Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Postoperative short-term use of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug flurbiprofen did not increase the anastomotic leakage rate in patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery-a retrospective cohort study

Background

Flurbiprofen has been one of the most commonly used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in China and other Asian countries for perioperative multimodal analgesia in recent years, yet its association with anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal anastomoses is unknown. The current study was designed to investigate whether short-term administration of flurbiprofen would increase the risk of anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery for cancer resection.

Methods

A total of 3653 patients (2487 (66.1%) men) undergoing elective operation for gastrointestinal cancer between 18 July 2017 and 30 Oct 2020 were included. The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 53–67 years). The exposure was the short-term postoperative use of flurbiprofen (defined as flurbiprofen treatment within the first week after surgery). The primary outcome was the frequency of clinical anastomotic leakage.

Results

Of 3653 patients with available data who were included in the final analysis, 2282 received flurbiprofen administration, and 1371 did not. Anastomotic leakage was not significantly increased among the patients receiving flurbiprofen compared with those who did not (1.62% v 1.46%; P=0.70). In-hospital mortality was comparable between the two groups (0.04% v 0.07%; P=0.72). After adjusted analysis, male sex (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.80–6.85), ASA score of 3–4 (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.62–4.48), and intraoperative infusion (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.19–4.21) were identified as risk factors for anastomotic leakage.

Conclusions

Postoperative short-term use of flurbiprofen did not increase the risk of anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal anastomoses.

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.

[Fast-tract: Therapist's role]

The modern model of inpatient surgical care of private and optimized state/govermental medical institutions allows us to change the paradigm of nosological attachment of the hospital bed to one profile of specialists for an adaptive model, when the wards can be reassigned depending on the needs of the hospital. In such multidisciplinary medical centers with mixed hospital beds without a nominal distinction in the nosological departments, a new therapeutic service is being developed - hospitalists, which provide a consistent curation of hospitalized patients, compensation of chronic therapeutic illnesses with patient's preparation for surgical interventions. Our work describes the experience of Fast Track recovery program with the active participation of a hospitalist in a surgical team, which is a new experience in the practice of Russian colorectal surgery.

Impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis

AIM

To analyse the effect of mechanical bowel preparation vs no mechanical bowel preparation on outcome in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing adult patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation with those receiving no mechanical bowel preparation, subdivided into those receiving a single rectal enema and those who received no preparation at all prior to elective colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies (23 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational studies) including 21568 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery were included. When all studies were considered, mechanical bowel preparation was not associated with any significant difference in anastomotic leak rates (OR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.74 to 1.10, P = 0.32), surgical site infection (OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.24, P = 0.96), intra-abdominal collection (OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.63 to 1.17, P = 0.34), mortality (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.57 to 1.27, P = 0.43), reoperation (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.75 to 1.12, P = 0.38) or hospital length of stay (overall mean difference 0.11 d, 95%CI: -0.51 to 0.73, P = 0.72), when compared with no mechanical bowel preparation, nor when evidence from just randomized controlled trials was analysed. A sub-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation vs absolutely no preparation or a single rectal enema similarly revealed no differences in clinical outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

In the most comprehensive meta-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery to date, this study has suggested that the use of mechanical bowel preparation does not affect the incidence of postoperative complications when compared with no preparation. Hence, mechanical bowel preparation should not be administered routinely prior to elective colorectal surgery.

Influence of Enhanced Recovery Pathway on Surgical Site Infection after Colonic Surgery

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to evaluate a potential effect of ERAS on surgical site infections (SSI).

METHODS

Colonic surgical patients operated between May 2011 and September 2015 constituted the cohort for this retrospective analysis. Over 100 items related to demographics, surgical details, compliance, and outcome were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. SSI were traced by an independent National surveillance program. Risk factors for SSI were identified by univariate and multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

Fifty-four out of 397 patients (14%) developed SSI. Independent risk factors for SSI were emergency surgery (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.09-1.78, p = 0.026), previous abdominal surgery (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.32-1.87, p = 0.004), smoking (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.22-1.89, p = 0.014), and oral bowel preparation (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.34-1.97, p = 0.013), while minimally invasive surgery (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.16-0.56, p < 0.001) protected against SSI. Compliance to ERAS items of >70% was not retained as a protective factor for SSI after multivariate analysis (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.46-1.92, p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking, open and emergency surgery, and bowel preparation were risk factors for SSI. ERAS pathway had no independent impact while minimally invasive approach did. This study was registered under ResearchRegistry.com (UIN researchregistry2614).

Bladder Cancer Recovery Pathways: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery pathways, also known as fast-track protocols, have been adopted since the early 2000s by various surgical specialties with the goal of improving patient outcomes and reducing the cost burden of major surgery on the health care system.

OBJECTIVE

To review the scientific literature on the origin of enhanced recovery pathways, track the contemporary utilization of such practices for patients undergoing radical cystectomy, and analyze the available data regarding their effect on morbidity, mortality, and treatment cost.

METHODS

A literature search of multiple electronic databases was undertaken. Manuscripts including patients undergoing radical cystectomy were chosen based on predefined criteria with an emphasis on randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Strength of evidence for each study that met inclusion criteria was assessed based on the risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision.

RESULTS

Database searches resulted in 1,236 potentially relevant articles. A total of 485 articles were selected for full-text dual review and 106 studies in 52 publications met the inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of enhanced recovery pathways with the goal of improving overall patient morbidity and mortality is well supported in the literature, however standardization of implementation and adherence across institutions is lacking, and their direct efficacy on reducing preventable treatment related expenditures is unconfirmed.

Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce infections after colorectal cancer surgery

Aim

The objectives were to recognize the risk factors for surgical site infections (SSIs) after surgery due to colorectal cancer and to assess the impact of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic prophylaxis (ABX) on SSIs.

Methods

Records from two colorectal centers were used. Risk factors of SSIs were categorized into patient-, disease-, and treatment-dependent.

Results

A group of 2240 patients was included. SSIs were noted in 364 patients (16.3 %). MBP+/ABX+ was connected with a lower incidence of anastomotic leak (AL) and organ-space SSIs: 2.4 vs. 6.3 %; p = 0.008 and 3.6 vs. 7.2 %; p = 0.017, respectively. Patient-dependent factors: obesity increased the risk of skin superficial SSIs, adjusted OR 1.53 (1.47–1.59 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI)), and deep incisional SSIs 1.42 (1.39–1.45 95 % CI). Disease-dependent factors: rectal cancer was associated with a higher risk of skin superficial and deep incisional SSIs, adjusted OR 1.28 (1.22–1.34 95 % CI) and 1.13 (1.09–1.15 95 % CI). Treatment-dependent factors: MBP+/ABX+ was associated with a lower risk of organ-space SSIs, adjusted OR 0.53 (0.44–0.59 95 % CI). Radiotherapy increased the risk of organ-space SSIs, adjusted OR 1.78 (1.75–1.80 95 % CI). The risk of organ-space SSIs was the highest after low anterior resection, adjusted OR 1.62 (1.60–1.64 95 % CI).

Conclusions

If possible, MBP and ABX should always be administered to decrease the risk of AL and organ-space SSIs. Factors strictly related to the treatment mostly increased the risk of organ-space SSIs.

Antimicrobial Bowel Preparation for Elective Colon Surgery

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation continues to be a controversial subject for the pre-operative management of patients undergoing elective colon resection.

METHODS

The English literature on bowel preparation was searched to identify pertinent publications.

RESULTS

The published literature over the past 80 y confirms that mechanical bowel preparation alone does not reduce surgical site infections. However, the use of appropriate oral antibiotics following mechanical bowel preparation with pre-operative systemic antibiotics reduces rates of surgical site infections and anastomotic leaks when compared with systemic antibiotics alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical bowel preparation with pre-operative oral antibiotics and pre-operative systemic antibiotics are the standard of care for elective colon surgery. Refinement in methods of bowel preparation needs additional clinical investigations to further enhance outcomes.

Transanal drainage tube reduces rate and severity of anastomotic leakage in patients with colorectal anastomosis: A case controlled study

Background and aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical usefulness of the placement of a transanal drainage tube to prevent anastomotic leakage in colorectal anastomoses.

Material and methods

This single-center retrospective trial included all patients treated with surgery for benign or malign colorectal disease between January 2009 and December 2012. The transanal drainage tube was immediately placed after colorectal anastomosis until day five and was routinely used since 2010. Patients treated with a transanal drainage tube were compared with the control group. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact or Chi-square tests for group comparison and a linear regression model for multivariate analysis.

Results

This study included 242 patients (46% female; median age 63 years; range 18–93); 34% of the patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure, and 57% of the patients received a placement of a transanal drainage tube. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 19 patients (7.9%). Univariate analysis showed a higher rate of anastomotic leakage in patients with an ASA score 4 (p = 0.02) and a lower rate in patients with transanal drainage placement (3.6% vs. 13.6%; p = 0.007). The grading of the complication of anastomotic leakage was reduced with transanal drainage (e.g., Dindo ≧ 3b: 20.0% vs. 92.9%; p = 0.006), and the hospital stay was shortened (17.6 ± 12.5 vs. 22.1 ± 17.6 days; p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed that transanal drainage was the only significant factor (HR = −2.90; −0.168 to −0.032; p = 0.007) affecting anastomotic leakage.

Conclusions

Placement of a transanal drainage tube in patients with colorectal anastomoses is a safe and simple technique to perform and reduces anastomotic leakage, the severity of the complication and hospital stay.

•

A transanal drainage tube as a mechanism to reduce anastomotic leakage is proposed.

•

Transanal drainage tube reduces anastomotic leakage 3.6% vs. 13.6% (p = 0.007).

•

Transanal drainage reduced the grade of complication (e.g., Dindo ≧ 3b: 20.0% vs. 92.9%; p = 0.006).

The effect of a postoperative quality improvement program on outcomes in colorectal surgery in a community hospital

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether implementation of a comprehensive quality improvement program was associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing oncological colorectal surgery in a non-academic, non-referral community hospital.

METHODS

The quality improvement program (QIP) was introduced in January 2011 and consisted of the following interventions: (1) avoidance of postoperative nonsteriodal anti-inflammatory drugs; (2) normovolemia was pursued pre- and postoperatively; (3) non-resectional surgery if possible, in patients over 80 with ASA 3 or 4 classification; and (4) a standardized, postoperative surveillance protocol was introduced, with CRP determination day 2 and 4, and if necessary subsequent abdominal CT with rectal contrast to reduce delay in diagnosis of complications. From a prospectively maintained database of 488 patients undergoing colorectal surgery between 2009 and 2014, postoperative outcomes of patients operated before and after implementation of the program were compared.

RESULTS

The severe complication rate (Clavien-Dindo >3b) decreased significantly (25.0 vs. 13.7 %; p < .001) after implementation of the QIP program. The mortality rate dropped from 8.7 to 2.6 % (p = .003). The percentage of anastomotic leakage was 9.6% before QIP implementation and 4.2% after (p = .013). Median length of hospital stay decreased from 9 (IQR 5-19) to 7 days (IQR 4-12) (p < .001). Multivariate analyses showed that surgery after implementation of the program was a strong independent predictor for less major complications (OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.32-0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant decrease in major complications and mortality was observed after introduction of a relative simple quality improvement program.

An Open-Label Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Mechanical Bowel Preparation vs Nonmechanical Bowel Preparation in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Personal Experience

Over the last two decades, preoperative mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery has been criticized. Yet, many surgeons are still in favor of its use simply because of the belief that it achieves better clearance of the colonic fecal load. The objective of this study is to compare the outcome with regard to patient compliance and postoperative complications following elective colorectal surgery between two groups of patients, one with bowel prepared mechanically and the other by nonmechanical means. This open-label prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in a high-volume tertiary government referral hospital of Kolkata over a period of 3 years. It included 71 patients, divided into two groups, admitted for elective colorectal resection procedures in one surgical unit. Both methods of bowel preparation were equally well tolerated, and there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications or mortality between the two groups.

Mechanical bowel preparation for children undergoing elective colorectal surgery

OBJECTIVES

Adult literature supports the elimination of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgical procedures. Prospective data for the pediatric population regarding the utility of MBP are lacking. The primary aim of this study was to compare infectious complications, specifically anastomotic leak, intraabdominal abscess, and wound infection in patients who received MBP with those who did not.

METHODS

A randomized pilot study comparing MBP with polyethylene glycol with no MBP was performed. Patients, 0 to 21 years old, undergoing elective colorectal surgery were eligible and randomized within 4 age strata. Statistical analyses were performed using χ or Fisher exact test for categorical data and t test or Wilcoxon 2-sample test for continuous data.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were enrolled in the study from December 2010 to February 2013, of which 24 (55%) received MBP and 20 (45%) did not. Two patients (5%) had anastomotic leak, 4 (9%) had intraabdominal infection, and 7 (16%) had wound infections. The rate of anastomotic leak, intraabdominal abscess, and wound infection did not differ between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MBP for elective colorectal surgery in children does not affect the incidence of infectious complications. A larger multiinstitutional study is necessary to validate the results of this single-institution pilot study.

Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction-colectomy: A systematic review

Over the last 20 years, laparoscopic colorectal surgery has shown equal efficacy for benign and malignant colorectal diseases when compared to open surgery. However, a laparoscopic approach reduces postoperative morbidity and shortens hospital stay. In the quest to optimize outcomes after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, reduction of access trauma could be a way to improve recovery. To date, one method to reduce access trauma is natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE). NOSE aims to reduce access trauma in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The specimen is delivered via a natural orifice and the anastomosis is created intracorporeally. Different methods are used to extract the specimen and to create a bowel anastomosis. Currently, specimens are delivered transcolonically, transrectally, transanally, or transvaginally. Each of these NOSE-procedures raises specific issues with regard to operative technique and application. The presumed benefits of NOSE-procedures are less pain, lower analgesia requirements, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay, better cosmetic results, and lower incisional hernia rates. Avoidance of extraction site laparotomy is the most important characteristic of NOSE. Concerns associated with the NOSE-technique include bacterial contamination of the peritoneal cavity, inflammatory response, and postoperative outcomes, including postoperative pain and the functional and oncologic outcomes. These issues need to be studied in prospective randomized controlled trials. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the role of NOSE in minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

The role of mechanical bowel preparation before ileal urinary diversion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is still widely promoted as the dogma before patients undergo ileal urinary diversion, an increasing number of clinical trials have suggested that there is no benefit. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of MBP in ileal urinary diversion surgery.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded as well as the Cochrane Library and the Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, from 1966 to January 1, 2013. Clinical trials comparing outcomes of MBP versus no MBP for ileal urinary diversion surgery were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed- or random-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, two randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes, such as bowel leak and bowel obstruction, showed no statistical difference between the two groups. Additionally, the overall mortality rate and death rate related to operation also manifested that MBP does not offer an advantage over the no MBP.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that MBP does not reduce the incidence of perioperative complications in urinary diversion compared with no MBP. However, large randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm this finding.

Mechanical bowel preparation and prophylactic antibiotic administration in colorectal surgery: a survey of the current status in Korea

Purpose

The usefulness of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colon surgery was recently challenged by many multicenter clinical trials and meta-analyses. The objectives of this study were to investigate current national opinions about MBP and prophylactic antibiotics (PA) and to provide preliminary data for developing future Korean guidelines for MBP and PA administration in colorectal surgery.

Methods

A questionnaire was mailed to 129 colorectal specialists. The questionnaires addressed the characteristics of the hospital, the MBP methods, and the uses of oral and intravenous antibiotics.

Results

A total of 73 questionnaires (56.6%) were returned. First, in regard to MBP methods, most surgeons (97.3%) used MBP for a mean of 1.36 days. Most surgeons (98.6%) implemented whole bowel irrigation and used polyethylene glycol (83.3%). Oral antibiotic use was indicated in over half (52.1%) of the responses, the average number of preoperative doses was three, and the mean time of administration was 24.2 hours prior to the operation. Finally, the majority of responders stated that they used intravenous antibiotics (95.9%). The responses demonstrated that second-generation cephalosporin-based regimens were most commonly prescribed, and 75% of the surgeons administered these regimens until three days after the operation.

Conclusion

The results indicate that most surgeons used MBP and intravenous antibiotics and that half of them administered oral PA in colorectal surgery preparations. The study recommends that the current Korean guidelines should be adapted to adequately reflect the medical status in Korea, to consider the medical environment of the various hospitals, and to establish more accurate and relevant guidelines.

Innovations and developments in surgical coloproctology

The field of coloproctology covers the treatment of both benign and cancerous disease of the colon, rectum and anus. Significant recent developments in the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer include the development of minimally invasive techniques for colorectal resections and the use of stenting for obstructed patients. The introduction of widespread screening aims to diagnose the disease at an earlier stage. Developments in chemotherapy and radiotherapy have also complimented surgical advances towards this disease. There have also been changes in the treatment of benign disease such as diverticular disease, haemorrhoids and anal fissures with a trend towards less invasive surgical techniques.

Improvements in safety and recovery following cystectomy: reassessing the role of pre-operative bowel preparation and interventions to speed return of post-operative bowel function

For radical cystectomy, historical practice trends have favored the use of preoperative bowel preparations to reduce complications, including surgical site infections, ileus, and anastomotic leaks. However, emerging data has questioned this practice. Postoperative cystectomy care also remains in flux, as new pharmacologic agents that may potentiate earlier return of bowel function are studied. We review the current literature with regards to preoperative and postoperative cystectomy bowel management.

Optimizing working-space in laparoscopy: measuring the effect of mechanical bowel preparation in a porcine model

BACKGROUND

Adequate working space is a prerequisite for safe and efficient minimal access surgery. No objective data exist in literature about the effect of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on working space in laparoscopic surgery. We objectively measured this effect with computed tomography in a porcine laparoscopy model.

METHODS

Using standardized anesthesia, twelve 20-kg pigs without MBP and eight 20-kg pigs with MBP were studied with computed tomography at intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) levels of 0, 5, 10, and 15 mmHg. Volumes and dimensions of the pneumoperitoneum were measured on reconstructed CT images and compared between the pigs with and those without MBP.

RESULTS

A reproducible and statistically significant increase of approximately 500 ml in pneumoperitoneum volume was found in the MBP group at all levels of IAP. This represents a 43 % relative increase at a pneumoperitoneum pressure of 5 mmHg, 21 % at IAP 10 mmHg, and 18 % at IAP 15 mmHg. Peak inspiratory pressure was lower at IAP 0 and 5 mmHg in the MBP group. Anteroposterior diameter in the group with MBP was lower at 0 mmHg, but abdominal dimensions were similar in both groups at all other IAPs. This shows that the gain in working space is due to a diminished volume of the intra-abdominal content and not to compression or displacement of the bowel.

CONCLUSIONS

MBP increases working space by reducing bowel content. Especially at low intra-abdominal working pressures, the increase in working space associated with MBP could represent an important benefit in challenging laparoscopic surgery.

Fast-track surgery in gynaecology and gynaecologic oncology: a review of a rolling clinical audit

Clinical audit is the process by which clinicians are able to demonstrate to themselves, their patients, hospital administrators, and healthcare financial providers the outcome and safety of their clinical practice. It is a process by which the public can be assured of safety and outcomes. A fast-track surgery program was initiated in January 2008, and this paper represents a rolling clinical audit of the outcomes of that program until the end of June 2012. Three hundred and eighty-nine patients underwent fast track surgical management after having a laparotomy for suspected or confirmed gynaecological cancer. There were no exclusions and the data presented represents the practice and outcomes of all patients referred to a single gynaecological oncologist. The majority of patients were deemed to have complex surgical procedures performed usually through a vertical midline incision. One third of patients had a nonzero performance status, median weight was 68 kilograms, and median BMI was 26.5 with 31% being classified as obese. Median operating time was 2.25 hours, and the median estimated blood loss was 175 mL. Overall the median length of stay (LOS) was 3 days with 95% of patients tolerating early oral feeding. Four percent of patients required readmission, and 0.5% were required to return to the operating room. Whilst the wound infection rate was 2.6%, there were no ureteric, bowel or neurovascular injuries. Overall there were 2 bladder injuries (0.5%), and the incidence of venous thromboembolism was 1%. Subset analysis was also undertaken. Whilst a number of variables were associated with reduced LOS, on multivariate analysis, benign pathology, shorter operating time, and the ability to tolerate early oral feeding were found to be significant. The data and experience presented is the largest and most extensive reported in the literature relating to fast-track surgery in gynaecology and gynaecologic oncology. The public can be reassured of the safety and improved outcomes that can be achieved after the introduction of such a program.

The safety of a "fast-track" program after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is comparable in older patients as in younger patients

INTRODUCTION

Fast-track protocols, introduced in the late 1990 s, have been applied in several surgical fields, particularly for colorectal surgery. However, currently many surgical patients are elderly, and discussion about the application of such programs for elderly patients is lacking. The present study was designed to assess the safety of application of a fast-track program after laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients.

METHODS

From August 2009 to January 2011, we prospectively collected data from patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with a perioperative fast-track program. The data of patients older and younger than 70 years were compared.

RESULTS

Of a total of 337 patients, the group of patients older than 70 years (OG) totaled 87 (25.8 %) and the younger group (YG) totaled 250 (74.2 %). Ten patients (11.5 %) were excluded in the OG and 24 (9.6 %) in the YG. There were no differences in gender, history of previous surgeries, body mass index, type of operation, operative time, or blood loss between groups. Age (74.8 vs. 56.7 years, p < 0.001), presence of comorbidities (70.1 vs. 44.7 %, p < 0.001), and ASA score (I:II:III, 33.8:57.1:9.1 vs. 60.6:33.2:6.2 %, p < 0.001) were significantly different between the two groups. Postoperative course did not show differences, including return of flatus, stool passage, advancement of diet, removal of urinary catheter, length of usage of IV antibiotics, complications, and length of postoperative stay. Emergency department visits or readmission within a month after discharge were more frequent in the OG (11.7 %) than the YG (4 %; p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Fast-track after laparoscopic colorectal surgery can be safely applied in carefully selected elderly patients older than age 70 years. Physicians should keep in mind complications that may present after discharge and should actively educate patients about them.

Postoperative use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with anastomotic leakage requiring reoperation after colorectal resection: cohort study based on prospective data

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of postoperative use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on anastomotic leakage requiring reoperation after colorectal resection.

DESIGN

Cohort study based on data from a prospective clinical database and electronically registered medical records.

SETTING

Six major colorectal centres in eastern Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

2766 patients (1441 (52%) men) undergoing elective operation for colorectal cancer with colonic or rectal resection and primary anastomosis between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2009. Median age was 70 years (interquartile range 62-77).

INTERVENTION

Postoperative use of NSAID (defined as at least two days of NSAID treatment in the first seven days after surgery).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency of clinical anastomotic leakage verified at reoperation; mortality at 30 days.

RESULTS

Of 2756 patients with available data and included in the final analysis, 1871 (68%) did not receive postoperative NSAID treatment (controls) and 885 (32%) did. In the NSAID group, 655 (74%) patients received ibuprofen and 226 (26%) received diclofenac. Anastomotic leakage verified at reoperation was significantly increased among patients receiving diclofenac and ibuprofen treatment, compared with controls (12.8% and 8.2% v 5.1%; P<0.001). After unadjusted analyses and when compared with controls, more patients had anastomotic leakage after treatment with diclofenac (7.8% (95% confidence interval 3.9% to 12.8%)) and ibuprofen (3.2% (1.0% to 5.7%)). But after multivariate logistic regression analysis, only diclofenac treatment was a risk factor for leakage (odds ratio 7.2 (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 13.4), P<0.001; ibuprofen 1.5 (0.8 to 2.9), P=0.18). Other risk factors for anastomotic leakage were male sex, rectal (v colonic) anastomosis, and blood transfusion. 30 day mortality was comparable in the three groups (diclofenac 1.8% v ibuprofen 4.1% v controls 3.2%; P=0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Diclofenac treatment could result in an increased proportion of patients with anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery. Cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective NSAIDs should be used with caution after colorectal resections with primary anastomosis. Large scale, randomised controlled trials are urgently needed.

The influence of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery for diverticulitis

Background

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) has been shown to have no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in overall colorectal surgery. The role of MBP in elective surgery in combination with an inflammatory component such as diverticulitis is yet unclear. This study evaluates the effects of MBP on anastomotic leakage and other septic complications in 190 patients who underwent elective surgery for colonic diverticulitis.

Methods

A subgroup analysis was performed in a prior multicenter (13 hospitals) randomized trial comparing clinical outcome of MBP versus no MBP in elective colorectal surgery. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of anastomotic leakage in patients operated on for diverticulitis, and secondary endpoints were septic complications and mortality.

Results

Out of a total of 1,354 patients, 190 underwent elective colorectal surgery (resection with primary anastomosis) for (recurrent or stenotic) diverticulitis. One hundred and three patients underwent MBP prior to surgery and 87 did not. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 7.8 % of patients treated with MBP and in 5.7 % of patients not treated with MBP (p = 0.79). There were no significant differences between the groups in septic complications and mortality.

Conclusion

Mechanical bowel preparation has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage, or other septic complications, and may be safely omitted in case of elective colorectal surgery for diverticulitis.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: updated systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgery has been practiced as a clinical routine for many decades. However, earlier randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses suggest that MBP should be abandoned before colorectal surgery because of the futility in reducing postoperative complications and motility. The new published results from three RCTs comparing MBP with no MBP in colorectal surgery in 2010 make the updating of systemic review and meta-analysis necessary. The aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of MBP in prevention of postoperative complications for elective colorectal surgery.

METHOD

A literature search was performed mainly in electronic database including Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing MBP with no MBP before colorectal surgery. Septic complications, reoperation, and death were recorded as primary and secondary outcomes. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the QUOROM statement.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs were included in our analysis with a total number of 5,373 patients: 2,682 with MBP and 2,691 without. Comparing with no MBP for elective colorectal surgery, our study showed that MBP had not reduce any postoperative complications when concerning anastomotic leak [odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08 (0.82-1.43); P = 0.56]; overall SSI [OR 95% CI, 1.26 (0.94-1.68); P = 0.12]; extra-abdominal septic complications [OR 95% CI, 0.98 (0.81-1.18); P = 0.81]; wound infections [OR 95% CI, 1.21 (1.00-1.46); P = 0.05]; reoperation or second intervention rate [OR 95% CI, 1.11 (0.86-1.45); P = 0.42]; and death [OR 95% CI, 0.97(0.63-1.48); P = 0.88].

CONCLUSION

No evidence was noted supporting the use of MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. MBP should be omitted in routine clinical practice.

Usefulness of sennoside as an agent for mechanical bowel preparation prior to elective colon cancer surgery

OBJECTIVE

We retrospectively evaluated the usefulness of sennoside as an agent for mechanical bowel preparation prior to elective colon cancer surgery.

METHODS

A total of 86 patients were given 12 mg of sennoside on the evening prior to resective surgery for colon cancer, followed by intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis used on the day of surgery or until postoperative day 2.

RESULTS

The incidence of surgical site infection in the study group was 4.7%, which was comparable to that in the historical control patients (3.5%, p>0.99), who had received polyethylene glycol for mechanical bowel preparation prior to colon surgery. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, only body mass index (p=0.04) was an independent significant factor affecting the surgical site infection. The intraoperative spillage was not influenced by the presence of stenosis, although the amount of fecal matter was higher in the upstream colon segment (p<0.01) and downstream segment (p=0.07) in patients with a stenotic lesion occupying more than two-thirds of the lumen (n=29) than in those without such severe stenosis (n=57).

CONCLUSION

Sennoside seems to be an acceptable agent for mechanical bowel preparation even in patients with stenosis.

[Fast track approach in radical cystectomy]

The origins of the fast track concept in the field of elective colon surgery can be traced back to the beginning of the 1990s. The first studies performed by Kehlet et al. sparked interest in this new form of patient management among physicians and hospital administrators. Different fast track programs for patients undergoing radical cystectomy can be found in the current literature. The goal of the prevailing fast track concepts is to reduce the perioperative burden, optimize postoperative convalescence, decrease the postoperative need for analgesics, lower the postoperative morbidity rate, and shorten hospital stays.

Preoperative management of surgical patients by "shortened fasting time": a study on the amount of total body water by multi-frequency impedance method

AIM

Preoperative fasting is an established procedure to be practiced for patients before surgery, but optimal preoperative fasting time still remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of "shortened preoperative fasting time" on the change in the amount of total body water (TBW) in elective surgical patients. TBW was measured by multi-frequency impedance method.

METHODS

The patients, who were scheduled to undergo surgery for stomach cancer, were divided into two groups of 15 patients each. Before surgery, patients in the control group were managed with conventional preoperative fasting time, while patients in the "enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)" group were managed with "shortened preoperative fasting time" and "reduced laxative medication." TBW was measured on the day before surgery and the day of surgery before entering the operating room. Defecation times and anesthesia-related vomiting and aspiration were monitored.

RESULTS

TBW values on the day of surgery showed changes in both groups as compared with those on the day before surgery, but the rate of change was smaller in the ERAS group than in the control group (2.4±6.8% [12 patients] vs. -10.6±4.6% [14 patients], p<0.001). Defecation times were less in the ERAS group. Vomiting and aspiration were not observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that preoperative management with "shorted preoperative fasting time" and "reduced administration of laxatives" is effective in the maintenance of TBW in elective surgical patients.

Early removal of nasogastric tube is beneficial for patients undergoing radical cystectomy with urinary diversion

PURPOSE

Examine the beneficial effect of early nasogastric tube (NGT) removal in patients undergoing radical cystectomy with urinary diversion.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

43 consecutive patients underwent radical cystectomy with urinary diversion and were randomized into 2 groups. In the intervention group (n = 22), the NGT was removed 12 hours after the operation. Comparatively, in the control group (n = 21), the NGT remained in place until the appearance of the first flatus. The appearance of ileus, patient ambulation, time to regular diet, and hospital discharge of the two patient groups were assessed. Patient discomfort due to the NGT was also recorded.

RESULTS

The 2 groups showed statistical homogeneity of their baseline characteristics. Two patients (9.09%) from the intervention and 3 patients (14.3%) from the control group developed postoperative ileus and were treated conservatively. No significant differences in intraoperative, postoperative, bowel outcomes or other complications were found between the two groups. All patients preferred the NGT to be removed first in comparison to their other co-existing drains.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first randomized, prospective study, to our knowledge, to assess early NGT removal after radical cystectomy. We advocate early removal, independently of the selected type of urinary diversion, since it is not correlated with ileus and is advantageous in terms of patient comfort and earlier ambulation.

A systematic review of enhanced recovery protocols in colorectal surgery

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal surgery has been associated with a complication rate of 15-20% and mean post-operative inpatient stays of 6-11 days. The principles of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are well established and have been developed to optimise peri-operative care and facilitate discharge. The purpose of this systematic review is to present an updated review of peri-operative care in colorectal surgery from the available evidence and ERAS group recommendations.

METHODS

Systematic searches of the PubMed and Embase™ databases and the Cochrane library were conducted. A hand search of bibliographies of identified studies was conducted to identify any additional articles missed by the initial search strategy.

RESULTS

A total of 59 relevant studies were identified. These included six randomised controlled trials and seven clinical controlled trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies showed reductions in duration of inpatient stays in the ERAS groups compared with more traditional care as well as reductions in morbidity and mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Reviewing the data reveals that ERAS protocols have a role in reducing post-operative morbidity and result in an accelerated recovery following colorectal surgery. Similarly, both primary and overall hospital stays are reduced significantly. However, the available evidence suggests that ERAS protocols do not reduce hospital readmissions or mortality. These findings help to confirm that ERAS protocols should now be implemented as the standard approach for peri-operative care in colorectal surgery.

Effects of oxidative stress on mitochondrial content and integrity of human anastomotic colorectal dehiscence: a preliminary DNA study

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic dehiscence is one of the most severe complications of colorectal surgery. Gaining insight into the molecular mechanisms responsible for the development of anastomotic dehiscence following colorectal surgery is important for the reduction of postoperative complications.

OBJECTIVE

Based on the close relationship between surgical stress and oxidative stress, the present study aimed to determine whether a correlation exists between increased levels of reactive oxygen species and colorectal anastomotic dehiscence.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgical resection for colorectal cancer were divided into three groups: patients with anastomotic dehiscence (group 1); patients without dehiscence who underwent neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (group 2); and patients without anastomotic dehiscence who did not undergo neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (group 3). Quantitative polymerase chain reaction and real-time polymerase chain reaction assays were performed to measure nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) content, and possible oxidative damage to nonmalignant colon and rectal tissues adjacent to the anastomoses.

RESULTS

mtDNA content was reduced in the colon tissue of patients in groups 1 and 2. Rectal mtDNA was found to be more damaged than colonic mtDNAs in all groups. The 4977 bp common deletion was observed in the mtDNA of tissues from both the colon and rectum of all patients.

DISCUSSION

Patients in groups 1 and 2 were more similar to one another than to group 3, probably due to higher levels of reactive oxygen species in the mitochondria; the greater damage found in the rectum suggests that dehiscence originates primarily from the rectal area.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study of mtDNA analyses of normal human colon and rectal tissues from patients with colorectal cancer is among the first of its kind.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage, but the belief that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications is based on observational data and expert opinions only.An enema before the rectal surgery to clean the rectum and facilitate the manipulation for the mechanical anastomosis is used for many surgeons. This is analysed separately

OBJECTIVES

To determine the security and effectiveness of MBP on morbidity and mortality in colorectal surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Publications describing trials of MBP before elective colorectal surgery were sought through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IBECS and The Cochrane Library; by handsearching relevant medical journals and conference proceedings, and through personal communication with colleagues.Searches were performed December 1, 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants submitted for elective colorectal surgery. Eligible interventions included any type of MBP compared with no MBP. Primary outcomes included anastomosis leakage - both rectal and colonic - and combined figures. Secondary outcomes included mortality, peritonitis, reoperation, wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, and overall surgical site infections.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of randomisation, blinding, type of analysis, and number lost to follow up were recorded. For analysis, the Peto-Odds Ratio (OR) was used as the default (no statistical heterogeneity was observed).

MAIN RESULTS

At this update six trials and a new comparison (Mechanical bowel preparation versus enema) were added. Altogether eighteen trials were analysed, with 5805 participants; 2906 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2899 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation Versus No Mechanical Bowel Preparation results were:1. Anastomotic leakage for low anterior resection: 8.8% (38/431) of Group A, compared with 10.3% (43/415) of Group B; Peto OR 0.88 [0.55, 1.40].2. Anastomotic leakage for colonic surgery: 3.0% (47/1559) of Group A, compared with 3.5% (56/1588) of Group B; Peto OR 0.85 [0.58, 1.26].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (101/2275) of Group A, compared with 4.5% (103/2258) of Group B; Peto OR 0.99 [0.74, 1.31].4. Wound infection: 9.6% (223/2305) of Group A, compared with 8.5% (196/2290) of Group B; Peto OR 1.16 [0.95, 1.42].Sensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation (A) Versus Rectal Enema (B) results were:1. Anastomotic leakage after rectal surgery: 7.4% (8/107) of Group A, compared with 7.9% (7/88) of Group B; Peto OR 0.93 [0.34, 2.52].2. Anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery: 4.0% (11/269) of Group A, compared with 2.0% (6/299) of Group B; Peto OR 2.15 [0.79, 5.84].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (27/601) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (21/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.32 [0.74, 2.36].4. Wound infection: 9.9% (60/601) of Group A, compared with 8.0% (49/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 [0.85, 1.88].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the inclusion of more studies with a total of 5805 participants, there is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation, nor the use of rectal enemas. In colonic surgery the bowel cleansing can be safely omitted and induces no lower complication rate. The few studies focused in rectal surgery suggested that mechanical bowel preparation could be used selectively, even though no significant effect was found. Further research on patients submitted for elective rectal surgery, below the peritoneal verge, in whom bowel continuity is restored, and studies with patients submitted to laparoscopic surgeries are still warranted.

[Evidence-based antibiotic prophylaxis in general and visceral surgery]

The use of prophylactic perioperative antibiotic therapy if indicated could successfully and safely prevent surgical wound infections. The current guidelines (S1) for prophylactic perioperative antibiotic therapy of the Study Group of the Scientific Medical Associations (AWMF) of 2004 was replaced by a recommendation of the study group of the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft for Chemotherapy (PEG) in 2010. This recommendation includes recent research data from 2000 to 2008. Indications and choice of antibiotic agent depend on specific risk factors of the patient and the operation performed. The aim of this article is to describe the current recommendations of the PEG for general and visceral surgery.

Combination of oral non-absorbable and intravenous antibiotics versus intravenous antibiotics alone in the prevention of surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Oral non-absorbable antibiotics work by decreasing intraluminal bacterial content after mechanical bowel preparation. The advantage of adding oral non-absorbable antibiotics to intravenous antibiotics to decrease surgical site infection (SSI) after colorectal surgery is not well known. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the effectiveness of combined oral non-absorbable and intravenous antibiotics versus intravenous antibiotics alone in reducing the incidence of SSI following colorectal surgery.

METHOD

We included RCT comparing a combination of oral non-absorbable antibiotics and intravenous antibiotics to intravenous antibiotics alone in order to prevent SSI after colorectal surgery. Outcomes assessed included postoperative infectious complications, such as surgical wound infections (SWI) defined as a combination of superficial and deep SSI, organ-space infections and anastomotic dehiscence.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCT published between 1979 and 2007 were included in the meta-analysis. The overall analyses indicated that patients randomly assigned to an oral non-absorbable antibiotic in addition to an intravenous antibiotic had a reduced risk of SWI (RR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.43-0.76], p = 0.0002) compared with participants receiving only intravenous antibiotics. The use of oral non-absorbable antibiotics in addition to intravenous antibiotics had no significant effect on organ-space infections (RR: 0.71 [95% CI: 0.43-1.16], p = 0.2) or the risk of anastomotic leak (RR: 0.63 [95% CI: 0.28-1.41], p = 0.3).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis shows that a combination of oral non-absorbable antibiotics and intravenous antibiotics significantly lowers the incidence of SWI compared with intravenous antibiotics alone. In light of our results, the use of oral non-absorbable antibiotics in colorectal surgery should be encouraged.

The human microbiome and surgical disease

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review article is to summarize what is currently known about microbes associated with the human body and to provide examples of how this knowledge impacts the care of surgical patients.

BACKGROUND

Pioneering research over the past decade has demonstrated that human beings live in close, constant contact with dynamic communities of microbial organisms. This new reality has wide-ranging implications for the care of surgical patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Recent advances in the culture-independent study of the human microbiome are reviewed. To illustrate the translational relevance of these studies to surgical disease, we discuss in detail what is known about the role of microbes in the pathogenesis of obesity, gastrointestinal malignancies, Crohn disease, and perioperative complications including surgical site infections and sepsis. The topics of mechanical bowel preparation and perioperative antibiotics are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Heightened understanding of the microbiome in coming years will likely offer opportunities to refine the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of surgical conditions.

Elimination of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing cystectomy and urinary diversion

INTRODUCTION

The utility of a preoperative mechanical bowel preparation prior to bowel surgery has recently been questioned. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes between patients undergoing cystectomy with urinary diversion with or without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.

METHODS

Seventy patients underwent radical cystectomy and urinary diversion between May 2008 and August 2009 for bladder cancer. The first cohort of patients (n = 37) underwent cystectomy and diversion during the period May 2008-December 2008 and underwent a preoperative mechanical bowel preparation including a clear liquid diet, magnesium citrate solution, and an enema before surgery. The second cohort of patients underwent surgery during the period of January 2009-August 2009 (n=33). These patients were given a regular diet before surgery and did not undergo a mechanical bowel preparation except for the enema before surgery was performed to decrease rectal/colonic distention. Outcome measures included gastrointestinal and overall complications, and perioperative outcomes including recovery of bowel function.

RESULTS

There were no differences with regard to recovery of bowel function, time to discharge, or overall complication rates between the 2 groups. More specifically, the rate of GI complications was not different in prepped patients vs. nonprepped patients (22% vs. 15%; P = 0.494). There were no occurrences of bowel anastomotic leak, fistula, abscess, peritonitis, or surgical site infection in either group. One perioperative death occurred in the nonprepped group secondary to cardiovascular complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation prior to radical cystectomy with urinary diversion does not demonstrate any significant advantage in perioperative outcomes, including gastrointestinal complications. Further studies aimed at measuring patient satisfaction and larger randomized trials will be beneficial in evaluating the role of mechanical bowel preparation prior to urinary diversion.

Laparoscopic extraperitoneal rectal cancer surgery: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach is increasingly applied in colorectal surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer has been proved to be safe and feasible with equivalent long-term oncological outcome compared to open surgery, safety and long-term oncological outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remain controversial. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery might be efficacious, but indications and limitations are not clearly defined. Therefore, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed this clinical practice guideline.

METHODS

An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. The expert panel constituted for a consensus development conference in May 2010. Thereafter, the recommendations were presented at the annual congress of the EAES in Geneva in June 2010 in a plenary session. A second consensus process (Delphi process) of the recommendations with the explanatory text was necessary due to the changes after the consensus conference.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal (mid- and low-) rectal cancer is feasible and widely accepted. The laparoscopic approach must offer the same quality of surgical specimen as in open surgery. Short-term outcomes such as bowel function, surgical-site infections, pain and hospital stay are slightly improved with the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is not inferior to the open in terms of disease-free survival, overall survival or local recurrence. Laparoscopic pelvic dissection may impair genitourinary and sexual function after rectal resection, like in open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for mid- and low-rectal cancer can be recommended under optimal conditions. Still, most level 1 evidence is for colon cancer surgery rather than rectal cancer. Upcoming results from large randomised trials are awaited to strengthen the evidence for improved short-term results and equal long-term results in comparison with the open approach.

A prospective randomized multicenter study of Turkish Society of Urooncology comparing two different mechanical bowel preparation methods for radical cystectomy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the outcomes and complication rates of urinary diversion using mechanical bowel preparation (BP) with 3 day conventional and limited BP method through a standard perioperative care plan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was designed as a prospective randomized multicenter trial. All patients were randomized to 2 groups. Patients in standard 3-day BP protocol received diet restriction, oral antibiotics to bowel flora, oral laxatives, and saline enemas over a 3-day period, whereas limited the BP arm received liberal use of liquid diet, sodium phosphate laxative, and self administered enema the day before surgery. All patients received same perioperative treatment protocol. The endpoints for the assessment of outcome were anastomotic leakage, wound infection, wound dehiscence, intraperitoneal abscess, peritonitis, sepsis, ileus, reoperation, and mortality. Bowel function recovery, including time to first bowel movement, time to first oral intake, time to regular oral intake, and length of hospital stay were also assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients in 3-day BP and 56 in limited BP arm were evaluable for the study end points. Postoperatively, 1 patient in limited BP and 2 patients in 3-day BP arm died. There was no statistical difference in any of the variables assessed throughout the study, however, a favorable return of bowel function and time to discharge as well as lower complication rate were observed in limited BP group.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding all endpoints, including septic and nonseptic complications, current clinical research offers no evidence to show any advantage of 3-day BP over limited BP.

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs hasten recovery after colorectal resections

Colorectal resection was traditionally associated with significant morbidity and prolonged stay in hospital. Laparoscopic colorectal resection was first described in 1991 as a minimally invasive form of colorectal surgery. It was later on assessed by multiple randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis and was found to be associated with a faster recovery, lower complication rates and a shorter stay in hospital compared with open resection. To assess the effect of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program on postoperative length of stay after elective colorectal resections, a literature review was conducted, supplemented by the results of 111 ERAS colorectal resections at regional NWS Hospital using a protocol based on the Fast Track approach described by Kehlet in 1999. ERAS has been shown to improve postoperative recovery, reduce length of stay and enhance early return to normal function when compared with traditional colorectal surgical protocols. The role of laparoscopic surgery in colorectal resections within a fast-track (ERAS) program is controversial. The current evidence suggests that within such a program, there is no difference between laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery in terms of postoperative recovery rates or length of hospital stay.

Enhanced recovery pathways optimize health outcomes and resource utilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Health care systems provide care to increasingly complex and elderly patients. Colorectal surgery is a prime example, with high volumes of major procedures, significant morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, and unplanned readmissions. This situation is exacerbated by an exponential rise in costs that threatens the stability of health care systems. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERP) have been proposed as a means to reduce morbidity and improve effectiveness of care. We have reviewed the evidence supporting the implementation of ERP in clinical practice.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched for randomized, controlled trials comparing ERP with traditional care in colorectal surgery. Systematic reviews and papers on ERP based on data published in major surgical and anesthesiology journals were critically reviewed by international contributors, experienced in the development and implementation of ERP.

RESULTS

A random-effect Bayesian meta-analysis was performed, including 6 randomized, controlled trials totalizing 452 patients. For patients adhering to ERP, length of stay decreased by 2.5 days (95% credible interval [CrI] -3.92 to -1.11), whereas 30-day morbidity was halved (relative risk, 0.52; 95% CrI, 0.36-0.73) and readmission was not increased (relative risk, 0.59; 95% CrI, 0.14-1.43) when compared with patients undergoing traditional care.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to ERP achieves a reproducible improvement in the quality of care by enabling standardization of health care processes. Thus, while accelerating recovery and safely reducing hospital stay, ERPs optimize utilization of health care resources. ERPs can and should be routinely used in care after colorectal and other major gastrointestinal procedures.

Is there a role for bowel preparation and oral or parenteral antibiotics in infection control in contemporary colon surgery?

The numbers of unanswered questions are many. Can intraoperative application, such as topical antimicrobial use in pulsed lavage, reduce the microbial burden on the wound interface before closure? Can closed suction drains within the closed surgical incision reduce infection rates, especially in patients with a large body mass index? What is the role of delayed primary closure or secondary closure in the wound where obvious contamination has occurred, or in the circumstance of emergent colonic resection where considerable contamination is encountered from preexistent perforation? Should immediate negative-pressure wound dressings be applied in the open contaminated wound? These and many other questions still confront the surgeon in the challenge of the surgical wound in major colorectal surgery.