Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. A prospective, randomized, surgeon-blinded trial comparing sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-based oral lavage solutions

Comparison of Reduced Volume versus Four-Liter Electrolyte Lavage Solutions for Colon Cleansing

In an attempt to improve patient tolerance for colon cleaning, a reduced-volume regimen with a 2-liter electrolyte lavage solution plus 20 mg of oral bisacodyl was compared with the standard 4-liter lavage for efficacy and safety. Three hundred patients were prospectively randomized into two study groups. One group of 150 patients was given four tablets of 5 mg bisacodyl at 12:00 PM the day before their colonoscopy, followed by 2 liters of electrolyte lavage by mouth at 6:00 PM the evening before their colonoscopy. Another group of 150 patients were given 4 liters of electrolyte lavage at 6:00 PM the evening before their colonoscopy. All patients were on a clear liquid diet the day before their colonoscopy. No enema was given in either groups. The bowel cleanliness was accessed by one colonoscopist. One registered nurse accessed the comfort of patient. In the 2-liter group, only one (0.6%) patient could not finish the laxative. Colon cleanliness was 80 per cent to 100 per cent, with an average of 95.9 per cent. In the 4-liter group, 11 (7.3%) patients could not finish the laxative preparation. Colon cleanliness was 78 per cent to 100 per cent, with an average of 95.3 per cent. The study that found the 2-liter electrolyte lavage solution with four tablets of bisacodyl can achieve equally good results in bowel preparation and favorable acceptance by patients compared with the 4-liter lavage.

[Electrolyte disorders following colonic cleansing for imaging studies]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

An adequate bowel cleansing is needed prior to radiologic and endoscopic procedures. However, it may have a number of adverse effects, including abnormalities of calcium-phosphorus homeostasis.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

This was an observational prospective study in a hospital practice setting. We included consecutive inpatients (n = 47) subjected to a barium enema or colon endoscopy. Prior cleansing was done as indicated by the attending physician by using a low-salt oral poliethylenglicol (PEG) solution, oral sodium phosphate or a phosphate-containing enema.

RESULTS

PEG solution frequently caused mild increases in serum sodium, and decreases in serum potassium. Oral phosphate caused a significant increase in serum phosphorus and parathormone concentrations, whereas it decreased serum calcium. Mild hyperphosphatemia was found in 57% of cases, and hypocalcemia in 36%. Phosphate enema also increased serum phosphate, causing mild hyperphosphatemia (33% cases). Although in the whole subgroup of enema-treated patients there were no significant changes in serum calcium, mild hypocalcemia was found in 27% cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel cleansing procedures, particularly those using oral phosphate salts, frequently induce hyperphosphatemia and other abnormalities in serum electrolytes. Although usually transitory and without overt clinical consequences, clinicians should be aware of this potential risk, especially in elderly patients and those with impaired renal function.

[Feasibility of colorectal surgery without colonic preparation. A prospective study]

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), aimed at reducing the infectious complications of colorectal surgery, was considered as indispensable. This benefit is actually disputed. The aim of this study was to report an experience of colorectal surgery without MBP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hundred ninety patients without MBP and without low residue diet, who underwent colorectal surgery with primary anastomosis not requiring a diverting stoma were included. The main outcome were the rate of mortality, anastomotic leak, wound infection and intra-abdominal abscess. Secondary outcomes were duration of intravenous perfusion, nasogastric aspiration, total hospitalisation stay and time to realimentation.

RESULTS

The procedure was performed by laparotomy (n=142) or laparoscopy (n=48). Forty-eight patients underwent emergency surgery. Ninety-two patients were operated for malignancy. The rate of mortality was 6.3% in correlation with the scale of AFC. The rate of anastomotic leak was 3.7%. The rate of specific morbidity was independent of scale of AFC on the contrary to the frequency of non-specific complications. The mean duration of intravenous perfusion and nasogastric suction were 6 days and 0.3 day. The patient had normal diet to the 4th day (4+/-3 days). The mean hospital stay was 13.4 days.

CONCLUSION

The colorectal surgery without MBP may be safely performed and could improve the quality of life of patients in the perioperatory period.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before gynecologic laparoscopy, using as the primary endpoint the appropriateness of the surgical field as judged by the surgeon.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blind clinical trial.

SETTING

Academic department specializing in gynecologic surgery.

PATIENT(S)

One-hundred sixty-two patients scheduled for laparoscopy.

INTERVENTION(S)

The evening before laparoscopy, patients were randomized to either MBP with 90 mL of oral sodium phosphate (NaP) or no bowel preparation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Patient discomfort was evaluated with a visual analogue scale. Bowel preparation was evaluated by a surgeon (blind to bowel-preparation status) using a 5-point scale. Surgical difficulty, operating times, and postoperative complications were recorded.

RESULT(S)

Preoperative discomfort was significantly greater in the MBP group. No significant difference in the evaluation of the surgical field, operative difficulty, operative time, and postoperative complications was present between the two groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

Bowel preparation with oral NaP does not offer any significant advantage in patients undergoing laparoscopy for benign gynecologic conditions. In addition, MBP significantly increases preoperative discomfort.

Use of tegaserod along with polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy bowel preparation: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG-EL) used for colonoscopy preparation is not well tolerated by several patients. A significant number of patients have inadequate bowel preparation despite taking PEG-EL.

AIMS

To determine the effect of prokinetic agent, tegaserod when given in addition to PEG-EL on patient tolerance, quality of colonic preparation and adverse side effects experienced.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, a total of 130 patients scheduled for colonoscopy were enrolled. They were instructed to take three pills of either tegaserod 6 mg each or placebo (one pill twice on the day prior to and third pill in the morning on the day of colonoscopy) in addition to standard 4L of PEG-EL in the evening prior to the day of colonoscopy. Patient tolerance of preparation, quality of bowel preparation, overall satisfaction and adverse side effects were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients in placebo group and 58 patients in tegaserod group completed the study. There was no difference between the two groups in the tolerance of preparation, quality of bowel preparation, overall satisfaction and the side effects.

CONCLUSION

Addition of tegaserod to polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution during colonoscopy preparation does not improve patient tolerance, quality of colonic preparation or the adverse side effects.

Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation

AIM

To compare the effectiveness, patient acceptability, and physical tolerability of two oral lavage solutions prior to colonoscopy in a Taiwanese population.

METHODS

Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to receive either standard 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) or 90 mL of sodium phosphate (NaP) in a split regimen of two 45 mL doses separated by 12 h, prior to colonoscopic evaluation. The primary endpoint was the percent of subjects who had completed the preparation. Secondary endpoints included colonic cleansing evaluated with an overall assessment and segmental evaluation, the tolerance and acceptability assessed by a self-administered structured questionnaire, and a safety profile such as any unexpected adverse events, electrolyte tests, physical exams, vital signs, and body weights.

RESULTS

A significantly higher completion rate was found in the NaP group compared to the PEG group (84.2% vs 27.5%, P<0.001). The amount of fluid suctioned was significantly less in patients taking NaP vs PEG (50.13+/-54.8 cc vs 121.13+/-115.4 cc, P<0.001), even after controlling for completion of the oral solution (P = 0.031). The two groups showed a comparable overall assessment of bowel preparation with a rate of "good" or "excellent" in 78.9% of patients in the NaP group and 82.5% in PEG group (P = 0.778). Patients taking NaP tended to have significantly better colonic segmental cleansing relative to stool amount observed in the descending (94.7% vs 70%, P = 0.007) and transverse (94.6% vs 74.4%, P = 0.025) colon. Slightly more patients graded the taste of NaP as "good" or "very good" compared to the PEG patients (32.5% vs 12.5%; P = 0.059). Patients' willingness to take the same preparation in the future was 68.4% in the NaP compared to 75% in the PEG group (P = 0.617). There was a significant increase in serum sodium and a significant decrease in phosphate and chloride levels in NaP group on the day following the colonoscopy without any clinical sequelae. Prolonged (>24 h) hemodynamic changes were also observed in 20-35% subjects of either group.

CONCLUSION

Both bowel cleansing agents proved to be similar in safety and effectiveness, while NaP appeared to be more cost-effective. After identifying and excluding patients with potential risk factors, sodium phosphate should become an alternative preparation for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy in the Taiwanese population.

Prospective, randomised study on antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Is it really necessary to use oral antibiotics?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of prophylactic antibiotics in addition to mechanical cleansing is the current standard of care prior to colonic surgery. The question of whether the antibiotics should be administered intravenously or orally, or by both routes, remains controversial. Our aim was to compare three methods of prophylactic antibiotic administration in elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred consecutive elective colorectal resections were studied. All patients had preoperative mechanical colon cleansing with oral sodium phosphate and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis with cefoxitin (one dose before skin incision and two postoperative doses). Patients were randomised to one of the following three groups: group A: three doses of oral antibiotic (neomycin and metronidazole) at the time of mechanical colon cleansing; group B: one dose of oral antibiotic; group C: no oral antibiotics. All patients were followed during their hospital stay and at 7, 14 and 30 days post-surgery.

RESULTS

Vomiting occurred in 31%, 11% and 9% of the studied patients (groups A, B and C, respectively) (p<0.001). Nausea was present in 44%, 18% and 13% of patients (p<0.001). Abdominal pain was recorded in 13%, 10% and 4% of patients (p: 0.077). Wound infection was present in 7%, 8% and 6% and suture dehiscence occurred in 2%, 2% and 3% of the patients in the three groups (no differences among them). Neither were differences found among the three groups in terms of urinary infections, pneumonia, postoperative ileus or intra-abdominal abscess.

CONCLUSION

The addition of three doses of oral antibiotics to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with lower patient tolerance in terms of increased nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain, and has shown no advantages in the prevention of postoperative septic complications. Therefore, we recommend that oral antibiotics should not be used prior to colorectal surgery.

Perioperative Management of Patients Undergoing Elective Colorectal Surgery in Israel: A National Survey

BACKGROUND

The approach to perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, bowel preparation, and postoperative routines in elective colorectal resections has changed over the last two decades. The aim of this national survey was to document the current methods of perioperative management of those patients scheduled for elective colorectal resections in surgical departments in Israel.

METHODS

A mail and telephone survey of surgical departments was conducted in 2001 in order to evaluate the routines of perioperative management of elective colorectal resections. Re-evaluation was performed in 2004.

RESULTS

In 2001, all but one of the responders used low-residue diet preoperatively and combined oral and parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis. Polyethylene glycol or sodium phosphate bowel preparation was used by 69% of the responders. The most common oral regimens were a combination of neomycin plus metronidazole (43.5%) or neomycin plus erythromycin (47.8%). The most common parenteral regimens used were gentamicin plus metronidazole or gentamicin plus metronidazole plus ampicillin (56.5% and 17% of the responders, respectively). Cephalosporins alone or in combination were used in three departments. In 17 departments (74%), parenteral prophylactic antibiotics were continued for 24 h or longer (up to 72 h). All but one of the departments left a nasogastric tube for 1-5 days after surgery. There were substantial changes over the last three years-that is, less use of preoperative restriction diets, shorter duration of perioperative antibiotic coverage, more common use of cephalosporins, switch to sodium dihydrogen and sodium hydrogen phosphate bowel preparation, shorter use of postoperative nasogastric drainage, and faster resumption of peroral fluids.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2001, the majority of surgical departments in Israel used a conservative approach to perioperative management of patients undergoing elective colorectal resections. Significant changes occurred during the last three years. The perioperative routines used today in most general surgery departments in Israel comply with current recommendations.

Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer Without Bowel Preparation and Diverting Stoma

PURPOSE

Since the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) as the standard operation technique for rectal cancer, anastomotic leakage percentages of up to 18% have been reported. To prevent such leakage, the use of mechanical bowel preparation and also the construction of a diverting ileostoma or colostomy have been standard procedures for years. In our institute, however, all patients undergoing colorectal surgery are operated upon without these measures. The present study was undertaken to investigate the results of this strategy in terms of the occurrence of postoperative anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

All patients who underwent an elective (low) anterior resection between January 1996 and December 2001 (n = 144) entered the study. The clinical and pathological records of these patients were reviewed retrospectively. The exclusion criteria were patients with fixed rectal carcinoma who received preoperative radiotherapy and/or a stoma only at operation, emergency operations, abdominoperoneal resections, and Hartmann's procedures.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage occurred in 7 out of 144 patients (4.9%). There was a trend toward a higher leakage frequency in men, in patients with a distal anastomosis, in patients with a stapled anastomosis, and in patients with a T3-T4 tumor or with positive lymph nodes. None of these factors, however, had a significant prognostic value based on a univariate or multivariate analysis. Those who died after leakage tended to be older than those who did not (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A (low) anterior resection can be performed safely without mechanical bowel preparation or a diverting stoma, and results in an anastomotic leakage percentage of less than 5%. Appropriate selection of patients may be important, but none of the investigated patient- or tumor-related factors could be identified as decisive.

Randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before elective left-sided colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is performed routinely before colorectal surgery to reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the outcome of patients who underwent elective left-sided colorectal surgery with or without MBP.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for elective left-sided colorectal resection with primary anastomosis were randomized to preoperative MBP (3 litres of polyethylene glycol) (group 1) or surgery without MBP (group 2). Postoperative abdominal infectious complications and extra-abdominal morbidity were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three patients were included in the study, 78 in group 1 and 75 in group 2. Demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The overall rate of abdominal infectious complications (anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal abscess, peritonitis and wound infection) was 22 per cent in group 1 and 8 per cent in group 2 (P = 0.028). Anastomotic leak occurred in five patients (6 per cent) in group 1 and one (1 per cent) in group 2 (P = 0.210) [corrected] Extra-abdominal morbidity rates were 24 and 11 per cent respectively (P = 0.034). Hospital stay was longer for patients who had MBP (mean(s.d.) 14.9(13.1) versus 9.9(3.8) days; P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Elective left-sided colorectal surgery without MBP is safe and is associated with reduced postoperative morbidity.

Early removal of nasogastric tube after cystectomy with urinary diversion: Does postoperative ileus risk increase?

OBJECTIVES

To examine the risk factors of postoperative ileus and investigate whether the duration of postoperative nasogastric tube (NGT) use affects the rate of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing radical cystectomy with urinary diversion.

METHODS

A total of 101 patients underwent radical cystectomy with urinary diversion from 1999 to 2003. We examined the demographic and perioperative variables of the patients who did and did not develop postoperative ileus. We divided the patients into two groups--those who had the NGT removed within 24 hours and those who had the NGT removed at first flatus. We compared the two groups for the incidence of ileus and clinical variables.

RESULTS

Postoperative ileus was observed in 23 patients (23%). The demographic data of both groups were not different in terms of age or American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Also, the operative time, estimated blood loss, type of diversion, and postoperative complication rate were not significantly different between the two groups (P >0.05). However, the risk of postoperative ileus was significantly greater in those who took polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation than in those who took sodium phosphate (40% versus 18%, respectively, P = 0.02). No significant difference in the prevalence of ileus was found between the patients whose NGT was removed within 1 day and those in whom it was removed after 2 days (25% versus 22%, respectively, P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study suggest that the use of sodium phosphate for bowel preparation may reduce the incidence of postoperative ileus and that early NGT removal after cystectomy is not correlated with ileus.

[Preoperative bowel preparation--is it useful?]

Mechanical cleansing of the colon prior to elective colorectal surgery is a dogmatically established belief in surgery. Polyethylene glycol was extensively used in the 1980's and 1990's but has been largely replaced by other laxative solutions such as sodium phosphate which are better tolerated by the patient. Evidence-based data in the surgical literature question the dogma of routine mechanical bowel cleansing (8 randomized controlled studies and 4 meta-analyses). These data show with a good level of evidence that mechanical bowel preparation is unnecessary and perhaps harmful.

Oral sodium phosphate solution: a review of its use as a colorectal cleanser

Oral sodium phosphate solution (Fleet Phospho-soda, Casen-Fleet Fosfosoda is a low-volume, hyperosmotic agent used as part of a colorectal-cleansing preparation for surgery, x-ray or endoscopic examination. The efficacy and tolerability of oral sodium phosphate solution was generally similar to, or significantly better than, that of polyethylene glycol (PEG) or other colorectal cleansing regimens in patients preparing for colonoscopy, colorectal surgery or other colorectal-related procedures. Generally, oral sodium phosphate solution was significantly more acceptable to patients than PEG or other regimens. The use of this solution should be considered in most patients (with the exception of those with contraindications) requiring colorectal cleansing. PHARMACOLOGICAL PROPERTIES: After the first and second 45 mL dose of oral sodium phosphate solution, the mean time to onset of bowel activity was 1.7 and 0.7 hours and the mean duration of activity was 4.6 and 2.9 hours. Bowel activity ceased within 4 hours of administration of the second dose in 83% of patients. Elevations in serum phosphorus and falls in serum total and ionised calcium from baseline occurred during the 24 hours after administration of oral sodium phosphate solution in seven healthy volunteers. These changes were not associated with significant changes in clinical assessments. The decrease in serum potassium levels after administration of oral sodium phosphate solution was negatively correlated with baseline intracellular potassium levels.

THERAPEUTIC USE

A regimen that administered the first dose of sodium phosphate on the previous evening and a second dose on the morning of the procedure (10-12 hours apart) was significantly more effective than PEG-based regimens for colorectal cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy or colorectal surgery. A regimen that administered both doses of oral sodium phosphate on the day prior to the procedure offered no colorectal cleansing advantage over PEG-based regimens and was significantly less effective than an oral sodium phosphate solution regimen that administered one dose on the previous evening and a second dose on the morning of the procedure. Oral sodium phosphate solution was generally as effective as other colorectal cleansing solutions (including magnesium citrate-containing regimens with sodium picosulfate). The direct costs of a diagnostic colonic examination with oral sodium phosphate solution were less than those with PEG (US465 dollars vs US503 dollars per patient; 1995 values), according to data from a US study. Oral sodium phosphate solution was significantly more effective than a commercially available tablet formulation as a colorectal cleanser prior to colonoscopy (data from one study only).

TOLERABILITY

Oral sodium phosphate solution administered as two 45 mL doses (generally 10-12 hours apart) was well tolerated in well designed trials in which adults with major comorbid conditions were excluded. Sodium phosphate-associated adverse events were mostly gastrointestinal (including abdominal pain/cramping, abdominal fullness and/or bloating, anal or perianal irritation or soreness, nausea, vomiting or hunger pains), although dizziness, weakness/fatigue, thirst, chest pain, chills, headache and sleep loss were also reported. Faecal incontinence was commonly reported in the elderly. Three doses (administered 10 minutes apart) of 15 mL of oral sodium phosphate solution, each diluted in 250 mL of clear fluid was associated with less vomiting than one 45 mL dose of the solution diluted in 250 mL of clear fluid (data from one study). In patients without major comorbid conditions, oral sodium phosphate has been associated with transient and clinically inconsequential changes in intravascular volume and electrolyte disturbances. Serious electrolyte disturbances have been associated with oral sodium phosphate administration in patients in whom sodium phosphate is contraindicated or should be use with caution (the elderly and those with bowel obstructions, small intestinal disorders, poor gut motilderly and those with bowel obstructions, small intestinal disorders, poor gut motility, renal insufficiency, cardiovascular disease or taking concomitant medication) or in patients ingesting more than the recommended dosage. Changes in the colonic mucosa have been reported in patients treated with oral sodium phosphate solution; however, the exact role of this agent in the appearance of these changes has not been fully clarified. The tolerability profile of oral sodium phosphate solution was similar to, or significantly better than, that of PEG or other colorectal cleansing regimens. Oral sodium phosphate solution was generally significantly more acceptable than PEG or other colorectal cleansing regimens. Oral sodium phosphate solution had similar tolerability, but was considered to be more acceptable than commercially available oral sodium phosphate tablets prior to colonoscopy (data from one study).

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of colorectal surgery with or without mechanical bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation is used routinely before colorectal surgery, but some randomized clinical trials have suggested that it is of no benefit. This study assesses whether such bowel preparation may safely be omitted before elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A search of the literature was performed; the inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing bowel preparation with no preparation in colorectal surgery. The methodological quality of included trials was assessed. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage; secondary outcomes were other septic complications. The meta-analysis was conducted using the Peto one-step method.

RESULTS

Eleven trials were retrieved, of which seven, containing 1454 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. There was no heterogeneity between the trials. Significantly more anastomotic leakage was found after mechanical bowel preparation (5.6 versus 3.2 per cent; odds ratio 1.75 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.05 to 2.90); P = 0.032). All other endpoints (wound infection, other septic complications and non-septic complications) also favoured the no-preparation regimen, but the differences were not statistically significant. Sensitivity analysis showed that these results were similar when trials of poor quality were excluded. Subgroup analysis showed that anastomotic leakage was significantly greater after bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) compared with no preparation, but not after other types of preparation.

CONCLUSION

There is good evidence to suggest that mechanical bowel preparation using PEG should be omitted before elective colorectal surgery. Other bowel preparations should be evaluated by further large randomized trials.

Colonoscopic Perforation and Bleeding of the Colon Can be Treated Safely without Surgery

The incidence of colonoscopic perforation of colon is about 0.3 per cent. The incidence of colonoscopic bleeding is about 0.6 per cent. Many of those patients undergo unnecessary operations. In order to assess the outcome of nonoperative management of those patients with postcolonoscopic perforation and bleeding, the records of 5120 patients who underwent colonoscopies from September 1, 1988 to June 30, 2003 were retrospectively reviewed with attention paid to colonoscopic perforation and bleeding. Their symptoms, management, and outcome were reviewed. There were 2765 male and 2355 female patients. Ages ranged from 9 to 91 years. A total of 1902 patients (37.1%) had polyps removed. Six patients (0.1%) had colonoscopic perforation. All of them presented with abdominal pain 1 to 4 days after colonoscopic polypectomy. All had subphrenic free air or subcutaneous emphysema on the radiogram. All were treated nonoperatively with nothing by mouth and intravenous fluids and antibiotics in the hospital and recovered uneventfully. Six patients (0.1%) had colonic bleeding that occurred 1 to 14 days after colonoscopic polypectomy. All of them were managed by repeat colonoscopy with injection of epinephrine. All recovered without further bleeding. Therefore, postcolonoscopic perforation and bleeding can be treated nonoperatively. It is safe and cost effective. The mortality and morbidity are very low.

Bowel preparation for gynecological surgery

Bowel preparation is an established practice before abdominal surgery. Most surgeons would use both antibiotic prophylaxis and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before bowel surgery. In the literature, however, there is no evidence to support the use of MBP before elective colorectal surgery. Some randomized studies and a meta-analysis report a significantly higher incidence of wound infection in patients receiving MBP versus no bowel preparation. As to gynecological surgery, data are scanty, and there is a single randomized study reporting no advantage of MBP over no bowel preparation. Based on these evidences, the routine use of MBP should be reconsidered both in general and gynecological surgery.

Assessment of patients' perceptions of bowel preparation quality at colonoscopy

AIMS

There is little published literature evaluating the accuracy of patients' perceptions of the quality of their own bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The aim of this article was to compare patients' perceptions of the adequacy of their bowel preparation with the endoscopists' rating at colonoscopy.

METHODS

Outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy completed surveys assessing bowel preparation. Patient responses regarding quality of bowel preparation were compared with endoscopists' assessment of colonic preparation. A residual stool score was also calculated for each subject based on the amount of stool, consistency of residual stool, and percentage of bowel visualized.

RESULTS

A total of 474 patients were enrolled. Patients' perceptions of the quality of their bowel preparation were inaccurate when compared to the endoscopists' rating (sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 34%; accuracy, 50%). Overall correlation with endoscopists' rating was low, r = 0.08. Young patient age (<61 yr) was an independent predictor of both adequate bowel preparation ( p= 0.009) and agreement of patient/endoscopist ratings ( p= 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are unreliable judges of the quality of their own bowel preparation, tending to overestimate the cleanliness of their colon. Conversely, a patient's fear that their preparation is suboptimal is also inaccurate. A colonoscopy should not be canceled on the basis of a patient's perception that the quality of their preparation is poor.

Inpatient Bowel Preparation Order Set

Adequate bowel preparation is necessary for several diagnostic and surgical procedures. Inpatients appeared to be less adequately prepared than outpatients at the author's 100-bed hospital. A problem frequently encountered was incomplete administration of the ordered bowel preparation. Surgeons, gastroenterologists, and nurses from the endoscopy laboratory and medical-surgical floor were consulted for development of an order set to enhance completion of bowel preparation for inpatients.

Reducing time to oral diet and hospital discharge in patients undergoing radical cystectomy using a perioperative care plan

OBJECTIVES

To outline our current perioperative treatment of patients undergoing radical cystectomy and urinary diversion, which uses advancements in perioperative care to allow for early institution of an oral diet and early hospital discharge, and thereby overall improvement in patient recovery and outcome after this procedure.

METHODS

Forty consecutive patients underwent radical cystectomy and urinary diversion with curative intent from 2001 to 2002. A care plan was followed for all patients and included improvements in preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care. The preoperative care included limited outpatient bowel preparation with sodium phosphate solution and patient education. Operative modifications included reduced incision length, initial preperitoneal dissection, and the use of internal surgical stapling devices. The postoperative care included the use of prokinetic agents, early nasogastric tube removal, the use of non-narcotic analgesics, and early institution of an oral diet. The outcomes with regard to time to institution of an oral diet, tolerance of a regular diet, and hospital discharge were assessed.

RESULTS

The mean surgical time was 3.9 hours, and the mean estimated blood loss was 573 mL. The mean time to the institution of a clear liquid diet was 2.0 days and to a regular diet was 4.2 days. The mean time to hospital discharge was 5.1 days. No statistically significant differences were found in the time to resumption of a regular diet or to discharge between patients undergoing ileal conduits versus orthotopic ileal neobladders. Only 1 patient had any gastrointestinal dysfunction (ileus), and this patient was discharged on postoperative 7. No patient had any delayed complications involving problems with diet intolerance or other gastrointestinal dysfunction. The results of the current series were compared with those of historical controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Advancements in preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative management have together been successfully used in our patient population to reduce morbidity and improve recovery with regard to the early institution of an oral diet and early hospital discharge.

Low volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy: randomized, endoscopist-blinded trial of liquid sodium phosphate versus tablet sodium phosphate

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the colon-cleansing effectiveness, ease of consumption, and side effect profiles of two commercially available preparations of sodium phosphate: liquid Fleet Phospho-soda and Visicol tablets.

METHODS

Outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy were sequentially randomized to one of two preparation groups: liquid: 45 ml at 7:00 PM, 45 ml 3 h before colonoscopy; or tablet: 20 tablets at 7:00 PM, 20 tablets 3-5 h before colonoscopy. Subjects rated preparation tolerability on a 5-point Likert scale. A Residual Stool Score was calculated for each subject based on the amount of stool, consistency of residual stool, and percent of bowel visualized (range 0-11, 0 = best). The endoscopists were blinded to the preparation used.

RESULTS

A total of 101 subjects were enrolled (43 male, 58 female, mean age 58.2 yr). The groups were similar in age and indications for colonoscopy. Overall, bowel cleansing was rated "Excellent" or "Good" in 92% of liquid preparation subjects, compared with 74% of tablet preparation subjects (p = 0.03). Subjects in the liquid group demonstrated significantly less residual stool than did tablet subjects (Residual Stool Scores: liquid 1.3 +/- 1.2 vs tablet 1.9 +/- 1.5, p < 0.05). Subjects rated the liquid preparation easier to swallow (p < 0.005) and more convenient to take (p < 0.005) than tablets. Among liquid subjects, 45 of 50 reported a willingness to take their preparation for future colonoscopies, compared with 36 of 49 who took tablet sodium phosphate (p < 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Liquid sodium phosphate is better tolerated and more effective at colon cleansing when compared with sodium phosphate in tablet form.

Colon and rectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation: a randomized prospective trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether elective colon and rectal surgery can be safely performed without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Mechanical bowel preparation is routinely done before colon and rectal surgery, aimed at reducing the risk of postoperative infectious complications. However, in cases of penetrating colon trauma, primary colonic anastomosis has proven to be safe even though the bowel is not prepared.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective colon and rectal resections with primary anastomosis were prospectively randomized into two groups. Group A had mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol before surgery, and group B had their surgery without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. Patients were followed up for 30 days for wound, anastomotic, and intra-abdominal infectious complications.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty patients were included in the study, 187 in group A and 193 in group B. Demographic characteristics, indications for surgery, and type of surgical procedure did not significantly differ between the two groups. Colo-colonic or colorectal anastomosis was performed in 63% of the patients in group A and 66% in group B. There was no difference in the rate of surgical infectious complications between the two groups. The overall infectious complications rate was 10.2% in group A and 8.8% in group B. Wound infection, anastomotic leak, and intra-abdominal abscess occurred in 6.4%, 3.7%, and 1.1% versus 5.7%, 2.1%, and 1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that elective colon and rectal surgery may be safely performed without mechanical preparation.

Trends in Preparation for Colorectal Surgery: Survey of the Members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons

The utility of antibiotic and mechanical preparation for colorectal surgery is controversial, and numerous different regimens are used. The aim of this study was to detect trends in preparation for surgery among American colon and rectal surgeons. Members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons practicing in the United States were surveyed with a postal questionnaire regarding their routine preparations for colon and rectal surgery. Five hundred fifteen (40%) of the 1295 questionnaires sent were returned. Eighty-one per cent of the respondents had completed an accredited colorectal training program, and the average experience in practice was 13.7 (±8.7) years. Half of the surgeons felt that prophylactic oral antibiotic is essential, 41 per cent felt it was doubtful, and 10 per cent considered oral prophylaxis unnecessary. Despite these statements 75 per cent of the surgeons routinely utilized oral antibiotics (96% of them used a combination of two drugs), 11 per cent used them selectively, and only 13 per cent omitted oral prophylaxis from their practice. Similarly although the usefulness of intravenous antibiotics was questioned by 11 per cent of the surgeons 98 per cent routinely used them. The average number of postoperative doses was two (±1.9). Although 10 per cent of the surgeons questioned the importance of mechanical preparation more than 99 per cent routinely used it. Forty-seven per cent of the surgeons used sodium phosphate, 32 per cent used polyethylene glycol, and 14 per cent alternated between these two options. We conclude that although the use of oral antibiotic prophylaxis for colorectal surgery is controversial among surgeons it is still routinely practiced by 75 per cent. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis and mechanical cleansing, however, are still a dogma and almost invariably used. There is a trend toward the use of a shorter course of postoperative intravenous antibiotics and the use of sodium phosphate for mechanical cleansing.

Complications after colorectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

The current practice of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery is questionable. Mechanical bowel preparation is unpleasant for the patient, often distressful, and potentially harmful. The results are often less than desired, increasing the risk of contamination. Cleansing the colon and rectum before surgery has never been shown in clinical trials to benefit patients. In animal experiments MBP has a detrimental effect on colonic healing.

STUDY DESIGN

To investigate the outcomes of colorectal surgery without MBP, we prospectively evaluated a consecutive series of patients who underwent resection and primary anastomosis of the colon and upper rectum, including emergency operations. One surgeon performed all operations. Endpoints were wound infection, anastomotic failure, and death. Late signs and symptoms that might be secondary to leakage of the anastomosis were considered as an anastomotic failure as well, during a followup of 1 year.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty operations were performed, of which 199 (79.6%) were elective. Colectomies were left-sided in 65.6%. Anastomoses were ileocolic in 32%, colocolic in 20.8%, colorectal intraperitoneal in 34.4%, and extraperitoneal in 12.8%. No patient suffered from fecal impaction. Followup was complete in 97.2%. Eight patients (3.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-6.4) developed superficial wound infections. In three patients there was leakage from an extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis, in two of them after hospital discharge. The overall anastomotic failure rate was 1.2% (95% CI: 0.3-3.6). The in-hospital mortality rate was 0.8% (95% CI: 0.1-2.9) and was not related to abdominal or septic complications.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical bowel preparation is not a sine qua non for safe colorectal surgery.

Laparoscopically Assisted Hemicolectomy for Crohn's Disease: Are we Still Getting Better?

The most common indications for laparoscopic surgery in Crohn's disease include ileocolic resection and right hemicolectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the results of right hemicolectomy in an early phase versus a later phase. Between August 1992 and October 1998 all patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for ileocolic resection and right hemicolectomy were divided into chronological groups: Group I = August 1992 to January 1996 and Group II = February 1996 to October 1998. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney test, Student t test, or Fisher's exact test. We identified 41 patients; 16 patients [eight females and eight males with an average age of 37.1 (range 20–59) years] were in Group I and 25 [16 females and nine males with an average age of 41.9 (range 15–74) years] were in Group II [ P = not significant (NS)]. Overall there were five (12%) intraoperative complications reported: two (12%) in Group I and three (12%) in Group II ( P = NS). Mean operative time was 149 (range 90–260) minutes in Group I versus 158 (range 100–285) minutes in Group II ( P = NS). Mean length of hospital stay was 7.4 (range 4–18) days in Group I and 6.6 (range 3–20) days in Group II ( P = NS). Four patients (25%) in Group I and seven (28%) in Group II had their procedures converted to laparotomy ( P = NS). In Group I four (25%) patients had surgery-related postoperative complications, one of which was wound related. One patient has an anastomotic leak whereas two had prolonged postoperative ileus. In Group II six (24%) patients had surgery-related complications, two of which were wound related, three were cases of prolonged postoperative ileus, and one was an anastomotic leak ( P = NS between Groups I and II). Perhaps as a result of the relative technical ease of right-sided resections or the nature of the disease the expected decrease in morbidity and conversion rate over time could not be shown.

Bowel preparation for colorectal surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess recent literature regarding bowel preparation for colonoscopy and surgery.

METHODS

The study was conducted by an Index Medicus English-language search of articles relevant to both oral mechanical and parenteral and oral antibiotic preparation for elective colorectal surgery and mechanical bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The study period was from 1975 to 2000. In addition, studies of elective colorectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation were also considered.

RESULTS

Although several recent prospective, randomized trials have suggested that elective colorectal surgery can be safely performed without any mechanical bowel preparation, mechanical bowel preparation remains the standard of care, at least in North America at the present time. A recent survey of the members of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons revealed that the majority currently use sodium phosphate for bowel preparation and use a dual oral antibiotic regimen before elective colorectal surgery, combined with two doses of parenteral antibiotics. Although some of the use patterns are based on prospective, randomized study, others seem founded strictly on habit and theory.

CONCLUSIONS

The current methods of bowel cleansing for both colonoscopy and surgery include sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol; colorectal surgeons practicing in North America currently prefer sodium phosphate. Additional preparation for colorectal surgery includes perioperative parenteral antibiotics and, to a slightly lesser degree, preoperative oral antibiotic preparation. Although some recent prospective, randomized studies have suggested that omission of mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery is not only feasible but potentially preferable, caution is recommended before routinely omitting these widely practiced measures, because data to support such routine omission are limited.

Cisapride does not improve precolonoscopy bowel preparation with either sodium phosphate or polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage

BACKGROUND

Oral sodium phosphate solution (NAP) and polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage (PEG-EL) are used for precolonoscopy bowel preparation. The benefit of adding cisapride to PEG-EL is controversial, and its influence on the effectiveness of NAP has not been investigated. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether cisapride improves the effectiveness and/or tolerableness of bowel preparation with either NAP or PEG-EL.

METHODS

In 187 patients undergoing colonoscopy, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a Latin square design was conducted to compare 4 different bowel preparations: NAP plus either cisapride (10 mg; 2 doses) or placebo, or PEG-EL plus either cisapride (10 mg; 1 dose) or placebo. Quality of the bowel preparation was graded by the endoscopist according to the amount of stool present in the colon (excellent, satisfactory, unsatisfactory). To assess tolerability, patients rated 8 symptoms, the taste of the lavage solution, and the ease of preparation on a 5-point scale (1: easy; 5: distressing).

RESULTS

Endoscopists scored the bowel preparation as either excellent or satisfactory as follows: NAP: cisapride 50% versus placebo 61% (p = 0.3); PEG-EL: cisapride 80% versus placebo 78% (p = 1.0). Cisapride did not improve tolerability or the frequency of adverse symptoms associated with either solution. The ease of bowel preparation was significantly better in the NAP group versus PEG-EL group (mean score 1.8 versus 2.8; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cisapride does not improve the quality of bowel preparation with either NAP or PEG-EL. NAP is better tolerated by patients than PEG-EL; however, PEG-EL results in better bowel preparation.

Complications of endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Although most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are performed by gastroenterologists, surgeons often assist in the management of patients with complications. This review provides an introduction to the incidence, prevention, and treatment of complications that may occur after upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

Preprocedural complications include medication effects and adverse effects of bowel preparation. Major procedural complications consist primarily of perforation and hemorrhage. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement may be complicated by fistula and obstruction. There is also a risk of infectious disease transmission, both to and from the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy, like all invasive procedures, carries significant potential risks for the patient. In practiced hands, and with awareness of the problems that may arise, many complications may be avoided and others successfully managed.

Experimental sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol induce colonic tissue damage and oxidative stress

BACKGROUND

Bowel washout solutions may damage colonic mucosa and cause shallow ulceration, which may result in diagnostic errors and complications. The effects of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium phosphate on rat colon were investigated histologically and by measurement of indicators of oxidative stress.

METHODS

Thirty Wistar albino rats were divided into three groups and received PEG, sodium phosphate or tap water alone (control). After 8 h, histological changes in colonic mucosa were evaluated. The tissue concentration of malonyldialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) in colon homogenates was also measured.

RESULTS

Animals in the sodium phosphate and PEG groups had significantly more colonic mucosal damage than controls, the damage induced by sodium phosphate being worse than that caused by PEG. MDA levels were significantly higher in the sodium phosphate and PEG groups than in controls and were higher in the sodium phosphate group than in the PEG group, whereas differences in SOD and GSH-Px activities were significant only between control and both sodium phosphate and PEG groups.

CONCLUSION

Sodium phosphate and PEG cause histological damage and trigger oxidative stress on colonic mucosa. The tissue damage and oxidative stress induced by sodium phosphate is more profound than that produced by PEG.

Prospective randomized trial comparing bowel cleaning preparations for colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is commonly accepted as the procedure of choice for the detection and treatment of colonic lesions. The current study was undertaken to compare effectiveness and tolerance of different bowel preparations. Three hundred patients were randomized into three groups, to be administered either a senna compound, a polyethylene glycol lavage, or an oral sodium phosphate (NaP) solution. Tolerance of the preparation was considered. After each colonoscopy, the endoscopist blindly scored cleansing for each bowel segment and defined the quality of the examination as "optimal," "acceptable," or to be repeated. Significantly more patients in Group C (68%) achieved a "good" cleansing compared with Group B (50%; P < 0.0001) and with Group A (38%; P < 0.005). Sixty-three percent of constipated patients obtained a "good" preparation in Group C, which was significantly higher than in Group A (28%; P < 0.05) and than in Group B (42%; P < 0.02). Feasibility of the examination was considered "optimal" in 80% of procedures in Group C, which was higher than in Group A (59%; P < 0.005) and in Group B (62%; P < 0.005). The tolerance of preparation was "good" in 93% of the examinations for Group C. This prospective randomized trial showed good effectiveness of NaP solutions, with an optimal tolerance. Results of use of the NaP solution showed a clear advantage for constipated patients, with similar results for nonconstipated patients. The author believes that the NaP solution should be the standard preparation for elective colonoscopy.

Oral sodium phosphate solution is a superior colonoscopy preparation to polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and patient tolerance of two bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

METHODS

Three hundred twenty-three consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either oral sodium phosphate, or 2 liters of polyethylene glycol solution preceded by the stimulant laxative bisacodyl. Patients were asked to record the effects of the preparation, noting any vomiting, nausea, or abdominal pain, and to determine a discomfort rating on a scale of 1 to 5. One hundred sixty-nine patients were assigned to the oral sodium phosphate solution, and 154 to polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl. Surgeons were blinded to the preparation used and rated the quality of the bowel preparation on a scale of 1 to 5.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine percent of patients in the sodium phosphate group drank all of the solution as opposed to 91 percent of patients in the polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl group. Patients in the sodium phosphate group reported significantly less discomfort (P = 0.002). No significant difference was reported for vomiting, nausea, or abdominal pain associated with the preparations. The quality of bowel cleansing was considered by the colonoscopists significantly better for the sodium phosphate group than the polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl group (P < 0.000001).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy preparation with sodium phosphate solution is better tolerated and more effective than polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: comparison of mannitol and sodium phosphate. Results of a prospective randomized study

METHOD

Eighty patients were prospectively randomized for precolonoscopic cleansing either with 750ml of 10% mannitol (Group M) or 180ml of a sodium phosphate preparation (Group NaP). Laboratory examinations before and after preparation on all patients included hemoglobin, hematocrit, sodium, potassium, phosphorous, calcium and serum osmolarity. A questionnaire was used to assess undesirable side effects and patient tolerance to the solution. The quality of preparation was assessed by the endoscopist who was unaware of the solution employed.

RESULTS

Statistically significant changes were verified in serum sodium, phosphorous, potassium and calcium between the two groups, but no clinical symptoms were observed. There were no significant differences in the frequency of side effects studied. Six of the eight patients in Group NaP who had taken mannitol for a previous colonoscopy claimed better acceptance of the sodium phosphate solution. The endoscopic-blinded trial reported excellent or good bowel preparation in 85% prepared with sodium phosphate versus 82.5% for mannitol (p=0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of preparation and frequency of side effects was similar in the two solutions. The smaller volume of sodium phosphate necessary for preparation seems to be related to its favorable acceptance. Nevertheless, the retention of sodium and phosphate ions contraindicates the use of sodium phosphate in patients with renal failure, cirrhosis, ascites, and heart failure.

Is bowel confinement necessary after anorectal reconstructive surgery? A prospective, randomized, surgeon-blinded trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess any differences between the inclusion or omission of medical bowel confinement relative to postoperative morbidity and patient tolerance after anorectal reconstructive surgery.

METHODS

Between January 1995 and February 1997 a prospective randomized trial was conducted for patients without stomas who underwent anorectal reconstructive surgery. All patients were randomly assigned either to medical bowel confinement (a clear liquid diet with loperamide 4 mg by mouth three times per day and codeine phosphate 30 mg by mouth four times per day until the third postoperative day) or to a regular diet, beginning the day of surgery. All patients in both groups underwent the identical preoperative oral mechanical preparation, preoperative oral and parenteral antibiotics, and postoperative antibiotics. Wound closure and wound care were identical in both groups.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients (46 females) were prospectively, randomly assigned to medical bowel confinement (n = 27; 50 percent) or a regular diet (n = 27; 50 percent); the mean ages were 51.0 (range, 28-80) and 47.2 (range, 23-87) years, respectively. Indications for surgery were fecal incontinence in 32 patients, complicated fistulas in 17 patients, anal stenosis in 4 patients, a Whitehead deformity in 1 patient, and a chronic unhealed fissure in 1 patient. Fifty-four patients underwent 55 procedures: 32 patients underwent sphincteroplasty, 18 patients underwent transanal advancement flaps, and 5 patients underwent anoplasties. There were no differences between the two groups in the incidence of either septic or urologic complications. Nausea and vomiting were recorded in seven (26 percent) medical bowel confinement and three (11 percent) regular-diet patients. The first postoperative bowel movement occurred at a mean of 3.9 days in the medical bowel confinement group and 2.8 days in the regular diet group (P < 0.05). Fecal impaction occurred in seven (26 percent) of the patients in the medical bowel confinement group and two (7 percent) of the patients in the regular diet group. Hospital charges analysis showed a mean cost of hospitalization of $12,586.00 (range, $3,436.00-$20,375.00) for the medical bowel confinement group and $10,685.00 (range, $3,954.00-$18,574.00) in the regular diet group, representing a mean difference of $1,901.00 (P = 0.06). Mean follow-up was 13 months for both groups (range, 1-24 months in the regular diet group and 2-25 months in the medical bowel confinement group). No statistical difference was shown in the functional outcome of sphincteroplasties between the medical bowel confinement group and the regular diet group.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome of reconstructive anorectal surgery was not adversely affected by the omission of medical bowel confinement. Moreover, cost savings can be achieved by the omission of routine bowel confinement.