The impact of bowel preparation on the severity of anastomotic leak in colon cancer patients

Is end-to-end or side-to-end anastomotic configuration associated with risk of positive intraoperative air leak test in left-sided colon and rectal resections for colon and rectal cancers?

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak after colorectal resection is associated with morbidity, mortality, and poor bowel function. Minimal data exist on the relationship between anastomotic technique, intraoperative leak test, and subsequent clinical leak, particularly on the utility of performing end-to-end anastomosis (EEA) vs non-EEA (NEEA) to avoid postoperative leaks. This study aimed to analyze potential associations between anastomotic construction, intraoperative anastomotic assessments, and clinical leak.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study comparing anastomotic techniques used in patients with colorectal cancer who underwent left-sided colorectal resections with colorectal or coloanal anastomoses at a tertiary care center. The outcomes were rates of intraoperative air leak, incomplete anastomotic donuts, and postoperative clinical leak. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the potential association between anastomotic technique and intraoperative anastomotic assessments and subsequent leak.

RESULTS

Among 844 patients, 27 (3.2%) had intraoperative leak, 6 (0.7%) had incomplete donuts, and 27 (3.2%) experienced clinical leak. Of note, 500 patients (59.2%) had EEAs, and 344 patients (40.7%) had NEEAs. There were no significant differences in demographics or comorbidities between groups (P >.05) or rates of incomplete donuts (P =.07). EEA was associated with significantly more intraoperative air leaks than NEEA on univariate analysis (4.9% vs 1.2%, respectively; P =.005) and multivariate analysis (odds ratio [OR], 3.6; 95% CI, 1.01-12.50; P =.049). There was no difference in postoperative clinical leak between the groups on univariate analysis (3.0% in EEA vs 3.5% in NEEA; P =.69) or multivariate analysis (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.40-2.34; P =.94).

CONCLUSION

EEA is associated with higher rates of intraoperative air leak than NEEA, even after adjusting for potential confounders.

Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence demonstrates minimal impact of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on reducing postoperative complications following elective colectomy. This study investigated the necessity of MBP prior to elective colonic resection.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing the effects of MBP with no preparation before elective colectomy, up until May 26, 2023. Surgical-related outcomes were compiled and subsequently analyzed. The primary outcomes included the incidence of anastomosis leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI), analyzed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3).

RESULTS

The analysis included 14 studies, comprising seven RCTs with 5146 participants. Demographic information was consistent across groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of AL ((P = 0.43, OR = 1.16, 95% CI (0.80, 1.68), I2 = 0%) or SSI (P = 0.47, OR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.73, 1.96), I2 = 0%), nor were there significant differences in other outcomes. Subgroup analysis on oral antibiotic use showed no significant changes in results. However, in cases of right colectomy, the group without preparation showed a significantly lower incidence of SSI (P = 0.01, OR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.86), I2 = 1%). No significant differences were found in other subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence robustly indicates that MBP before elective colectomy does not confer significant benefits in reducing postoperative complications. Therefore, it is justified to forego MBP prior to elective colectomy, irrespective of tumor location.

Mechanical bowel preparations not supported in elective colo-rectal surgeries with anastomosis: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the risk and benefit of bowel preparations in elective colo-rectal surgery.

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparations (MBPs) have been popularized in colo-rectal surgery since studies in the 1970s, but recent data has called their use into question and examined complication rates between patients with and without bowel preparations.

METHODS

A retrospective case-review was performed consisting of 1237 elective colo-rectal surgeries performed by two surgeons between 2008 and 2021. Patients received either a MBP, a mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (OAMBP), oral antibiotics alone (OA), or no bowel preparation; some patients across all categories received an enema.

RESULTS

Bowel preparations combined (MBP and OAMBP) totaled 436 patients and showed no statistically significant difference (P > .05) in primary outcomes of wound infection and anastomotic leak when compared to the 636 patients without a bowel preparation and 165 patients with OA. The analysis controlled for comorbidities and presence of enema. Of secondary outcomes, urinary tract infections (UTIs) were significantly more common in patients who received a bowel preparation (P = .047). All other outcomes showed no significant difference between groups, including complications on day of surgery; complications, readmission with and without surgery, and ileus formation within 30 days of surgery; sepsis; pneumonia; and length of stay (LOS). The presence of enemas did not have a statistically significant effect on outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study's data does not support the routine use of MBPs in elective colo-rectal surgery and draws into further question whether MBPs should remain standard of care.

Colorectal Endoscopic Stenting Trial (CReST) for obstructing left-sided colorectal cancer: randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer often presents with obstruction needing urgent, potentially life-saving decompression. The comparative efficacy and safety of endoluminal stenting versus emergency surgery as initial treatment for such patients is uncertain.

METHODS

Patients with left-sided colonic obstruction and radiological features of carcinoma were randomized to endoluminal stenting using a combined endoscopic/fluoroscopic technique followed by elective surgery 1-4 weeks later, or surgical decompression with or without tumour resection. Treatment allocation was via a central randomization service using a minimization procedure stratified by curative intent, primary tumour site, and severity score (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation). Co-primary outcome measures were duration of hospital stay and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were stoma formation, stenting completion and complication rates, perioperative morbidity, 6-month survival, 3-year recurrence, resource use, adherence to chemotherapy, and quality of life. Analyses were undertaken by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Between 23 April 2009 and 22 December 2014, 245 patients from 39 hospitals were randomized. Stenting was attempted in 119 of 123 allocated patients (96.7 per cent), achieving relief of obstruction in 98 of 119 (82.4 per cent). For the 89 per cent treated with curative intent, there were no significant differences in 30-day postoperative mortality (3.6 per cent (4 of 110) versus 5.6 per cent (6 of 107); P = 0.48), or duration of hospital stay (median 19 (i.q.r. 11-34) versus 18 (10-28) days; P = 0.94) between stenting followed by delayed elective surgery and emergency surgery. Among patients undergoing potentially curative treatment, stoma formation occurred less frequently in those allocated to stenting than those allocated to immediate surgery (47 of 99 (47.5 per cent) versus 72 of 106 (67.9 per cent); P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in perioperative morbidity, critical care use, quality of life, 3-year recurrence or mortality between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Stenting as a bridge to surgery reduces stoma formation without detrimental effects. Registration number: ISRCTN13846816 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Bowel Preparation for Elective Hartmann Operation: Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

Background: Use of pre-operative bowel preparation in colorectal resection has not been examined solely in patients who have had colorectal resection with primary colostomy (Hartmann procedure). We aimed to evaluate the association of bowel preparations with short-term outcomes after non-emergent Hartmann procedure. Patients and Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File colectomy database was queried for patients who had elective open or laparoscopic Hartmann operation. Patients were grouped by pre-operative bowel preparation: no bowel preparation, oral antibiotic agents, mechanical preparation, or both mechanical and oral antibiotic agent preparation (combined). Propensity analysis was performed, and outcomes were compared by type of pre-operative bowel preparation. The primary outcome was rate of any surgical site infection (SSI). Secondary outcomes included overall complication, re-operation, re-admission, Clostridioides difficile colitis, and length of stay. Results: Of the 4,331 records analyzed, 2,040 (47.1%) patients received no preparation, 251 (4.4%) received oral antibiotic preparation, 1,035 (23.9%) received mechanical bowel preparation, and 1,005 (23.2%) received combined oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel preparation. After propensity adjustment, rates of any SSI, overall complication, and length of hospital stay varied significantly between pre-operative bowel regimens (p < 0.005). The use of combined bowel preparation was associated with decreased rate of SSI, overall complication, and length of stay. No difference in rate of re-operation or post-operative Clostridioides difficile infection was observed based on bowel preparation. Conclusions: Compared with no pre-operative bowel preparation, any bowel preparation was associated with reduced rate of SSI, but not rate of re-operation or post-operative Clostridioides difficile infection.

Mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics in colorectal cancer surgery: a nationwide population-based study

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for reducing surgical site infection in colorectal surgery recommend mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics; however, this recommendation remains controversial. This study aimed to reveal the effect of oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This study was a nationwide population-based retrospective study. Data between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database were analyzed. Patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery were included.

RESULTS

A total of 20,740 patients were finally included, comprising 14,554 (70.2%) who underwent mechanical bowel preparation alone and 6186 (29.8%) who underwent mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics. The mechanical bowel preparation alone group was older than the mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics group (65.7 ± 11.9 vs. 64.7 ± 11.8 years, p < 0.001). Rectal cancer patients and patients who underwent open surgery were more likely to receive mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics. Patients who underwent mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics demonstrated lower surgical-site infection rate (2.9% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (11.7 ± 5.5 vs. 13.5 ± 7.3 days, p < 0.001), and lower medical cost (US$7414 ± 2762 vs. US$7791 ± 3235, p < 0.001) than those who underwent mechanical bowel preparation alone. The 30-day readmission rates and mortality were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics reduces surgical site infection, hospital stay, and medical cost in colorectal cancer surgery.

Racial Disparities and Upward Trend in Bowel Preparation for Elective Colectomy in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Procedure Targeted Dataset: 2012 to 2018

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to assess trends in bowel preparation among patients who had elective colectomy between 2012 and 2018. The secondary objective was to assess patient and procedure-related factors predictive of bowel preparation use or lack thereof.

Background

Numerous studies have demonstrated that bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery can reduce the risk of postoperative complications. Studies of surgeon practices found 75% to 98% prescribe bowel preparation to their patients, although biases in the study design may lead to overestimation of bowel preparation practice.

Methods

Cross-sectional study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program colectomy procedure targeted dataset. We included patients from 18 to 90 years old who underwent elective colectomy (n = 101,096). The primary outcomes were bowel preparation before elective colectomy, including oral antibiotic only, mechanical only, both oral and mechanical, or none.

Results

Twenty percent of patients did not do any bowel preparation before elective colectomy. Almost all covariates were independently associated with any bowel preparation, although some were not clinically relevant. The odds that Black/African American or Hispanic patients had any bowel preparation were lower than that of White patients. Additionally, the odds minimally invasive colectomy patients completed any bowel preparation was 1.46 times that of open surgery patients.

Conclusions

This study is the first of its kind to assess trends in bowel preparation using an objective dataset. Our study highlights disparities in bowel preparation. Further studies should focus on delineating the root cause of this disparity, identifying the barriers, and finding solutions.

Best practices in bowel preparation for colorectal surgery: a 2020 overview

INTRODUCTION

Cohort studies have recently initiated a paradigm shift in the field of preoperative bowel preparation. Indeed, the adjunction of oral antibiotics (OAB) to mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is now the gold standard for the American guidelines. However, this strategy is highly controverted.

AREAS COVERED

This review was an up-to-date analysis of literature on bowel preparation. We conducted a systematic review for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses published since 2009. A non-exhaustive overview of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) cohort studies and the international guidelines was also given, and future leads were discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The methodology of the ACS NSQIP studies did not allow a strong conclusion in favor of the association MBP+OAB. Besides, guidelines were not univocal, with non-American guidelines promoting no preparation at all. RCTs favored OAB alone: indeed, MBP+OAB showed no benefits in terms of surgical site infection (SSI) except when compared to MBP alone, while OAB alone seemed superior to no preparation. Likewise, the meta-analyses also favored OAB alone in terms of overall SSI and organ space infection. Large RCTs are currently running and may change these conclusions. Finally, microbiota is a future lead for personalized OAB.

Appropriate patient selection facilitates safe discharge from the PACU after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: an analysis of the AHSQC database

BACKGROUND

The postoperative management of patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (VHR) remains relatively unknown. The purpose of our study was to determine if patient and hernia-specific factors could be used to predict the likelihood of hospital admission following laparoscopic VHR using the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) database.

METHODS

All patients who underwent elective, laparoscopic VHR with mesh placement from October 2015 through April 2019 were identified within the AHSQC database. Patients without clean wounds, those with chronic liver disease, and those without 30-day follow-up data were excluded from our analysis. Patient and hernia-specific variables were compared between patients who were discharged from the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and patients who required hospital admission. Comparisons were also made between the two groups with respect to 30-day morbidity and mortality events.

RESULTS

A total of 1609 patients met inclusion criteria; 901 (56%) patients were discharged from the PACU. The proportion of patients discharged from the PACU increased with each subsequent year. Several patient comorbidities and hernia-specific factors were found to be associated with postoperative hospital admission, including older age, repair of a recurrent hernia, a larger hernia width, longer operative time, drain placement, and use of mechanical bowel preparation. Patients who required hospital admission were more likely than those discharged from the PACU to be readmitted to the hospital within 30 days (4% vs. 2%, respectively) and to experience a 30-day morbidity event (18% vs. 8%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient- and hernia-specific factors can be used to identify patients who can be safely discharged from the PACU following laparoscopic VHR. Additional studies are needed to determine if appropriate patient selection for discharge from the PACU leads to decreased healthcare costs for laparoscopic VHR over the long-term.

The Role of Oral Antibiotic Preparation in Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the impact of the use of oral antibiotics (OAB) with or without mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on outcome in elective colorectal surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Meta-analyses have demonstrated that MBP does not impact upon postoperative morbidity or mortality, and as such it should not be prescribed routinely. However, recent evidence from large retrospective cohort and database studies has suggested that there may be a role for combined OAB and MBP, or OAB alone in the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI).

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies including adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, receiving OAB with or without MBP was performed. The outcome measures examined were SSI, anastomotic leak, 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, development of ileus, reoperation and Clostridium difficile infection.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies with 69,517 patients (28 randomized controlled trials, n = 6437 and 12 cohort studies, n = 63,080) were included. The combination of MBP+OAB versus MBP alone was associated with a significant reduction in SSI [risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.56, P < 0.00001, I = 13%], anastomotic leak (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.70, P < 0.00001, I = 0%), 30-day mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.76, P < 0.0001, I = 0%), overall morbidity (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63-0.71, P < 0.00001, I = 0%), and development of ileus (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.98, P = 0.04, I = 36%), with no difference in Clostridium difficile infection rates. When a combination of MBP+OAB was compared with OAB alone, no significant difference was seen in SSI or anastomotic leak rates, but there was a significant reduction in 30-day mortality, and incidence of postoperative ileus with the combination. There is minimal literature available on the comparison between combined MBP+OAB versus no preparation, OAB alone versus no preparation, and OAB versus MBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests a potentially significant role for OAB preparation, either in combination with MBP or alone, in the prevention of postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery. Further high-quality evidence is required to differentiate between the benefits of combined MBP+OAB or OAB alone.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) to Perform Clinical Research in Colon and Rectal Surgery

The American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) is probably the most well-known surgical database in North American and worldwide. This clinical database was first proposed by Dr. Clifford Ko, a colorectal surgeon, to the ACS, and NSQIP first started collecting data ca. 2005 with the intent of comparing hospitals (benchmarking) and for hospital-level quality improvement projects. Since then, its popularity has grown from just a few participating hospitals in the United States to more than 708 participating hospitals worldwide, and collaboration allows regional or disease-specific data sharing. Importantly, from a methodological perspective, as the number of hospitals has grown so has the hospital heterogeneity and thus generalizability of the results and conclusions of the individual studies. In this article, we will first briefly present the structure of the database (aka the Participant User File) and other important methodological considerations specific to performing clinical research. We will then briefly review and summarize the approximately 60 published colectomy articles and 30 published articles on proctectomy. We will conclude with future directions relevant to colorectal clinical research.

Robotic Right Colectomy for Colon Cancer: Comparison of Outcomes from a Single Institution with the ACS-NSQIP Database

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has increased in recent years for the treatment of colorectal cancer; however, it is not yet the standard of care. This study aims to compare the 30-day outcomes after robotic colectomy for right-sided colon cancer from our institution with those from a national dataset, the targeted colectomy American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective, robotic, right colon resection for stage I, II, and III colon cancer were identified within the targeted colectomy ACS-NSQIP database from 2012 to 2014. Patients meeting the same criteria were identified within a prospectively maintained institutional database from 2009 to 2015. Univariate analyses using chi-square tests and Student's t-tests were done where appropriate to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

Patients at our institution had a significantly higher average number of lymph nodes retrieved (24.4 versus 20.1, P = .046). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of wound infections, anastomotic leaks, blood transfusions, unplanned return to the operating room, or prolonged length of hospital stay. There were no 30-day mortalities at our institution and only one in the ACS-NSQIP database.

CONCLUSIONS

Our institutional experience with robotic right colon resection is equivalent to that of a national sample. This study demonstrates the safety of performing robotic right hemicolectomy for the treatment of colon cancer.

Right Colon Resection for Colon Cancer: Does Surgical Approach Matter?

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection with curative intent remains the standard of care for colon cancer. This study aims to compare the 30-day outcomes and oncologic results following open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted right colon resection for colon cancer using the Targeted Colectomy American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing elective, right colon resection with primary anastomosis were identified within the targeted colectomy ACS-NSQIP database. Only patients with stage I, II, or III colon cancer were included. The association of surgical approach with oncologic results and 30-day morbidity and mortality outcomes was investigated using a variety of statistical tests.

RESULTS

A total of 3518 patients met inclusion criteria; 1024 (29.1%) underwent open surgery (OS), 2405 (63.4%) underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 89 (2.5%) underwent robotic surgery. Patients undergoing OS were significantly more likely to have positive resection margins (P < .001). Patients undergoing OS were significantly more likely to experience prolonged intubation (P = .02), deep wound infections (P = .001), wound dehiscence (P = .005), deep venous thrombosis (P = .04), bleeding requiring a blood transfusion (P < .001), a prolonged postoperative ileus (P < .001), and longer length of hospital stay (P < .001), and were more likely to die (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach to colon resection for colon cancer has lower 30-day morbidity compared to OS. The robotic approach is equivalent to the laparoscopic approach, and its utilization may increase in the future.

Risk assessment of morbidities after right hemicolectomy based on the National Clinical Database in Japan

OBJECTIVE

Nationwide databases are expected to provide critical data to improve medical practice. The present study used such data to develop risk models for clinically important outcomes after right hemicolectomy based on preoperative risk factors.

METHODS

Japan's National Clinical Database (NCD) identified 38 030 cases of right hemicolectomy in the years 2011 and 2012. These were used to analyze correlations between mortality and eight selected clinical outcomes of interest by Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). To construct risk models for the eight selected clinical outcomes, 80% of all the examined cases were extracted randomly as a development cohort, and preoperative risk factors for each clinical outcome were identified using a forward stepwise selection method. Morbidities predicted from the risk models were used to find areas under the receiver operator curves among the remaining 20% of the testing cohort.

RESULTS

The following clinical outcomes were identified as highly associated with operative mortality: systemic sepsis (r = .360), renal failure (r = .341), unplanned intubation (r = .316) and central nervous system (CNS) occurrences (r = .301). Risk models containing up to 21 preoperative variables were constructed for these eight postoperative clinical outcomes. Predictive values of the eight models were as follows: surgical site infections (0.634), anastomotic leakage (0.656), systemic sepsis (0.816), pneumonia (0.846), unplanned intubation (0.838), renal failure (0.883), CNS occurrences (0.833) and transfusion >5 units (0.846).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that the NCD-generated risk models for six of the eight selected critical postoperative outcomes had high discrimination among right hemicolectomy patients. These risk models can accurately identify high-risk patients prior to 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.

Does Preoperative Bowel Preparation Reduce Surgical Site Infections During Elective Ventral Hernia Repair?

BACKGROUND

To date, little is known about the benefits of preoperative bowel preparation in patients undergoing elective ventral hernia repair (VHR). The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of preoperative bowel preparation on 30-day wound events in patients undergoing elective VHR using the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC).

STUDY DESIGN

All patients undergoing elective VHR from January 2013 through January 2016 were identified within the AHSQC. Patients undergoing emergency VHR and those with a CDC wound class IV were excluded from our analysis. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Clean (CDC wound class I) and Contaminated (CDC wound classes II and III). The association of preoperative bowel preparation with 30-day wound events was investigated using logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 3,709 patients met inclusion criteria; 3,101 (83.6%) had CDC wound class I, and 608 (16.4%) had CDC wound classes II or III. Within the Clean group, patients who underwent preoperative bowel preparation were significantly more likely to experience a surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), and surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI). Within the Contaminated group, patients who underwent preoperative bowel preparation were significantly more likely to experience an SSOPI.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of preoperative bowel preparation in patients undergoing elective VHR does not reduce the risk of 30-day wound events.