The evolution of bowel preparation for gastrointestinal surgery

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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