Preoperative oral antibiotics and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis reduce the incidence of surgical site infections in patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing IPAA

Oral antimicrobial prophylaxis was associated with preventing surgical site infection following 2-stage restorative proctocolectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a critical issue in colorectal surgery because it decreases postoperative patient quality of life. The rate of SSI in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) receiving immunosuppressive therapy is particularly high, suggesting that the SSI rate may increase with the introduction of biologic agents.

METHODS

UC patients who underwent two-stage restorative proctocolectomy at our institution between April 2012 and December 2023 were included in this study. Clinical characteristics were analyzed and compared between an SSI group and a non-SSI group; possible risk factors for SSIs were also analyzed. Additionally, the following anti-SSI measures adopted at our hospital were included as explanatory variables: laparoscopic surgery, oral antibiotic prophylaxis and change of surgical instruments before wound closure.

RESULTS

In total, 501 UC surgical patients were included. The incidence of overall SSIs was 45/501 (8.9%). The rates of incisional SSIs and organ/space SSIs were 26/501 (5.1%) and 30/501 (5.9%), respectively. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis was identified as a risk factor for overall SSIs (odds ratio: 0.45, 95% CI 0.20-0.99, p = 0.02), incisional SSIs (odds ratio: 0.34, 95% CI 0.11-1.03, p = 0.03) and organ/space SSIs (odds ratio: 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-0.98, p = 0.04). The use of biologic and immunosuppressive agents was not associated with any SSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonadministration of oral antibiotic prophylaxis was identified as a risk factor for SSIs. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis before restorative proctocolectomy may improve the postoperative quality of life of UC patients by preventing SSIs.

Preoperative Oral Antibiotics Preparation is Associated With Improved 30-day Outcomes in Elective Colectomy for Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is characterized by colonic involvement, where the 10-year risk of colectomy remains high at about 20%. The use of preoperative oral antibiotic preparation (OAP) in colectomy remains a subject of debate and there was limited evidence for UC patients. This study aimed to retrospectively investigate the relationship between OAP and 30-day outcomes following elective colectomy in UC patients using a multi-institutional national dataset.

METHODS

Patients with UC as the primary indication for colectomy were selected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from 2013 to 2022. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were compared by multivariable logistic regression, where demographics, baseline characteristics, preoperative preparation, and operative approaches were adjusted.

RESULTS

Among 6075 patients who underwent elective colectomy for UC, 3193 (52.56%) of them received preoperative OAP. Patients with OAP had lower cardiac complications (aOR = 0.358, 95 CI = 0.137-0.932, P = 0.04), pulmonary complications (aOR = 0.686, 95 CI = 0.494-0.952, P = 0.02), bleeding requiring transfusion (aOR = 0.738, 95 CI = 0.601-0.906, P < 0.01), wound complications (aOR = 0.626, 95 CI = 0.527-0.743, P < 0.01), prolonged postoperative nothing by mouth (NPO) or nasogastric tube (NGT) use (aOR = 0.781, 95 CI = 0.678-0.901, P < 0.01), and 30-day readmission (aOR = 0.811, 95 CI = 0.676-0.972, P = 0.02). Moreover, patients with OAP had shorter length of stay (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The use of OAP in elective UC colectomy was shown to have additional benefits beyond surgical site infections. Further large-scale randomized trials may be needed to determine the cause and effect of these observations.

The 2024 Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines for colorectal cancer: a secondary publication

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

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.

Effect of Preoperative Oral Antibiotics and Mechanical Bowel Preparations on the Intestinal Flora of Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Single-Center Prospective Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

 In the last few decades, considerable progress has been made in controlling surgical site infections (SSIs) using a combination of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation. However, the number of bacteria present after bowel preparation has not been clarified. In this study, we investigated the bacterial cultures of intestinal fluid samples from patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer after preoperative bowel preparation.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was designed as a pilot study at a single center. We enrolled 25 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer between March 2021 and February 2022 at our institution.

RESULTS

The rate of bacterial culture positivity was 56.0%. The most abundant bacterium was Escherichia coli (44.0%). The positivity rates for E. coli on the right and left sides were 54.5% and 35.7%, respectively (P = 0.60). Moreover, there was a significant relationship between a low American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score and E. coli positivity on the right side (P = 0.031). In the left-sided group, female sex and large tumor size were significantly associated with E. coli positivity (P = 0.036 and 0.049, respectively). Superficial SSI occurred in the patient in the left-sided group, but E. coli was negative.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the importance of understanding intestinal fluid contamination and its relationship to infection risk. Future prospective multicenter studies should be conducted to determine the association between intestinal bacteria and different types of preoperative preparation.

Antibiotics for preventing infection at the surgical site: Single dose vs. multiple doses

Background

Surgical site infections are common and expensive infections that can cause fatalities or poor patient outcomes. To prevent these infections, antibiotic prophylaxis is used. However, excessive antibiotic use is related to higher costs and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

Objectives

The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of a single dosage versus several doses of antibiotics in preventing the development of surgical site infections.

Methods

PubMed was used to find clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of a single dosage versus several doses of antibiotics in avoiding the development of surgical site infections. The study included trials that were published between 1984 and 2022. Seventy-four clinical trials were included in the analysis. Odds ratios were used to compare groups with 95% confidence intervals. The data were displayed using OR to generate a forest plot. Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4) was used to do the meta-analysis.

Results

Regarding clean operations, there were 389 surgical site infections out of 5,634 patients in a single dose group (6.90%) and 349 surgical site infections out of 5,621 patients in multiple doses group (6.21%) (OR = 1.11, lower CI = 0.95, upper CI = 1.30). Regarding clean-contaminated operations, there were 137 surgical site infections out of 2,715 patients in a single dose group (5.05%) and 137 surgical site infections out of 2,355 patients in multiple doses group (5.82%) (OR = 0.87, lower CI = 0.68, upper CI = 1.11). Regarding contaminated operations, there were 302 surgical site infections out of 3,262 patients in a single dose group (9.26%) and 276 surgical site infections out of 3,212 patients in multiple doses group (8.59%) (OR = 1.11, lower CI = 0.84, upper CI = 1.47). In general, there were 828 surgical site infections out of 11,611 patients in a single dose group (7.13%) and 762 surgical site infections out of 11,188 patients in multiple doses group (6.81%) (OR = 1.05, lower CI = 0.93, upper CI = 1.20). The difference between groups was not significant.

Conclusion

The present study showed that using a single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis was equally effective as using multiple doses of antibiotics in decreasing surgical site infections.

Meta-analysis of efficacy of perioperative oral antibiotics in intestinal surgery with surgical site infection

OBJECTIVES

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a serious complication of intestinal surgery. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of different preoperative oral antibiotic preparation (OABP) compared with intravenous antibiotic preparation (IVAP) and/or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP).

METHODS

A meta-analysis consisting of adult patients adopting oral antibiotics versus other regimens during the preoperative preparation of elective intestinal surgery was performed. The outcome included overall SSI, organ space SSI, superficial SSI, deep SSI, and mortality rate.

RESULTS

A total of 35 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of 8445 adult patients were included in our present analysis. OABP regimens were combined with IVAP in 29 RCTs. In general, the incidence of overall SSI in the OABP group was less compared with the IVAP alone or IVAP+MBP group (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.69, P < .00001, I2 = 47%). Metronidazoles plus quinolones or aminoglycosides showed the best effect on reducing the overall SSI. OABP in combination with preoperative and postoperative IVAP was both significantly associated with reduced SSI. IVAP before and within 24 h after surgery showed the best advantage. No difference was found between the OABP without IVAP group and the control group in reducing SSI. OABP regimens also demonstrated a lower incidence rate of organ space SSI, superficial SSI, deep SSI, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

OABP in combination with preoperative IVAP and within 24 h post-operation significantly reduced the incidence of SSI in intestinal surgery. Metronidazoles accompanied with quinolones or aminoglycosides might be the appropriate combinations for OABP regimens.

Manipulating Microbiota in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treatment: Clinical and Natural Product Interventions Explored

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a complex multifactorial chronic inflammatory disease, that includes Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), having progressively increasing global incidence. Disturbed intestinal flora has been highlighted as an important feature of IBD and offers promising strategies for IBD remedies. A brief overview of the variations occurring in intestinal flora during IBD is presented, and the role of the gut microbiota in intestinal barrier maintenance, immune and metabolic regulation, and the absorption and supply of nutrients is reviewed. More importantly, we review drug research on gut microbiota in the past ten years, including research on clinical and natural drugs, as well as adjuvant therapies, such as Fecal Microbiota Transplantation and probiotic supplements. We also summarize the interventions and mechanisms of these drugs on gut microbiota.

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.

ECCO Topical Review: Roadmap to Optimal Peri-Operative Care in IBD

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite the advances in medical therapies, a significant proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] require surgical intervention. This Topical Review aims to offer expert consensus practice recommendations for peri-operative care to optimize outcomes of IBD patients who undergo surgery.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of IBD healthcare providers systematically reviewed aspects relevant to peri-operative care in IBD. Consensus statements were developed using Delphi methodology.

RESULTS

A total of 20 current practice positions were developed following systematic review of the current literature covering use of medication in the peri-operative period, nutritional assessment and intervention, physical and psychological rehabilitation and prehabilitation, and immediate postoperative care.

CONCLUSION

Peri-operative planning and optimization of the patient are imperative to ensure favourable outcomes and reduced morbidity. This Topical Review provides practice recommendations applicable in the peri-operative period in IBD patients undergoing surgery.

Preparing the Bowel (Microbiome) for Surgery: Surgical Bioresilience

The preparation of the bowel for radical surgery is a corner stone of elective colorectal practice. The evidence for this intervention is of variable quality and it is often contradictory, yet there is now a global move toward the adoption of oral antibiotic therapy for the reduction of perioperative infective complications, such as surgical site infections. The gut microbiome is a critical mediator of the systemic inflammatory response to surgical injury, wound healing, and perioperative gut function. The loss of critical microbial symbiotic functions caused by bowel preparation and surgery has an adverse impact on surgical outcomes, yet the mechanisms through which this occurs are poorly defined. In this review, the evidence for bowel preparation strategies is critically appraised in the context of the gut microbiome. The impact of antibiotic therapy on the surgical gut microbiome and the importance of the intestinal "resistome" to surgical recovery is described. Data to support the augmentation of the microbiome through diet, probiotic and symbiotic approaches, as well as fecal transplantation are also appraised. Finally, we propose a novel strategy of bowel preparation defined as " surgical bioresilience " and define areas or prioritization in this emerging field. This describes the optimization of surgical intestinal homeostasis and core surgical exposome-microbiome interactions that regulate the wound immune microenvironment, the systemic inflammatory response to surgical injury, and gut function across the perioperative time course.

Preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The success of elective colorectal surgery is mainly influenced by the surgical procedure and postoperative complications. The most serious complications include anastomotic leakages and surgical site infections (SSI)s, which can lead to prolonged recovery with impaired long-term health.  Compared with other abdominal procedures, colorectal resections have an increased risk of adverse events due to the physiological bacterial colonisation of the large bowel. Preoperative bowel preparation is used to remove faeces from the bowel lumen and reduce bacterial colonisation. This bowel preparation can be performed mechanically and/or with oral antibiotics. While mechanical bowel preparation alone is not beneficial, the benefits and harms of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the use of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and trial registries on 15 December 2021. In addition, we searched reference lists and contacted colorectal surgery organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants undergoing elective colorectal surgery comparing combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MBP+oAB) with either MBP alone, oAB alone, or no bowel preparation (nBP). We excluded studies in which no perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis was given.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Pooled results were reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 RCTs analysing 5264 participants who underwent elective colorectal surgery. None of the included studies had a high risk of bias, but two-thirds of the included studies raised some concerns. This was mainly due to the lack of a predefined analysis plan or missing information about the randomisation process. Most included studies investigated both colon and rectal resections due to malignant and benign surgical indications. For MBP as well as oAB, the included studies used different regimens in terms of agent(s), dosage and timing.  Data for all predefined outcomes could be extracted from the included studies. However, only four studies reported on side effects of bowel preparation, and none recorded the occurrence of adverse effects such as dehydration, electrolyte imbalances or the need to discontinue the intervention due to side effects. Seventeen trials compared MBP+oAB with sole MBP. The incidence of SSI could be reduced through MBP+oAB by 44% (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74; 3917 participants from 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and the risk of anastomotic leakage could be reduced by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.99; 2356 participants from 10 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). No difference between the two comparison groups was found with regard to mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.82; 639 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.32; 2013 participants from 6 studies, low-certainty of evidence) and length of hospital stay (MD -0.19, 95% CI -1.81 to 1.44; 621 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared MBP+oAB with sole oAB. No difference was demonstrated between the two treatment alternatives in terms of SSI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.21; 960 participants from 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence), anastomotic leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.45; 960 participants from 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.50; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.33; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.1 respectively 0.2, 95% CI -0.68 to 1.08; data from 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (396 participants) compared MBP+oAB versus nBP. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of MBP+oAB on the incidence of SSI as well as mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23 respectively RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; low-certainty evidence), while no effect on the risk of anastomotic leakages (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.42; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81; low-certainty evidence) or the length of hospital stay (MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.8 to 1; low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, our results suggest that MBP+oAB is probably more effective than MBP alone in preventing postoperative complications. In particular, with respect to our primary outcomes, SSI and anastomotic leakage, a lower incidence was demonstrated using MBP+oAB. Whether oAB alone is actually equivalent to MBP+oAB, or leads to a reduction or increase in the risk of postoperative complications, cannot be clarified in light of the low- to very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, it remains unclear whether omitting preoperative bowel preparation leads to an increase in the risk of postoperative complications due to limited evidence. Additional RCTs, particularly on the comparisons of MBP+oAB versus oAB alone or nBP, are needed to assess the impact of oAB alone or nBP compared with MBP+oAB on postoperative complications and to improve confidence in the estimated effect. In addition, RCTs focusing on subgroups (e.g. in relation to type and location of colon resections) or reporting side effects of the intervention are needed to determine the most effective approach of preoperative bowel preparation.

Association of bowel preparation with surgical-site infection in gynecologic oncology surgery: Post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between bowel preparation and surgical-site infection (SSI) incidence following colorectal resection during gynecologic oncology surgery.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis used data from a randomized controlled trial of patients enrolled from 03/01/2016-08/20/2019 with presumed gynecologic malignancy investigating negative-pressure wound therapy among those requiring laparotomy. Patients were treated preoperatively without bowel preparation, oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP), or OABP plus mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) per surgeon preference. Univariate and multivariable analyses with stepwise model selection for SSI were performed for confirmed gynecologic malignancies requiring colorectal resection.

RESULTS

Of 161 cases, 15 (9%) had no preparation, 39 (24%) OABP only, and 107 (66%) OABP+MBP. The overall SSI rate was 19% (n = 31)-53% (n = 8/15) in the no preparation, 21% (n = 8/39) in the OABP alone, and 14% (n = 15/107) in the OABP+MBP groups (P = 0.003). The difference between OABP and OABP+MBP was non-significant (P = 0.44). The median length of stay was 9 (range, 6-12), 6 (range, 5-8), and 7 days (range, 6-10), respectively (P = 0.045). The overall complication rate (34%; n = 54) did not significantly vary by preparation type (P = 0.23). On univariate logistic regression analysis, OABP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06-0.80) and OABP+MBP (OR, 0.14; 95% CI: 0.04-0.45) were associated with decreased SSI risk compared to no preparation (P = 0.004). On multivariate analysis, both methods of preparation retained a significant impact on SSI rates (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Bowel preparation is associated with reduced SSI incidence and is beneficial for patients undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery with anticipated colorectal resection. Further investigation is needed to determine whether OABP alone is sufficient.

Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation Prior to Urgent Colectomy Reduces Odds of Organ Space Surgical Site Infections: a NSQIP Propensity-Score Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Preoperative administration of oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) alone has been shown to reduce infectious outcomes in patients undergoing elective colectomy. However, it remains unclear if these benefits extend to the emergency setting. This is a retrospective, propensity-score matched study comparing 30-day perioperative morbidity between those who received OABP alone versus no preparation prior to urgent colectomy.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, adults undergoing urgent colectomy from 2012 to 2019 were included. Those who were clinically obstructed or who received mechanical bowel preparation were excluded. Outcomes of interest included: surgical site infection (SSI), leak, ileus, and major morbidity.

RESULTS

Of 24,559 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 878 (3.6%) received OABP prior to urgent colectomy. Prior to matching, those receiving no preparation were more likely to have higher ASA class, diabetes, hypertension, preoperative sepsis, open procedures, and a dirty wound classification. After matching, 1756 patients, remained with 878 in each arm. Preoperative characteristics were balanced on univariate analysis. Postoperatively, patients receiving OABP experienced decreased organ space SSI (11.2% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.009) and ileus (30.3% vs. 35.3%, p = 0.029), with no difference in leak rates (3.3% vs 3.3%, p = 1.000) or NSQIP major morbidity (47.4% vs. 49.9%, p = 0.316). On multivariate logistic regression, including propensity score, the reduction in organ space SSI associated with OABP persisted (OR 0.684, 95% CI 0.516-0.903).

CONCLUSION

OABP prior to select urgent colectomies was associated with fewer organ space SSIs and may be considered when feasible.

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.

Oral antibiotics and a low-residue diet reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage after left-sided colorectal surgery: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leakage is a potential complication after colorectal surgery. We investigated the effects of oral antibiotics and a low-residue diet on the incidence of anastomotic leakage after left-sided colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Outcomes were retrospectively compared between 64 patients who underwent mechanical bowel preparation alone (group A) and 183 patients who underwent mechanical bowel preparation with addition of oral kanamycin and metronidazole (group B) on the day before left-sided colorectal surgery. After surgery, patients in group A received a normal diet containing dietary fiber and those in group B received a low-residue diet. The primary outcome was the incidence of anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcomes were rates of other postoperative complications, length of postoperative hospital stay, and laboratory data.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, and diarrhea were less common in group B than in group A (4.9% vs 18.8%, 6.6% vs 23.4%, and 25.7% vs 43.8%, respectively). Postoperative C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in group B. The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in group B than in group A (8 days vs 9 days, P = 0.010). Adaptive double least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression revealed that use of preoperative oral antibiotics and a postoperative low-residue diet were associated with lower incidence of anastomotic leakage (odds ratio 0.163, 95% confidence interval 0.062-0.430; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Oral antibiotics and a low-residue diet reduced the incidence of anastomotic leakage and shortened the postoperative hospital stay by 1 day.

Association between preoperative biologic use and surgical morbidity in patients with Crohn's disease

PURPOSE

We evaluated the influence of preoperative treatments with biologics on surgical morbidity in patients with Crohn's disease (CD).

METHODS

We reviewed the surveillance data of patients with CD who underwent surgery between April 2018 and April 2021. The possible risk factors for morbidity were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 305 surgically treated patients were included. Anti-TNF alpha agents and ustekinumab were used in 92 and 27 patients, respectively, within 12 weeks before surgery. There were no cases of mortality. In total, 70/305 (23.0%) patients developed a complication, and 42/305 (13.8%) patients developed a surgical site infection (SSI) (17 incisional SSIs and 35 organ/space SSIs). Current smoking status (OR 3.44), emergent/urgent surgery (OR 6.85), and abdominoperineal resection (APR) (OR 14.93) were identified as risk factors for total complications. Penetrating disease (OR 14.55) was identified as a risk factor for incisional SSIs. Current smoking status (OR 7.09), an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score greater than 3 (OR 5.85), a postoperative blood sugar level over 155 mg/dL (OR 4.37), and APR (OR 207.95) were identified as risk factors for organ/space SSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

No correlation between preoperative treatment with biologics and surgical mortality or morbidity was found. However, we should perform further analyses on a larger number of patients because the analyses may be limited by selection bias for treatment and several confounding factors.

Are colorectal surgery patients willing to accept an increased risk of surgical site infection to avoid mechanical bowel preparation? Implications for future trial design

AIM

Recent evidence has shown no difference in the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) with oral antibiotics alone (OA) and oral antibiotics in combination with mechanical bowel preparation (OA + MBP), suggesting that the use of MBP may be safely avoided. The aim of this work was to determine the absolute risk of SSI that patients would accept with OA relative to OA + MBP.

METHOD

Standardized, in-person interviews were conducted using the threshold task with patients attending colorectal surgery clinics who had previously had MBP. Participants were asked which option they preferred when the absolute risk of SSI was 7% for both options. Next, their switch point was determined by increasing the risk of SSI with OA by 1% intervals until their preference changed from OA to OA + MBP. Median switch point scores were reported and represented the absolute increased risk of SSI that patients would accept with OA relative to OA + MBP.

RESULTS

Fifty patients completed the interview. All participants chose OA over OA + MBP when the risk of SSI was 7% for both options. Switch points ranged from 8% to 25%, with a median of 10%, indicating that participants were willing to accept up to a 3% increase in absolute risk of developing a SSI with OA to avoid MBP.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that patients are willing to accept an increased risk of up to 3% for SSI with OA relative to OA + MBP. Incorporating patient preferences into the planning of future trials has the potential to improve the uptake of trial results into clinical practice.

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.

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.

Best practices in bowel preparation for colorectal surgery: a 2020 overview

INTRODUCTION

Cohort studies have recently initiated a paradigm shift in the field of preoperative bowel preparation. Indeed, the adjunction of oral antibiotics (OAB) to mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is now the gold standard for the American guidelines. However, this strategy is highly controverted.

AREAS COVERED

This review was an up-to-date analysis of literature on bowel preparation. We conducted a systematic review for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses published since 2009. A non-exhaustive overview of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) cohort studies and the international guidelines was also given, and future leads were discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The methodology of the ACS NSQIP studies did not allow a strong conclusion in favor of the association MBP+OAB. Besides, guidelines were not univocal, with non-American guidelines promoting no preparation at all. RCTs favored OAB alone: indeed, MBP+OAB showed no benefits in terms of surgical site infection (SSI) except when compared to MBP alone, while OAB alone seemed superior to no preparation. Likewise, the meta-analyses also favored OAB alone in terms of overall SSI and organ space infection. Large RCTs are currently running and may change these conclusions. Finally, microbiota is a future lead for personalized OAB.

Association Between Preoperative Oral Antibiotics and the Incidence of Postoperative Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults Undergoing Elective Colorectal Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The risk of postoperative Clostridium difficile infection in patients receiving preoperative oral antibiotics remains controversial and a potential barrier for implementation.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the association between preoperative oral antibiotics and the incidence of postoperative C difficile infection in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed (not Medline), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched for articles published up to September 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared bowel preparation regimens in adult patients who underwent colorectal surgery were selected.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The incidence of postoperative C difficile infection in adults receiving oral antibiotics versus no oral antibiotics was used as the primary outcome. ORs were pooled using generalized linear/mixed effects models.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials and 13 cohort studies comparing bowel preparation with oral antibiotics to those without oral antibiotics were identified. The pooled OR from 4 eligible randomized controlled trials was suggestive of a greater odds of C difficile infection in the oral antibiotic group (OR = 4.46 (95% CI, 0.96-20.66)); however, the absolute incidence of C difficile infection was extremely low (total 11 events among 2753 patients). The pooled OR from 6 eligible cohort studies did not demonstrate a significant difference in the odds of C difficile infection (OR = 0.88 (95% CI, 0.51-1.52)); again, a very low absolute incidence of C difficile infection was identified (total 830 events among 59,960 patients).

LIMITATIONS

This meta-analysis was limited by the low incidence of C difficile infection reported in the studies and the low number of randomized controlled trials included.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of C difficile infection in patients who undergo colorectal surgery is very low, regardless of bowel preparation regimen used. Considering the beneficial role of oral antibiotics in reducing surgical site infection, the fear for C difficile infection is not sufficient to omit oral antibiotics in this setting.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO - IDCRD42018092148.

Efficacy of Preoperative Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Patients With Crohn Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the efficacy of oral antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery for Crohn disease.

BACKGROUND

Although oral antibiotic prophylaxis with mechanical bowel preparation has been recommended for colorectal surgery, the use of this approach remains somewhat controversial. Moreover, the efficacy of this approach for inflammatory bowel disease also remains unclear.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial at the Hyogo College of Medicine. The study protocols were registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (000013369). In this study, 335 patients with Crohn disease who were scheduled to undergo intestinal resection with an open approach were randomly assigned to either group A or group B. The patients in group A received both preoperative oral antibiotics and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis, and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis alone was given to the patients in group B. All patients underwent preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate hydrate. The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) according to an intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Although the incidences of overall and organ/space SSI were not significantly different, the incidence of incisional SSI was significantly lower in group A (12/163; 7.4%) than in group B (27/162; 16.6%) (P = 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, the absence of oral antibiotic prophylaxis was an independent risk factor for incisional SSI (odds ratio: 3.3; 95% confidence interval: 1.3-8.3; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with Crohn disease contributed to the prevention of SSI.

The Role of Oral Antibiotic Preparation in Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the impact of the use of oral antibiotics (OAB) with or without mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on outcome in elective colorectal surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Meta-analyses have demonstrated that MBP does not impact upon postoperative morbidity or mortality, and as such it should not be prescribed routinely. However, recent evidence from large retrospective cohort and database studies has suggested that there may be a role for combined OAB and MBP, or OAB alone in the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI).

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies including adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, receiving OAB with or without MBP was performed. The outcome measures examined were SSI, anastomotic leak, 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, development of ileus, reoperation and Clostridium difficile infection.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies with 69,517 patients (28 randomized controlled trials, n = 6437 and 12 cohort studies, n = 63,080) were included. The combination of MBP+OAB versus MBP alone was associated with a significant reduction in SSI [risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.56, P < 0.00001, I = 13%], anastomotic leak (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.70, P < 0.00001, I = 0%), 30-day mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.76, P < 0.0001, I = 0%), overall morbidity (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63-0.71, P < 0.00001, I = 0%), and development of ileus (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.98, P = 0.04, I = 36%), with no difference in Clostridium difficile infection rates. When a combination of MBP+OAB was compared with OAB alone, no significant difference was seen in SSI or anastomotic leak rates, but there was a significant reduction in 30-day mortality, and incidence of postoperative ileus with the combination. There is minimal literature available on the comparison between combined MBP+OAB versus no preparation, OAB alone versus no preparation, and OAB versus MBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests a potentially significant role for OAB preparation, either in combination with MBP or alone, in the prevention of postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery. Further high-quality evidence is required to differentiate between the benefits of combined MBP+OAB or OAB alone.

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.

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.

Meta-analysis of oral antibiotics, in combination with preoperative intravenous antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation the day before surgery, compared with intravenous antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation alone to reduce surgical-site infections in elective colorectal surgery

Background

Surgical‐site infection (SSI) is a potentially serious complication following colorectal surgery. The present systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to investigate the effect of preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on SSI rates.

Methods

A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed using appropriate keywords. Included were RCTs and observational studies reporting rates of SSI following elective colorectal surgery, in patients given preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis, in combination with intravenous (i.v.) antibiotic prophylaxis and MBP, compared with patients given only i.v. antibiotic prophylaxis with MBP. A meta‐analysis was undertaken.

Results

Twenty‐two studies (57 207 patients) were included, of which 14 were RCTs and eight observational studies. Preoperative oral antibiotics, in combination with i.v. antibiotics and MBP, were associated with significantly lower rates of SSI than combined i.v. antibiotics and MBP in RCTs (odds ratio (OR) 0·45, 95 per cent c.i. 0·34 to 0·59; P < 0·001) and cohort studies (OR 0·47, 0·44 to 0·50; P < 0·001). There was a similarly significant effect on SSI with use of a combination of preoperative oral aminoglycoside and erythromycin (OR 0·40, 0·25 to 0·64; P < 0·001), or preoperative oral aminoglycoside and metronidazole (OR 0·51, 0·39 to 0·68; P < 0·001). Preoperative oral antibiotics were significantly associated with reduced postoperative rates of anastomotic leak, ileus, reoperation, readmission and mortality in the cohort studies.

Conclusion

Oral antibiotic prophylaxis, in combination with MBP and i.v. antibiotics, is superior to MBP and i.v. antibiotic prophylaxis alone in reducing SSI in elective colorectal surgery.

A Randomized Control Trial of Preoperative Oral Antibiotics as Adjunct Therapy to Systemic Antibiotics for Preventing Surgical Site Infection in Clean Contaminated, Contaminated, and Dirty Type of Colorectal Surgeries

BACKGROUND

Preoperative bowel preparation with or without oral antibiotics is controversial in terms of postoperative surgical site infections.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of oral antibiotics as adjunct therapy to systemic antibiotics with mechanical bowel preparation for preventing surgical site infections in clean contaminated, contaminated, and dirty colorectal procedures.

DESIGN

This was a single-center, prospective randomized study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at the General Surgery Department at Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University, China, from July 15, 2014 to January 20, 2016.

PATIENTS

Patients aged ≥18 years scheduled for abdominal surgery with clean-contaminated, contaminated, and dirty wounds were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive preoperative mechanical bowel preparation or mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics.

MAIN OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was the rate of surgical site infections. The secondary outcomes were extra-abdominal complications, duration of postoperative ileus, and readmission rate.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients were allocated to each group. Eight and 26 surgical site infections (8.42% vs 27.3 %, p = 0.004) occurred in the mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation groups. Thirteen extra-abdominal complications were reported: 6 in the mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics group and 7 in the mechanical bowel preparation group (6.3% vs 7.3%, p = 0.77). Postoperative ileus duration did not differ between groups (p = 0.23). There were 4 readmissions in the mechanical bowel preparation group and none in the mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics group (p = 0.04). On multivariable analysis, blood loss ≥500 mL (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 1.27-20.4; p = 0.02), ASA score ≥3 (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.2-12.5; p = 0.01), contaminated types (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.5-8.6; p = 0.01), and administration of preoperative oral antibiotics (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.60; p = 0.005) independently affected the incidence of surgical site infections.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center study.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative oral antibiotics, as adjunct therapy to systemic antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation, significantly reduced surgical site infections and minimized the readmission rates in clean contaminated, contaminated, and dirty types of colorectal surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A437.

Preoperative optimization of patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a challenging task. The aim of preoperative optimization (PO) is to decrease the risk of complications and reduce the length of postoperative stay. The aim of this study was to review and grade the available evidence, attain clear recommendations, and point out potential future research.

METHODS

Studies were identified from electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and scanning reference lists in relevant papers. English-written studies examining PO in adult patients with IBD were included. Eight PO factors were investigated.

RESULTS

Management of IBD is a multidisciplinary task. Steroid withdrawal is recommended while steroid stress dose is not recommended. Thiopurines appear to be safe, but it may be prudent to plan the procedure remotely from the last dose of an anti-TNF agent. Nutritional risk screening is recommended to unveil and correct any malnutrition. Thrombosis prophylaxis prior to surgery is well supported by evidence while extended 4-week prophylaxis needs further research. Percutaneous ultrasound or CT-guided drainage for intra-abdominal abscesses is recommended, but it is unclear for how long supplementary antibiotics (ABs) should be used. Oral AB 24 h prior to open surgery might improve outcome if given as complementary to IV perioperative AB. Mechanical bowel preparation is not supported by evidence. Comorbidities must be treated accordingly prior to surgical intervention. Smoking cessation can be beneficial for wound healing.

CONCLUSION

Multimodel PO intervention in IBD patients is recommended.

Does bowel preparation for inflammatory bowel disease surgery matter?

AIM

The purpose of this study was to determine if bowel preparation influences outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing surgery.

METHODS

The database of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, Procedure Targeted Colectomy, from 2012 to 2014 was analyzed. Inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing colorectal resection with or without bowel preparation were included in the study.

RESULTS

In all, 3679 patients with inflammatory bowel disease were identified. 42.5% had no bowel preparation, 21.5% had mechanical bowel preparation only, 8.8% had oral antibiotic bowel preparation only and 27.2% had combined mechanical and oral antibiotic preparation. Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic preparation is associated with lower rates of anastomotic leak, ileus, surgical site infection, organ space infection, wound dehiscence and sepsis/septic shock.

CONCLUSION

Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic preparation for inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing colectomy is associated with decreased rates of surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, ileus. Combined bowel preparation should be the standard of care for inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing colorectal resection.

Efficacy of metronidazole versus placebo in pain control after hemorrhoidectomy. Results of a controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Hemorrhoidal disease occurs in 50% of people aged > 40 years and is the most common reason for anorectal surgery. Pain is the main complication. Multiple topical and systemic drugs have been investigated for pain control, but there is no ideal treatment. Metronidazole has been shown to decrease postoperative pain but is not used widely.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of oral metronidazole versus placebo and to assess postoperative pain following hemorrhoidectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Controlled clinical trial in adult patients who underwent elective hemorrhoidectomy for grade III/IV hemorrhoids. Patients were assigned to receive metronidazole (500 mg q8 h orally; study group, SG) or placebo (control group, CG) for 7 days after surgery. Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale after surgery. Analgesic administration (time and use of analgesics) and resumption of daily life activities were also assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were included, 22 in each group. Postoperative pain differed significantly between the SG and CG at 6 h (3.86 ± 0.56, 6.64 ± 1.49), 12 h (5.59 ± 1.33, 8.82 ± 0.79), 24 h (6.86 ± 1.49, 9.73 ± 0.45), day 4 (5.32 ± 2.10, 9.50 ± 0.59), day 7 (3.14 ± 1.03, 7.36 ± 1.39), and day 14 (2.14 ± 0.46, 5.45 ± 1.29). The first analgesia dose was required at 21.27 ± 5.47 h in the CG and 7.09 ± 2.36 h in the SG (p < 0.05), the time of analgesic use was 6.86 ± 1.61 days in the CG and 13.09 ± 2.48 days in the SG (p < 0.05), and resumption of daily activities occurred at 7.59 ± 1.56 days in the CG and 14.73 ± 3.76 days in the SG (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Oral administration of metronidazole is effective in pain management after hemorrhoidectomy.

The role of oral antibiotics prophylaxis in prevention of surgical site infection in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) continues to be a challenge in colorectal surgery. Over the years, various modalities have been used in an attempt to reduce SSI risk in elective colorectal surgery, which include mechanical bowel preparation before surgery, oral antibiotics and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis at induction of surgery. Even though IV antibiotics have become standard practice, there has been a debate on the exact role of oral antibiotics.

AIM

The primary aim was to identify the role of oral antibiotics in reduction of SSI in elective colorectal surgery. The secondary aim was to explore any potential benefit in the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in relation to SSI in elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies after 1980, which investigated the effectiveness of oral antibiotic prophylaxis and/or MBP in preventing SSIs in elective colorectal surgery were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-three RCTs and eight cohorts were included. The results indicate a statistically significant advantage in preventing SSIs with the combined usage of oral and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. Furthermore, our analysis of the cohort studies shows no benefits in the use of MBP in prevention of SSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of oral antibiotics to systemic antibiotics could potentially reduce the risk of SSIs in elective colorectal surgery. Additionally, MBP does not seem to provide a clear benefit with regard to SSI prevention.

New WHO recommendations on preoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most preventable health-care-associated infections and are a substantial burden to health-care systems and service payers worldwide in terms of patient morbidity, mortality, and additional costs. SSI prevention is complex and requires the integration of a range of measures before, during, and after surgery. No international guidelines are available and inconsistencies in the interpretation of evidence and recommendations of national guidelines have been identified. Given the burden of SSIs worldwide, the numerous gaps in evidence-based guidance, and the need for standardisation and a global approach, WHO decided to prioritise the development of evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSIs. The guidelines take into account the balance between benefits and harms, the evidence quality, cost and resource use implications, and patient values and preferences. On the basis of systematic literature reviews and expert consensus, we present 13 recommendations on preoperative preventive measures.

Systematic review: outcomes and post-operative complications following colectomy for ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Colectomy for ulcerative colitis is associated with short- and long-term complications. Estimates of the frequency of such complications are variable and may have changed since the introduction of biological therapy. Understanding the true burden of surgical complications is important to clinicians in assessing risks and benefits of colectomy vs. continued medical therapy.

AIM

To ascertain the outcomes of colectomy and ileal pouch surgery in patients with ulcerative colitis in the biologics era.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies (2002-2015) reporting the outcomes of colorectal procedures (total and subtotal colectomy, IPAA with J-, S-, W-pouch) in adults with ulcerative colitis. Conferences proceedings (2011-2015) were hand-searched.

RESULTS

We identified 28 studies (20,801 patients) reporting outcomes from procedures conducted from 2002-2015. Early complications (≤30 days post-operatively), reported in 10 studies, occurred in 9-65% of patients with ulcerative colitis; late complications (>30 days post-operatively) occurred in 17-55% of patients. Most frequent short-term complications: infectious complications and ileus (mean incidence 20% and 18%). Most frequent long-term complications: pouchitis, faecal incontinence and small bowel obstruction (mean incidence 29%, 21% and 17%). Rates of early infection and late pouch failure decreased from 22% and 13% in 2002-2009 to 11% and 2% in 2010-2015. The mean incidence of post-operative mortality was 1.0% across 11 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Early and late complications arise in about one-third of patients undergoing surgery for ulcerative colitis. While colorectal surgical procedures are recommended for a specific group of patients, the post-operative complications associated with these procedures should not be underestimated.

Comparing Mechanical Bowel Preparation With Both Oral and Systemic Antibiotics Versus Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Systemic Antibiotics Alone for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection After Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The discussion on the role of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics in elective colorectal surgery is still ongoing.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether oral systemic antibiotics with mechanical bowel preparation are superior to systemic antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation for prophylaxis of bacterial infection during elective colorectal operation.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were searched using the terms oral, antibiotics/antimicrobial, colorectal/rectal/colon/rectum, and surgery/operation.

STUDY SELECTION

All of the available randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of combined oral and systemic antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation with systemic antibiotics alone and mechanical bowel preparation in colorectal surgery and defined surgical site infection based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria were included.

INTERVENTION

All of the statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.2 software. A fixed model was used if there was no evidence of heterogeneity; otherwise, a random-effects model was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We focused on incidence of surgical site infection among the groups.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials that consisted of 1769 cases were eligible for analysis. We found that both total surgical site infection and incisional surgical site infection were significantly reduced in patients who received oral systemic antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation compared with patients who received systemic antibiotics alone and mechanical bowel preparation (total: 7.2% vs 16.0%, p < 0.00001; incisional: 4.6% vs 12.1%, p < 0.00001). However, no significant difference was detected in the rate of organ/space surgical site infection (4.0% vs 4.8%; p = 0.56) after elective colorectal surgery.

LIMITATIONS

The meta-analysis was limited by the risk of bias because a majority of the studies did not use the blinding method.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral systemic antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation significantly lowered the incidence of surgical site infection after elective colorectal surgery compared with systemic antibiotics alone and mechanical bowel preparation.

Therapeutic Manipulation of the Microbiome in IBD: Current Results and Future Approaches

OPINION STATEMENT

Despite recent major strides in our understanding of the genetic and microbial influences that contribute to the development of the inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), their etiology continues to be enigmatic. Results from experiments in animal models of IBDs overwhelmingly support a causal role of the microbiota in these diseases, though whether such a cause-effect relationship exists in human IBDs is still uncertain. Therefore, virtually all currently approved and most often prescribed treatments for IBDs are directed toward the over-active immune response in these diseases rather than the intestinal bacteria. Nevertheless, there is an important need for non-immunosuppressive therapies that may present a more favorable risk-benefit profile such as those that selectively target the disruptions in gut microbiota that accompany IBDs. This need has led to clinical trials of various microbial-directed therapies including fecal microbial transplant, antibiotics, probiotics, and prebiotics. Unfortunately, these published studies, many of which are small, have generally failed to demonstrate a consistent benefit of these agents in IBDs, thus leading to slow acceptance of microbe-focused treatments for these conditions. In this article, we review and summarize the microbial basis for IBDs and the results of the most recent trials of fecal microbial transplant, antibiotics, probiotics, and prebiotics in IBDs. We also comment on possible safety concerns with these agents, speculate on why they have failed to show efficacy in certain clinical settings, and propose strategies to improve their usefulness.

Value of pre- and postoperative meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening in patients undergoing gastroenterological surgery

BACKGROUND

Data supporting active surveillance of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) for the prevention of postoperative infection remain controversial.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy of MRSA screening in patients undergoing gastroenterological surgery.

METHOD

Nasal carriage of MRSA was screened using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay on two gastroenterological surgery wards (A and B). Occurrence of postoperative MRSA infection was analysed according to nasal MRSA carriage status (pre-operative carriage and postoperative acquisition).

FINDINGS

The incidence of pre-operative MRSA carriage was 9.7% on Ward A and 4.3% on Ward B (P = 0.009). Postoperative nasal MRSA acquisition was confirmed in 16.2% and 6.0% of patients, respectively (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of MRSA surgical site infections (SSIs) between patients with and without pre-operative nasal colonization on either ward. On Ward A, where MRSA nasal acquisition was more common, the MRSA infection rate in patients with postoperative nasal acquisition was 26.8%, which was significantly higher than the rates in patients with pre-operative MRSA colonization and patients without colonization during hospitalization. Postoperative nasal MRSA acquisition was an independent factor associated with MRSA infection on both wards [Ward A: odds ratio (OR) 7.192, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.981-17.352; Ward B: OR 5.761, 95% CI 1.429-23.220].

CONCLUSION

MRSA SSIs were prevented by a screening-based strategy in pre-operative MRSA carriers. Postoperative nasal acquisition was a significant factor affecting MRSA infection, and the effect of screening varied according to the incidence of postoperative MRSA acquisition on the ward.