A statewide colectomy experience: the role of full bowel preparation in preventing surgical site infection. Ann Surg. 2014;259:310-314. [PMID: 23979289 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e3182a62643]

Does luck always favor the prepared? Analysis of the NSQIP database shows benefits of combined bowel preparation on colostomy reversal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation has long been used to prevent infectious complications and facilitate easy colorectal surgery. Both mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation have been thoroughly studied in the elective colorectal resection population, but no studies exist on their use before adult colostomy reversals. This study aims to evaluate the effect of preoperative bowel preparation on anastomotic leak and infectious complication rates after colostomy reversal surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of the 2016-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program colorectal-specific database was performed. Adults who underwent elective colostomy reversal were stratified into 4 groups: no bowel preparation, oral antibiotic only, mechanical bowel preparation only, or combined oral antibiotic + mechanical bowel preparation. Outcomes measured were infectious complications, anastomotic leak, prolonged ileus, wound disruption, acute kidney injury, Clostridium difficile colitis, return to the operating room, survivor-only length of stay, mortality, and unplanned readmissions. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of infectious complications and anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

A total of 793 patients who underwent colostomy takedown were identified (no bowel preparation: 37%; oral antibiotic only: 7%; mechanical bowel preparation only: 13%; combined oral antibiotic + mechanical bowel preparation: 42%). Patients who had oral antibiotic + mechanical bowel preparation had significantly lower 30-day rates of organ/space surgical site infection, sepsis, septic shock, anastomotic leak, prolonged ileus, wound disruption, and length of stay (P < .05). On multivariate analysis, combined oral antibiotic + mechanical bowel preparation was associated with lower adjusted odds of infectious complications (adjusted odds ratio: 0.52, P < .05) and anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio: 0.37, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study specifically demonstrating that combined oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel preparation may reduce infectious complications and anastomotic leaks without increasing Clostridium difficile colitis and acute kidney injury after adult elective colostomy reversal. Granular, large-scale, prospective studies are warranted to replicate these findings and identify opportunities for quality improvement.

Beyond the Operating Room: A Narrative Review of Enhanced Recovery Strategies in Colorectal Surgery

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have significantly transformed the management of patients undergoing colorectal surgery. This comprehensive review explores the key components and benefits of ERAS in colorectal procedures, focusing on preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative strategies aimed at improving patient outcomes. These strategies include preoperative patient education, multimodal analgesia, minimally invasive surgical techniques, and early mobilization. ERAS protocols reduce postoperative complications, shorten hospital stays, and enhance overall recovery, leading to better patient satisfaction and decreased healthcare costs. However, challenges such as patient adherence and managing high-risk patients remain critical areas for further research. Additionally, future research should focus on refining ERAS protocols, integrating novel technologies such as minimally invasive techniques, and evaluating long-term outcomes to further enhance the recovery process.

Pre-Operative Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect the Impact of Anastomosis Leakage in Left-Side Colorectal Surgery-A Single Center Observational Study

Despite rapid advances in colorectal surgery, morbidity and mortality rates in elective gastrointestinal surgery play a significant role. For decades, there have been tempestuous discussions on preventative measures to minimize the risk of anastomotic dehiscence. When mechanical bowel preparation before an elective procedure, one of the key hypotheses, was introduced into practice, it was assumed that it would decrease the number of infectious complications and anastomotic dehiscence. The advancements in antibiotic treatment supported the concomitant administration of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation. In the prospective study conducted at our clinic, we performed left-side colorectal procedures without prior mechanical preparation. All patients enrolled in the study underwent the surgery and were observed in the 3rd Surgical Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia, from January 2019 to January 2020. As a control group, we used a similar group of patients with MBP. Our observed group included 87 patients with tumors in the left part of their large intestine (lineal flexure, descendent colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum). Dixon laparoscopic resection was performed in 26 patients. Sigmoid laparoscopic resection was performed in 27 patients. In 12 patients, the procedure was started laparoscopically but had to be converted due to adverse anatomical conditions. The conservative approaches mostly included Dixon resections (19 patients), sigmoid colon resections (5 patients), left-side hemicolectomies (6 patients), and Miles' tumor resections, with rectal amputation (4 patients). Our study highlighted the fact that MBP does not have an unequivocal benefit for patients with colorectal infection, which has an impact on the development of anastomotic dehiscence.

Influence of additional prophylactic oral antibiotics during mechanical bowel preparation on surgical site infection in patients receiving colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic antibiotics (PAs) are standard for preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) post-colorectal surgery. This study aims to compare the effect of additional empiric oral antibiotics (OAs) alongside routine PAs to identify SSI risk factors.

METHODS

A retrospective observatory analysis was conducted from January 2019 to December 2022 at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The cohort was divided into two groups: PA given 1 h before surgery and discontinued within 24 h, and OA administered empiric OAs during mechanical bowel preparation in addition to PA.

RESULTS

From a total of 6736 patients, 3482 were in the PA group and 3254 in the OA group. SSI incidence showed no significant intergroup difference (p = 0.374) even after propensity score matching (p = 0.338). The multivariable analysis revealed male sex [odds ratio (OR): 2.153, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.626-2.852, and p = 0.001], open surgery (OR: 3.335, 95% CI: 2.456-4.528, and p = 0.001), dirty wound (OR: 2.171, 95% CI: 1.256-3.754, and p = 0.006), and an operation time of more than 145 min (OR: 2.110, 95% CI: 1.324-3.365, and p = 0.002) as SSI risk factors. In rectal surgery subgroup, OA demonstrated a protective effect against SSI (OR: 0.613, 95% CI: 0.408-0.922, and p = 0.019) and in laparoscopic approach (OR: 0.626, 95% CI: 0.412-0.952, and p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

OA did not affect SSI incidence in colorectal surgeries. Male sex, open surgery, dirty wounds, and longer operation time were risk factors for SSI. However, for rectal and laparoscopic surgery, OA was a protective factor for SSI.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Oral Antibiotics Alone versus Oral Antibiotics Combined with Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matching Re-Analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 Prospective Cohorts

The evidence regarding the role of oral antibiotics alone (oA) or combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MoABP) for elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. A prospective database of 8359 colorectal resections gathered over a 32-month period from 78 Italian surgical units (the iCral 2 and 3 studies), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables together with 60-day adverse events, was re-analyzed to identify a subgroup of 1013 cases (12.1%) that received either oA or MoABP. This dataset was analyzed using a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 243 patients each were obtained: group A (oA) and group B (MoABP). The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher AL risk [14 (5.8%) vs. 6 (2.5%) events; OR: 3.77; 95%CI: 1.22-11.67; p = 0.021], while no significant difference was recorded between the two groups regarding SSIs. These results strongly support the use of MoABP for elective colorectal resections.

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.

The role of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics in prevention of anastomotic leakage following restorative resection for primary rectal cancer - a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leakage after colorectal cancer resection is a feared postoperative complication seen among up till 10-20% of patients, with a higher risk following rectal resection than colon resection. Recent studies suggest that the combined use of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics may have a preventive effect on anastomotic leakage. This systematic review aims to explore the association between preoperative mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics and the risk of anastomotic leakage following restorative resection for primary rectal cancer.

METHODS

Three databases were systematically searched in February 2022. Studies reporting anastomotic leakage rate in patients, who received mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics before elective restorative resection for primary rectal cancer, were included. A meta-analysis was conducted based on the risk ratios of anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

Among 839 studies, 5 studies met the eligibility criteria. The median number of patients were 6111 (80-29,739). The combination of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics was associated with a decreased risk of anastomotic leakage (risk ratio = 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.39-0.69), p-value < 0.001). Limitations included a low number of studies, small sample sizes and the studies being rather heterogenous.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the use of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics is associated with a decreased risk of anastomotic leakage among patients undergoing restorative resection for primary rectal cancer. The limitations of the review should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

Smoking Cessation for Preoperative Optimization

Cigarette smoking is associated with pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and confers increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Smoking cessation in the weeks before surgery can mitigate these risks, and surgeons should screen patients for smoking before a scheduled operation so that appropriate smoking cessation education and resources can be given. Interventions that combine nicotine replacement therapy, pharmacotherapy, and counseling are effective to achieve durable smoking cessation. When trying to stop smoking in the preoperative period, surgical patients experience much higher than average cessation rates compared with the general population, indicating that the time around surgery is ripe for motivating and sustaining behavior change. This chapter summarizes the impact of smoking on postoperative outcomes in abdominal and colorectal surgery, the benefits of smoking cessation, and the impact of interventions aimed to reduce smoking before surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

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.

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in ovarian cancer debulking: Are we lowering or just trading surgical complications?

OBJECTIVES

To examine postoperative complications associated with preoperative mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) for patients with ovarian cancer who underwent bowel resection at cytoreductive surgery (CRS).

METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective study of patients with ovarian cancer undergoing CRS from 01/2011-12/2020 using ICD-10 diagnoses and procedure codes. Patients were stratified by those who underwent bowel resection versus no resection. Bowel resection patients were further stratified by those who underwent MOABP versus no bowel preparation. Patient demographics, tumor data, and perioperative metrics were collected. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression evaluated odds of 30-day postoperative complications in patients with bowel resection versus no resection and those with MOABP versus no bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Of 919 patients identified, 215 (23.3%) required bowel resection, which included 81 (37.7%) who received MOABP. Patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and cancer data were similar between MOABP versus no bowel preparation patients. MOABP patients underwent more interval CRS (34.6% versus 9.0%), more optimal surgical resections (96.3% versus 83.8%), fewer diverting ostomies (13.5% versus 33.5%), and shorter hospital stays (7.1 versus 9.4 days) than no bowel preparation patients. On adjusted analyses, MOABP patients experienced significantly lower odds of deep/organ-space surgical infections and 30-day readmissions but higher odds of unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and grade 3 or higher cardiac and gastrointestinal complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent preoperative MOABP prior to ovarian cancer CRS with bowel resection had lower odds or deep/organ-space infections and readmissions, shorter hospital stays, fewer diverting ostomies, and more optimal resections. However, these patients also experienced higher odds of ICU admissions and grade 3 or higher cardiac and gastrointestinal complications. The positive and negative postoperative outcomes in this population should be considered in 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 Reduces Surgical Site Infection and Anastomotic Leakage in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical-site infection (SSI) and anastomotic leakage (AL) are major complications following surgical resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC). The beneficial effect of prophylactic oral antibiotics (OABs) on AL in particular is inconsistent. We investigated the impact of OABs on AL rates and on SSI.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of recent RCTs and cohort studies was performed including patients undergoing elective CRC surgery, receiving OABs with or without mechanical bowel preparation (MBP). Primary outcomes were rates of SSI and AL. Secondarily, rates of SSI and AL were compared in broad-spectrum OABs and selective OABs (selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD)) subgroups.

RESULTS

Eight studies (seven RCTs and one cohort study) with a total of 2497 patients were included. Oral antibiotics combined with MBP was associated with a significant reduction in SSI (RR = 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.69), I² = 1.03%) and AL rates (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91, I² = 0.00%), compared to MBP alone. A subgroup analysis demonstrated that SDD resulted in a significant reduction in AL rates compared to broad-spectrum OABs (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.91), I² = 0.00%).

CONCLUSION

OABs in addition to MBP reduces SSI and AL rates in patients undergoing elective CRC surgery and, more specifically, SDD appears to be more effective compared to broad-spectrum OABs in reducing AL.

Mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics versus mechanical bowel preparation only prior rectal surgery (MOBILE2): a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial-study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to rectal surgery is widely used. Based on retrospective data many guidelines recommend mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) to reduce postoperative complications and specifically surgical site infections (SSIs). The primary aim of this study is to examine whether MOABP reduces complications of rectal surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The MOBILE2 (Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics vs Mechanical Bowel Preparation Only Prior Rectal Surgery) trial is a multicentre, double-blinded, parallel group, superiority, randomised controlled trial comparing MOABP to MBP among patients scheduled for rectal surgery with colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. The patients randomised to the MOABP group receive 1 g neomycin and 1 g metronidazole two times on a day prior to surgery and patients randomised to the MBP group receive identical placebo. Based on power calculations, 604 patients will be enrolled in the study. The primary outcome is Comprehensive Complication Index within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes are SSIs within 30 days after surgery, the number and classification of anastomosis dehiscences, the length of hospital stay, mortality within 90 days after surgery and the number of patients who received adjuvant treatment if needed. Tertiary outcomes are overall survival, disease-specific survival, recurrence-free survival and difference in quality-of-life before and 1 year after surgery. In addition, the microbiota differences in colon mucosa are analysed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Ethics Committee of Helsinki University Hospital approved the study. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04281667.

Leveraging a statewide quality collaborative to understand population-level hernia care

BACKGROUND

Although ventral hernia repair (VHR) is extremely common, there is profound variation in operative technique and outcomes. This study describes the results of a statewide registry capturing hernia-specific variables to understand population-level practice patterns.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of adult patients in a new statewide hernia registry undergoing VHR in 2020.

RESULTS

919 patients underwent VHR across 57 hospitals and 279 surgeons. Hernia width was <2 cm in 233 (25%) patients, 2-5 cm in 420 (46%) patients, 5-10 cm in 171 (19%) patients, and >10 cm in 95 (10%) patients. Mesh was used in 79% of cases and varied in use from 53% of hernias <2 cm to 95% of hernias >10 cm. The most common mesh type was synthetic non-absorbable (46%), followed by synthetic absorbable mesh (37%). The incidence of complications was significantly associated with hernia width.

CONCLUSIONS

A population-level, hernia-specific database captured operative details for 919 patients in 1 year. There was significant variation in mesh use and outcomes based on hernia size. These nuanced data may inform higher quality clinical practice.

A Review of Bowel Preparation Before Colorectal Surgery

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

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.

Controversies in preoperative bowel preparation in gynecologic and gynecologic oncology surgery: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to assess the impact of mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation on surgical performance and to investigate their role before gynecologic surgical procedures regarding the infection rates. We also aim to study the updated evidence regarding the use of these different types of bowel preparation, as well as the current preoperative practice applied.

METHODS

An extensive search of the literature was conducted with Medline/PubMed, and the Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews being used for our primary search.

RESULTS

To date, due to the conflicting guidelines by the scientific societies, surgeons do not use a specific pattern of bowel preparation regimen. There are no strong evidence supporting mechanical bowel preparation, but instead, in many cases, patients' adverse effects, both physiological and psychological have been noted. On the other hand, the combined use of oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel preparation has been proven beneficial in colorectal surgery in reducing postoperative morbidities.

CONCLUSION

Based on current literature, in gynecologic surgeries with minimal probability of intraluminal entry, a regimen without any bowel preparation should be applied. The combined administration of both mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation, or even the use of the oral antibiotics alone, should be preserved for cases of increased complexity, where bowel involvement is highly anticipated, such as in gynecologic oncology, as stated in the ERAS protocols. Nonetheless, further research specific to gynecologic surgery is required.

Colorectal Surgical Site Infection Prevention Kits Prior to Elective Colectomy Improve Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Patient compliance with preoperative mechanical and antibiotic bowel preparation, skin washes, carbohydrate loading, and avoidance of fasting are key components of successful colorectal ERAS and surgical site infection (SSI)-reduction programs. In July 2016, we began a quality improvement project distributing a free SSI Prevention Kit (SSIPK) containing patient instructions, mechanical and oral bowel preparation, chlorhexidine washes, and carbohydrate drink to all patients scheduled for elective colectomy, with the goal of improving patient compliance and rates of SSI.

METHODS

This was a prospective data audit of our first 221 SSIPK+ patients, who were compared to historical controls (SSIPK-) of 1760 patients undergoing elective colectomy from January 2013 to March 2017. A 1:1 propensity score system accounted for nonrandom treatment assignment. Matched patients' complications, particularly postoperative infection and ileus, were compared.

RESULTS

SSIPK+ (n = 219) and SSIPK- (n = 219) matched patients were statistically identical on demographics, comorbidities, BMI, surgical indication, and procedure. SSIPK+ patients had higher compliance with mechanical (95% vs 71%, P < 0.001) and oral antibiotic (94% vs 27%, P < 0.001) bowel preparation. This translated into lower overall SSI rates (5.9% vs 11.4%, P = 0.04). SSIPK+ patients also had lower rates of anastomotic leak (2.7% vs 6.8%, P = 0.04), prolonged postoperative ileus (5.9% vs 14.2%, P < 0.01), and unplanned intubation (0% vs 2.3%, P = 0.02). Furthermore, SSIPK+ patients had shorter mean hospital length of stay (3.1 vs 5.4 d, P < 0.01) and had fewer unplanned readmissions (5.9% vs 14.6%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in rates of postoperative pneumonia, urinary tract infection, Clostridium difficile colitis, sepsis, or death.

CONCLUSION

Provision of a free-of-charge SSIPK is associated with higher patient compliance with preoperative instructions and significantly lower rates of surgical site infections, lower rates of prolonged postoperative ileus, and shorter hospital stays with fewer readmissions. Widespread utilization of such a bundle could therefore lead to significantly improved outcomes.

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.

[Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery]

The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to surgical site infections (SSI), anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative complications theologically. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgery aims to reduce fecal materials and bacterial count with the objective to decrease SSI rate, including AL. Based on many observational data, meta-analysis and multicenter randomized control trials (RTC), non-MBP did not increase AL rates or SSI and other complications in colon and even rectal surgery. In 2011 Cochrane review, there is no significant benefit MBP compared with non-MBP in colon surgery and also no better benefit MBP compared with rectal enemas in rectal surgery. However, in surgeon's perspectives, MBP is still in widespread surgical practice, despite the discomfort caused in patients, and general targeting of the colon microflora with antibiotics continues to gain popularity despite the lack of understanding of the role of the microbiome in anastomotic healing. Recently, there are many evidence suggesting that MBP+oral antibiotics (OA) should be the growing gold standard for colorectal surgery. However, there are rare RCT studies and still no solid evidences in OA preparation, so further studies need results in both MBP and OA and only OA for colorectal surgery. Also, MBP studies in patients with having minimally invasive surgery (MIS; laparoscopic or robotics) colorectal surgery are still warranted. Further RCT on patients having elective left side colon and rectal surgery with primary anastomosis in whom sphincter saving surgery without MBP in these MIS and microbiome era.

Clostridioides (Clostridium) Difficile in Food-Producing Animals, Horses and Household Pets: A Comprehensive Review

Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile is ubiquitous in the environment and is also considered as a bacterium of great importance in diarrhea-associated disease for humans and different animal species. Food animals and household pets are frequently found positive for toxigenic C. difficile without exposing clinical signs of infection. Humans and animals share common C. difficile ribotypes (RTs) suggesting potential zoonotic transmission. However, the role of animals for the development of human infection due to C. difficile remains unclear. One major public health issue is the existence of asymptomatic animals that carry and shed the bacterium to the environment, and infect individuals or populations, directly or through the food chain. C. difficile ribotype 078 is frequently isolated from food animals and household pets as well as from their environment. Nevertheless, direct evidence for the transmission of this particular ribotype from animals to humans has never been established. This review will summarize the current available data on epidemiology, clinical presentations, risk factors and laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection in food animals and household pets, outline potential prevention and control strategies, and also describe the current evidence towards a zoonotic potential of C. difficile infection.

Preoperative oral antibiotic bowel preparation in elective resectional colorectal surgery reduces rates of surgical site infections: a single-centre experience with a cost-effectiveness analysis

INTRODUCTION

Surgical site infections cause considerable postoperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the effect on surgical site infection rates following introduction of a departmental oral antibiotic bowel preparation protocol.

METHODS

A prospective single-centre study was performed for elective colorectal resections between May 2016-April 2018; with a control group with mechanical bowel preparation and treatment group with oral antibiotic bowel preparation (neomycin and metronidazole) and mechanical bowel preparation. The primary outcome of surgical site infection and secondary outcomes of anastomotic leak, length of stay and mortality rate were analysed using Fisher's exact test and independent samples t-tests. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 311 patients were included; 156 in the mechanical bowel preparation group and 155 in the mechanical bowel preparation plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation group. The study included 180 (57.9%) men and 131 (42.1%) women with a mean age of 68 years. There was a significant reduction in surgical site infection rates (mechanical bowel preparation 16.0% vs mechanical bowel preparation plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation 4.5%; P = 0.001) and mean length of stay (mechanical bowel preparation 10.2 days vs mechanical bowel preparation plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation 8.2 days; P = 0.012). There was also a reduction in anastomotic leak and mortality rates. Subgroup analyses demonstrated significantly reduced surgical site infection rates in laparoscopic resections (P = 0.008). There was an estimated cost saving of £239.13 per patient and £37,065 for our institution over a one-year period.

CONCLUSION

Oral antibiotic bowel preparation is a feasible and cost-effective intervention shown to significantly reduce the rates of surgical site infection and length of stay in elective colorectal surgery.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

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

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.

[Preoperative bowel conditioning]

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal surgery is still associated with a relevant morbidity with the intestinal microbiome being of high importance in the pathogenesis of infectious complications. Various approaches, such as mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) with or without administration of oral antibiotics, fasting or dietary supplements aim at modulating the intestinal flora.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes the current literature pertinent to the influence of preoperative bowel conditioning on postoperative morbidity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was performed using the mentioned keywords with a focus on recent meta-analyses.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Bowel conditioning reduces postoperative infectious complications. Promising approaches are MBP plus administration of oral antibiotics, dietary supplements aiming at stabilization of the intestinal flora as well as the screening for and equilibration of malnutrition. The use of MBP as monotherapy without antibiotics should no longer be considered part of the clinical routine.

The Role of Bowel Preparation in Colorectal Surgery: Results of the 2012-2015 ACS-NSQIP Data

OBJECTIVE

To analyze potential benefits with regards to infectious complications with combined use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and ABP in elective colorectal resections.

BACKGROUND

Despite recent literature suggesting that MBP does not reduce infection rate, it still is commonly used. The use of oral antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) has been practiced for decades but its use is also controversial.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective colorectal resection in the 2012 to 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program cohorts were selected. Doubly robust propensity score-adjusted multivariable regression was conducted for infectious and other postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 27,804 subjects were analyzed; 5471 (23.46%) received no preparation, 7617 (32.67%) received MBP only, 1374 (5.89%) received ABP only, and 8855 (37.98%) received both preparations. Compared to patients receiving no preparation, those receiving dual preparation had less surgical site infection (SSI) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.39, P < 0.001], organ space infection (OR = 0.56, P ≤ 0.001), wound dehiscence (OR = 0.43, P = 0.001), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P < 0.001). ABP alone compared to no prep resulted in significantly lower rates of surgical site infection (OR = 0.63, P = 0.001), organ space infection (OR = 0.59, P = 0.005), anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P = 0.002). MBP showed no significant benefit to infectious complications when used as monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined MBP/ABP results in significantly lower rates of SSI, organ space infection, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leak than no preparation and a lower rate of SSI than ABP alone. Combined bowel preparation significantly reduces the rates of infectious complications in colon and rectal procedures without increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection. For patients undergoing elective colon or rectal resection we recommend bowel preparation with both mechanical agents and oral antibiotics whenever feasible.

Comparative Effectiveness and Risks of Bowel Preparation Before Elective Colorectal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol.

METHODS

A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

Tactics to Prevent Intra-Abdominal Infections in General Surgery

BACKGROUND

Abdominal infections following surgery have many severe consequences. Several effective, well-evaluated infection prevention and control processes exist to avoid these infections.

METHODS

This manuscript reviews and provides supporting evidence for common management strategies useful to avoid postoperative abdominal infection.

RESULTS

Prevention of abdominal infection begins with preparation of the environment using standard infection control practices. Peri-operative use of systemic antibiotics, an antibiotic bowel preparation in colorectal surgery, and effective antiseptic preparation of the surgical site all reduce infection rates. Peri-operative supplemental oxygenation, maintenance of core body temperature, and physiologic euglycemia will reduce both incisional and organ-space infections in the abdominal surgery patient. Strategic use of irrigation and drain placement may be useful in some circumstances.

CONCLUSION

Specific methods of prevention are documented to reduce intra-abdominal infections. Prevention requires a multi-disciplinary team including the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and all operating room personnel.

Statewide Clinic Registries: The Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative

Regional clinical registries provide a unique opportunity for shared learning and population-based analyses of the quality of surgical care. Through the "Michigan Model" of pay for participation in strategic Value Partnerships, exemplified by the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC), the state's dominant private insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, has sponsored 20 statewide clinical quality improvement collaboratives. MSQC represents a partnership among 73 Michigan hospitals with a robust data infrastructure and flexible platform for the promulgation of best practices in surgical quality improvement. This article will describe the organizational structure of the MSQC, the contributions the registry has made to quality improvement in colorectal surgery, and how future work will align to improve the reliability of improvement-relevant registry data.

The value of mechanical bowel preparation prior to pediatric colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before pediatric colorectal surgery remains the standard of care for many pediatric surgeons, though the value of MBP remains unclear. The aim of this study was to systematically review and analyze the effect of MBP on the incidence of postoperative complications; anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal infection, and wound infection, following colorectal surgery in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched to compare the effect of MBP versus no MBP prior to elective pediatric colorectal surgery on postoperative complications. After critical appraisal of included studies, meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

1731 papers were retrieved; 2 randomized controlled trials and 4 retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of evidence was low. MBP before colorectal surgery did not significantly decrease the occurrence of anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal infection, or wound infection compared to no MBP.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the existing evidence, the use of MBP before colorectal surgery in children seems not to decrease the incidence of postoperative complications compared to no MBP. To overcome confounding factors such as antibiotic prophylaxis, age and type of operation, a multicentre prospective study is suggested to validate these results.

Do preoperative oral antibiotics increase Clostridium difficile infection rates? An analysis of 13 959 colectomy patients

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine whether or not preoperative oral antibiotic preparation (POAP) increases the rate of Clostridium difficile colitis (CDC) in patients undergoing colectomy.

METHOD

In 2015, data for colectomies had been collected prospectively and recorded in the targeted colectomy option of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). This was available for retrospective analysis. Data available for analysis included elective and emergency status, POAP, surgical approach, primary anastomosis and CDC status. The effect of POAP on CDC was analysed and risk adjusted for 14 separate preoperative variables.

RESULTS

In all, 13 959 adult patients underwent a colectomy in 2015 (POAP group 5311 and non- POAP group 8648). The overall rate of CDC in colectomy patients was 1.6% (227/13 959). On univariate analysis, CDC was significantly less common in the POAP group than in the non-POAP group (1.2% vs 1.9%, P = 0.003). Univariate analysis of a further 41 preoperative variables revealed 14 to be associated with CDC. However, after risk adjustment with these 14 variables, POAP lost its statistical significance (adjusted OR 0.902, 95% CI 0.584-1.486, P = 0.685). Only patients with pre-existing systemic inflammatory response syndrome appeared to be at increased risk of CDC (adjusted OR 2.154, 95% CI 1.139-4.074, P = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

At the very least this study suggests it is safe to use POAP in colectomy patients without increasing the rate of CDC unless they have pre-existing systemic inflammatory response syndrome.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Risk factors for surgical site infection after transvaginal mesh placement in a nationwide Japanese cohort

AIMS

We conducted a nationwide survey on perioperative management and antimicrobial prophylaxis of transvaginal mesh surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse in Japan to understand the practice and risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI).

METHODS

Health records of women undergoing tension-free vaginal mesh (TVM) surgeries from 2010 to 2012 were obtained from 135 medical centers belonging to the Japanese Society of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery. The questionnaire addressed hospital volume, perioperative management, and SSI. Risk factors for SSI were investigated by comparing cases with and without SSI.

RESULTS

The hospital volume among institutions varied from 0 to 248 per year (median 16.7). Preoperative hair removal, bowel preparation, and urine culture were routinely performed at 74 (55%), 66 (49%), and 24 (18%) hospitals, respectively. Prophylactic antimicrobials used were mostly first-generation (43%) or second-generation (42%) cephalosporin. SSI was reported in 86 of 9323 patients (0.92%). A multivariate analysis indicated lower hospital volume (odds ratio [OR], 0.995 [by 1-point increase]; P < 0.001), preoperative bowel preparation (OR, 2.08; P = 0.013), non-routine urine culture (OR, 3.00; P = 0.0006), and the use of antibiotics other than first-generation cephalosporin (OR, 5.29; P = 0.0011) as significant risk factors for SSI. In contrast, the cut-off points of hospital volume for preventing SSI was 116.7 cases (area under curve: 0.61).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of SSI in TVM surgeries was 0.92% in Japan. Lower hospital volume, bowel preparation, non-routine preoperative urine culture, and prophylactic antibiotics other than first-generation cephalosporin significantly elevated the incidence of SSI.