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

Prospective study on the effects of mechanical bowel preparation under the enhanced recovery after surgery concept on electrolyte disturbances and functional recovery after robotic surgery for urologic tumors in older adults

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) involves the cleansing of bowel excreta and secretions using methods such as preoperative oral laxatives, retrograde enemas, and dietary adjustments. When combined with oral antibiotics, preoperative MBP can effectively lower the risk of anastomotic leakage, minimize the occurrence of postoperative infections, and reduce the likelihood of other complications. To study the effects of MBP under the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) concept on postoperative electrolyte disorders and functional recovery in older people with urological tumors undergoing robot-assisted surgery.

METHODS

Older people with urological tumors undergoing robot-assisted surgery were randomly divided into two groups. The experimental group (n = 76) underwent preoperative MBP, while the control group (n = 72) did not. The differences in electrolyte levels and functional recovery between the two groups after radical surgery for urological tumors were observed.

RESULTS

The incidence of postoperative electrolyte disorders was significantly higher in the experimental group compared to the control group, with incidence rates of 42.1% and 19.4%, respectively (P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the electrolyte disorder was age-related (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications, gastrointestinal function recovery, laboratory indicators of infection, body temperature, and length of hospital stay (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Under the accelerated recovery background, preoperative MBP increases the risk of postoperative electrolyte disorders in older people with urological tumors and does not reduce the incidence of postoperative complications or promote postoperative functional recovery.

Effectiveness of Mechanical Bowel Preparation before Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgery: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the effect of bowel preparation using only oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) solution versus oral PEG solution combined with mechanical sodium phosphate (NaP) enema on the surgical field visualization in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic procedures.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to either a single oral PEG solution or an oral PEG solution combined by mechanical NaP enema. The intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, the ease of manipulation of the bowels, and overall difficulty level of the surgery were evaluated by the surgeon using a self-administered questionnaire. After the surgery, the patients completed a survey assessing postoperative gastrointestinal discomfort.

RESULTS

A total of 114 women were enrolled and randomized to oral PEG solution-only group (n = 48), and oral PEG plus mechanical NaP enema group (n = 66). Forty-two women in oral PEG-only group and 59 oral PEG plus NaP enema group completed the study. There was no difference in intraoperative visualization or overall difficulty of the operation between the two groups, and bowel manipulation was easier in the oral PEG-only group. Also, there was no difference in operating time between the groups. The patients' level of gastrointestinal discomfort after the surgery was not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Routine use of mechanical NaP enema before robot-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic surgery is not recommended, because it has no additional benefit regarding intraoperative visualization or the surgical level of difficulty over oral bowel preparation methods.

The efficacy of preoperative low-residue diet on postoperative ileus following cesarean section

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of preoperative low-residue diet on postoperative ileus in women undergoing elective cesarean section (CS).

METHODS

This is a surgeon-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolling pregnant women at ≥39 weeks of gestation undergoing elective CS. Patients were preoperatively randomized to receive either low-residue diet (arm A) or free diet (arm B) starting from three days before surgery. The primary outcome was the postoperative ileus. The secondary outcomes were the postoperative pain (assessed through VAS scale), the quality of the surgical field (scored using a 5-point scale, from poor to excellent), postoperative complications, and the length of hospital stay. Perioperative data were collected and compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients were enrolled and randomized in arm A (n = 83) and arm B (n = 83). Postoperative ileus over 24 h was significantly shorter in arm A, compared to arm B (19.3% vs 36.2%). The surgical evaluation of small intestine was scored ≥3 in 96.4% of arm A patients versus 80.7% in arm B, while evaluation of large intestine, respectively, in 97.7% and 81.9%. Postoperative pain after 12 h from CS was significantly lower in arm A (VAS, 3.4 ± 1.7) compared to arm B (VAS, 4.1 ± 1.8). There were no significant differences as regards postoperative pain at 24 and 48 h, nausea/vomit, surgical complications, and hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a preoperative low-residue diet for women scheduled for elective CS would reduce postoperative ileus and pain. Further large-scale studies are required before translating these research findings into routine obstetrical practice.

Preoperative Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Gynecologic Surgeries: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before benign laparoscopic or vaginal gynecologic surgeries.

DATA SOURCES

Database searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Sciences and citations and reference lists published up to December 2021.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials in any language comparing MBP with no preparation were included. Two reviewers independently screened 925 records and extracted data from 12 selected articles and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials tool. A random-effects model was used for the analysis. Surgeon findings (surgical field view, quality of bowel handling and bowel preparation), operative outcomes (blood loss, operative time, length of stay, surgical site infection), and patient's preoperative symptoms and satisfaction were collected.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Thirteen studies (1715 patients) assessing oral and rectal preparations before laparoscopic and vaginal gynecologic surgeries were included. No significant differences were observed with or without MBP on surgical field view (primary outcome, risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.05, p = .66, I2 = 0%), bowel handling (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95-1.08, p = .78, I2 = 67%), or bowel preparation. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in perioperative findings. MBP was associated with increased pain (mean difference [MD] 11.62[2.80-20.44], I2 = 76, p = .01), weakness (MD 10.73[0.60-20.87], I2 = 94, p = .04), hunger (MD 17.52 [8.04-27.00], I2 = 83, p = .0003), insomnia (MD 10.13[0.57-19.68], I2 = 82, p = .04), and lower satisfaction (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.87, I2 = 76%, p = .002) compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

MBP has not been associated with improved surgical field view, bowel handling, or operative outcome. However, in view of the adverse effects induced, its routine use before benign gynecologic surgeries should be abandoned.

Minimally invasive anesthesia for laparoscopic hysterectomy: a case series

PURPOSE

Regional anesthesia (RA) is considered as a "minimally invasive technique" to achieve anesthesia. To assess the feasibility and the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic hysterectomy in regional anesthesia from the point of view of the surgeon, anesthesiologist and patient.

METHODS

A retrospective search was performed to identify patients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy under RA from April 2020 to September 2021. Five patients affected by benign gynecological disease (atypical endometrial hyperplasia or uterine leiomyomas) were included.

RESULTS

The postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting (PONV) and the antiemetic/analgesic intake were evaluated. Postoperative surgical and anesthesiological variables were recorded. Duration of surgery was 84 ± 4.18 and no conversion to GA was required. According to VAS score, the postoperative pain during the whole observation time was less than 4 (median). A faster resumption of bowel motility (≤ 9 h) and patient's mobilization (≤ 4 h) were observed as well as a low incidence of post-operative nausea and vomit. Early discharge and greater patient's satisfaction were recorded. Intraoperatively pain score was assessed on Likert scale during all the stages of laparoscopy in RA, with only 2 patients complaining scarce pain (= 2) at pneumoperitoneum.

CONCLUSION

RA showed to have a great impact on surgical stress and to guarantee a quicker recovery without compromising surgical results. RA technique could be a viable option for patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy.

The Effect of Mechanical Bowel Preparation on the Surgical Field in Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries.

METHODS

The patients randomized to a MBP group and a no preparation (NMBP) group. The senior surgeon remained blinded to the bowel regimen used by the patient. Intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery were evaluated using a numeric rating scale (NRS).

RESULTS

We enrolled 120 patients, of whom 109 completed the study, with 51 and 58 patients in the MBP and NMBP groups, respectively. The intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, intestinal load, and NRS scores for overall ease of surgery were better in the NMBP group (p = .03, p = .048, and p = .022, respectively). The results of the assessments also revealed no significant differences in surgical field visualization, ease of bowel handling, overall ease of surgery, or the time that patients experienced passage of flatus between obese (BMI > 30 kg/m²) and non-obese (BMI ≤ 30 kg/m²) patients in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study revealed that MBP did not improve the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field or the overall ease of surgery. Moreover, MBP had no benefit when operating on patients who had a high BMI. Therefore, we do not recommend routine MBP before laparoscopic gynecological surgeries.

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).

Preoperative Bowel Preparation in Minimally Invasive and Vaginal Gynecologic Surgery

Bowel preparation traditionally refers to the removal of bowel contents via mechanical cleansing measures. Although it has been a common practice for more than 70 years, its use is based mostly on expert opinion rather than solid evidence. Mechanical bowel preparation in minimally invasive and vaginal gynecologic surgery is strongly debated, since many studies have not confirmed its effectiveness, neither in reducing postoperative infectious morbidity nor in improving surgeons' performance. A comprehensive search of Medline/PubMed and the Cochrane Library Database was conducted, for related articles up to June 2019, including terms such as "mechanical bowel preparation," "vaginal surgery," "minimally invasive," and "gynecology." We aimed to determine the best practice regarding bowel preparation before these surgical approaches. In previous studies, bowel preparation was evaluated only via mechanical measures. The identified randomized trials in laparoscopic approach and in vaginal surgery were 8 and 4, respectively. Most of them compare different types of preparation, with patients being separated into groups of oral laxatives, rectal measures (enema), low residue diet, and fasting. The outcomes of interest are the quality of the surgical field, postoperative infectious complications, length of hospital stay, and patients' comfort during the whole procedure. The results are almost identical regardless of the procedure's type. Routine administration of bowel preparation seems to offer no advantage to any of the objectives mentioned above. Taking into consideration the fact that in most gynecologic cases there is minimal probability of bowel intraluminal entry and, thus, low surgical site infection rates, most scientific societies have issued guidelines against the use of any bowel preparation regimen before laparoscopic or vaginal surgery. Nonetheless, surgeons still do not use a specific pattern and continue ordering them. However, according to recent evidence, preoperative bowel preparation of any type should be omitted prior to minimally invasive and vaginal gynecologic surgeries.

Bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective was to determine if a bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MIS) influences post-operative constipation symptoms. We hypothesized that women who underwent a bowel preparation would have an improvement in post-operative defecatory function.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, women undergoing MIS received a pre-operative bowel preparation or no bowel preparation. Our primary outcome was post-operative constipation measured by the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) 2 weeks post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included surgeon's perception of case difficulty. Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol analyses (PPA) were performed. Analyses were carried out using t test, Fisher's exact test, the Wilcoxon test and the Chi-squared test.

RESULTS

Of 105 enrolled women, 95 completed follow-up (43 preparation and 52 no preparation). Baseline characteristics and rates of complications were similar. No differences were noted on ITT. The post-operative abdominal PAC-SYM subscale was closer to baseline for women who received a bowel preparation on PPA (change in score 0.74 vs 1.08, p = 0.045). Women who underwent a preparation were less likely to report strain (6.0% vs 26.7%, p = 0.009) or type 1 Bristol stool on their first post-operative bowel movement (4.3% vs 17.5%, p = 0.047). Surgeons were more likely to rate the complexity of the case as "more difficult than average" (54.4% vs 40.1%, p = 0.027) in those without a bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no difference in ITT analysis, women who underwent a bowel preparation prior to MIS demonstrated benefit to post-operative defecatory function with a corresponding improvement in surgeon's perception of case complexity.

Bowel and Bladder Injury Repair and Follow-up After Gynecologic Surgery

Bowel and bladder injuries are relatively rare, but there can be serious complications of both open and minimally invasive gynecologic procedures. As with most surgical complications, timely recognition is key in minimizing serious patient morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis of such injuries requires careful attention to surgical entry and dissection techniques and employment of adjuvant diagnostic modalities. Repair of bowel and bladder may be performed robotically, laparoscopically, or using laparotomy. Repair of these injuries requires knowledge of anatomic layers and suture materials and testing to ensure that intact and safe repair has been achieved. The participation of consultants is encouraged depending on the primary surgeon's skill and expertise. Postoperative care after bowel or bladder injury requires surveillance for complications including repair site leak, abscess, and fistula formation.

Does Mechanical Bowel Preparation Ameliorate Surgical Performance in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case-control study.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) improve surgical performance and decrease operative complications in anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).

METHODS

This study involved a retrospective analysis of 48 consecutive patients who underwent ALIF with MBP and a control cohort of 50 consecutive patients who underwent the same surgeries without MBP. The quality of each surgical procedure, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative complications, changes in vital signs and patient symptoms on the day of surgery, and bowel function postoperatively were also compared between the procedures.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between the 2 groups (all Ps > .05). The quality of each procedure, operative time, EBL, intraoperative complications, and changes in body temperature and heart rate were not different between the groups (all Ps > .05). The MBP group showed more headache, tiredness, thirst, and abdominal discomfort (all Ps < .001) and decrease of the systolic blood pressure (P = .041) on the day of surgery. The return of bowel movement was not different between the groups (P = .278).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the similar surgical result with the substantial patient discomfort, MBP can be omitted in ALIF.

Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect Clinical Severity of Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous multicenter randomized trials demonstrated that omitting mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) did not increase anastomotic leakage rates or other infectious complications. However, the most serious concern regarding the omission of MBP is ongoing fecal peritonitis after anastomotic leakage occurs. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical manifestations and severity of anastomotic leakage between patients who underwent MBP and those who did not.

METHODS

This study was a single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. From January 2006 to September 2013, 1369 patients who underwent elective rectal cancer resection with primary anastomosis were identified and analyzed.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage rates were not significantly different between patients who did not undergo MBP (77/831, 9.27%) and those who did (42/538, 7.81%). However, a significantly lower rate of clinical leakage requiring surgical exploration was observed in the leakage without MBP group (30/77, 39.0%) compared with the leakage with MBP group (30/42, 71.4%) (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage as assessed by the length of hospital stay, time to resuming a normal diet, length of antibiotic use, ileus rate, transfusion rate, ICU admission rate, and mortality rate between the leakage without MBP and leakage with MBP groups.

CONCLUSION

MBP was not found to affect the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage in elective rectal cancer surgery.

The Use of Mechanical Bowel Preparation in Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) using oral magnesium citrate with sodium phosphate enema to sodium phosphate (NaP) enema alone during minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a single-blind, randomized controlled trial of MBP versus NaP in women undergoing minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery. The primary outcome was intraoperative quality of the surgical field. Secondary outcomes included surgeon assessment of bowel handling and patient-reported tolerability symptoms.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-three participants were enrolled; 148 completed the study (71 MBP and 77 NaP). Patient demographics, clinical and intraoperative characteristics were similar. Completion of assigned bowel preparation was similar between MBP (97.2%) and NaP (97.4%). The MBP group found the preparation more difficult (P<0.01) and reported more overall discomfort and negative preoperative side effects (all P≤0.01). Quality of surgical field at initial port placement was excellent/good in 80.0% of the MBP group compared with 62.3% in the NaP group (P=0.02). This difference was not maintained by the conclusion of surgery (P=0.18). Similar results were seen in the intent-to-treat population. Surgeons accurately guessed preparation 65.7% of the time for MBP versus 41.6% for NaP (P=0.36). At 2 weeks postoperatively, both reported a median time for return of bowel function of 3.0 (2.0-4.0) days.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical bowel preparation with oral magnesium citrate before minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery offered initial improvement in the quality of surgical field, but this benefit was not sustained. It was associated with an increase in patient discomfort preoperatively, but did not seem to impact postoperative return of bowel function.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Xylitol Gum Chewing to Achieve Early Postoperative Restoration of Bowel Motility After Laparoscopic Surgery

Our objective was to evaluate the effects of postoperative xylitol gum chewing on gastrointestinal functional recovery after laparoscopy. Altogether, 120 patients undergoing elective gynecologic laparoscopy were randomly divided into 2 groups of 60 each (final numbers: 53 controls, 56 patients). Controls underwent a routine postoperative regimen. Starting 6 hour after surgery, study patients chewed mint-flavored, sugarless xylitol gum until flatus occurred thrice a day. Other postoperative management was routine. First bowel sounds, first flatus, first bowel movement, and discharge times were recorded. Symptoms included abdominal distension, nausea, and vomiting. First flatus and first bowel sounds occurred significantly (P<0.001) earlier in the study patients. No significant differences were found for first defecation time, hospitalization duration, or mild/severe intestinal obstruction (all P>0.05). Thus, xylitol gum chewing after laparoscopy can effectively shorten the time to first flatus and helps with postoperative gastrointestinal functional recovery. It is simple, convenient, and well tolerated.

Evaluating Mechanical Bowel Preparation Prior to Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy

Background and Objectives:

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) has been used prior to total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), but evidence for its use is lacking. Our study seeks to assess whether or not completion of preoperative MBP prior to TLH improves visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, or overall ease of the operation.

Methods:

Women aged 18–65 years undergoing TLH for benign indications at a level 1 trauma center were randomized to a bowel preparation (BP; n = 39) or non–bowel preparation (NP; n = 39) regimen. After each operation, the surgeon completed a survey about intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, and the overall ease of the operation. The surgeon was also asked whether or not he thought the patient had completed MBP. The patient completed a survey about pre- and postoperative gastrointestinal discomfort. The surgeon was blinded to whether MBP was completed before the operation.

Results:

There was no difference in intraoperative visualization, bowel handling, or overall ease of the operation between the BP and NP groups. Comfort levels before and after surgery were not significantly different between the two groups. The surgeon was able to correctly predict whether the patient performed MBP in 59% of cases.

Conclusion:

The routine use of MBP before TLH does not improve intraoperative visualization, bowel handling, or overall ease of performing the procedure. It also has no significant effect on patient comfort levels. MBP is not indicated before TLH for benign indications.

The use of mechanical bowel preparation in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a decision analysis

OBJECTIVE

The use of mechanical bowel preparation prior to laparoscopy is common in gynecology, but its use may affect the rates of perioperative events and complications. Our objective was to compare different mechanical bowel preparations using decision analysis techniques to determine the optimal preparation prior to laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

A decision analysis was constructed modeling perioperative outcomes with the following mechanical bowel preparations: magnesium citrate, sodium phosphate, polyethylene glycol, enema, and no bowel preparation. Comparisons were made using published utility values. Secondary analyses included the percentages that had 1 or more preoperative events and 1 or more intra- or postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Overall, the highest utility values were for no bowel preparation (0.98) and magnesium citrate (0.97), whereas the other values were as follows: enema (0.95), sodium phosphate (0.94), and polyethylene glycol (0.91). The difference between no bowel preparation and magnesium citrate was less than the published minimally important differences for utilities, so there is likely no real difference between these strategies. The probability of having at least 1 preoperative event was lowest for no bowel preparation (1%), whereas the probability of having at least 1 intra- or postoperative complication was lowest with magnesium citrate (8%).

CONCLUSION

The highest utilities were seen with no bowel preparation, but the absolute difference between no bowel preparation and magnesium citrate was less than the minimally important difference. With similar overall utilities, our model raises questions as to whether mechanical bowel preparation is a necessary step prior to laparoscopic gynecological surgery. However, if a surgeon prefers a bowel preparation, magnesium citrate is the preferred option.

Pearls and pitfalls in surgery for endometrioma

Endometrioma surgery should be planned and executed very carefully as it is associated with risks that may hamper future reproductive potential. Symptoms, age, risk of malignancy, bilaterality, ovarian reserve, and desire to have children should all be taken into account prior to surgical intervention. Cyclic and noncyclic severe pain may be an indicator or deep infiltrating diseases. Laparoscopic surgery is the gold standard, however, the issue of resection versus ablation should be further studied.

Laparoscopic versus open reversal of a Hartmann procedure: a single-center study

PURPOSE

Re-anastomosis after a Hartmann procedure is associated with a higher morbidity and mortality than other elective colorectal operations. The goal of this comparative study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic reversal is a justified operative approach, although the initial operation is most often an emergency laparotomy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on data collected on all 70 patients who underwent laparoscopic and open reversal of a Hartmann procedure at the Department of Surgery, University of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, between January 1999 and December 2011. Together with general demographic data, the analysis included the indication for the initial Hartmann procedure, time to reversal, intraoperative findings, the choice of operative method, operating time, postoperative pain control, return of normal bowel function, length of hospital stay, and peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

In most patients, the Hartmann procedure was performed after a perforated sigmoid diverticulitis. We were not able to find any statistically significant differences with respect to gender, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification between the laparoscopic group (LG) (N = 24 patients) and the open group (OG) (N = 46). In the LG, patients were significantly younger (p = 0.019). The median operating time was 210 min (75-245) in the LG, which was significantly longer than in the OG (166 min; 66-230). The statistical analysis of the duration of postoperative analgesic therapy (LG 7 days; OG 12 days), return to normal diet (LG 3 days; OG 4 days), return of normal bowel function (LG 3 days; OG 4 days) and length of hospital stay (LOS) (LG 10 days; OG 15 days) detected significant differences in advantage for the LG. Unplanned return to theatre during index admission was only necessary in the OG (N = 7, 15.2 %). With a median follow-up of 8 months (range 1-20), we observed a comparable number of minor complications in both groups but a significantly higher number of major complications in the OG (N = 27, 58.7%) (p = 0.001). Conversion occurred in three cases (12.5%). There was no mortality in either of the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was able to demonstrate the feasibility of the laparoscopic approach. In terms of postoperative results it should be seen as equivalent to the open procedure. However, the laparoscopic approach requires profound surgical expertise. The indication should be made after a careful risk/benefit analysis for each individual patient.

Is Mechanical Bowel Preparation Necessary for Gynecologic Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the efficacy and side effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before gynecologic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched. Randomized controlled trials on MBP prior to gynecologic surgery were included. The software package Revman 5.3 was used for statistical analysis. Odds ratio (OR) and standard mean deviation were calculated for dichotomous and continuous variable, respectively.

RESULTS

The quality of the included studies was moderate to good. MBP prior to laparoscopic gynecologic benign surgery or vaginal prolapse surgery has not been proven to be valuable for surgical performance, mainly involving visualization of the surgical field (OR 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1 to 2.32; Z = 1.95, p = 0.05), bowel handling (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.83 to 5.84; Z = 1.59, p = 0.11), surgical complications (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.67; Z = 0.5, p = 0.62) and bowel preparation. The discomfort due to oral catharsis is severer than no bowel preparation and enema, however without any difference between enema and no bowel preparation.

CONCLUSION

The routine practice of MBP before gynecologic surgery needs to be reconsidered. This traditional clinical behavior has to be abandoned before benign laparoscopic surgery. Studies on the role of MBP for gynecologic laparotomy and gynecologic cancer are urgent. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Is mechanical bowel preparation still necessary for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery? A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

A number of studies have proven that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) has no benefits in elective colorectal surgery. However, studies specifically related to gynecologic laparoscopic surgery are scant. We undertook a meta-analysis to assess the necessity of MBP before gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Two authors independently extracted data from each study. The primary outcome of interest was the quality of surgical field. Secondary outcomes of interest included postoperative pain, abdominal swelling, nausea/vomiting, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Three studies involving 372 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that MBP did not significantly increase the overall quality of surgical field exposure (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-1.49; P = 0.52). MBP also did not appear to significantly change the mean scores of postoperative pain (weighted mean difference, 0.09; 95%CI, -0.54-0.71; P = 0.79), the incidence of nausea/vomiting (odds ratio, 1.56; 95%CI, 0.80 to 3.03; P = 0.19), the mean scores of abdominal swelling (weighted mean difference, -0.26; 95%CI, -0.83-0.30; P = 0.36), and length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, 0.05; 95%CI, -0.13-0.22; P = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that routine use of MBP for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery should not be recommended. However, additional randomized controlled trials using large samples are needed to confirm these findings.

Postoperative bowel function, symptoms, and habits in women after vaginal reconstructive surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective was to characterize postoperative bowel symptoms in women undergoing vaginal prolapse reconstructive surgery randomized to preoperative bowel preparation vs a regular diet.

METHODS

Subjects (N = 121) completed two bowel diaries: a 7-day bowel diary immediately before surgery and a 14-day diary postoperatively. Self-reported bowel diary data and symptoms included the time to first bowel movement (BM), daily number of BMs, Bristol Stool Form Scale score, pain, and urgency associated with BM, episodes of fecal incontinence, and use of laxatives. Antiemetic use was abstracted from medical records. Outcomes of groups were compared using Chi-squared/Fisher's exact test or Student's t test as appropriate.

RESULTS

Mean time to first postoperative BM was similar in the bowel preparation (n = 60) and control groups (n = 61), 81.2 ± 28.9 vs 78.6 ± 28.2 h, p = 0.85. With the first BM, there were no significant differences between bowel preparation and control groups regarding pain (17.2 vs 27.9 %, p = 0.17), fecal urgency with defecation (56.9 vs 52.5 %, p = 0.63), fecal incontinence (14.0 vs 15.0 %, p = 0.88) and >1 use of laxatives (93.3 vs 96.7 % p = 0.44) respectively. Antiemetic use was similar in both groups (48.3 vs 55.7 % respectively, p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in the return of bowel function and other bowel symptoms postoperatively between the randomized groups. Lack of bowel preparation does not have an impact on the risk of painful defecation postoperatively. This information may be used to inform patients regarding expectations for bowel function after vaginal reconstructive surgery.

Bowel preparation before vaginal prolapse surgery: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgeons' intraoperative surgeon acceptability or assessment of the operative field regarding bowel contents and patients' satisfaction with or without a mechanical bowel preparation before reconstructive vaginal prolapse surgery.

METHODS

In this single-blind, randomized trial, women scheduled to undergo vaginal prolapse surgery with a planned apical suspension and posterior colporrhaphy were allocated using block randomization to an intervention or control group. Surgeons were blinded to patient allocation. One day before surgery, mechanical bowel preparation instructions consisted of a clear liquid diet and two self-administered saline enemas; the participants in the control group sustained a regular diet and nothing by mouth after midnight. The primary outcome was surgeons' intraoperative assessment of the surgical field regarding bowel content as measured on a 4-point Likert scale (1, excellent; 4, poor). Secondary outcomes included participant satisfaction and bowel symptoms. The primary outcome was determined by intention-to-treat analysis and other analyses were per protocol.

RESULTS

Of the 150 women randomized (75 women to intervention and control group), 145 completed the study. No differences existed in the demographic, clinical, and intraoperative characteristics between groups (P>.05). Surgeons' intraoperative assessment rating was 85% "excellent or good" with bowel preparation compared with 90% for participants in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-1.61; P=.30). The bowel preparation group was less likely to report "complete" satisfaction compared with the participants in the control group (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.35; P<.001). Abdominal fullness and cramping, fatigue, anal irritation, and hunger pains were greater in the bowel preparation group (all P<.01).

CONCLUSION

Before reconstructive vaginal surgery, mechanical bowel preparation conferred no benefit regarding surgeons' intraoperative assessment of the operative field, reflected decreased patient satisfaction, and had increased abdominal symptoms.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01431040.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Does mechanical bowel preparation improve quality of laparoscopic nephrectomy? Propensity score-matched analysis in Japanese series

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before laparoscopic nephrectomy in terms of operation time and perioperative complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy for T1-T3 tumors were identified in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database from 2008 to 2010. The patients were stratified into a preoperative MBP group (polyethylene glycol electrolyte, magnesium citrate solution, and sodium picosulfate) and a non-MBP group and were matched using one-to-one propensity score matching according to age, sex, Charlson score, T category, hospital volume, and hospital academic status. The operation time, postoperative length of stay, and overall complication rate were assessed by multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of 2740 patients in 355 hospitals, 1110 pairs were generated. The median operation time, postoperative stay, and overall complication rate (MBP vs non-MBP group) was 278 and 268 minutes (P<.004), 10.3 and 10.0 days (P=.695), and 11.8% and 11.4% (P=.740), respectively. The multivariate regression analyses did not find significant superiority of MBP for the 3 endpoints (all P>.05). A shorter operation time was significantly associated with female sex and early-stage tumor. Older age, greater Charlson score, and lower hospital volume adversely affected the postoperative stay and overall complication rate. Stage T3 tumor was unfavorable for the postoperative stay.

CONCLUSION

Our large-scale propensity score-matched analysis did not demonstrate a benefit for MBP in operation time, postoperative stay, or overall complications. The results suggest that MBP can be safely omitted before laparoscopic nephrectomy for T1-T3 tumors.

Malpractice claims and avoidance of complications in endoscopic surgery

Laparoscopy has become a valuable tool for the gynaecologist in the diagnosis and treatment of a variety of gynecological disorders. Its quicker recovery time and other advantages has benefitted countless women. Laparoscopic procedures, however, have their own associated risks and complications, and the surgeon must become thoroughly familiar with these. This awareness will help reduce patient morbidity and mortality, and potentially avoid the stress and burden of litigation, which has been increasing in recent years. Complications of gynaecologic laparoscopy include entry-related problems, and injuries to bowel, urinary tract, blood vessels, and nerves. Although some of these complications have been well described, some have emerged recently in relation to new technology and techniques. In this chapter, we discuss some of the complications of endoscopic surgery, including their incidence, prevention, and medico-legal implications, and provide a brief overview of their management.

Risks associated with laparoscopic entry: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians

The aim of these recommendations of the French National College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians was to focus the surgeon's attention on those aspects which could allow him/her to prevent, or at least limit, the incidence of these serious complications, in the absence of a previous laparotomy or specific risk factors (obesity, gauntness, large pelvic mass or pregnancy), four widely evaluated techniques can be used in a first line approach (Grade B): blind trans-umbilical technique following creation of pneumoperitoneum with a needle, open laparoscopy (Hasson technique), left upper quadrant entry (pneumoperitoneum and insertion of the first trocar) and direct trans-umbilical trocar with no prior pneumoperitoneum. The currently existing trials do not allow one or another of these techniques to be preferred. Radially expanding insertion systems and optical trocars cannot be recommended as a first-line approach, as a consequence of their currently insufficient degree of evaluation (Grade C). Trans-umbilical (blind or open) laparoscopic entry in a slim woman must be associated with care, as a result of the proximity of the large vessels (Grade B). If a blind trans-umbilical insertion technique is decided upon, one option can be to insufflate into the left upper quadrant (professional consensus). In the case of a previous midline laparotomy, whatever the technique used, initial entry is recommended at a distance from the scars (Grade B). It is recommended to carry out micro-laparoscopy in the LUQ, because this is the most completely evaluated technique for this indication (Grade C). One option is to use open laparoscopy at a distance from the existing scars (professional consensus). During pregnancy, the insertion position of the first laparoscopic trocar will need to be adapted according to the volume of the uterus (Grade B). Starting from 14WG, trans-umbilical Veress needle insufflation is contraindicated (Grade C). Two trocar insertion techniques are thus recommended: open laparoscopy (using the trans-umbilical or supra-umbilical routes, depending on the volume of the uterus) or micro-laparoscopy via the left upper quadrant (Grade C). After the second quarter of pregnancy, with laparoscopy the patient will need to be placed on a table inclined towards her left side, in order to minimize compression of the inferior vena cava (Grade B). In the case of laparoscopy during pregnancy, the insufflation pressure must be maintained at a maximum of 12mmHg (Grade B). After 24WG, if laparoscopy is performed, it is recommended to apply open laparoscopy, above the level of the umbilicus (professional consensus). Patients must be informed of the risks inherent to the insertion of trocars during laparoscopy (vascular, bowel or bladder injury) (Grade B). The more benign the pathology requiring an operation, the more detailed the supplied information must be, including that concerning rare but serious complications (Grade B).

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

Academic teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

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

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopy compared with laparoscopically guided minilaparotomy for large adnexal masses: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To address the efficacy in terms of intraperitoneal spillage of laparoscopically guided minilaparotomy compared with operative laparoscopy for large adnexal cysts.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was carried out at a tertiary referral center from January 2005 to September 2006. Sixty eligible patients affected by nonendometriotic adnexal cysts with diameter between 7 and 18 cm were randomly assigned to either operative laparoscopy or laparoscopically guided minilaparotomy.

RESULTS

The relative risk for intraperitoneal spillage among women treated with laparoscopy was 5.55 (95% confidence interval 1.88-16.33). Operative times were significantly shorter in patients who underwent laparoscopically guided minilaparotomy. Surgical difficulty was significantly higher in patients treated with laparoscopy. However, postoperative stay was shorter.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopically guided minilaparotomy, when compared with laparoscopy, is able to reduce intraperitoneal spillage in patients with presumably benign large adnexal masses, with minimal increase in patient short- and long-term discomfort. Because data regarding the importance of intraperitoneal spillage during surgery for benign and malignant pathologies, as well as rupture rates during traditional laparotomy, are scarce, traditional laparotomy still represents the standard treatment. In women desiring a minimally invasive strategy for large cysts, laparoscopically guided minilaparotomy should be considered.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian Clinical Trials Registry, www.actr.org.au, ACTR N012607000241437,

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.