Bowel preparation is associated with spillage of bowel contents in colorectal surgery

The effect of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound related complications: A meta-analysis

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), a routine nursing procedure before paediatric bowel surgery, is widely should in clinical practice, but its necessity remains controversial. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the effect of preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound-related complications in order to analyse the clinical application value of MBP in paediatric bowel surgery. As of November 2023, we searched four online databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. Two investigators screened the collected studies against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and ROBINS-I was used to evaluate the quality of studies. Using RevMan5.3, a meta-analysis of the collected data was performed, and a fixed-effect model or a random-effect model was used to analyse OR, 95% CI, SMD, and MD. A total of 11 studies with 2556 patients were included. Most of studies had moderate-to-severe quality bias. The results of meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications related to postoperative infections in children with MBP before bowel surgery versus those with No MBP, wound infection (OR 1.11, 95% CI:0.76 ~ 1.61, p = 0.59, I2 = 5%), intra-abdominal infection (OR 1.26, 95% CI:0.58 ~ 2.77, p = 0.56, I2 = 9%). There was no significant difference in the risk of postoperative bowel anastomotic leak (OR 1.07, 95% CI:0.68 ~ 1.68, p = 0.78, I2 = 12%), and anastomotic dehiscence (OR 1.67, 95% CI:0.13 ~ 22.20, p = 0.70, I2 = 73%). Patients' intestinal obstruction did not show an advantage of undergoing MBP preoperatively, with an incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR 1.95, 95% CI:0.55 ~ 6.93, p = 0.30, I2 = 0%). Based on existing evidence that preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery did not reduce the risk of postoperative wound complications, we cautiously assume that MBP before surgery is unnecessary for children undergoing elective bowel surgery. However, due to the limited number of study participants selected for this study and the overall low quality of evidence, the results need to be interpreted with caution. It is suggested that more high quality, large-sample, multicenter clinical trials are required to validate our findings.

The effect of mechanical bowel preparation on postoperative complications in laparoscopic right colectomy: a retrospective propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

To assess whether full bowel preparation affects 30-day surgical outcomes in laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all elective laparoscopic right colectomies performed for colonic adenocarcinoma between Jan 2011 and Dec 2021. The cohort was divided into two groups-no bowel preparation (NP) group and patients who received full bowel preparation (FP), including oral and mechanical cathartic bowel preparation. All anastomoses were extracorporeal stapled side-to-side. The two groups were compared at baseline and then were matched using propensity score based on demographic and clinical parameters. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative complication rate, mainly anastomotic leak (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rate.

RESULTS

The original cohort included 238 patients with a median age of 68 (SD 13) and equal M:F ratio. Following propensity score matching, 93 matched patients were included in each group. Analysis of the matched cohort showed a significantly higher overall complication rate in the FP group (28 vs 11.8%, p = 0.005) which was mostly due to minor type II complications. There were no differences in major complication rates, SSI, ileus, or AL rate. Although operative time was significantly longer in the FP group (119 vs 100 min, p ≤ 0.001), length of stay was significantly shorter in the FP group (5 vs 6 days, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Aside from a shorter hospital stay, full mechanical bowel preparation for laparoscopic right colectomy does not seem to have any benefit and may be associated with a higher overall complication rate.

Is colostomy closure without mechanical bowel preparation safe in pediatric patients? A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is largely used worldwide prior to colostomy closure in children, although its benefits are questioned by scientific evidence, and its use can cause adverse reactions. We hypothesized that colostomy closure procedures in children are not associated with increased complications (surgical site infection [SSI] and anastomotic leakage) when performed without MBP. Thus, we conducted a noninferiority trial to compare the safety and efficacy of colostomy takedown with and without MBP.

METHODS

A randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at Hospital Infantil de Mexico in Mexico City from 2015 to 2019, in which the experimental group did not receive MBP prior to colostomy closure. A total of 79 patients were analyzed, and the primary outcomes were safety-related. Data were analyzed using the chi-squared test, Student's t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate.

RESULTS

The demographics in both groups were comparable. Statistical analysis revealed equivalence in safety outcomes (superficial SSI, 22.5% vs 15.3% p = 0.420; deep SSI, 7.5% vs 0% p = 0.081; reoperation, p = 0.320; intestinal occlusion, p = 0.986); no anastomotic leakage was observed in any group. Secondary outcomes such as fasting time and length of hospital stay after surgery were also similar between the groups. However, patients who received MBP were admitted 2 days before surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that withholding MBP prior to colostomy takedowns in children is not associated with increased complications. Omitting MBP also leads to less discomfort and shortens hospital length of stay, suggesting that it has safer and more effective procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Randomized controlled clinical trial with adequate statistical power.

What Are Risk Factors for an Ileus After Posterior Spine Surgery?-A Case Control Study

STUDY DESIGN

Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this retrospective study is to evaluate risk factors for developing a postoperative ileus after posterior spine surgery.

METHODS

Patient charts, including radiographs were evaluated retrospectively. Diagnosis of an ileus was confirmed radiographically by a CT scan in all cases. The control group was retrieved by selecting a random sample of patients undergoing posterior spine surgery who did not develop bowel dysfunction postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients had a postoperative ileus. The control group consisted of 80 patients. Both groups did not differ significantly in age, gender, BMI, tobacco use, comorbidities or status of previous abdominal surgery. Significant differences between the 2 groups was the length of stay (5.9 vs. 11.2; p = 0.001), surgery in the lumbar spine (47.5% vs. 87.5%; p < 0.001) and major spine surgery involving > 3 levels (35.0% vs. 57.5%; p = 0.019). Patients who suffered from an ileus were more likely to be treated in ICU (23.8% vs. 37.5%; p = 0.115), being re-admitted (0.0% vs 5.0%; p = 0.044) and having a delayed discharge (32.5% vs. 57.5%; p = 0.009). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that lumbar spine surgery compared to thoracic and/or cervical spine surgery (p = 0.00, OR 8.7 CI 2.9-25.4) and major spine surgery involving > 3 levels (p = 0.012; OR 3.0, CI 1.3-7.2) are associated with developing an ileus postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Surgeries of the lumbar spine as well as those involving > 3 levels are associated with developing a postoperative ileus. Further studies are needed to expand on possible risk factors and to better understand the mechanism underlying postoperative ileus in spine surgery patients.

SSAT State-of-the-Art Conference: Advancements in the Microbiome

The microbiome plays a major role in human physiology by influencing obesity, inducing inflammation, and impacting cancer therapies. During the 60th Annual Meeting of the Society of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT) at the State-of-the-Art Conference, experts in the field discussed the influence of the microbiome. This paper is a summary of the influence of the microbiome on obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, pancreatic cancer, cancer therapies, and gastrointestinal optimization. This review shows how the microbiome plays an important role in the development of diseases and surgical complications. Future studies are needed in targeting the gut microbiome to develop individualized therapies.

Management of postoperative complications during laparoscopic anterior rectal resection

Laparoscopic anterior resection (LAR) is currently a routine practice in specialized high-volume centers, with equivalent oncological outcomes in historical, open surgery. Appropriate pelvic dissection can be measured by the adequacy of circumferential margin (CRM) and distal margin, both are risk factors of local recurrence. Among the various operative procedures for colorectal cancer, low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer is one of the most demanding procedures because it requires resection of cancer with surrounding mesorectal tissue and reconstruction with anastomosis in the narrow pelvis while preserving the autonomic nerves of the urogenital organs particularly in the male pelvis. Low anterior resection is associated with a relatively high incidence of postoperative morbidities, including anastomotic leakage and other operative site infections, and asymptomatic patients infected with COVID-19 submitted to elective could be at higher risk which sometimes result in post operative mortality. Therefore, recognition of the incidence and risk factors of postoperative complications following low anterior resection is essential to prevent it. The importance of some risk factors such as age, nutrition status of the patient, experience of the surgeon and many other factors that influence outcome of colorectal surgery which could be modified pre operatively to prevent post operative complications. In the other hand long term post operative complications may promote tumor recurrence and decrease survival. The severity of these complications was evaluated by Clavien-Dindo classification (Table1) initiated in 1992 is based on the type of therapy needed to correct the complication. The principle of the classification is simple, reproducible, flexible, and applicable. The Clavien-Dindo Classification(1) appears reliable and may represent a compelling tool for quality assessment in surgery. Post-operative complications can also be classified according to time-line related to surgery as such, early postoperative complications can be defined where morbidity rates occurred within 30 days of the procedure (25%-32%)- (Table 2) or long-term as those that take place between the 30th post-operative day to 3 years following. The aims of this review are to provide an overview of the current literature on post operative complications of rectal surgery and to describe risk factors and strategies to prevent, treat or reduce complications.

En bloc pelvic resection of ovarian cancer with rectosigmoid colectomy: a literature review

Maximal cytoreductive surgery is an important prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To achieve maximal cytoreductive surgery, en bloc pelvic resection with rectosigmoid colectomy can be an effective surgical strategy. This surgical methodology was first described in 1968 as "radical oophorectomy." Since then, it has been adopted by many medical institutions around the world, and its safety has been shown by many studies. However, research on the surgical method is still lacking due to the limited number of prospective comparative studies. We will review the journals on en bloc pelvic resection with rectosigmoid colectomy published to date and discuss its efficacy, complications, and surgical techniques of the procedures.

Role of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in children with Hirschsprung's disease undergoing colostomy closure and pull-through

BACKGROUND

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) has been performed routinely before colorectal surgery in children, but the necessity was questioned recently. We evaluated the utility of MOABP in children with Hirschsprung's disease (HSCR) undergoing colostomy closure and pull-through.

METHODS

The medical records of pediatric patients with HSCR who underwent colostomy closure and pull-through in a single center from January 2010 to January 2020 were reviewed. The use of MOABP was noted. The incidence of postoperative complications, duration of postoperative antibiotic therapy, total hospital cost and length-of-stay were compared between patients receiving MOABP and no bowel preparation (NBP).

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients were included in the study: 33 received MOABP and 31 had NBP. The respective postoperative complications in the MOABP and NBP groups were: intra-abdominal infection (18.2% vs. 29.0%), wound infection (9.1% vs. 16.1%), anastomotic leak (0 vs. 0), intestinal obstruction (6.1% vs. 0) and enterocolitis (3.03% vs. 12.90%). The duration of antibiotic therapy was 4.91±4.21 and 5.23±3.77 days (P=0.75) and hospitalization was 18.21±7.26 and 16.26±6.63 days (P=0.27) respectively. The total hospital cost in the MOABP group (4,720.14±1,858.89 USD) was higher than in the NBP group (3,749.06±2,009.97 USD) (P=0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any clear benefit of MOABP in children with HSCR before colostomy closure and pull-through. However, a multicenter randomized controlled trial is needed to more definitely determine the best preoperative approach for children with HSCR.

Intestinal motility distal of a deviating ileostomy after rectal resection with the construction of a primary anastomosis: results of the prospective COLO-MOVE study

PURPOSE

No consensus exists regarding the use of preoperative bowel preparation for patients undergoing a low anterior resection (LAR). Several comparative studies show similar outcomes when a single time enema (STE) is compared with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP). It is hypothesized that STE is comparable with MBP due to a decrease in intestinal motility distal of a newly constructed diverting ileostomy (DI).

METHODS

In this prospective single-centre cohort study, patients undergoing a LAR with primary anastomosis and DI construction were given a STE 2 h pre-operatively. Radio-opaque markers were inserted in the efferent loop of the DI during surgery, and plain abdominal X-rays were made during the first, third, fifth and seventh postoperative day to visualize intestinal motility.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were included. Radio-opaque markers were situated in the ileum or right colon in 100%, 100% and 97.1% of the patients during respectively the first, third and fifth postoperative day. One patient had its most distal marker situated in the left colon during day five. In none of the patients, the markers were seen distal of the anastomosis.

CONCLUSION

Intestinal motility distally of the DI is decreased in patients who undergo a LAR resection with the construction of an anastomosis and DI, while preoperatively receiving a STE.

Essential elements of anaesthesia practice in ERAS programs

PURPOSE

Enhanced recovery pathways vary amongst institutions but include key components for anesthesiologists, such as haemodynamic optimization, use of short-acting drugs (and monitoring), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis, protective ventilation, and opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia.

METHODS

After critical appraisal of the literature, studies were selected with particular attention being paid to meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohort studies. For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway, available English literature was examined and reviewed.

RESULTS

Patients should be permitted to drink clear fluids up to 2 h before anaesthesia and surgery. Oral carbohydrate loading should be used routinely. All patients may have an individualized plan for fluid and haemodynamic management that matches the monitoring needs with patient and surgical risk. Minimizing the side effects of anaesthetics and analgesics using short-acting drugs with careful perioperative monitoring should be encouraged. Protective ventilation with alveolar recruitment maneuvers is required. Preventive use of a combination with 2-3 antiemetics in addition to propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) is most likely to reduce PONV. While the ideal analgesia regimen remains to be determined, it is clear that a multimodal opioid-sparing analgesic strategy has significant benefits.

CONCLUSION

Careful evaluation of single patient and planning of the anesthetic care are mandatory to join the ERAS philosophy. Optimal fluid management, use of short-acting drugs, prevention of PONV, protective ventilation, and multimodal analgesia are the cornerstones of the anaesthesia management within ERAS protocols.

Evaluation of short-term outcomes and potential risk factors for death and intestinal dehiscence following full-thickness large intestinal incisions in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To determine complication rates for dogs in which full-thickness large intestinal incisions were performed, assess potential risk factors for death during hospitalization and for intestinal dehiscence following these surgeries, and report short-term mortality rates for these patients.

ANIMALS

90 dogs.

PROCEDURES

Medical records of 4 veterinary referral hospitals were reviewed to identify dogs that underwent large intestinal surgery requiring full-thickness incisions. Signalment, history, clinicopathologic data, medical treatments, surgical procedures, complications, and outcomes were recorded. Descriptive statistics were calculated; data were analyzed for association with survival to discharge (with logistic regression analysis) and postoperative intestinal dehiscence (with Fisher exact or Wilcoxon rank sum tests).

RESULTS

Overall 7-day postoperative intestinal dehiscence and mortality rates were 9 of 90 (10%) and 15 of 90 (17%). Dogs with preoperative anorexia, hypoglycemia, or neutrophils with toxic changes and those that received preoperative antimicrobial treatment had greater odds of death than did dogs without these findings. Preexisting colon trauma or dehiscence, preexisting peritonitis, administration of blood products, administration of > 2 classes of antimicrobials, positive microbial culture results for a surgical sample, and open abdominal management of peritonitis after surgery were associated with development of intestinal dehiscence. Five of 9 dogs with intestinal dehiscence died or were euthanized.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Factors associated with failure to survive to discharge were considered suggestive of sepsis. Results suggested the dehiscence rate for full-thickness large intestinal incisions may not be as high as previously reported, but several factors may influence this outcome and larger, longer-term studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Randomized controlled trial of mechanical bowel preparation for laparoscopy-assisted colectomy

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before open colon surgery has been debated over the last decade. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effect of MBP on the outcome of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colectomy.

METHODS

Patients who were scheduled to undergo elective laparoscopic colon resection with primary anastomosis were randomly allocated to a preoperative MBP group (either two bottles of sodium phosphate or 2-L polyethylene glycol) or a no-MBP group. Anastomotic leakage and other complications such as surgical-site infection and extra-abdominal complications were recorded postoperatively.

RESULTS

In this study, 122 patients were recruited and randomly allocated to the MBP group (n = 62) or the no-MBP group (n = 60). Demographic and clinical characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. The rate of abdominal complications, including anastomotic leak and surgical-site infection, was 16.2% in the MBP group and 18.3% in the no-MBP group (P = 0.747). Anastomotic leakage occurred in four patients (6.5%) in the MBP group and in two patients (3.3%) in no-MBP group (P = 0.680). About 29% of patients in the MBP group still had either liquid or solid content in the bowel. No significant difference was found between the length of hospital stay in the MBP group and the no-MBP group (9.0 ± 2.9 vs 8.4 ± 1.9 days, P = 0.180).

CONCLUSIONS

Elective laparoscopic colectomy without MBP is safe and offers acceptable postoperative morbidity.

CR-Possum-Can It Be Used to Predict Morbidity? A Single-Centre Retrospective Study

Preoperative prediction of morbidity in colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery helps to optimize the surgical outcome. In this study, we aim to develop a dedicated equation for predicting operative morbidity using colorectal possum scoring system and also to validate the predictive accuracy of CR-POSSUM scoring system in prognosticating actual complications. We did a retrospective analysis of 322 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery from a single centre in South India from 2004 to 2016. Mortality and morbidity risk factors as defined by CR POSSUM were collected from 322 patients who underwent CRC surgery and were used to derive equations to predict morbidity, and the results were compared with the observed morbidity. Logistic regression analysis was used to derive the equation. The model fit and model discrimination were analysed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistical test for goodness of fit, the Nagelkerke R ² and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve respectively. Out of 322 patients, 103 (32%) patients developed complications and 10 (3%) died due to complications. The regression equation we derived has an overall correct classification of about 70% (P < 0.01) with positive and negative predictive value of 60% and 73% respectively. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit was 3.147 (P = 0.829), and the Nagelkerke R ² was 17% and area under ROC as model discrimination was 71.6%. Hence, CR-POSSUM scoring which was originally used for predicting mortality risk can also be extrapolated to predict morbidity.

IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED RECOVERY AFTER COLORECTAL SURGERY (ERAS) PROTOCOL: INITIAL RESULTS OF THE FIRST BRAZILIAN EXPERIENCE

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for enhanced recovery after surgery have their bases in colonic surgery, through the first protocols published in 2012. Since then, this practice has spread throughout the world, mainly due to improvements in surgical outcomes associated with resource savings.

AIM

To analyze the first prospective results after the implementation of the guidelines.

METHODS

Were retrospectively analyzed 48 patients operated in the institution prior to the standardization. This group was then compared with a series of 25 patients operated consecutively after the guidelines were implemented.

RESULTS

With a 68.6% compliance rate, hospital length of stay (p=0.002), use of abdominal drains (p<0.001) and mechanical bowel preparation (p<0.001) were reduced. Mortality rates, anastomotic fistula, abdominal abscesses and reoperations were also reduced, but without statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols benefit patients care, resulting in better outcomes and possibly resource savings. Even with some limitations, its implementation is feasible in the Brazilian Public Health System.

The value of mechanical bowel preparation prior to pediatric colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before pediatric colorectal surgery remains the standard of care for many pediatric surgeons, though the value of MBP remains unclear. The aim of this study was to systematically review and analyze the effect of MBP on the incidence of postoperative complications; anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal infection, and wound infection, following colorectal surgery in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched to compare the effect of MBP versus no MBP prior to elective pediatric colorectal surgery on postoperative complications. After critical appraisal of included studies, meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

1731 papers were retrieved; 2 randomized controlled trials and 4 retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of evidence was low. MBP before colorectal surgery did not significantly decrease the occurrence of anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal infection, or wound infection compared to no MBP.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the existing evidence, the use of MBP before colorectal surgery in children seems not to decrease the incidence of postoperative complications compared to no MBP. To overcome confounding factors such as antibiotic prophylaxis, age and type of operation, a multicentre prospective study is suggested to validate these results.

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

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

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Prevention of severe infectious complications after colorectal surgery using preoperative orally administered antibiotic prophylaxis (PreCaution): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgery is frequently complicated by surgical site infections (SSIs). The most important consequences of SSIs are prolonged hospitalization, an increased risk of surgical reintervention and an increase in mortality. Perioperative intravenously administered antibiotic prophylaxis is the standard of care to reduce the risk of SSIs. In the last few decades, preoperative orally administered antibiotics have been suggested as additional prophylaxis to further reduce the risk of infection, but are currently not part of routine practice in most hospitals. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a preoperative orally administered antibiotic prophylaxis (Pre-OP) in addition to intravenously administered perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce the incidence of deep SSIs and/or mortality after elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS/DESIGN

The PreCaution trial is designed as a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that will be carried out in The Netherlands. Adult patients who are scheduled for elective colorectal surgery are eligible to participate. In total, 966 patients will be randomized to receive the study medication. This will either be Pre-OP, a solution that consists of tobramycin and colistin sulphate, or a placebo solution. The study medication will be administered four times daily during the 3 days prior to surgery. Perioperative intravenously administered antibiotic prophylaxis will be administered to all patients in accordance with national infection control guidelines. The primary endpoint of the study is the cumulative incidence of deep SSIs and/or mortality within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints include both infectious and non-infectious complications of colorectal surgery, and will be evaluated 30 days and/or 6 months after surgery.

DISCUSSION

To date, conclusive evidence on the added value of preoperative orally administered antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is lacking. The PreCaution trial should determine the effects of orally administered antibiotics in preventing infectious complications in elective colorectal surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register, ID: NTR6113 . Registered on 11 October 2016; EudraCT 2015-005736-17.

A European survey of bowel preparation in colorectal surgery

AIM

Meta-analysis has shown that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) does not improve outcomes in colonic surgery; however, there is uncertainty regarding MBP use in laparoscopic and rectal surgery and the addition of oral antibiotic regimens. The aim of this study was to assess current use of bowel preparation among European surgeons.

METHOD

An online survey was circulated to members of the European Society of Coloproctology. Chi-squared analysis was used to compare subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 426 surgeons responded to the survey. MBP is routinely prescribed by 29.6% of respondents prior to colonic surgery and in 77.0% prior to rectal surgery. In the cohort performing > 30% of colorectal operations laparoscopically (n = 294), routine use of MBP in colonic surgery was significantly lower (19.7% vs 51.5%, P < 0.01). Less than 10% prescribe oral antibiotic bowel preparation whereas 96% prescribe perioperative intravenous antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Among the majority of respondents to this survey, MBP is used routinely for rectal operations. For colonic surgery, laparoscopic surgeons have a significantly lower use of MBP. Use of oral antibiotic bowel preparation remains uncommon.

Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect Clinical Severity of Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous multicenter randomized trials demonstrated that omitting mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) did not increase anastomotic leakage rates or other infectious complications. However, the most serious concern regarding the omission of MBP is ongoing fecal peritonitis after anastomotic leakage occurs. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical manifestations and severity of anastomotic leakage between patients who underwent MBP and those who did not.

METHODS

This study was a single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. From January 2006 to September 2013, 1369 patients who underwent elective rectal cancer resection with primary anastomosis were identified and analyzed.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage rates were not significantly different between patients who did not undergo MBP (77/831, 9.27%) and those who did (42/538, 7.81%). However, a significantly lower rate of clinical leakage requiring surgical exploration was observed in the leakage without MBP group (30/77, 39.0%) compared with the leakage with MBP group (30/42, 71.4%) (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage as assessed by the length of hospital stay, time to resuming a normal diet, length of antibiotic use, ileus rate, transfusion rate, ICU admission rate, and mortality rate between the leakage without MBP and leakage with MBP groups.

CONCLUSION

MBP was not found to affect the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage in elective rectal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic colorectal resections with and without routine mechanical bowel preparation: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

The benefit of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections remains a question. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of omitting MBP on patients undergoing laparoscopic bowel resections.

METHODS

The outcomes of patients who underwent elective colorectal resections for cancer of colon and upper rectum without MBP were compared to a retrospective cohort who had MBP.

RESULTS

There were 97 patients in the No-MBP group and 159 patients in the MBP group. Their mean age, operative risk, tumor size and stage of disease were similar. There were no significant differences in operative time and estimated blood loss. The anastomotic leakage rate was 1.0% in the No-MBP group and 0.6% in the MBP group, (p = 1.00). Wound infection rate were 4.1% and 3.8% in the No-MBP group and the MBP group respectively (p = 1.00). Overall surgical morbidity rate was 11.3% in the No-MBP group and 8.2% in the MBP group (p = 0.40). Conversion rates were 5.2% in the No-MBP group and 6.9% in the MBP group, (p = 0.57).

CONCLUSION

The omission of mechanical bowel preparation does not increase surgical morbidities in patients undergoing laparoscopic bowel resections. It also has no effect on operating time and conversion rate.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

ERAS protocol in laparoscopic surgery for colonic versus rectal carcinoma: are there differences in short-term outcomes?

Most of the studies concerning enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in colorectal surgery include heterogeneous groups of patients undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery, both due to colonic and rectal cancer, thus creating a potential bias. The data investigating the differences between patients operated for either colonic or rectal cancer are sparse. The aim of the study was to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colonic and rectal cancer with ERAS protocol. The analysis included consecutive prospectively registered patients operated for a colorectal cancer between January 2012 and September 2015. Patients were divided into two groups (colon vs. rectum). The measured outcomes were: length of stay (LOS), complication rate, readmission rate, compliance with ERAS protocol elements and recovery parameters (tolerance of early oral diet, mobilization and time to first flatus). Group 1 (colon) consisted of 150 patients and Group 2 (rectum) of 82 patients. Patients in Group 1 (150 patients) were discharged home earlier than in Group 2 (82 patients)—median LOS 4 versus 5 days, respectively. There was no statistical difference in complication rate (27.3 vs. 36.6 %) and readmissions (7.3 vs. 6.1 %). Compliance with the protocol was 86.9 and 82.6 %, respectively. However, in Group 1, the following procedures were used less frequently: bowel preparation (24 vs. 78.3 %) and postoperative drainage (23.3 vs. 71.0 %). There were no differences in recovery parameters between the groups. Univariate logistic regression showed that the type of surgery, drainage and stoma creation significantly prolonged LOS. In a multivariate logistic regression model, only a bowel preparation and drainage were shown to be significant. Although functional recovery and high compliance with ERAS protocol are possible irrespective of the type of surgery, laparoscopic rectal resections are associated with a longer LOS.

ERAS protocol in laparoscopic surgery for colonic versus rectal carcinoma: are there differences in short-term outcomes?

Most of the studies concerning enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in colorectal surgery include heterogeneous groups of patients undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery, both due to colonic and rectal cancer, thus creating a potential bias. The data investigating the differences between patients operated for either colonic or rectal cancer are sparse. The aim of the study was to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colonic and rectal cancer with ERAS protocol. The analysis included consecutive prospectively registered patients operated for a colorectal cancer between January 2012 and September 2015. Patients were divided into two groups (colon vs. rectum). The measured outcomes were: length of stay (LOS), complication rate, readmission rate, compliance with ERAS protocol elements and recovery parameters (tolerance of early oral diet, mobilization and time to first flatus). Group 1 (colon) consisted of 150 patients and Group 2 (rectum) of 82 patients. Patients in Group 1 (150 patients) were discharged home earlier than in Group 2 (82 patients)-median LOS 4 versus 5 days, respectively. There was no statistical difference in complication rate (27.3 vs. 36.6 %) and readmissions (7.3 vs. 6.1 %). Compliance with the protocol was 86.9 and 82.6 %, respectively. However, in Group 1, the following procedures were used less frequently: bowel preparation (24 vs. 78.3 %) and postoperative drainage (23.3 vs. 71.0 %). There were no differences in recovery parameters between the groups. Univariate logistic regression showed that the type of surgery, drainage and stoma creation significantly prolonged LOS. In a multivariate logistic regression model, only a bowel preparation and drainage were shown to be significant. Although functional recovery and high compliance with ERAS protocol are possible irrespective of the type of surgery, laparoscopic rectal resections are associated with a longer LOS.

Fast-track rehabilitation accelerates recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Fast-track (FT) rehabilitation protocols have been shown to be successful in reducing both hospital stay and postoperative complications, as well as enhancing overall postoperative patient recovery. We are reporting the outcomes of our first group of patients undergoing colorectal surgery following the FT protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a prospective study of patients, between January 1, 2007 and January 31, 2010, who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resections in accordance with the guidelines of FT rehabilitation protocol. Recovery parameters including time to removal of naso-gastric tube and urinary catheter, time to bowel function and to resume diet, and length of hospital stay were evaluated. Postoperative outcomes, that is, postoperative complications and mortality, reoperations, and readmissions were also studied.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients, 30 women and 41 men, underwent FT rehabilitation for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The mean age of the patients was 60 ± 16 years. The most common surgical procedures were right hemicolectomy 30% and anterior resection 27%. Liquid and regular diet were initiated on postoperative day 1.2 ± 0.4 and 2.1 ± 0.4, respectively. Overall postoperative morbidity was 8.5%. The mean length of stay was 4.4 ± 1.7 days, with only 3 readmissions. Forty-five patients fulfilled the FT care plan and were discharged on postoperative day 3. No reoperations or mortality were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

FT rehabilitation results in favorable postoperative outcomes. Our data provides evidence and suggests that FT protocols should be implemented as a reliable method of preparation and recovery for laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Rectal enema is an alternative to full mechanical bowel preparation for primary rectal cancer surgery

AIM

According to the French GRECCAR III randomized trial, full mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for rectal surgery decreases the rate of postoperative morbidity, in particular postoperative infectious complications, but MBP is not well tolerated by the patient. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a preoperative rectal enema (RE) might be an alternative to MBP.

METHODS

An analysis was performed of 96 matched cohort patients undergoing rectal resection with primary anastomosis and protective ileostomy at two different university teaching hospitals, whose rectal cancer management was comparable except for the choice of preoperative bowel preparation (MBP or RE). Prospective databases were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

Patients were well matched for age, gender, body mass index and Charlson index. The surgical approach and cancer characteristics (level above anal verge, stage and use of neoadjuvant therapy) were comparable between the two groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 10% of patients having MBP and in 8% having RE (P = 1.00). Pelvic abscess formation (6% vs 2%, P = 0.63) and wound infection (8% vs 15%, P = 0.55) were also comparable. Extra-abdominal infection (13% vs 13%, P = 1.00) and non-infectious abdominal complications such as ileus and bleeding (27% and 31%, P = 0.83) were not significantly different. Overall morbidity was comparable in the two groups (50% vs 54%, P = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

A simple RE before rectal surgery seems not to be associated with more postoperative infectious complications nor a higher overall morbidity than MBP.

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Modern Guidelines for Bowel Preparation and Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Open and Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and antibiotics (oral and/or intravenous) have historically been used to decrease infectious complications in surgeries that involve manipulation of bowel or potential risk of injury. The use of MBP has recently been challenged in the colorectal surgery literature, thus inspiring similar critical evaluation of our practices in urology. This review gives a brief overview of the history of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation, as well as the evolution of the practice trends in colorectal surgery and urology. We also examine contemporary guidelines in skin preparation as well as antimicrobial prophylaxis before surgery.

Prevention of infectious complications after elective colorectal surgery in children: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee comprehensive review

OBJECTIVE

This goal of this review was to examine the clinical evidence in support of commonly utilized measures intended to reduce complications following elective colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCE

Literature searches were performed to identify relevant studies from Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane databases.

STUDY SELECTION

The American Pediatric Surgery Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee selected eight questions to address this topic systematically in the context of three management areas: 1) appropriate utilization of systemic antibiotics for colorectal procedures, 2) reduction of stool burden through mechanical bowel preparation, and 3) intraluminal gut decontamination through use of enteral nonabsorbable antibiotics. Primary outcomes of interest included the occurrence of infectious and mechanical complications related to stool burden and intraluminal bacterial concentration (incisional surgical site infection, anastomotic leakage, and intraabdominal abscess).

RESULTS

The evidence in support of each management category was systematically reviewed, graded, and summarized in the context of the review's primary outcomes. Practice recommendations were made as deemed appropriate by the committee.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical evidence in support of interventions to reduce infectious complications following colorectal surgery is derived almost exclusively from the adult literature. High-quality evidence to guide clinical practice in children is sorely needed, as the available data may have only limited relevance to pediatric colorectal diseases.

Improving outcomes and cost-effectiveness of colorectal surgery

In order to truly make an impact on improving the cost effectiveness, and most importantly, the outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal surgery, all aspects of care need to be scrutinized, re-evaluated, and refined. To accomplish this, everything from the way we train surgeons to the adoption of a minimally invasive approach for colorectal disease, along with the use of adjunct intraoperative measures to decrease morbidity and mortality, may all need to be incorporated within an ERAS program. Only then will this approach lead the provider to a patient-centric care plan which can successfully reduce metrics such as morbidity, mortality, and length of stay (even with the obligatory readmission rate) and provide it all at a lower cost of care.

The impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) based on the occurrence of anastomosis leakage, surgical site infection (SSI), and severity of surgical complication when performing elective colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MBP and non-MBP patients were matched using propensity score. The outcomes were evaluated according to tumor location such as right- (n=84) and left-sided colon (n=50) and rectum (n=100). In the non-MBP group, patients with right-sided colon cancer did not receive any preparation, and patients with both left-sided colon and rectal cancers were given one rectal enema before surgery.

RESULTS

In the right-sided colon surgery, there was no anastomosis leakage. SSI occurred in 2 (4.8%) and 4 patients (9.5%) in the non-MBP and MBP groups, respectively. In the left-sided colon cancer surgery, there was one anastomosis leakage (4.0%) in each group. SSI occurred in none in the rectal enema group and in 2 patients (8.0%) in the MBP group. In the rectal cancer surgery, there were 5 anastomosis leakages (10.0%) in the rectal enema group and 2 (4.0%) in the MBP group. SSI occurred in 3 patients (6.0%) in each groups. Severe surgical complications (Grade III, IV, or V) based on Dindo-Clavien classification, occurred in 7 patients (14.0%) in the rectal enema group and 1 patient (2.0%) in the MBP group (p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Right- and left-sided colon cancer surgery can be performed safely without MBP. In rectal cancer surgery, rectal enema only before surgery seems to be dangerous because of the higher rate of severe postoperative complications.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery

Nosocomial infections are the most frequent complications observed in surgical patients. In colorectal surgery, the opening of the viscera causes the dissemination into the operative field of microorganisms originating from endogenous sources, increasing the chance of developing postoperative complications. It is reported that without antibiotic prophylaxis, wound infection after colorectal surgery develops in approximately 40% of patients. This percentage decreases to approximately 11% after antibiotic prophylaxis. Specific criteria in the choice of correct antibiotic prophylaxis have to be respected, on the basis of the microorganisms usually found in the surgical site, and on the specific hospital microbiologic epidemiology.

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

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

Does mechanical bowel preparation improve quality of laparoscopic nephrectomy? Propensity score-matched analysis in Japanese series

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before laparoscopic nephrectomy in terms of operation time and perioperative complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy for T1-T3 tumors were identified in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database from 2008 to 2010. The patients were stratified into a preoperative MBP group (polyethylene glycol electrolyte, magnesium citrate solution, and sodium picosulfate) and a non-MBP group and were matched using one-to-one propensity score matching according to age, sex, Charlson score, T category, hospital volume, and hospital academic status. The operation time, postoperative length of stay, and overall complication rate were assessed by multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of 2740 patients in 355 hospitals, 1110 pairs were generated. The median operation time, postoperative stay, and overall complication rate (MBP vs non-MBP group) was 278 and 268 minutes (P<.004), 10.3 and 10.0 days (P=.695), and 11.8% and 11.4% (P=.740), respectively. The multivariate regression analyses did not find significant superiority of MBP for the 3 endpoints (all P>.05). A shorter operation time was significantly associated with female sex and early-stage tumor. Older age, greater Charlson score, and lower hospital volume adversely affected the postoperative stay and overall complication rate. Stage T3 tumor was unfavorable for the postoperative stay.

CONCLUSION

Our large-scale propensity score-matched analysis did not demonstrate a benefit for MBP in operation time, postoperative stay, or overall complications. The results suggest that MBP can be safely omitted before laparoscopic nephrectomy for T1-T3 tumors.

Colectomy without mechanical bowel preparation in the private practice setting

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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