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.

The effect of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound related complications: A meta-analysis

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), a routine nursing procedure before paediatric bowel surgery, is widely should in clinical practice, but its necessity remains controversial. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the effect of preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound-related complications in order to analyse the clinical application value of MBP in paediatric bowel surgery. As of November 2023, we searched four online databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. Two investigators screened the collected studies against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and ROBINS-I was used to evaluate the quality of studies. Using RevMan5.3, a meta-analysis of the collected data was performed, and a fixed-effect model or a random-effect model was used to analyse OR, 95% CI, SMD, and MD. A total of 11 studies with 2556 patients were included. Most of studies had moderate-to-severe quality bias. The results of meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications related to postoperative infections in children with MBP before bowel surgery versus those with No MBP, wound infection (OR 1.11, 95% CI:0.76 ~ 1.61, p = 0.59, I2 = 5%), intra-abdominal infection (OR 1.26, 95% CI:0.58 ~ 2.77, p = 0.56, I2 = 9%). There was no significant difference in the risk of postoperative bowel anastomotic leak (OR 1.07, 95% CI:0.68 ~ 1.68, p = 0.78, I2 = 12%), and anastomotic dehiscence (OR 1.67, 95% CI:0.13 ~ 22.20, p = 0.70, I2 = 73%). Patients' intestinal obstruction did not show an advantage of undergoing MBP preoperatively, with an incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR 1.95, 95% CI:0.55 ~ 6.93, p = 0.30, I2 = 0%). Based on existing evidence that preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery did not reduce the risk of postoperative wound complications, we cautiously assume that MBP before surgery is unnecessary for children undergoing elective bowel surgery. However, due to the limited number of study participants selected for this study and the overall low quality of evidence, the results need to be interpreted with caution. It is suggested that more high quality, large-sample, multicenter clinical trials are required to validate our findings.

Decreasing surgical site infections in pediatric stoma closures

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal (GI) operations represent a significant proportion of the surgical site infection (SSI) burden in pediatric patients, resulting in significant morbidity. We have previously demonstrated that a GI bundle decreases SSI rates, length of stay (LOS), and hospital charges. Following this success, we hypothesized that by targeting the preoperative antibiotics for stoma closures based on organisms found in infected wounds, we could further decrease SSI rates.

METHODS

As part of a broad quality improvement effort to reduce SSI rates, we reviewed the responsible pathogens and their sensitivities as well as the preoperative antibiotic used, and found that 15% of wound infections were caused by enterococcus. Based on this information, starting in April 2017, we changed the prior preoperative antibiotic cefoxitin to ampicillin-sulbactam, which more accurately targeted the prevalent pathogens from April 2017 to October 2018.

RESULTS

The baseline SSI rate for all stoma takedown patients was 21.4% (25 of 119). After bundle implementation, this decreased to 7.9% (17 of 221; p = 0.03) over a period of 2.5 years. Then, after changing the preoperative antibiotics, our rate of SSI decreased further to 2.2% (1 of 44; p = 0.039) over a period of 1.5 years.

CONCLUSION

Significant reduction of SSI in GI surgery can be accomplished with several prevention strategies (our GI bundle). Then a change of the preoperative antibiotic choice, chosen based on causative wound infection organisms, may further decrease SSI rates. We recommend an institution specific analysis of wound infections and modification of preoperative antibiotics if the responsible organisms are resistant to the original antibiotic choice.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective cohort study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Perioperative Antibiotics in Pediatric Pull-Through Procedures

BACKGROUND

There are no clear guidelines for the use of mechanical bowel preparation and postoperative antibiotics in children undergoing elective colorectal pull-through surgery. The objective of this study was to determine whether preoperative bowel preparation administration or duration of postoperative antibiotics impacted the rate of complications after elective pediatric pull-through surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients aged <18 y who underwent a pull-through procedure between 2011 and 2017 were retrospectively identified. Patient data included diagnosis, procedure, administration of mechanical bowel preparation, and duration of perioperative intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Outcomes of interest included surgical site infections and anastomotic complications.

RESULTS

A total of 180 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 47.2% received mechanical bowel preparation. The combined rate of infectious and anastomotic complications was 12.2%. There was no significant difference in combined complication rate among those receiving bowel preparation compared with those who did not (14.1% versus 10.5%, P = 0.46). Administration of bowel preparation in the perineal anoplasty subgroup was associated with higher rates of wound infection (33.3% versus 3.3%, P = 0.05). One hundred five patients (58.3%) received perioperative IV antibiotics for ≤24 h. This group had similar rates of complications (13.3%) compared with those receiving IV antibiotics for longer than 24 h (11.6%, P = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Although mechanical bowel preparation did not affect the overall complication rate for pull-through procedures, it was associated with more wound infections in those undergoing perineal anoplasty. Duration of postoperative IV antibiotics was not significantly associated with the rate of wound and anastomotic complications.

Does Mechanical Bowel Preparation Reduce the Risk of Developing Infectious Complications in Pediatric Colorectal Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether the application of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery reduces the risk of developing infectious complications in children.

STUDY DESIGN

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify all articles comparing pediatric patients receiving MBP with pediatric patients not receiving MBP before colorectal surgery. Results are presented with weighted risk differences based on the number of events and sample size per study.

RESULTS

Six original studies were included comparing MBP (n = 810) and no MBP (n = 1167). The overall risk of developing infectious complications was 10.1% in patients with MBP, compared with 9.1% in patients without MBP, resulting in a nonsignificant risk difference of -0.03% (95% CI, -0.09% to 0.03%). Concerning the number of wound infections and anastomotic leaks, we found nonsignificant risk differences of -0.03% (95% CI, -0.08% to 0.02%) and 0.01% (95% CI, -0.01% to 0.02%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current literature, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the use of MBP leads to a significant difference in the risk of developing infectious complications in pediatric colorectal surgery.

Stomal Closure: Strategies to Prevent Incisional Hernia

Incisional hernias following ostomy reversal occur frequently. Incisional hernias at the site of a previous stoma closure can cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life, lead to life-threatening hernia incarceration or strangulation and result in a significant financial burden on health care systems Despite this, the evidence base on the subject is limited. Many recognised risk factors for the development of incisional hernia following ostomy reversal are related to patient factors such as age, malignancy, diabetes, COPD, hypertension and obesity, and are not easily correctable. There is a limited amount of evidence to suggest that prophylactic mesh reinforcement may be of benefit to reduce the post stoma closure incisional hernia rate but a further large scale randomised controlled trial is due to report in the near future. There appears to be weak evidence to suggest that surgeons should favour circular, or "purse-string" closure of the skin following stoma closure in order to reduce the risk of SSI, which in turn may reduce incisional hernia formation. There remains the need for further evidence in relation to suture technique, skin closure techniques, mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotic prescription focusing on incisional hernia development as an outcome measure. Within this review, we discuss in detail the evidence base for the risk factors for the development of, and the strategies to prevent ostomy reversal site incisional hernias.

Bowel preparation for elective procedures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Reviews have investigated preparation for colonoscopy, but not for surgery, They are also often limited to patients up to 16 years, despite many paediatric gastroenterologists caring for older patients. We carried out a systematic review investigating the optimum bowel preparation agents for all indications in children and young people.

DESIGN

A Cochrane format systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

PATIENTS

Young people requiring bowel preparation for any elective procedure, as defined by the primary studies.

INTERVENTIONS

RCTs comparing bowel preparation with placebo or other interventions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adequacy of bowel preparation, tolerability and adverse events.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2124 results and 15 randomised controlled studies (n=1435)but heterogeneity limited synthesis. Meta-analysis of two studies comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with sodium phosphate showed no difference in the quality of bowel preparation (risk ratio (RR) 1.27(95% CI 0.66 to 2.44)). Two studies comparing sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate with PEG found no difference in bowel preparation but significantly higher number of patients needing nasogastric tube insertion in the polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution (RR 0.04(95% CI 0.01 to 0.18), 45 of 117 in PEG group vs 2 of 121 in sodium picosulfate group). Meta-analysis of three studies (n=241) found no difference between PEG and sennasoids (RR 0.73(95% CI 0.31 to 1.71)).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base is clinically heterogeneous and methodologically at risk of bias. There is evidence that all regimens are equally effective. However, sodium picosulfate was better tolerated than PEG. Future research is needed with all agents and should seek to consider safety and tolerability as well as efficacy.