes of in-hospital mortality (2.4% vs 3.5%; OR: 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-4.20) or unplanned return to OR (4.3% vs 7.8%; OR: 1.86; 95% CI: 0.83-4.19). No statistically significant differences were noted between groups 1 and 2 in the secondary outcomes of AKI (3.7% vs 3.8%; OR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.41-2.55), ARDS (1.2% VS 1.7%; OR: 1.36; 95% CI 0.30-6.21), DVT (1.9% vs 4.0%; OR: 2.18; 95% CI 0.65-7.31), PE (1.9% vs 2.0%; OR: 1.07; 95% CI 0.30-3.80), pneumonia (4.9% vs 5.3%; OR: 1.08; 95% CI 0.49-2.38), organ SSI (3.7% vs 7.0%; OR: 1.96; 95% CI: 0.82-4.67), deep SSI (3.7% vs 4.4%; OR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.49-2.94), severe sepsis (3.7% vs 3.3%; OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.36-2.26) or unplanned intubation (1.9% vs 1.7%; OR: 0.90; 95% CI 0.25-3.27). Adult patients with penetrating colonic injuries with ISS 9-24 in the absence of serious extra-abdominal injury who undergo surgery within 24 h of presentation do not seem to derive a statistically significant benefit from fecal diversion in terms of post-operative complications and mortality. In more severely injured patients fecal diversion may continue to provide a benefit.

Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence demonstrates minimal impact of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on reducing postoperative complications following elective colectomy. This study investigated the necessity of MBP prior to elective colonic resection.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing the effects of MBP with no preparation before elective colectomy, up until May 26, 2023. Surgical-related outcomes were compiled and subsequently analyzed. The primary outcomes included the incidence of anastomosis leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI), analyzed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3).

RESULTS

The analysis included 14 studies, comprising seven RCTs with 5146 participants. Demographic information was consistent across groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of AL ((P = 0.43, OR = 1.16, 95% CI (0.80, 1.68), I2 = 0%) or SSI (P = 0.47, OR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.73, 1.96), I2 = 0%), nor were there significant differences in other outcomes. Subgroup analysis on oral antibiotic use showed no significant changes in results. However, in cases of right colectomy, the group without preparation showed a significantly lower incidence of SSI (P = 0.01, OR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.86), I2 = 1%). No significant differences were found in other subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence robustly indicates that MBP before elective colectomy does not confer significant benefits in reducing postoperative complications. Therefore, it is justified to forego MBP prior to elective colectomy, irrespective of tumor location.

Not All Bad Comes to Harm: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Rectosigmoid Endometriosis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol on the length of hospitalization in women undergoing laparoscopy for rectosigmoid deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

An academic referral center for endometriosis and minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.

PATIENTS

Women aged between 18 and 50 years scheduled for laparoscopic excision (shaving, full-thickness anterior wall resection, segmental resection) of rectosigmoid endometriosis between February 2017 and February 2023.

INTERVENTIONS

We divided patients into 2 groups (non-ERAS and ERAS) based on the timing of surgery (before or after March 5, 2020). Starting from this day, restrictions were issued to limit the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, inducing our group to implement an ERAS protocol for patients hospitalized after surgery for posterior DIE.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We included 579 patients in the analysis, 316 (54.6%) in the non-ERAS group and 263 (45.4%) in the ERAS group. In the ERAS group, we observed a shorter length of hospital stay (5.8 ± 3.1 days vs 4.8 ± 2.9 days; p <.001) and lower complications rates (33, 12.5% vs 60, 19.0%; p = .04), despite a decreased frequency of conservative surgical approaches (shaving procedures 121 vs 196; p <.001). Repeated surgery or hospital readmissions owing to postdischarge complications were infrequent, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. The multiple linear regression analysis strengthened our results given the higher prevalence of bowel resection surgeries (both full-thickness anterior wall or segmental), showing that patients managed with a multimodal protocol had an overall reduction of hospital stay by 1.5 days.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of an ERAS program in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for DIE is associated with a significant reduction in hospital stay, without an increase in perioperative or postoperative complication rates.

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.

Is There a Role for Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation for Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

To date, all meta-analyses on oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OA) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colorectal surgery have included results of both open and minimally invasive approaches. Mixing both procedures may lead to false conclusions. The aim of the study was to assess the available evidence of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and other complications following minimally invasive elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library from 2000 to May 1, 2022. Comparative randomized and non-randomized studies were included. We reviewed the use of oral OA, MBP and combinations of these treatments. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Rob v2 and Robins-I tools.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies (7 randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort studies). Meta-analysis of the included studies showed that the combination of MBP + OA was associated with a significant reduction in SSI, AL and overall morbidity compared with the other options no preparation, MBP only and OA only.  CONCLUSION: Adding OA with MBP has a positive impact in reducing the incidence of SSI, AL and overall morbidity after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Therefore, the combination of OA and MBP should be encouraged in this selected group of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery.

Enhanced recovery programs in gastrointestinal surgery: Actions to promote optimal perioperative nutritional and metabolic care

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway is an evidence-based approach to the use of care elements along the patient perioperative pathway. All care elements that may impact on clinically relevant outcomes have been considered and reviewed. The combined ERAS actions allow a quicker return to bowel function, oral feeding, nutritional and metabolic equilibrium, normal activity and ultimately to achieve better outcomes. Because of the multi factorial approach and the commitment of all the professionals caring for the patient, it is necessary to have the engagement of all disciplines, such as surgery, anesthesiology, clinical nutrition, nursing, physiatry, involved. ERAS is a dynamic process and new evidence are constantly integrated into the program. The primary endpoint of this review is to give updated information on the key ERAS actions to achieve optimal perioperative nutritional and metabolic care.

Bowel surgery for endometriosis: A practical look at short- and long-term complications

Endometriosis involving the bowel requires a thorough evaluation prior to deciding upon surgical treatment. Patient symptoms, treatment goals, extent and location of disease, surgeon experience, and anticipated risks all play a part in the preoperative decision-making process. Short- and long-term complications after bowel surgery for endometriosis are the focus of this article. Unfortunately, the literature to date has inherent limitations that prevent generalizability. Most studies are retrospective or prospective single-center case series. Publication bias is unavoidable with mainly large volume experts sharing their experience. As a result, there is a need for high-quality prospective studies that standardize inclusion criteria and outcome measures among various centers with an aim to present long-term outcomes. In the meantime, care for those with endometriosis involving the bowel requires a thorough preoperative plan to minimize risks and a need for early diagnosis and management of complications unique to bowel surgery.

Insight into the methodology and uptake of EAES guidelines: a qualitative analysis and survey by the EAES Consensus & Guideline Subcommittee

BACKGROUND

Over the past 25 years, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has been issuing clinical guidance documents to aid surgical practice. We aimed to investigate the awareness and use of such documents among EAES members. Additionally, we conceptually appraised the methodology used in their development in order to propose a bundle of actions for quality improvement and increased penetration of clinical practice guidelines among EAES members.

METHODS

We invited members of EAES to participate in a web-based survey on awareness and use of these documents. Post hoc analyses were performed to identify factors associated with poor awareness/use and the reported reasons for limited use. We further summarized and conceptually analyzed key methodological features of clinical guidance documents published by EAES.

RESULTS

Three distinct consecutive phases of methodological evolvement of clinical guidance documents were evident: a "consensus phase," a "guideline phase," and a "transitional phase". Out of a total of 254 surgeons who completed the survey, 72% percent were aware of EAES guidelines and 47% reported occasional use. Young age and trainee status were associated with poor awareness and use. Restriction by colleagues was the primary reason for limited use in these subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology of EAES clinical guidance documents is evolving. Awareness among EAES members is fair, but use is limited. Dissemination actions should be directed to junior surgeons and trainees.

The Role of Bowel Preparation in Open, Minimally Invasive, and Converted-to-Open Colectomy

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation before colectomy is considered an effective strategy to decrease postoperative complications. However, data regarding the effect of bowel preparation in patients undergoing minimally invasive colectomy are limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of different bowel preparation strategies in patients undergoing open, minimally invasive, and converted-to-open elective colectomies.

METHODS

We identified 39,355 patients who underwent elective colectomy from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program colectomy-targeted database (2012-2016). Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact of different bowel preparation strategies on postoperative complications and mortality in three subapproach groups: open (n = 12,141), minimally invasive (n = 23,057), and converted to open (n = 4157).

RESULTS

Overall, a total of 10,066 (25.6%) patients received no preparation (NP), 11,646 (29.5%) mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone, 1664 (4.2%) antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) alone, and 15,979 (40.6%) MBP + ABP. Compared with NP, MBP + ABP showed the strongest protective effects. MBP + ABP was associated with reduced risk of major complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.66), infectious complications (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.46-0.54), any complications (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.51-0.60), 30-d mortality (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48-0.96), anastomotic leak (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.43-0.58), and length of stay ≥ 4 d (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.61-0.67) in overall population. These protective effects, except for 30-d mortality, were observed in open, minimally invasive, and converted-to-open groups. When the analysis was limited to robotic surgery only, MBP + ABP was only associated with reduced risk of major complications (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.38-0.97) compared with NP. The protective effects remained similar over the study time period.

CONCLUSIONS

MBP + ABP is a preferred preoperative strategy in open, minimally invasive, and converted-to-open colectomy.

Randomized controlled trial of mechanical bowel preparation for laparoscopy-assisted colectomy

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before open colon surgery has been debated over the last decade. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effect of MBP on the outcome of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colectomy.

METHODS

Patients who were scheduled to undergo elective laparoscopic colon resection with primary anastomosis were randomly allocated to a preoperative MBP group (either two bottles of sodium phosphate or 2-L polyethylene glycol) or a no-MBP group. Anastomotic leakage and other complications such as surgical-site infection and extra-abdominal complications were recorded postoperatively.

RESULTS

In this study, 122 patients were recruited and randomly allocated to the MBP group (n = 62) or the no-MBP group (n = 60). Demographic and clinical characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. The rate of abdominal complications, including anastomotic leak and surgical-site infection, was 16.2% in the MBP group and 18.3% in the no-MBP group (P = 0.747). Anastomotic leakage occurred in four patients (6.5%) in the MBP group and in two patients (3.3%) in no-MBP group (P = 0.680). About 29% of patients in the MBP group still had either liquid or solid content in the bowel. No significant difference was found between the length of hospital stay in the MBP group and the no-MBP group (9.0 ± 2.9 vs 8.4 ± 1.9 days, P = 0.180).

CONCLUSIONS

Elective laparoscopic colectomy without MBP is safe and offers acceptable postoperative morbidity.

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.