Perioperative Komplikationen des unteren Gastrointestinaltraktes: Prävention, Erkennung, Therapie

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of multimodal preemptive analgesia on postoperative gastrointestinal function and clinical outcome in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effects of multimodal preemptive analgesia on postoperative gastrointestinal function and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This prospective study included a total of 108 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery from June 2019 to June 2020. The patients were divided into the control group and the study group according to the random number table method. Patients in the study group were given flurbiprofen axetil and oxycodone before skin incision combined with bilateral transverse abdominis plane block (TAPB) before anaesthesia induction. In the control group, patients were given sufentanil and flurbiprofen axetil combined with bilateral TAPB in postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). The incidence of postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (POGD), I-FEED score, inflammatory factor levels, rehabilitation indicators, postoperative pain assessment and other organ complications were observed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The incidence of POGD in the study group was lower compared to the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < .05). The study group had lower total and mean scores of I-FEED at 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours after surgery; however, the differences were not statistically significant (P > .05). On the first and third day after operation, Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), C-reactive protein (CRP), Tumour necrosis factor (TNF-α) and Interleukins6 (IL-6) levels of the study group decreased significantly (P < .05). The reduction in inflammation factor levels from 1d to 3d was significantly greater than that of the control group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The strategy of multimodal preemptive analgesia can effectively prevent the onset of POGD and may accelerate rehabilitation. In short, multimodal preemptive analgesia provides a novel prevention strategy for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Local administration of stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles in a thermoresponsive hydrogel promotes a pro-healing effect in a rat model of colo-cutaneous post-surgical fistula

Extracellular vesicles (EVs), especially from stem/stromal cells (SCs), represent a cell-free alternative in regenerative medicine holding promises to promote tissue healing while providing safety and logistic advantages in comparison to cellular counterparts. Herein, we hypothesize that SC EVs, administered locally in a thermoresponsive gel, is a therapeutic strategy for managing post-surgical colo-cutaneous fistulas. This disease is a neglected and challenging condition associated to low remission rates and high refractoriness. Herein, EVs from a murine SC line were produced by a high-yield scalable method in bioreactors. The post-surgical intestinal fistula model was induced via a surgical cecostomy communicating the cecum and the skin in Wistar rats. Animals were treated just after cecostomy with PBS, thermoresponsive Pluronic F-127 hydrogel alone or containing SC EVs. A PET-monitored biodistribution investigation of SC EVs labelled with ⁸⁹Zr was performed. Fistula external orifice and output assessment, probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy, MRI and histology were carried out for therapy follow-up. The relevance of percutaneous EV administration embedded in the hydrogel vehicle was indicated by the PET-biodistribution study. Local administration of SC EVs in the hydrogel reduced colo-cutaneous fistula diameter, output, fibrosis and inflammation while increasing the density of neo-vessels when compared to the PBS and gel groups. This multi-modal investigation pointed-out the therapeutic potential of SC EVs administered locally and in a thermoresponsive hydrogel for the management of challenging post-surgical colon fistulas in a minimally-invasive cell-free strategy.

[Bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery in Germany 2017 : Results of a survey among members of the German Society of General and Visceral Surgery]

BACKGROUND

The morbidity after colorectal resection is still high. Perioperative i.v. antibiotic administration has become established as the standard to decrease the wound infection rate. An ongoing discussion is the status of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. There seems to be evidence that mechanical bowel preparation in combination with administration of oral non-resorbable antibiotics significantly decreases the rate of anastomotic leakage and postoperative wound infections.

OBJECTIVE

In order to obtain an overview on the state of preoperative preparation before elective colorectal surgery in Germany, a survey was initiated among the members of the German Society of General and Visceral Surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In March 2017 the 5200 members of the German Society of General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) received via email a link to an online survey on bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 557 colleagues answered the questionnaire online. Mechanical bowel preparation with orthograde lavage was the predominant method for bowel preparation prior to colon resection in over 50%. In rectal surgery with primary anastomosis and planned protective stoma, mechanical bowel preparation with orthograde lavage dominated with 76.5%. An oral antibiotic administration alone and in combination with mechanical bowel preparation for colon resection was used by less than 10% and 2%, respectively and ca. 11 % for rectal surgery both with and without mechanical bowel preparation.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to the evidence in the current literature to carry out preoperative mechanical preparation of the bowel in combination with an oral antibiotic administration prior to colorectal resection, in practice these recommendations have not become established among the participants of this survey.