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

Meta-analysis of efficacy of perioperative oral antibiotics in intestinal surgery with surgical site infection

OBJECTIVES

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a serious complication of intestinal surgery. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of different preoperative oral antibiotic preparation (OABP) compared with intravenous antibiotic preparation (IVAP) and/or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP).

METHODS

A meta-analysis consisting of adult patients adopting oral antibiotics versus other regimens during the preoperative preparation of elective intestinal surgery was performed. The outcome included overall SSI, organ space SSI, superficial SSI, deep SSI, and mortality rate.

RESULTS

A total of 35 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of 8445 adult patients were included in our present analysis. OABP regimens were combined with IVAP in 29 RCTs. In general, the incidence of overall SSI in the OABP group was less compared with the IVAP alone or IVAP+MBP group (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.69, P < .00001, I2 = 47%). Metronidazoles plus quinolones or aminoglycosides showed the best effect on reducing the overall SSI. OABP in combination with preoperative and postoperative IVAP was both significantly associated with reduced SSI. IVAP before and within 24 h after surgery showed the best advantage. No difference was found between the OABP without IVAP group and the control group in reducing SSI. OABP regimens also demonstrated a lower incidence rate of organ space SSI, superficial SSI, deep SSI, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

OABP in combination with preoperative IVAP and within 24 h post-operation significantly reduced the incidence of SSI in intestinal surgery. Metronidazoles accompanied with quinolones or aminoglycosides might be the appropriate combinations for OABP regimens.

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in ovarian cancer debulking: Are we lowering or just trading surgical complications?

OBJECTIVES

To examine postoperative complications associated with preoperative mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) for patients with ovarian cancer who underwent bowel resection at cytoreductive surgery (CRS).

METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective study of patients with ovarian cancer undergoing CRS from 01/2011-12/2020 using ICD-10 diagnoses and procedure codes. Patients were stratified by those who underwent bowel resection versus no resection. Bowel resection patients were further stratified by those who underwent MOABP versus no bowel preparation. Patient demographics, tumor data, and perioperative metrics were collected. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression evaluated odds of 30-day postoperative complications in patients with bowel resection versus no resection and those with MOABP versus no bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Of 919 patients identified, 215 (23.3%) required bowel resection, which included 81 (37.7%) who received MOABP. Patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and cancer data were similar between MOABP versus no bowel preparation patients. MOABP patients underwent more interval CRS (34.6% versus 9.0%), more optimal surgical resections (96.3% versus 83.8%), fewer diverting ostomies (13.5% versus 33.5%), and shorter hospital stays (7.1 versus 9.4 days) than no bowel preparation patients. On adjusted analyses, MOABP patients experienced significantly lower odds of deep/organ-space surgical infections and 30-day readmissions but higher odds of unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and grade 3 or higher cardiac and gastrointestinal complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent preoperative MOABP prior to ovarian cancer CRS with bowel resection had lower odds or deep/organ-space infections and readmissions, shorter hospital stays, fewer diverting ostomies, and more optimal resections. However, these patients also experienced higher odds of ICU admissions and grade 3 or higher cardiac and gastrointestinal complications. The positive and negative postoperative outcomes in this population should be considered in clinical practice.

Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Reduces Surgical Site Infection and Anastomotic Leakage in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical-site infection (SSI) and anastomotic leakage (AL) are major complications following surgical resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC). The beneficial effect of prophylactic oral antibiotics (OABs) on AL in particular is inconsistent. We investigated the impact of OABs on AL rates and on SSI.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of recent RCTs and cohort studies was performed including patients undergoing elective CRC surgery, receiving OABs with or without mechanical bowel preparation (MBP). Primary outcomes were rates of SSI and AL. Secondarily, rates of SSI and AL were compared in broad-spectrum OABs and selective OABs (selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD)) subgroups.

RESULTS

Eight studies (seven RCTs and one cohort study) with a total of 2497 patients were included. Oral antibiotics combined with MBP was associated with a significant reduction in SSI (RR = 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.69), I² = 1.03%) and AL rates (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91, I² = 0.00%), compared to MBP alone. A subgroup analysis demonstrated that SDD resulted in a significant reduction in AL rates compared to broad-spectrum OABs (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.91), I² = 0.00%).

CONCLUSION

OABs in addition to MBP reduces SSI and AL rates in patients undergoing elective CRC surgery and, more specifically, SDD appears to be more effective compared to broad-spectrum OABs in reducing AL.

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.

Risk Factors for Prolonged Postoperative Ileus in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) represents a frequent complication following colorectal surgery, affecting approximately 10-15% of these patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perioperative risk factors for PPOI development in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. PubMed, EMBASE, SciELO, and LILACS databases were searched, without language or time restrictions, from inception until December 2018. The keywords used were: Ileus, colon, colorectal, sigmoid, rectal, postoperative, postoperatory, surgery, risk, factors. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Jadad scale were used for bias assessment, while the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment of evidence on outcome levels.

RESULTS

Of the 64 studies included, 42 were evaluated in the meta-analysis, comprising 29,736 patients (51.84% males; mean age 62 years), of whom 2844 (9.56%) developed PPOI. Significant risk factors for PPOI development were: male sex (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.25-1.63), age (MD 3.17; 95% CI 1.63-4.71), cardiac comorbidities (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.19-2.00), previous abdominal surgery (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.19, 1.75), laparotomy (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.77-3.44), and ostomy creation (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.04-1.98). Included studies evidenced a moderate heterogeneity. The quality of evidence was regarded as very low-moderate according to the GRADE approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple factors, including demographic characteristics, past medical history, and surgical approach, may increase the risk of developing PPOI in colorectal surgery patients. The awareness of these will allow a more accurate assessment of PPOI risk in order to take measures to decrease its impact on this population.

The intersection of tumor location and combined bowel preparation: Utilization differs but anastomotic leak risk reduction does not

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Whether bowel preparation utilization rates or effectiveness varies based on tumor location is unknown.

METHODS

The 2012-2016 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Colectomy Targeted participant user file was queried for patients undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer. Bowel preparation was classified as combined, mechanical bowel preparation alone, oral antibiotic alone, or none. Cochran-Armitage tests were used for trend analysis. Multivariable analyses stratified by tumor location were performed for the outcome of anastomotic leak. An additional multivariable model including all tumor locations assessed for interaction between bowel preparation and tumor location on an anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

A total of 29,739 operations were included and the anastomotic leak rate was 1.9% with combined preparation versus 4.0% without preparation. Combined bowel preparation utilization increased over time as tumor location became more distal (both p < .0001). However, the adjusted effect of combined bowel preparation on anastomotic leak risk reduction did not differ by individual tumor location or across all tumor locations (p = .43 for interaction).

CONCLUSION

Though the utilization rate of combined bowel preparation increased as tumor location became more distal, its risk-reducing effect remained similar. Quality improvement initiatives should focus on increased utilization of combined bowel preparation with an emphasis on tumors in the ascending colon.

A comparison between limited bowel preparation and comprehensive bowel preparation in radical cystectomy with ileal urinary diversion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Our aim is to evaluate the value of limited bowel preparation (LBP) in radical cystectomy (RC) with ileal urinary diversion (IUD).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on electronic database up to February 2020. All data were analyzed using RevMan5 (version 5.3). A subgroup analysis comparing the efficacy of CBP and no bowel preparation (NBP) was also performed.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 743 patients were finally enrolled for statistical analysis. According to the meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between LBP group and comprehensive bowel preparation (CBP) group, concerning operative time (p = 0.79), length of stay (p = 0.46), the time to first toleration of clear liquids (p = 0.95), and overall complications (p = 0.29). However, the time to first bowel activity (SMD: - 0.77, 95% CI - 1.47 to - 0.07, p = 0.03), risk of fever (RR: 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.85, p = 0.008), time to first flatus (SMD: - 1.06, 95% CI - 2.02 to - 0.10, p = 0.03), and risk of wound healing disorders (RR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.95, p = 0.03) were significantly lower in LBP group compared with CBP group. Subgroup analysis showed a significant lower risk of wound healing disorders in favor of NBP (RR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence indicated that LBP protocols might accelerate recovery of gastrointestinal function, promote wound healing, and reduce the risk of fever without increasing complications in patients undergoing RC with IUD. Besides, bowel preparation also did not hinder wound healing. Further, well-designed RCTs conducted by experienced surgeons are warranted before making the final clinical guidelines.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Prevention of severe infectious complications after colorectal surgery using oral non-absorbable antimicrobial prophylaxis: results of a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common complications after colorectal surgery. Oral non-absorbable antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) can be administered preoperatively to reduce the risk of SSIs. Its efficacy without simultaneous mechanical cleaning is unknown.

METHODS

The Precaution trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in six Dutch hospitals. Adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery were randomized to receive either a three-day course of preoperative OAP with tobramycin and colistin or placebo. The primary composite endpoint was the incidence of deep SSI or mortality within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included both infectious and non-infectious complications at 30 days and six months after surgery.

RESULTS

The study was prematurely ended due to the loss of clinical equipoise. At that time, 39 patients had been randomized to active OAP and 39 to placebo, which reflected 8.1% of the initially pursued sample size. Nine (11.5%) patients developed the primary outcome, of whom four had been randomized to OAP (4/39; 10.3%) and five to placebo (5/39; 12.8%). This corresponds to a risk ratio in the intention-to-treat analysis of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-2.78). In the per-protocol analysis, the relative risk was 0.64 (95% CI 0.12-3.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Observational data emerging during the study provided new evidence for the effectiveness of OAP that changed both the clinical and medical ethical landscape for infection prevention in colorectal surgery. We therefore consider it unethical to continue randomizing patients to placebo. We recommend the implementation of OAP in clinical practice and continuing monitoring of infection rates and antibiotic susceptibilities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The PreCaution trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register under NL5932 (previously: NTR6113) as well as in the EudraCT register under 2015-005736-17.

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus no bowel preparation for elective colectomy (MOBILE): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, single-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

Decreased surgical site infections (SSIs) and morbidity have been reported with mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) compared with no bowel preparation (NBP) in colonic surgery. Several societies have recommended routine use of MOABP in patients undergoing colon resection on the basis of these data. Our aim was to investigate this recommendation in a prospective randomised context.

METHODS

In this multicentre, parallel, single-blinded trial, patients undergoing colon resection were randomly assigned (1:1) to either MOABP or NBP in four hospitals in Finland, using a web-based randomisation technique. Randomly varying block sizes (four, six, and eight) were used for randomisation, and stratification was done according to centre. The recruiters, treating physicians, operating surgeons, data collectors, and analysts were masked to the allocated treatment. Key exclusion criteria were need for emergency surgery; bowel obstruction; colonoscopy planned during surgery; allergy to polyethylene glycol, neomycin, or metronidazole; and age younger than 18 years or older than 95 years. Study nurses opened numbered opaque envelopes containing the patient allocated group, and instructed the patients according to the allocation group to either prepare the bowel, or not prepare the bowel. Patients allocated to MOABP prepared their bowel by drinking 2 L of polyethylene glycol and 1 L of clear fluid before 6 pm on the day before surgery and took 2 g of neomycin orally at 7 pm and 2 g of metronidazole orally at 11 pm the day before surgery. The primary outcome was SSI within 30 days after surgery, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who were randomly allocated to and underwent elective colon resection with an anastomosis) along with safety analyses. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02652637, and EudraCT, 2015-004559-38, and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Between March 17, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 738 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of the 417 patients who were randomised (209 to MOABP and 208 to NBP), 13 in the MOABP group and eight in the NBP were excluded before undergoing colonic resection; therefore, the modified intention-to-treat analysis included 396 patients (196 for MOABP and 200 for NBP). SSI was detected in 13 (7%) of 196 patients randomised to MOABP, and in 21 (11%) of 200 patients randomised to NBP (odds ratio 1·65, 95% CI 0·80-3·40; p=0·17). Anastomotic dehiscence was reported in 7 (4%) of 196 patients in the MOABP group and in 8 (4%) of 200 in the NBP group, and reoperations were necessary in 16 (8%) of 196 compared with 13 (7%) of 200 patients. Two patients died in the NBP group and none in the MOABP group within 30 days.

INTERPRETATION

MOABP does not reduce SSIs or the overall morbidity of colon surgery compared with NBP. We therefore propose that the current recommendations of using MOABP for colectomies to reduce SSIs or morbidity should be reconsidered.

FUNDING

Vatsatautien Tutkimussäätiö Foundation, Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth's Foundation, and Helsinki University Hospital research funds.

Oral antibiotics prior to colorectal surgery: Do they have to be combined with mechanical bowel preparation?

To reduce the of risk infection after colorectal surgery, oral antibiotic preparation (OAP) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) can be applied. Whether OAP can be used without MBP is unclear. A meta-analysis of observational studies demonstrated comparable effectiveness of OAP with and without MBP regarding SSI risk.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Preoperative bowel conditioning]

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal surgery is still associated with a relevant morbidity with the intestinal microbiome being of high importance in the pathogenesis of infectious complications. Various approaches, such as mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) with or without administration of oral antibiotics, fasting or dietary supplements aim at modulating the intestinal flora.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes the current literature pertinent to the influence of preoperative bowel conditioning on postoperative morbidity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was performed using the mentioned keywords with a focus on recent meta-analyses.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Bowel conditioning reduces postoperative infectious complications. Promising approaches are MBP plus administration of oral antibiotics, dietary supplements aiming at stabilization of the intestinal flora as well as the screening for and equilibration of malnutrition. The use of MBP as monotherapy without antibiotics should no longer be considered part of the clinical routine.

Outcome of no oral antibiotic prophylaxis and bowel preparation in Crohn's diseases surgery

BACKGROUND

Recent studies support the use of mechanical bowel preparation and/or oral antibiotic prophylaxis in patients operated on for Crohn's disease (CD); however, data are scarce, especially for laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, this study was carried out to investigate the effect of laparoscopic surgery on complication rates in patients not undergoing standardized bowel preparation but single shot antibiotics.

METHODS

In this study 255 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic intestinal resection for CD at a tertiary referral center between 1997 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Superficial surgical site infections (SSI), organ/space infections and ileus were recorded and grouped according to the type of resection (colorectal vs. small intestine ± ileocecal).

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the groups were comparable. Colorectal resections showed a significantly increased risk of organ/space infection (4.6% in small intestine ± ileocecal vs. 14.3% in colorectal resections p = 0.039). The superficial SSI rate was low in both groups (1.8% in small intestine ± ileocecal resection vs. 0% in colorectal resections, p = 1.000). Univariate binary logistic regression analysis revealed a statistically significant influence of duration of surgery (p = 0.001) and type of resection (p = 0.031) on organ/space infection. In multivariate analysis, only duration of surgery (OR 1.111, 95% CI 1.026-1.203 for every 10 min, p = 0.009) remained significant for postoperative organ/space infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-shot antibiotic therapy without bowel preparation is safe in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery and was associated with a low number of complications; however, organ/space infections were more common if colorectal resections were performed. Therefore, combined bowel preparation might be beneficial when the (sigmoid) colon or rectum are involved.

Prophylactic closed-incision negative-pressure wound therapy is associated with decreased surgical site infection in high-risk colorectal surgery laparotomy wounds

AIM

Surgical site infection in colorectal surgery is associated with significant healthcare costs, which may be reduced by using a closed-incision negative-pressure therapy device. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy on the incidence of surgical site infection.

METHOD

In this retrospective cohort study we evaluated all patients who had undergone high-risk open colorectal surgery at a single tertiary care centre from 2012 to 2016. We compared the incidence of surgical site infection between those receiving standard postoperative wound care between 2012 and 2014 and those receiving closed-incision negative-pressure therapy via a customizable device (Prevena Incision Management System, KCI, an Acelity company, San Antonio, Texas, USA) between 2014 and 2016. A validated surgical site infection risk score was used to create a 1:1 matched cohort subset.

RESULTS

Negative pressure therapy was used in 77 patients and compared with 238 controls. Negative pressure patients were more likely to have a stoma (92% vs 48%, P < 0.01) and to be smokers (33% vs 15%, P < 0.01). Surgical site infection was higher in control patients (15%, n = 35/238) compared with negative pressure patients (7%, n = 5/77) (P = 0.05). On regression analysis, negative pressure therapy was associated with decreased surgical site infection (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09-0.78). These differences persisted in the matched analysis.

CONCLUSION

Negative pressure therapy was associated with decreased surgical site infection. Negative pressure therapy offers significant potential for quality improvement.

Clinical outcomes following mechanical plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus oral antibiotics alone in patients undergoing colorectal surgery

Background

Despite growing evidence to support use of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) compared with MBP alone or no bowel preparation before colorectal surgery, evidence supporting use of MBP plus OABP relative to OABP alone is lacking. This study aimed to investigate whether the addition of MBP to OABP was associated with improved clinical outcomes after colorectal surgery compared with outcomes following OABP alone.

Methods

Patients who underwent colorectal surgery and preoperative bowel preparation with either OABP alone or MBP plus OABP were identified using the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Colectomy Targeted Participant Use Data File for 2012-2015. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were compared, estimating the average treatment effect with propensity score matching and inverse probability-weighted regression adjustment.

Results

In the final study population of 20 594 patients, 90·2 per cent received MBP plus OABP and 9·8 per cent received OABP alone. Patients who received MBP plus OABP had a lower incidence of superficial surgical-site infection (SSI), organ space SSI, any SSI, postoperative ileus, sepsis, unplanned reoperation and mortality, and a shorter length of hospital stay (all P < 0·050). After propensity score matching and inverse probability-weighted regression adjusted analysis, MBP plus OABP was associated with a reduction in superficial SSI, any SSI, postoperative ileus and unplanned reoperation (all P < 0·050).

Conclusions

Use of MBP plus OABP before colectomy was associated with reduced SSI, postoperative ileus, sepsis and unplanned reoperations, and shorter length of hospital stay compared with OABP alone.

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.