Bowel preparation for colorectal surgery

EAES, SAGES, and ESCP rapid guideline: bowel preparation for minimally invasive colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

Variation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders.

METHODS

This is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey.

RESULTS

The panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej .

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders. Guideline registration number PREPARE-2023CN045.

EAES, SAGES, and ESCP rapid guideline: bowel preparation for minimally invasive colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

Variation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders.

METHODS

This is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey.

RESULTS

The panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej .

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders. Guideline registration number PREPARE-2023CN045.

Efficacy of Preoperative Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Patients With Crohn Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the efficacy of oral antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery for Crohn disease.

BACKGROUND

Although oral antibiotic prophylaxis with mechanical bowel preparation has been recommended for colorectal surgery, the use of this approach remains somewhat controversial. Moreover, the efficacy of this approach for inflammatory bowel disease also remains unclear.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial at the Hyogo College of Medicine. The study protocols were registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (000013369). In this study, 335 patients with Crohn disease who were scheduled to undergo intestinal resection with an open approach were randomly assigned to either group A or group B. The patients in group A received both preoperative oral antibiotics and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis, and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis alone was given to the patients in group B. All patients underwent preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate hydrate. The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) according to an intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Although the incidences of overall and organ/space SSI were not significantly different, the incidence of incisional SSI was significantly lower in group A (12/163; 7.4%) than in group B (27/162; 16.6%) (P = 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, the absence of oral antibiotic prophylaxis was an independent risk factor for incisional SSI (odds ratio: 3.3; 95% confidence interval: 1.3-8.3; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with Crohn disease contributed to the prevention of SSI.

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.

Bowel injury following gynecological laparoscopic surgery

Background

Bowel injury remains a serious complication of gynecological laparoscopic surgery. We aimed to review the literature on this topic, combined with personal experiences, so as to give recommendations on how to avoid and manage this complication.

Methods

We performed a narrative review on bowel injury following gynecological laparoscopic surgery using PubMed covering prevention, diagnosis, and management. Search terms used were laparoscopy, gynaecology, injury, bowel, prevention, treatment.

Results

Important principles of prevention include proper pre-operative evaluation and increased laparoscopic surgical skills and knowledge. High clinical suspicion is crucial for early diagnosis. Diagnostic workup of suspected cases includes serial abdominal examination, measuring inflammatory markers, and performing imaging studies including abdominal ultrasound and CT scan. When bowel injury is recognized during the first laparoscopic procedure then laparoscopic primary suturing could be tried although laparotomy may be needed. When diagnosis is delayed, then laparotomy is the treatment of choice. The role of robotic surgery and three-dimensional laparoscopic gynecological surgery on bowel injury needs to be further assessed.

Conclusion

Early recognition of bowel injury is crucial for a favorable clinical outcome. A combined collaboration between gynecologists and general surgeons is important for timely and proper decisions to be made.

Does bowel preparation for inflammatory bowel disease surgery matter?

AIM

The purpose of this study was to determine if bowel preparation influences outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing surgery.

METHODS

The database of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, Procedure Targeted Colectomy, from 2012 to 2014 was analyzed. Inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing colorectal resection with or without bowel preparation were included in the study.

RESULTS

In all, 3679 patients with inflammatory bowel disease were identified. 42.5% had no bowel preparation, 21.5% had mechanical bowel preparation only, 8.8% had oral antibiotic bowel preparation only and 27.2% had combined mechanical and oral antibiotic preparation. Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic preparation is associated with lower rates of anastomotic leak, ileus, surgical site infection, organ space infection, wound dehiscence and sepsis/septic shock.

CONCLUSION

Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic preparation for inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing colectomy is associated with decreased rates of surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, ileus. Combined bowel preparation should be the standard of care for inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing colorectal resection.

Combined preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics significantly reduces surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and ileus after colorectal surgery

OBJECTIVES

To clarify whether bowel preparation use or its individual components [mechanical bowel preparation (MBP)/oral antibiotics] impact specific outcomes after colorectal surgery.

METHODS

National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-targeted colectomy data initiated in 2012 capture information on the use/type of bowel preparation and colorectal-specific complications. For patients undergoing elective colorectal resection, the impact of preoperative MBP and antibiotics (MBP+/ABX+), MBP alone (MBP+/ABX-), and no bowel preparation (no-prep) on outcomes, particularly anastomotic leak, surgical site infection (SSI), and ileus, were evaluated using unadjusted/adjusted logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 8442 patients, 2296 (27.2%) had no-prep, 3822 (45.3%) MBP+/ABX-, and 2324 (27.5%) MBP+/ABX+. Baseline characteristics were similar; however, there were marginally more patients with prior sepsis, ascites, steroid use, bleeding disorders, and disseminated cancer in no-prep. MBP with or without antibiotics was associated with reduced ileus [MBP+/ABX+: odds ratio (OR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48-0.68; MBP+/ABX-: OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.91] and SSI [MBP+/ABX+: OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.32-0.48; MBP+/ABX-: OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69-0.93] versus no-prep. MBP+/ABX+ was also associated with lower anastomotic leak rate than no-prep [OR = 0.45 (95% CI: 0.32-0.64)]. On multivariable analysis, MBP with antibiotics, but not without, was independently associated with reduced anastomotic leak (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.35-0.94), SSI (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.31-0.53), and postoperative ileus (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

These data clarify the near 50-year debate whether bowel preparation improves outcomes after colorectal resection. MBP with oral antibiotics reduces by nearly half, SSI, anastomotic leak, and ileus, the most common and troublesome complications after colorectal surgery.

Comparison of the risk of surgical site infection and feasibility of surgery between sennoside versus polyethylene glycol as a mechanical bowel preparation of elective colon cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To validate the usefulness of sennoside as a substitute for polyethylene glycol (PEG) as a mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colon cancer surgery.

METHODS

We performed a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial comparing the use of sennoside and PEG in MBP for elective colon cancer surgery, in terms of the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and the feasibility of surgery.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of SSIs was 2.9 % in the sennoside group (n = 68) and 6.3 % in the PEG group (n = 63) with a difference of 3.4 % (95 % confidence interval 6.9-10.6 %). The intraoperative spillage of the stool materials in the sennoside and PEG groups was 4.4 and 3.1 %, respectively, and was not significantly different (p = 0.71), even the upstream stool consistency, was more frequently observed to be non-stool in the PEG group (65.1 vs. 30.9 %, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

MBP with sennoside could be a substitution for PEG in elective colon cancer surgery.

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

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

Mechanical bowel preparation does not influence outcomes following colonic cancer resection

Background

Meta-analyses have indicated that preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) confers no clear benefit and may indeed be harmful for patients with colorectal cancer. The effects of bowel preparation on longer-term outcomes have not been reported. The aim was to compare long-term survival and surgical complications in patients who did or did not receive MBP before surgery for colonic cancer.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing potentially curative surgery for colonic cancer after routine hospital admission in the West of Scotland between January 2000 and December 2005. Clinical audit data were linked to cancer registrations and death certificates. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used to explore determinants of survival.

Results

A total of 1730 patients underwent potentially curative surgery for colonic cancer, of whom 886 (51·2 per cent) were men. The mean(s.d.) age was 69·7(10·6) years. Some 1460 patients (84·4 per cent) received MBP. Median follow-up was 3·5 (range 0·1–6·7) years. There were no statistically significant differences in 30-day postoperative complication rates between groups. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death from all causes for patients treated with MBP (versus no MBP) was 0·72 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·57 to 0·91). Multivariable analysis with adjustment for age, sex, socioeconomic circumstances, disease stage and presentation for surgery showed that MBP had no independent effect on all-cause mortality (HR 0·85, 0·67 to 1·10).

Conclusion

Neither postoperative complications nor long-term survival are improved by MBP before colonic cancer surgery.

[Selective intestinal preparation in a multimodal rehabilitation program. Influence on preoperative comfort and the results after colorectal surgery]

INTRODUCTION

Despite there being no evidence of the advantages of its use, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to be routine in colorectal surgery. Our objective is to analyse the impact of its selective use, as regards patient comfort and results, comparing a perioperative multimodal rehabilitation program (MMRH) with conventional care (CC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective study of 108 patients proposed for elective surgery, assigned consecutively 2:1 to an MMRH protocol which only included MBP in rectal surgery with low anastomosis, or to CC in whom MBP was used except in right colon surgery. We also studied two Groups (A and B) with and without the use of MBP. Their tolerance, results and postoperative recovery variables were analysed.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were included in Group A, and 69 in Group B. A MMRH protocol was used in another 69 patients. The Group A patients had more abdominal pain, anal discomfort, nausea and thirst, but there were no differences as regards, death, overall or local complications, whilst there was less complications, suture failures and death in the MMRH when compared with CC Group (P<.05). There were no advantages observed in the use of MBP as regards the start of bowel movements, tolerance to diet or hospital stay, but these parameters were favourable to the MMRH when compared with CC Group.

CONCLUSIONS

The restriction of MBP is safe, and associated with an MMRH program, contributes to a faster and more comfortable recovery, without increasing complications.

Risk Factors for the Development of Clostridium difficile-associated Colitis after Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Purpose

Clostridium difficile (C. difficile)-associated colitis, a known complication of colon and rectal surgery, can increase perioperative morbidity and mortality, leading to increased hospital stay and costs. Several contributing factors, including advanced age, mechanical bowel preparation, and antibiotics, have been implicated in this condition. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical features of and factors responsible for C. difficile-associated colitis after colorectal cancer surgery.

Methods

The medical records of patients who had undergone elective resection for colorectal cancer from January 2008 to April 2010 were reviewed. Cases that involved procedures such as transanal excision, stoma creation, or emergency operation were excluded from the analysis.

Results

Resection with primary anastomosis was performed in 219 patients with colorectal cancer. The rate of postoperative C. difficile-associated colitis was 6.8% in the entire study population. Preoperative metallic stent insertion (P = 0.017) and aged sixty and older (≥ 60, P = 0.025) were identified as risk factors for postoperative C. difficile-associated colitis. There were no significant differences in variables such as preoperative oral non-absorbable antibiotics, site of operation, operation procedure, and duration of prophylactic antibiotics.

Conclusion

Among the potential causative factors of postoperative C. difficile-associated colitis, preoperative metallic stent insertion and aged sixty and older were identified as risk factors on the basis of our data. Strategies to prevent C. difficile infection should be carried out in patients who have undergone preoperative insertion of a metallic stent and are aged sixty and older years.

Bowel preparation: comparing metabolic and electrolyte changes when using sodium phosphate/polyethylene glycol

BACKGROUND

Many patients with various types of colonic pathology undergo invasive procedures that require mechanical bowel preparation. The most commonly used medications for bowel preparation include phosphate-containing drugs which are low cost and enable this procedure to be performed in an outpatient setting, as opposed to other medications, such as polyethylene glycol. Recent studies have suggested that freely using phosphate-containing drugs might lead to renal function impairment in a small group of patients. Despite this, many surgeons still use these drugs to prepare their patients. We conducted a comparative study to check the side effects of phosphate-containing drugs compared to polyethylene glycol when used for bowel cleansing.

METHODS

We conducted a double blind prospective randomized study that included 40 patients undergoing surgery for colonic pathology, all of whom underwent bowel cleansing (20 with sodium phosphate and 20 with polyethylene glycol). During the perioperative course, electrolyte parameters were collected from serum and urine and compared between the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

Changes in electrolyte and metabolic parameters were shown in both groups, but more prominently in patients prepared with sodium phosphate. In addition, early signs of renal function impairment appeared in this group. The differences in metabolic and electrolyte changes between the two groups were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this study, we propose that the wide use of phosphate-containing drugs for colonic preparation might be dangerous for the specific group of patients that is prone to develop renal failure or electrolyte abnormalities.

The influence of mechanical bowel preparation in elective lower colorectal surgery

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on anastomosis below the peritoneal verge and questions the influence of MBP on anastomotic leakage in combination with a diverting ileostomy in lower colorectal surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

In a previous large multicenter randomized controlled trial MBP has shown to have no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in overall colorectal surgery. The role of MBP in lower colorectal surgery with or without a diverting ileostomy remains unclear.

METHODS

This study is a subgroup analysis of a prior multicenter (13 hospitals) randomized trial comparing clinical outcome of MBP versus no MBP. Primary end point was the occurrence of anastomotic leakage and secondary endpoints were septic complications and mortality.

RESULTS

Total of 449 Patients underwent a low anterior resection with a primary anastomosis below the peritoneal verge. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was 7.6% for patients who received MBP and 6.6% for patients who did not. Significant risk factors for anastomotic leakage were the American Society of Anesthesiologists-classification (P = 0.005) and male gender (P = 0.007). Of total, 48 patients received a diverting ileostomy during initial surgery; 27 patients received MBP and 21 patients did not. There were no significant differences regarding septic complications and mortality between both groups.

CONCLUSION

MBP has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in low colorectal surgery. Furthermore, omitting MBP in combination with a diverting ileostomy has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage, septic complications, and mortality rate.

Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate: a review of its use as a colorectal cleanser

Oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (CitraFleet; Picolax), consisting of sodium picosulfate (a stimulant laxative) and magnesium citrate (an osmotic laxative), is approved for use in adults (CitraFleet; Picolax) and/or adolescents and children (Picolax) as a colorectal cleansing agent prior to any diagnostic procedure (e.g. colonoscopy or x-ray examination) requiring a clean bowel and/or surgery. It is dispensed in powder form (sodium picosulfate 0.01 g, magnesium oxide 3.5 g, citric acid 12.0 g per sachet), with the magnesium oxide and citric acid components forming magnesium citrate when the powder is dissolved in water. In adult patients, two sachets of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate was at least as effective and well tolerated as oral magnesium citrate 17.7 or 35.4 g, or oral polyethylene glycol 236 g in adult patients undergoing a double-contrast barium enema procedure in three large, randomized, comparative clinical studies. In contrast, sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate was less effective than a sodium phosphate enema preparation in two studies in patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy. A similar number of patients receiving two sachets of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate or two 45 mL doses of oral sodium phosphate the day before a double-contrast barium enema procedure achieved satisfactory barium coating and none/minimal faecal residue in one study. However, the data from three of these studies should be interpreted with caution because the administrative regimens used differed from that recommended. Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate is also an effective and generally well tolerated colorectal cleansing agent in children and adolescents; the preparation was more effective than oral bisacodyl 0.01 or 0.02 g plus a sodium phosphate enema preparation in this population. Further research is thus required to accurately position sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate and fully establish its efficacy and tolerability prior to various exploratory or surgical procedures. Nevertheless, oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate provides a useful option in the preparation of the colon and rectum in adults, adolescents and children undergoing any diagnostic procedure (e.g. colonoscopy or x-ray examination) requiring a clean bowel and/or surgery. Oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate acts locally in the colon as both a stimulant laxative, by increasing the frequency and the force of peristalsis (sodium picosulfate component), and an osmotic laxative, by retaining fluids in the colon (magnesium citrate component), to clear the colon and rectum of faecal contents. It is not absorbed in any detectable quantities. Sodium picosulfate is a prodrug: it is hydrolyzed by bacteria in the colon to the active metabolite 4,4'-dihydroxydiphenyl-(2-pyridyl)methane. Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate may be associated with a dehydrating effect, as evidenced by a reduction in bodyweight and increased haemoglobin levels; some at-risk patients may experience postural hypotension and older patients may require additional electrolytes. In three large (n >100), randomized, single-blind clinical studies, two sachets of oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate was at least as effective as oral magnesium citrate 17.7 or 35.4 g, or oral polyethylene glycol 236 g as a colorectal cleansing agent in adult patients undergoing a double-contrast barium enema procedure. In contrast, sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate was less effective than a sodium phosphate enema preparation in two studies in patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy. A similar number of patients receiving two sachets of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate or two 45 mL doses of oral sodium phosphate the day before a double-contrast barium enema procedure achieved satisfactory barium coating and none/minimal faecal residue in one study. However, the data from three of these studies should be interpreted with caution because the administrative regimens used differed from that recommended. In children and adolescents, sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate was significantly more effective as a colorectal cleansing agent than oral bisacodyl 0.01 or 0.02 g plus a sodium phosphate enema preparation in a randomized, single-blind study; dosages were adjusted for age in this study. Oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate is generally well tolerated in adult patients undergoing various investigational colorectal procedures. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in intensity and mainly gastrointestinal in nature (e.g. abdominal cramps/pain, nausea); other common treatment-emergent adverse events included disturbance of daily activity, headache and sleep disturbance. This combination is at least as well tolerated as oral sodium phosphate or oral polyethylene glycol, with moderate/severe nausea and vomiting occurring less frequently in sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate recipients than in those receiving oral sodium phosphate, and abdominal bloating/pain and nausea developing less often with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate than polyethylene glycol therapy. The incidence of abdominal pain and sleep disturbance in sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate versus oral magnesium citrate recipients was similar in one study, but significantly lower with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate in another. While the incidence of most adverse events was similar in recipients of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate and a sodium phosphate enema preparation, more patients receiving sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate reported moderate/severe flatulence, incontinence and sleep disturbance, and more patients receiving the enema preparation reported rectal soreness. The tolerability profile of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate in patients aged >70 years is reportedly similar to that in patients aged <70 years. Abdominal pain also occurred less frequently with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate than with oral bisacodyl plus a sodium phosphate enema preparation in children and adolescents.

Oral sodium phosphates solution versus polyethylene glycol for colon cleansing prior to radiological assessment

A clean bowel environment is essential prior to radiological assessment of the colon. The objectives were to determine patient compliance and acceptability, physician satisfaction, overall clinical effectiveness and tolerability with the use of oral sodium phosphates (Fosfosoda) and polyethylene glycol solutions as bowel cleansing agents in a relatively large cohort of Spanish patients requiring radiologic examination of the colon. This was an observational survey involving 592 patients (> or =18 years and approximately 60% women) who received Fosfosoda or polyethylene glycol solutions according to data sheet instructions. Parameters measured included mucosal cleansing (presence of solid residues), patient acceptability (including any adverse effects to treatment) and compliance with the treatment regimen, and physician-rated satisfaction with the procedure. The date from the study demonstrated that Fosfosoda and polyethylene glycol solutions were found to be equally well tolerated in this study, although patients receiving Fosfosoda found it easier to complete the treatment regimen. Fosfosoda was significantly superior to polyethylene glycol solutions with regards to mucosal cleansing with 52% achieving an 'excellent' result compared with only 36% of the polyethylene glycol group (relative risk:1.43; 95% confidence interval: 1.12-1.82). Physician-rated assessment of the bowel cleansing procedure also significantly favored Fosfosoda (p = 0.014). In conclusion, while Fosfosoda and polyethylene glycol solutions were equally well tolerated when given to patients prior to radiologic examination of the colon, Fosfosoda was shown to be significantly more effective in terms of bowel cleansing. Based upon the available evidence this could provide significant cost benefit for Fosfosoda.

Mechanical bowel preparation and antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: use by and opinions of Spanish surgeons

OBJECTIVE

Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) previous to surgery have classically been regarded as important in colorectal surgery. The latter has recently been questioned. We evaluated opinion of Spanish surgeons about the use of these measures.

METHOD

E-mail survey among all members of Spanish Coloproctologic Associations.

RESULTS

Of 413 participants in the survey, 131 (31.7%) responded; 87% of surgeons used cathartics (70%), enemas (2%) or both (28%) for MBP. MBP was used 60% in right colon surgery, 90% in left colon and 99% in rectal surgery. Surgeons with more case load or those who specialized in colorectal surgery used significantly less MBP; 60% of the surgeons thought that MBP made surgery easier and reduced contamination; 35% thought that it decreased wound infection (WI) and 17% thought that it prevented anastomotic leaks. For 77%, it was regarded as useful or very useful. AP was used by 99.3% of surgeons including systemic alone in 86.2% and combined with oral in 16.8%. The first dose was given 2 h before surgery by 20.2% of the surgeons, at the anaesthetic induction by 78.3% and postoperatively by 1.5%; 43% used single dose only, 44.5% extended to 24 h and 12.5% for two or more days; 95% thought that AP reduced WI and 96% considered that it was useful.

CONCLUSION

There is general agreement on AP. MBP remained a common practice among Spanish colorectal surgeons except for right colonic resection. Surgeons with more case load and specialization used it significantly less.

Single-blinded randomized trial of mechanical bowel preparation for colon surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis

INTRODUCTION

We report the final analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial designed to investigate whether omission of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation increases the rate of surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure after elective colon surgery with intraperitoneal anastomosis by a single surgeon.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo an elective colon or proximal rectal resection with a primary anastomosis by a single surgeon were randomized to receive either oral polyethylene glycol (Group A) or no mechanical bowel preparation (Group B). Patients were followed by an independent surgeon.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty nine patients were enrolled. Three patients (2%) were preoperatively excluded because of active immunosuppression and 13 (9%) were excluded from the final analysis. Of the remaining 129 patients, 65 were assigned to Group A and 64 to Group B. Thirty patients (23.2%) developed wound infection, (Group A = 24.6% and Group B = 17.2%; NS). There were three cases of intra-abdominal sepsis a (Group A 4.6%). The anastomotic failure rate was 5.4% (n = 7), four patients in Group A (6.2%) vs. three patients in Group B (4.7%) (NS). When SSI and anastomotic failure were combined, the complication rate in Group A was 35.4% vs. 21.9% for Group B. The NNH was 7.4.

CONCLUSION

Our final analysis shows that a single surgeon will not have a higher rate of either surgical-site infection or anastomotic failure if he/she routinely omits preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.

Mechanical bowel preparation for colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis on abdominal and systemic complications on almost 5,000 patients

BACKGROUND

Several studies concluded that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) does not confer any advantage on reducing the anastomotic leak rate or wound infections. The aim of this meta-analysis was to review all prospective randomised controlled trials on the use of MBP before colorectal surgery in order to find differences in the rates of abdominal and systemic complications in view of recent published articles.

METHODS

Review of all randomised prospective trials compare MBP vs. non-MBP. Primary outcome measures were anastomotic leakages, abdomino-pelvic abscesses and postoperative ileus. Secondary outcomes were wound infections, extra-abdominal complications (urinary infections, pulmonary infections, deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, cardiac events), sepsis and mortality.

RESULTS

Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria with 4,919 patients. The non-MBP group showed no significant increase of the anastomotic leakages (3.4% vs. 4.1%; p = NS) and wound infections (8.7% vs. 9.6%; p = NS) but had a lower rate of postoperative cardiac events (2.5% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

The evidence from recent studies, combined with previous ones, further suggests that the dogma of the necessity of mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery should be reconsidered.

Multicentre randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colonic resection

Background

Recent studies have suggested that MBP does not lower the risk of postoperative septic complications after elective colorectal surgery. This randomized clinical trial assessed whether preoperative MBP is beneficial in elective colonic surgery.

Methods

A total of 1505 patients, aged 18–85 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists grades I–III, were randomized to MBP or no MBP before open elective surgery for cancer, adenoma or diverticular disease of the colon. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular, general infectious and surgical-site complications within 30 days, and secondary endpoints were death and reoperations within 30 days.

Results

A total of 1343 patients were evaluated, 686 randomized to MBP and 657 to no MBP. There were no significant differences in overall complications between the two groups: cardiovascular complications occurred in 5·1 and 4·6 per cent respectively, general infectious complications in 7·9 and 6·8 per cent, and surgical-site complications in 15·1 and 16·1 per cent. At least one complication was recorded in 24·5 per cent of patients who had MBP and 23·7 per cent who did not.

Conclusion

MBP does not lower the complication rate and can be omitted before elective colonic resection. Registration number: ISRCTN28535118 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis by a single surgeon: interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial

We report an interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial designed to investigate whether preoperative mechanical bowel preparation influences the rate of surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure after elective colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis performed by a single surgeon. Patients scheduled to undergo an elective colorectal procedure with a primary intraperitoneal anastomosis were randomized to receive either oral polyethylene glycol lavage solution and enemas (group A) or no preparation (group B). Surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure were investigated. Of 97 patients included, 48 were assigned to group A and 49 to group B. Twelve (12.4%) developed wound infections, six in each group (12.5 vs. 12.2%; NS). Intra-abdominal sepsis was only seen in group A (n = 3, 6.3%). Anastomotic failure occurred in four patients in group A (8.3%) vs. two patients in group B (4.1%) (NS). The overall complication rate in group A was 27.1%, vs. 16.3% in group B. The number needed to harm was 9.3. Our interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial suggests that a surgeon may have the same or even worse outcomes when mechanical bowel preparation is routinely used for colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis.

Preparar el colon para la cirugía. ¿Necesidad real o nada más (y nada menos) que el peso de la tradición?

Mechanical bowel preparation is a traditional procedure for preparing patients for colorectal surgery. This practice aims to reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications since colonic fecal content has classically been related to stool spillage during surgery and anastomotic disruption. However, increasing evidence against its routine use can be found in experimental studies, clinical observations, prospective studies, and meta-analyses. We performed a review of the literature on mechanical bowel preparation and its consequences. There is no clear evidence that preoperative bowel cleansing reduces the septic complications of surgery and routine use of this procedure may increase anastomotic leaks and morbidity. Therefore, the results suggest that mechanical preparation is not required in elective colon and rectal surgery and that its use should be restricted to specific indications such as small nonpalpable tumors to aid their localization during laparoscopic procedures or to enable intraoperative colonoscopy. The role of mechanical bowel preparation in rectal surgery is not well defined and further trials with a larger number of patients are required.

Improving Compliance With Prophylactic Antibiotic Administration Guidelines

To reduce the incidence of surgical site infections, preoperative prophylactic antibiotics should be administered within 60 minutes before the initial incision is made. A recent study and anecdotal observations, however, indicate that rates for compliance with these guidelines are low. A quality improvement project was undertaken at a Florida health care facility to determine if implementing changes in preoperative processes would increase compliance with prophylactic antibiotic administration guidelines. After the strategies were implemented, compliance rates with the national guidelines for administration of antibiotics within 60 minutes of surgical incision increased from 75% at baseline to 95% postimplementation.

Laparoscopic colectomy without mechanical bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation prior to colorectal surgery may reduce infectious complications, facilitate tumor localization, and allow intraoperative colonoscopy, if required. However, recent data suggest that mechanical bowel preparation may not facilitate a reduction in infectious complications. During laparoscopic colectomy, manual palpation is blunt, thereby potentially compromising tumor localization. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of mechanical bowel preparation in laparoscopic colectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective medical record review of all patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: those who had preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (Group A) or those who did not (Group B). All relevant perioperative data were reviewed and compared.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy; 68 (34%) were in Group A and 132 (66%) were in Group B. Sixteen (8%) patients required intraoperative colonoscopy for localization and were evenly distributed between the two groups. The incidence of conversion to laparotomy was slightly higher in Group B (14 vs 9%) due to difficult localization in some cases; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the postoperative complication rate between the two groups. Specifically, an anastomotic leak and a wound infection were recorded in 4 and 12% of patients in Group A compared to 3 and 17% in Group B, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colectomy may be safely performed without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation, although difficult localization may lead to a slightly higher conversion rate. Appropriate patient selection for laparoscopic colectomy without mechanical bowel preparation is essential. Furthermore, bowel preparation should be considered in cases of small and nonpalpable lesions.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

N/A

N/A

Elective intestinal operations in infants and children without mechanical bowel preparation: a pilot study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective intestinal operations has been a long accepted practice. However, MBP is often unpleasant and time-consuming for patients, and clinical trials in adults have not shown improved outcomes. We conducted this pilot study to test whether omitting MBP before elective intestinal operations in infants and children would increase the risk of infectious or anastomotic complications.

METHODS

Retrospective review was performed of 143 patients who had an elective colon or distal small bowel procedure performed at our children's hospital between 1990 and 2003.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients (No PREP) were managed by a single surgeon who routinely omitted MBP, whereas another 110 patients (PREP) were prepared with enemas, laxatives, or both. Both groups received 24 hours of preoperative dietary restriction to clear liquids and perioperative parenteral antibiotics. The No PREP group had one anastomotic leak and no wound infections, whereas the PREP group had 2 anastomotic leaks and 1 wound infection (P = .58). These results occurred despite greater duration of antibiotic therapy and incidence of delayed wound closures in the PREP group.

CONCLUSION

The results of this pilot study suggest that omitting MBP before elective intestinal operations in infants and children carries no increased risk of infectious or anastomotic complications. Eliminating MBP may reduce health care costs and inconvenience to patients. These findings warrant a large, prospective, randomized clinical trial to validate our findings and to investigate further the necessity of MBP in the pediatric population.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Mechanical and Antibacterial Bowel Preparation in Colon and Rectal Surgery

Colorectal surgery performed prior to 1970 was fraught with postoperative infectious complications which occurred in more than 30-50% of all operations. Diversion of the fecal stream appeared mandatory when operating on an urgent or emergent basis, thereby requiring the performance of multiple, staged operations instead of a single surgery encompassing resection and primary anastomosis as is performed commonly today. Multiple studies conducted in the early 1970s determined that anaerobic colonic microflora were causative agents in postoperative infections in colon and rectal surgery, and these studies initiated the development of effective oral preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in combination with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. This dual-tier regimen significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative infectious complications, thus allowing most uncomplicated colon and rectal surgeries to be performed in a single stage without the need for the diversion of the fecal stream and multiple operations. Therefore, a preoperative mechanical and antibacterial bowel regimen serves as the cornerstone of modern elective colorectal surgery, and these regimens now comprise three therapeutic directives. The first step is preoperative mechanical cleansing of the bowel, which is then followed by preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis. Finally, perioperative parenteral antibiotics directed against aerobic and anaerobic colonic microflora are utilized.

Mechanical bowel preparation in the older surgical patient

A major risk of colon resection is contamination from the bowel. Poor cleansing of the colon has been associated with an increased incidence of wound infections and intra-abdominal abscesses. Despite controversy on the usefulness of colon cleansing methods, mechanical bowel preparation along with oral and intravenous antibiotics have become common preoperative practice. The population is aging, and surgeons and endoscopists are going to be increasingly involved in the care of older patients. This review focuses on various colon cleansing methods and examines specific issues in older patients.

Ulcerative colitis-Diagnosis and surgical treatment

Ulcerative colitis is a serious illness affecting the colon. Extracolonic manifestations include sclerosing cholangitis, arthritis, eye diseases, ankylosing spondylitis, and sacroiliitis. Ulcerative colitis may increase a patient's risk of cancer, depending on the duration and extent of the disease. Surgery is the only definitive way to remove the disease in its entirety. It may be possible for patients who do not wish to have a permanent stoma to undergo a restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Normal bowel physiology, pathophysiology of ulcerative colitis, medical and surgical treatments, and postoperative complications are discussed.

Randomized clinical trial of multimodal optimization and standard perioperative surgical care

BACKGROUND

Multimodal optimization of surgical care has been associated with reduced hospital stay and improved physical function. The aim of this randomized trial was to compare multimodal optimization with standard care in patients undergoing colonic resection.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients requiring elective right or left hemicolectomy were randomized to receive a ten-point optimization programme (14 patients) or conventional care (11). The groups were similar in terms of age (64 versus 68 years), male : female sex ratio (6 : 8 versus 5 : 6) and Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) score (both 26). Outcome measures were recorded before operation and on postoperative days 1, 7 and 30. They included hand grip strength, lung spirometry, and pain and fatigue scores. Further outcome measures included time to achieve a predetermined mobilization target, time to resumption of normal diet, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Optimization was associated with maintained grip strength, earlier mobilization (46 versus 69 h; P = 0.043), and significantly lower pain and fatigue scores. Patients in the optimization group tolerated a regular hospital diet significantly earlier than controls (48 versus 76 h; P < 0.001). Optimization significantly reduced the median length of hospital stay (3 versus 7 days; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Optimization of surgical care significantly improved patients' physical and psychological function in the early postoperative period and facilitated early hospital discharge.

Management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia: the National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey

BACKGROUND

The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey was undertaken to determine the management patterns for individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Australia.

METHODS

Between 1 February and 30 April 2000, all new cases of colorectal cancer registered at each Cancer Registry within Australia were entered into the survey. This generated a questionnaire that was sent to the treating surgeons. Chi-squared and logistic regression analyses were used to determine levels of statistical significance for the various comparisons of interest.

RESULTS

Of 2383 surgical questionnaires generated, 2015 (85%) were completed. A total of 1911 patients (95% of those who responded to the questionnaire) had an operation. Of the 86 guidelines for the management of colorectal cancer published by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the survey allowed for comparison between 18 of these, which covered a spectrum of surgical management. Thromboembolic prophylaxis was given to 1843 patients (96.4%) undergoing surgery. Prophylactic antibiotics were commonly used, but there appear to be issues regarding the best regimen to use. Curative resections were carried out in 1563 patients (81.8%), with anterior resections being the most commonly performed procedure. Adjuvant therapy was regularly used, but not all eligible patients were offered such treatment.

CONCLUSION

With the considerable resources required to develop clinical practice guidelines, studies like this are essential to monitor the impact of the guidelines. To ensure that the guidelines are in line with current evidence, regular reviews of the guideline recommendations are required.

Sodium phosphate is superior to polyethylene glycol in bowel cleansing and shortens the time it takes to visualize colon mucosa

BACKGROUND

Both sodium phosphate (NaP) and polyethylene glycol-electrolyte (PEG-EL) have been used to cleanse the bowel prior to colonoscopy, and recent reviews suggest that the former is the more effective and convenient cleansing regimen. The aim of this study was to compare the bowel cleansing effect of NaP solution with that of PEG-EL solution and to evaluate whether the cleansing effect correlates with the time needed to perform colonoscopy.

METHODS

111 patients admitted for colonoscopy were randomized to receive either 90 mL oral NaP or 4 litres of PEG-EL solution. Cleansing was scored blindly by one colonoscopist and the following times were recorded: caecal intubation, withdrawal and total colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Of all the patients included in the study, 99 were evaluable. The mean and standard error of the mean (+/-S(chi)-) cleansing score was 3.64 +/- 0.16 in the NaP group and 2.69 +/- 0.9 in the PEG-EL group (P = 0.005). The mean (+/-S(chi)-) caecal intubation times were 6.39 +/- 0.50 min and 5.39 +/- 0.41 min (P = 0.13), the withdrawal times 4.26 +/- 0.20 min and 5.78 +/- 0.34 min (P = 0.0001) and the total colonoscopy times 10.65 +/- 0.52 min and 11.17 +/- 0.56 min (P = 0.50) in the NaP and PEG-EL groups, respectively. The subgroup of patients with a cleansing score of 3 or more was associated with shortened colonoscopy withdrawal time compared to the group scoring below 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Better cleansing of the large bowel shortens colonoscopy withdrawal time. Sodium phosphate is a more effective bowel-cleansing regimen than polyethylene glycol, and the better cleansing result is associated with shortened colonoscopy withdrawal time.