Requirement for bowel preparation in colorectal surgery

Effect of preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation on the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery, and does oral antibiotic regime matter? a bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Surgical site infection (SSI) impacts 5-20% of patients after elective colorectal surgery. There are varying reports on the effectiveness of oral antibiotics (OAB) with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in preventing SSI. We aim to determine the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI after elective colorectal surgery. We also determine if a specific OAB regimen will be more effective than others.

METHODS

This study investigated the impact of OAB and MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ACP Journal Club, and Embase databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published by June 2022. All RCTs comparing various preoperative bowel preparation regimens, including pairwise or multi-intervention comparisons, were included. To establish the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis on all RCTs. We further performed subgroup analysis to determine the most effective OAB regimen.

RESULTS

Among included 46 studies with a total of 12690 patients, patients in the MBP + OAB group were less likely to have SSI than those having MBP-only (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.39-0.76), and without MBP and OAB (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.32-0.84). OAB regimen C (kanamycin + metronidazole) and A (neomycin + metronidazole) demonstrated a significantly reduced incidence of SSI, compared to regimen B (neomycin + erythromycin) with OR 0.24 (95% CrI 0.07-0.79) and 0.26 (95% CrI 0.07-0.99) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

OAB with MBP reduces the risk of SSI after elective colorectal surgery. Providing adequate aerobic and anaerobic coverage with OAB may confer better protection against SSI.

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

BACKGROUND

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of bowel preparation on elective colectomies for diverticulitis: analysis of the NSQIP database

Background

Recent data based on large databases show that bowel preparation (BP) is associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. However, it remains unclear whether BP in elective colectomies would lead to similar results in patients with diverticulitis. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether bowel preparation affected the surgical site infections (SSI) and anastomotic leakage (AL) in patients with diverticulitis undergoing elective colectomies.

Study design

We identified 16,380 diverticulitis patients who underwent elective colectomies from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) colectomy targeted database (2012–2017). Multivariate logistic regression models were employed to investigate the impact of different bowel preparation strategies on postoperative complications, including SSI and AL.

Results

In the identified population, a total of 2524 patients (15.4%) received no preparation (NP), 4715 (28.8%) mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone, 739 (4.5%) antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) alone, and 8402 (51.3%) MBP + ABP. Compared to NP, patients who received any type of bowel preparations showed a significantly decreased risk of SSI and AL after adjustment for potential confounders (SSI: MBP [OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.70–0.96], ABP [0.69, 95%CI: 0.52–0.92]; AL: MBP [OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.51–0.86], ABP [0.56, 95%CI: 0.34–0.93]), where the combination type of MBP + ABP had the strongest effect (SSI:OR = 0.58, 95%CI:0.50–0.67; AL:OR = 0.46, 95%CI:0.36–0.59). The significantly decreased risk of 30-day mortality was observed in the bowel preparation of MBP + ABP only (OR = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.13–0.79). After the further stratification by surgery procedures, patients who received MBP + ABP showed consistently lower risk for both SSI and AL when undergoing open and laparoscopic surgeries (Open: SSI [OR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.37–0.69], AL [OR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.25–0.91]; Laparoscopic: SSI [OR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.47–0.72, AL [OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.35–0.68]).

Conclusions

MBP + ABP for diverticulitis patients undergoing elective open or laparoscopic colectomies was associated with decreased risk of SSI, AL, and 30-day mortality. Benefits of MBP + ABP for diverticulitis patients underwent robotic surgeries warrant further investigation.

A Network Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Effect of Preoperative Oral Antibiotics with and Without Mechanical Bowel Preparation on Surgical Site Infection Rate in Colorectal Surgery

Objective

To compare the effect of different methods of bowel preparation on the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Background

Recent guidelines advise mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (MBP-OA) for the prevention of SSI in colorectal surgery. Recent trials suggest oral antibiotics (OA) alone may be sufficient.

Methods

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched from inception until 10-08-2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple methods of bowel preparation (mechanical bowel preparation [MBP], OA, MBP-OA, or no preparation) with regards to clinical outcomes such as incidence of SSI, AL, and mortality rates. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the network effects of the different treatment options.

Results

We included 48 studies with 13,611 patients. Compared to no preparation, combined direct and indirect network estimates showed a relative risk (RR) for SSI of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.72) for MBP-OA, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49-0.95) for OA, and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.26) for MBP. The RR for MBP-OA compared to OA was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60-1.19); in sensitivity analysis of mainly laparoscopic procedures this effect of MBP-OA was more profound (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99).

Conclusions

This network meta-analysis of RCTs finds that both mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and oral antibiotics alone are comparably effective in the prevention of SSI. The evidence is uncertain about the relative benefit of MBP-OA compared to OA alone. Therefore, it seems justified to use either of the 2 for the prevention of SSI in colorectal surgery.

Prospective randomised controlled trial using the REthinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) platform and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) to compare no preparation versus preoperative oral antibiotics alone for surgical site infection rates in elective colon surgery: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating preoperative oral antibiotics (OA) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) rate following colon surgery, there has never been an RCT published comparing OA alone versus no preparation. Of the four possible regimens (OA alone, MBP alone, OA plus MBP and no preparation), randomised evidence is conflicting for studied groups. Furthermore, guidelines vary, with recommendations for OA alone, OA plus MBP or no preparation. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) has automated data collection for surgical patients. Similarly, the 'REthinking Clinical Trials' (REaCT) platform increases RCT enrolment by simplifying pragmatic trial design. In this novel RCT protocol, we combine REaCT and NSQIP to compare OA alone versus no preparation for SSI rate reduction in elective colon surgery. To our knowledge, this is the first published RCT protocol that leverages NSQIP for data collection. In our feasibility study, 67 of 74 eligible patients (90%) were enrolled and 63 of 67 (94%) were adherent to protocol. The 'REaCT-NSQIP' trial design has great potential to efficiently generate level I evidence for other perioperative interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

SSI rates following elective colorectal surgery after preoperative OA or no preparation will be compared. We predict 45% relative rate reduction of SSI, improvement in length of stay, reduced costs and increased quality of life, with similar antibiotic-related complications. Consent, using the 'integrated consent model', and randomisation on a mobile device are completed by the surgeon in a single clinical encounter. Data collection for the primary end point is automatic through NSQIP. Analysis of cost per weighted case, cost utility and quality-adjusted life years will be done.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by The Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board. Results will be disseminated in surgical conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03663504; Pre-results, recruitment phase.

Influence of preoperative enema application on the return of gastrointestinal function in elective Cesarean sections: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

There is an extensive literature on the mechanical bowel preparation by an enema in colorectal, abdominal, and gynecologic surgeries that provide evidence against the use of enema. There are, however, few studies investigating the effect of enema prior to elective Cesarean sections. The aim of this study is to investigate whether preoperative enema facilitates the return of gastrointestinal activity in pregnant women undergoing elective Cesarean section.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The surgeon-blinded prospective randomized controlled study included 225 elective Cesarean patients between the ages of 18 and 44. The patients were randomized into two groups: those who had enema preoperatively (n = 114) and those who did not (n = 111). The outcome measures were first bowel sound time and first flatus time, the length of hospital stay, the rate of mid ileus symptoms, and additional analgesic and antiemetic need.

RESULTS

In the non-enema group, the time of the first bowel sound, flatus time, length of hospital stay, the rates of additional analgesic need, additional antiemetic need, and mild ileus symptoms were respectively 10.5 ± 5.8 hours, 16.0 ± 7.6 hours, 1.9 ± 0.3 days, 8.1%, 7.2%, and 2.7%. For the enema group, the same parameters were respectively 11.6 ± 4.7 hours, 17.5 ± 6.5 hours, 1.8 ± 0.3 days, 7%, 6.1% ,and 1.8%. For all parameters, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p values were respectively .09, .12, .8, .79, .68, and .26).

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that preoperative enema in elective cesarean sections does not prevent postoperative gastrointestinal complications and does not shorten the recovery of bowel movements or length of hospital stay.

Bowel preparation for colostomy reversal in children

PURPOSE

Pediatric bowel preparation protocols used before colostomy reversal vary. The aim of this study is to determine institutional practices at our institution and evaluate the impact of bowel preparations on postoperative outcomes and hospital length of stay in children.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of children ≤18 years old undergoing colostomy reversal at Texas Children's Hospital (TCH) between 12/2013 and 8/2017. Preoperative bowel regimens and outcomes were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum and Fishers Exact tests. Continuous variables are presented as median [IQR].

RESULTS

Sixty-one children underwent colostomy reversal. Thirty-eight (62%) did not receive a preoperative bowel preparation. The two cohorts were similar in age, gender, and race. The most common indication for colostomy was anorectal malformation for thirty-seven (61%). Time from admission to surgery (19 h [17, 23] vs 3 [2, 3]; p < 0.01) and HLOS (6 days [5, 8] vs 5 [4, 6]; p = 0.02) were both longer in the bowel preparation cohort. Complications (3 [13%] vs 5 [22%]; p = 0.12) and 90-day readmissions (3 [13%] vs 6 [16%]; p = 0.64) were similar in both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Foregoing bowel preparation may have the potential to improve cost and reduce morbidity in children undergoing colostomy closure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

STUDY TYPE

Treatment study.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Association of Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics Before Elective Colorectal Surgery With Surgical Site Infection: A Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

There has been a resurgence of interest in the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotics (OAB) before elective colorectal surgery. Until now, clinical trials and meta-analyses have not compared all 4 approaches (MBP with OAB, OAB only, MBP only, or no preparation) simultaneously.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a network meta-analysis to clarify which approach in colorectal surgery is associated with the lowest rate of surgical site infection (SSI).

DATA SOURCES

Five electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club. and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness from database inception to November 27, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Only data from randomized clinical trials were included. Inclusion criteria were RCTs that reported on SSI rates or other complications based on MBP or OAB status. Quality of studies was appraised by the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total, incisional, and organ/space SSI rates. Secondary outcomes included rates of anastomotic leak, mortality, readmissions/reoperations, urinary tract infection, and pulmonary complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight randomized clinical trials among 8458 patients (52.1% male) were included, providing 4 direct comparisons and 2 indirect comparisons for 8 outcome measures. On Bayesian analysis, MBP with OAB vs MBP only was associated with reduced SSI (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% equal-tail credible interval [CrI], 0.57-0.88). There was no significant difference between MBP with OAB vs OAB only (OR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.56-1.62). Oral antibiotics without MBP was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in SSI compared with any other group (except for a risk reduction in organ/space SSI when indirectly compared with no preparation) (OR, 0.13; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.55). There was no difference in SSI between MBP only vs no preparation (OR, 0.84; 95% CrI, 0.69-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, MBP with OAB was associated with the lowest risk of SSI. Oral antibiotics only was ranked as second best, but the data available on this approach were limited. There was no difference between MBP only vs no preparation. In addition, there was no difference in rates of anastomotic leak, readmissions, or reoperations between any groups.

Effectiveness of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation on anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

It has been a standard practice to perform mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to colorectal surgery to reduce the risk of colorectal anastomotic leakages (CAL). The latest Cochrane systematic review suggests there is no benefit for MBP in terms of decreasing CAL, but new studies have been published. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to update current evidence for the effectiveness of preoperative MBP on CAL in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Consequently, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched from 2010 to March 2017 for randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared the effects of MBP in colorectal surgery on anastomotic leakages. The outcome CAL was expressed in odds ratios and analysed with a fixed-effects analysis in a meta-analysis. Quality assessment was performed by the cochrane risk of bias tool and grades of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Eight studies (1065 patients) were included. The pooled odds ratio showed no significant difference of MBP in colorectal surgery on CAL (odds ratio (OR) = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.68-1.94). According to GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence was low. To conclude, MBP for colorectal surgery does not lower the risk of CAL. These results should, however, be interpreted with caution due to the small sample sizes and poor quality. Moreover, the usefulness of MBP in rectal surgery is not clear due to the lack of stratification in many studies. Future research should focus on high-quality, adequately powered RCTs in elective rectal surgery to determine the possible effects of MBP.

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.

Role of oral antibiotics for prophylaxis against surgical site infections after elective colorectal surgery

Over the past few decades, surgeons have made many attempts to reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI) after elective colorectal surgery. Routine faecal diversion is no longer practiced in elective colonic surgery and mechanical bowel preparation is on the verge of being eliminated altogether. Intravenous antibiotics have become the standard of care as prophylaxis against SSI for elective colorectal operations. However, the role of oral antibiotics is still being debated. We review the available data evaluating the role of oral antibiotics as prophylaxis for SSI in colorectal surgery.

Role of short-chain fatty acids in colonic inflammation, carcinogenesis, and mucosal protection and healing

Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), mainly acetate, propionate, and butyrate, produced by microbial fermentation of undigested food substances are believed to play a beneficial role in human gut health. Short-chain fatty acids influence colonic health through various mechanisms. In vitro and ex vivo studies show that SCFAs have anti-inflammatory and anticarcinogenic effects, play an important role in maintaining metabolic homeostasis in colonocytes, and protect colonocytes from external harm. Animal studies have found substantial positive effects of SCFAs or dietary fiber on colonic disease, but convincing evidence in humans is lacking. Most human intervention trials have been conducted in the context of inflammatory bowel disease. Only a limited number of those trials are of high quality, showing little or no favorable effect of SCFA treatment over placebo. Opportunities for future research include exploring the use of combination therapies with anti-inflammatory drugs, prebiotics, or probiotics; the use of prodrugs in the setting of carcinogenesis; or the direct application of SCFAs to improve mucosal healing after colonic surgery.

Bowel Preparation Is Associated with Reduced Morbidity in Elderly Patients Undergoing Elective Colectomy

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation in elderly patients is associated with physiologic derangements that may result in postoperative complications. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of bowel preparation on postoperative outcomes in elderly patients.

METHODS

Patients age 75 years and older who underwent elective colectomy were identified from the 2012-2014 American College of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP database). Patients were grouped into no bowel preparation, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), oral antibiotic preparation (OABP), or combined MBP + OABP. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to calculate risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 4829 patients included in the analysis. Morbidity was 34.3% in no bowel prep, 32.4% in MBP, 24.8% in OABP, and 24.6% in MBP + OABP groups (p < 0.001). The MBP + OABP group compared with no bowel prep was associated with reduced rates of anastomotic leak, ileus, superficial surgical site infection (SSI), organ space SSI, respiratory compromise, and reduced length of stay. There was no difference in the rate of acute kidney injury between the groups.

CONCLUSION

MBP + OABP was associated with reduced morbidity compared with no bowel preparation in elderly patients undergoing elective colorectal resection. MBP alone was not associated with differences in outcomes compared with no bowel preparation. The use of MBP + OABP is safe and effective in elderly patients undergoing elective colectomy.

New WHO recommendations on preoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most preventable health-care-associated infections and are a substantial burden to health-care systems and service payers worldwide in terms of patient morbidity, mortality, and additional costs. SSI prevention is complex and requires the integration of a range of measures before, during, and after surgery. No international guidelines are available and inconsistencies in the interpretation of evidence and recommendations of national guidelines have been identified. Given the burden of SSIs worldwide, the numerous gaps in evidence-based guidance, and the need for standardisation and a global approach, WHO decided to prioritise the development of evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSIs. The guidelines take into account the balance between benefits and harms, the evidence quality, cost and resource use implications, and patient values and preferences. On the basis of systematic literature reviews and expert consensus, we present 13 recommendations on preoperative preventive measures.

The effects of preoperative oral antibiotic use on the development of surgical site infection after elective colorectal resections: A retrospective cohort analysis in consecutively operated 90 patients

PURPOSE

The influence of oral antibiotic use together with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on surgical site infection (SSI) rate, length of hospital stay and total hospital costs in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery were evaluated in this study.

METHODS

Data from 90 consecutive patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between October 2006 and September 2009 was analyzed retrospectively. All patients received MBP. Patients in group A were given oral antibiotics (a total 480 mg of gentamycin, 4 gr of metronidazole in two divided doses and 2 mg of bisacodyl PO), whereas patients in group B received no oral antibiotics. Exclusion criteria were emergent operations, laparoscopic operations, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, intraoperative colonoscopy prior to the creation of an anastomosis or antibiotic use within the previous 10 days. SSI, length of hospital stays and total hospital charges were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patients in both study groups, group A (n = 45) and group B (n = 45), were similar in terms of age, BMI, diverting ileostomy creation, localization and stage of the disease. Patients receiving oral antibiotics demonstrated a lower rate of wound infections (36% vs. 71%, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (8.1 ± 2.4 days vs. 14.2 ± 10.9 days, respectively, p < 0.001) and similar rates for anastomotic leakage (2% vs. 11%, p = 0.20). The mean ± SD total hospital charges were significantly lower in Group A (2.699 ± 0.892$) than that in Group B (4.411 ± 4.995$, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative oral antibiotic use with MBP may provide faster recovery with less SSI and hospital charges.

Postoperative outcomes following mechanical bowel preparation before proctectomy: a meta-analysis

AIM

Previous meta-analyses of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery have grouped colon and rectal resection together. An increased postoperative morbidity has been suggested in the absence of MBP following proctectomy. The current study used meta-analytical techniques to evaluate the comparative outcome of patients who received MBP prior to proctectomy.

METHOD

A comprehensive search was performed for published studies examining the effect of MBP before proctectomy on patient outcome. Random effects methods were used to combine data.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 1258 patients were identified. There was no significant difference in overall morbidity (OR 1.062, 95% CI 0.584-1.933, P = 0.844), anastomotic leakage (OR 1.144, 95% CI 0.767-1.708, P = 0.509), surgical site infection (OR 0.946, 95% CI 0.549-1.498, P = 0.812) or mortality (OR 1.377, 95% CI 0.549-3.455, P = 0.495) between those who did not and those who did receive MBP prior to proctectomy.

CONCLUSION

The current study did not demonstrate a beneficial effect of MBP prior to proctectomy, but the data were limited. Decision-making as to its use should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Laparoscopic colon resection: To prep or not to prep? Analysis of 1535 patients

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before elective open colon resection does not reduce the rate of postoperative anastomotic leakage. However, MBP is still routinely used in many countries, and there are very limited data regarding the utility of preoperative MBP in patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection (LCR). The aim of this study was to challenge the use of MBP before elective LCR.

METHODS

It is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. All patients undergoing elective LCR with primary anastomosis and no stoma were included. Preoperative MBP with polyethylene glycol solution was used routinely between April 1992 and December 2004, and then it was abandoned. The early postoperative outcomes in patients who had preoperative MBP (MBP group) and in patients who underwent LCR without preoperative MBP (No-MBP group) were compared.

RESULTS

From April 1992 to December 2014, 1535 patients underwent LCR: 706 MBP patients and 829 No-MBP patients. There were no differences in demographic data, indication for surgery and type of procedure performed between MBP and No-MBP group patients. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was similar between the two groups (3.4 vs. 3.6 %, p = 0.925). No differences were observed in intra-abdominal abscesses (0.6 vs. 0.8 %, p = 0.734), wound infections (0.6 vs. 1.4 %, p = 0.149), infectious extra-abdominal complications (1.8 vs. 3 %, p = 0.190), and non-infectious complications (6.1 vs. 6.8 %, p = 0.672). The overall reoperation rate was 4.6 % for MBP patients and 5 % for No-MBP patients (p = 0.813).

CONCLUSION

The use of preoperative MBP does not seem to be associated with lower incidence of intra-abdominal septic complications after LCR.

Mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before colorectal surgery: A randomized prospective trial in a tertiary care institute

Background:

In the first half of 20^th century; mortality from colorectal surgery often exceeded 20%, mainly due to sepsis. Modern surgical techniques and improved perioperative care have significantly lowered the mortality rate. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is aimed at cleansing the large bowel of fecal content thus reducing morbidity and mortality related to colorectal surgery. We carried out a study aimed to investigate the outcomes of colorectal surgery with and without MBPs, to avoid unpleasant side-effects of MBP and also to design a protocol for preparation of a patient for colorectal surgery.

Materials and Methods:

This was a prospective study over a period of March 2008-May 2010 carried out at Department of General Surgery of our institution. A total of 63 patients were included in this study; among those 32 patients were operated with MBPs and 31 without it; admitted in in-patient department undergoing resection of left colon and rectum for benign and malignant conditions in both emergency and elective conditions.

Results:

Anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal collections was detected clinically and radiologically in 2 and 4 patients in each group respectively. P > 0.5 in both situations, indicating statistically no difference between results of two groups. Wound infections were detected in 12 (37.5%) patients with MBP group and 11 (35.48%) patients without MBP.

Conclusion:

The present results suggest that the omission of MBP does not impair healing of colonic anastomosis; neither increases the risk of leakage.

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.

Mechanical bowel preparation for esophagocoloplasty in children: is it really necessary?

Esophagocoloplasty is a commonly performed procedure for esophageal replacement in children. Traditionally, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is performed before this operation. However, this practice has been questioned, initially in adults and now in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of MBP on esophagocoloplasty in a series of children. Data collected from 164 patients who underwent esophagocoloplasty in the Pediatric Surgery Division, University of São Paulo Medical School, from February 1978 to July 2011 were reviewed for postoperative complications. In 134 patients, at least one kind of MBP was performed before the surgery (PREP group). MBP was omitted in 30 patients (NO-PREP group). There was no statistical difference between the groups in the rates of evisceration, colocolic, or cologastric anastomotic dehiscence and death. However, in the NO-PREP group, the incidence of cervical leakage (6.6%) was significantly decreased in comparison with the classical PREP group (25.3%) (P= 0.03). The results of this study suggest that the omission of MBP has a positive impact on the incidence of postoperative complications in esophagocoloplasty.

Colectomy without mechanical bowel preparation in the private practice setting

BACKGROUND

Despite randomized trials and meta-analyses demonstrating the safety of omitting mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery, private practice surgeons may hesitate to eliminate MBP for fear of being outside community standards. This study evaluated the safety of eliminating MBP before colectomy in a private practice setting.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included elective abdominal colorectal operations from one surgeon's practice from October 2008 to June 2011. MBP was not routinely utilized after November 2009. Postoperative 30-day complication rates and length of hospital stay were compared in patients with and without MBP. Multivariable regression models were developed to compare outcomes among study groups, adjusting for demographics, diagnoses, procedures, and year.

RESULTS

A total of 165 patients were analyzed. Demographics were similar between groups. Laparoscopic procedures were more common in patients without MBP due to increased laparoscopy over time (43 vs. 61 %, p = 0.03). As regards complications, infection rates were similar between groups (MBP 10.5 % vs. no MBP(NMBP) 11.4 %, adj p = 0.57). Patients without MBP had a shorter length of hospital stay (median: 6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.01), but those differences were not statistically significant after adjustment (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Private practice surgeons should embrace evidence-based practice changes and make efforts to quantitatively evaluate the safety of those changes. Omission of MBP for most elective colectomy procedures appears to be safe with no significant increase in complications or length of hospital stay. Because MBP has substantial drawbacks, there is little justification for its routine use in the majority of elective abdominal colorectal procedures.

Influence of size and complexity of the hospitals in an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to see whether the application of the enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection improves the results and, in turn, the influence of complexity and size of the hospitals in applying this and its results.

METHODS

A multi-centric prospective study was controlled with a retrospective group. The prospective operation group included 300 patients with elective colorectal resection due to cancer. The centres were divided depending on size and complexity in large reference centres (group 1) and area and basic general hospitals (group 2). The retrospective control group included 201 patients with the same characteristics attended before the application of the programme. Completion of categories of the protocol, complications, perioperative mortality and stay in hospital were recorded.

RESULTS

The introduction of the programme achieved a reduction in mortality (1 vs. 4 %), morbidity (26 vs. 39 %) and preoperative (<24 h vs. 3 days) and postoperative (7 vs. 11 days) stays (p < 0.01). There was greater fulfilment of protocol in group 2 with the mean number of items completed at 8.46 and 60 % completed compared with the hospitals in group 1 (7.70 completed items and 55 % completion). The size of the hospital had no relation to the rate of complications (21.3 vs. 26.5 %). In smaller sized and less complex hospitals, the average length of stay was 1.88 days less than in those of greater size (6.45 vs. 8.33 days).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated according to an enhanced recovery programme develop significantly fewer complications and have a shorter hospital stay. The carrying out of protocol is greater in smaller and less complex hospitals and is directly related to a shorter stay in hospital.

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.

A multicenter evaluation of the role of mechanical bowel preparation in pediatric colostomy takedown

BACKGROUND

In response to studies in adults that have failed to demonstrate a benefit for mechanical bowel preparation in colonic surgery, we sought to evaluate the utility of mechanical bowel preparation in a multicenter, retrospective study of children who underwent colostomy takedown.

METHODS

The records of 272 children who underwent colostomy takedown at 3 large children's hospitals were reviewed, and the utilization of mechanical bowel preparation and perioperative antibiotics was noted. Length of stay and the incidences of wound, anastomotic, and other complications were compared.

RESULTS

A polyethylene glycol bowel prep was administered to 187 children. All subjects received perioperative, intravenous antibiotics, and 52% of those with bowel preps received preoperative oral antibiotics. Subjects in the bowel prep group had a significantly higher incidence of wound infection (P = .04) and longer length of stay (P = .05). Oral antibiotics did not affect outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a mechanical bowel preparation in children before colostomy takedown was associated with a greater risk for wound infection, no protection from other complications, and a longer length of stay. This suggests that bowel preparation may be safely omitted in many children who undergo colonic surgery, thereby reducing cost and discomfort.

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.

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.

Enhanced recovery in colorectal surgery: a multicentre study

Background

Major colorectal surgery usually requires a hospital stay of more than 12 days. Inadequate pain management, intestinal dysfunction and immobilisation are the main factors associated with delay in recovery. The present work assesses the short and medium term results achieved by an enhanced recovery program based on previously published protocols.

Methods

This prospective study, performed at 12 Spanish hospitals in 2008 and 2009, involved 300 patients. All patients underwent elective colorectal resection for cancer following an enhanced recovery program. The main elements of this program were: preoperative advice, no colon preparation, provision of carbohydrate-rich drinks one day prior and on the morning of surgery, goal directed fluid administration, body temperature control during surgery, avoiding drainages and nasogastric tubes, early mobilisation, and the taking of oral fluids in the early postoperative period. Perioperative morbidity and mortality data were collected and the length of hospital stay and protocol compliance recorded.

Results

The median age of the patients was 68 years. Fifty-two % of the patients were women. The distribution of patients by ASA class was: I 10%, II 50% and III 40%. Sixty-four % of interventions were laparoscopic; 15% required conversion to laparotomy. The majority of patients underwent sigmoidectomy or right hemicolectomy. The overall compliance to protocol was approximately 65%, but varied widely in its different components. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 6 days. Some 3% of patients were readmitted to hospital after discharge; some 7% required repeat surgery during their initial hospitalisation or after readmission. The most common complications were surgical (24%), followed by septic (11%) or other medical complications (10%). Three patients (1%) died during follow-up. Some 31% of patients suffered symptoms that delayed their discharge, the most common being vomiting or nausea (12%), dyspnoea (7%) and fever (5%).

Conclusion

The following of this enhanced recovery program posed no risk to patients in terms of morbidity, mortality and shortened the length of their hospital stay. Overall compliance to protocol was 65%. The following of this program was of benefit to patients and reduces costs by shortening the length of hospital stay. The implantation of such programmes is therefore highly recommended.

Standard perioperative management in gastrointestinal surgery

Introduction

The outcome of patients who are scheduled for gastrointestinal surgery is influenced by various factors, the most important being the age and comorbidities of the patient, the complexity of the surgical procedure and the management of postoperative recovery. To improve patient outcome, close cooperation between surgeons and anaesthesiologists (joint risk assessment) is critical. This cooperation has become increasingly important because more and more patients are being referred to surgery at an advanced age and with multiple comorbidities and because surgical procedures and multimodal treatment modalities are becoming more and more complex.

Objective

The aim of this review is to provide clinicians with practical recommendations for day-to-day decision-making from a joint surgical and anaesthesiological point of view. The discussion centres on gastrointestinal surgery specifically.

Comparison between standard and reverse laparoscopic techniques for rectovaginal endometriosis

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare the surgical outcomes of standard and reverse laparoscopic techniques for the treatment of rectovaginal endometriosis.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in a teaching and research hospital (tertiary center), which included 75 women subjected to laparoscopic treatment of rectovaginal endometriosis that required both vaginal resection and rectal surgery. Standard and reverse laparoscopic techniques were compared in 35 and 40 women, respectively. Student's t test, Mann-Whitney test, and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare groups when needed; p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in operating time, blood loss, conversion rate, major intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and minor postoperative complications between the two techniques. The rate of major postoperative complications for the standard technique was 22.9%, whereas only 5% for the reverse technique (p = 0.02). The rate of postoperative rectovaginal fistula was the same for both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Major postoperative complications were reduced by using the reverse technique.

Preoperative bowel preparation for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery: a clinical practice guideline endorsed by the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) does not reduce the rate of postoperative complications, many surgeons still use MBP before surgery. We sought to appraise and synthesize the available evidence regarding preoperative bowel preparation in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients who received a bowel preparation with those who did not. Two authors reviewed the abstracts to identify articles for critical appraisal. We used the methods of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to grade study quality and level of evidence, as well as formulate the final recommendations. Outcomes assessed included postoperative infectious complications, such as anastomotic dehiscence and superficial surgical site infections.

RESULTS

Our review identified 14 RCTs and 8 meta-analyses. Based on the quality and content of these original manuscripts, we formulated 6 recommendations for various aspects of bowel preparation in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Taking into account the lack of difference in postoperative infectious complication rates when MBP is omitted and the adverse effects of MBP, we believe that, based on the literature, MBP before surgery should be omitted.

Bowel preparation: current status

Despite emerging evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses questioning its use, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to hold an accepted place among surgeons. MBP has been administered to patients for over a century, and though the methods and agents used for intestinal cleansing have evolved over time, many surgeons still embrace MBP as a necessary, essential regimen. The accepted rationale for MBP includes evacuation of stool to allow visualization of the luminal surfaces as well as to reduce the fecal flora, which is believed to translate into lower risk of infectious and anastomotic complications at surgery. The authors describe the history of MBP as it relates to colorectal surgery and review the agents currently used for mechanical bowel preparation. Additionally, they summarize the recent trials, meta-analyses, and other emerging data from the medical literature that suggest MBP offers no benefit as a preoperative measure and question its place in current surgical practice.

Preoperative optimization of Crohn's disease

Patients with Crohn's disease often present to the surgeon for operative intervention in poor overall condition. They may be taking multiple immunomodulators to attempt to manage their disease, may have significant weight loss and evidence of malnutrition, and 10 to 30% of the time will have intraabdominal sepsis in the form of an abscess or fistula. Preoperative optimization of these patients, when possible, may decrease morbidity and mortality, and may avoid formation of stomas for fecal diversion. Enhancing nutritional status and streamlining immunomodulator therapy prior to surgery may improve outcomes. Medical management of intraabdominal sepsis with percutaneous drainage of abdominal or pelvic abscesses may decrease postoperative septic complications, and may even avert the need for surgical intervention altogether.

Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review was designed to determine postoperative complication rates of radical surgery for rectal cancer (abdominal perineal resection and anterior resection).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lack of accepted complication rates for rectal cancer surgery may hinder quality improvement efforts and may impede the conception of future studies because of uncertainty regarding the expected event rates.

METHODS

All prospective studies of rectal cancer receiving radical surgery published between 1990 and August 2008 were obtained by searching Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, as well as ASCO GI, CAGS, and ASCRS meeting abstracts between 2004 and 2008. There was no language restriction. The outcomes extracted were anastomotic leak, pelvic sepsis, postoperative death, wound infection, and fecal incontinence. Summary complication rates were obtained using a random effects model; the Z-test was used to test for study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fifty-three prospective cohort studies and 45 randomized controlled studies with 36,315 patients (24,845 patients had an anastomosis) were eligible for inclusion. Most of the studies found were based in continental Europe (58%), followed by Asia (25%), United Kingdom (10%), North America (5%), and Australia/New Zealand. The anastomotic leak rate, reported in 84 studies, was 11% (95% CI: 10, 12); the pelvic sepsis rate, in 29 studies, was 12% (9, 16); the postoperative death rate, in 75 studies, was 2% (2, 3); and the wound infection rate, in 50 studies, was 7% (5, 8). Fecal incontinence rates were reported in too few studies and so heterogeneously that numerical summarization was inappropriate. Year of publication, use of preoperative radiation, use of laparoscopy, and use of protecting stoma were not significant variables, but average age, median tumor height, and method of detection (clinical vs. radiologic) showed significance to explain heterogeneity in anastomotic leak rates. Year of publication, study origin, average age, and use of laparoscopy were significant, but median tumor height and preoperative radiation use were not significant in explaining heterogeneity among observed postoperative death rates. With multivariable analysis, only average age for anastomotic leak and year of publication for postoperative death remained significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Benchmark complication rates for radical rectal cancer surgery were obtained for use in sample size calculations in future studies and for quality control purposes. Postoperative death rates showed improvement in recent years.

Colon and rectal surgery for cancer without mechanical bowel preparation: one-center randomized prospective trial

Background

Mechanical bowel preparation is routinely done before colon and rectal surgery, aimed at reducing the risk of postoperative infectious complications. The aim of the study was to assess whether elective colon and rectal surgery can be safely performed without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.

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

Two hundred forty four patients were included in the study, 120 in group A and 124 in group B. Demographic characteristics, type of surgical procedure and type of anastomosis did not significantly differ between the two groups. There was no difference in the rate of surgical infectious complications between the two groups but the overall infectious complications rate was 20.0% in group A and 11.3% in group B (p .05). Wound infection (p = 0.18), anastomotic leak (p = 0.52), and intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.36) occurred in 9.2%, 5.8%, and 5.0% versus 4.8%, 4.0%, and 2.4%, respectively. No mechanical bowel preparation seems to be safe also in rectal surgery.

Conclusions

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

Mechanical bowel preparation does not affect the intramucosal bacterial colony count

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine if mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) influences the intramucosal bacterial colony count in the colon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Macroscopically normal colon mucosa was collected from 37 patients (20 with and 17 without MBP) who were undergoing elective colorectal surgery at three hospitals. The biopsies were processed and cultured in the same laboratory. Colony counts of the common pathogens Escherichia coli and Bacteroides as well as of total bacteria were conducted. The study groups were comparable with regard to age, gender, antibiotics use, diagnosis and type of resection.

RESULTS

MBP did not influence the median colony count of E. coli, Bacteroides or total bacteria in our study.

CONCLUSIONS

MBP did not affect the intramucosal bacterial count in this study. Further studies are suggested to confirm these findings.

Incidence of Anastomotic Leak in Patients Undergoing Elective Colon Resection without Mechanical Bowel Preparation: Our Updated Experience and Two-year Review

Mechanical bowel preparation before elective colon resection has recently been questioned in the literature. We report a prospective study evaluating the anastomotic leak rate in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. One hundred fifty-three patients undergoing elective colon resection from July 2006 to June 2008 were enrolled into this Institutional Review Board-approved study. All patients were operated on by a single surgeon at a single institution. No patients received mechanical bowel preparation. Of the 153 patients enrolled, 51.6 per cent had a colorectostomy, 32 per cent had an ileocolostomy, 10.4 per cent had a colocolostomy 5.2 per cent had an ileoanal anastomosis, and 0.6 per cent had an ileorectostomy performed. A total of eight patients (5.2%) developed an anastomotic leak. Of these patients, four required reoperation, three were managed with percutaneous drainage, and one was managed with antibiotics alone. Five of the eight patients who developed an anastomotic leak had significant preoperative comorbidities, including neoadjuvant radiation therapy, diabetes mellitus, end-stage renal disease, prior anastomotic leak, and tobacco use. Elective colon resection can be performed safely without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. Vigilance for anastomotic leak must be maintained at all times, especially in patients with comorbidities that predispose to anastomotic leak.