Use of bowel preparation does not reduce postoperative infectious morbidity following minimally invasive or open hysterectomies

Reduction in deep organ-space infection in gynecologic oncology surgery with use of oral antibiotic bowel preparation: a retrospective cohort analysis

CONTEXT

Deep organ-space infection (OSI) following gynecologic surgery is a source of patient morbidity and mortality. There is currently conflicting evidence regarding the use of bowel preparation prior to gynecologic surgery to reduce the rates of infection. For the additional purpose of improving patient recovery at our own institution, a retrospective cohort study compared the rate of deep OSI in patients who received oral antibiotic bowel preparation per Nichols-Condon bowel preparation with metronidazole and neomycin.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to compare the rate of deep organ-space surgical site infection in gynecologic surgery before and after institution of an oral antibiotic bowel preparation, thus assessing whether the preparation is associated with decreased infection rate. The secondary objective was to identify other factors associated with deep organ-space site infection.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed. Demographic and surgical data were collected via chart review of 1,017 intra-abdominal surgeries performed by gynecologic oncologists at a single institution from April 1, 2019 to December 1, 2021. Of these, 778 met the inclusion criteria; 444 did not receive preoperative oral antibiotic bowel preparation, and 334 did receive preoperative bowel preparation. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated, and a logistic regression model was utilized for categorical variables. Multivariable regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 778 patients were included. Deep OSI rate in patients who did not receive oral antibiotic bowel preparation was 2.3 % compared to 0.3 % (OR 0.13, confidence interval [CI] 0.06-1.03, p=0.02) in patients who did. Receiving oral antibiotic bowel preparation predicted absence of deep OSI (OR 0.04, CI 0.00-0.87, p=0.04). Laparotomy (OR 20.1, CI 1.6-250.2, p=0.02) and Asian race (OR 60.8, CI 2.6-1,380.5, p=0.01) were related to increased rates of deep OSI.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral antibiotic bowel preparation predicts a reduced risk of deep OSI. This preparation is inexpensive and low-risk, and thus these clinically significant results support a promising regimen to improve surgical outcomes, and provide guidance for prospective larger studies.

Preoperative Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Gynecologic Surgeries: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before benign laparoscopic or vaginal gynecologic surgeries.

DATA SOURCES

Database searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Sciences and citations and reference lists published up to December 2021.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials in any language comparing MBP with no preparation were included. Two reviewers independently screened 925 records and extracted data from 12 selected articles and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials tool. A random-effects model was used for the analysis. Surgeon findings (surgical field view, quality of bowel handling and bowel preparation), operative outcomes (blood loss, operative time, length of stay, surgical site infection), and patient's preoperative symptoms and satisfaction were collected.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Thirteen studies (1715 patients) assessing oral and rectal preparations before laparoscopic and vaginal gynecologic surgeries were included. No significant differences were observed with or without MBP on surgical field view (primary outcome, risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.05, p = .66, I2 = 0%), bowel handling (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95-1.08, p = .78, I2 = 67%), or bowel preparation. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in perioperative findings. MBP was associated with increased pain (mean difference [MD] 11.62[2.80-20.44], I2 = 76, p = .01), weakness (MD 10.73[0.60-20.87], I2 = 94, p = .04), hunger (MD 17.52 [8.04-27.00], I2 = 83, p = .0003), insomnia (MD 10.13[0.57-19.68], I2 = 82, p = .04), and lower satisfaction (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.87, I2 = 76%, p = .002) compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

MBP has not been associated with improved surgical field view, bowel handling, or operative outcome. However, in view of the adverse effects induced, its routine use before benign gynecologic surgeries should be abandoned.

AUGS-IUGA Joint Clinical Consensus Statement on Enhanced Recovery After Urogynecologic Surgery: Developed by the Joint Writing Group of the International Urogynecological Association and the American Urogynecologic Society. Individual writing group members are noted in the Acknowledgements section

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) evidence-based protocols for perioperative care can lead to improvements in clinical outcomes and cost savings. This article aims to present consensus recommendations for the optimal perioperative management of patients undergoing urogynecological surgery.

METHODS

A review of meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, large nonrandomized studies, and review articles was conducted via PubMed and other databases for ERAS and urogynecological surgery. ERAS protocol components were established, and then quality of the evidence was both graded and used to form consensus recommendations for each topic. These recommendations were developed and endorsed by the writing group, which is comprised of the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association members.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS protocol items are based on best available evidence. The level of evidence for each item is presented accordingly. The components of ERAS with a high level of evidence to support their use include fasting for 6 h and taking clear fluids up to 2 h preoperatively, euvolemia, normothermia, surgical site preparation, antibiotic and antithrombotic prophylaxis, strong antiemetics and dexamethasone to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting, multimodal analgesia and restrictive use of opiates, use of chewing gum to reduce ileus, removal of catheter as soon as feasible after surgery and avoiding systematic use of drains/vaginal packs.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base and recommendations for a urogynecology-relevant ERAS perioperative care pathway are presented in this consensus review. There are several elements of ERAS with strong evidence of benefit in urogynecological surgery.

Comparative evaluation of enema alone and in combination with oral polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before transvaginal pelvic floor reconstruction in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort study

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the value of using an enema alone for mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before transvaginal pelvic floor reconstruction (TPFR) in patients ≥65 years old. In total, 190 patients were included [81 in the enema group vs. 109 in the enema + polyethylene glycol (PEG) group]. The levels of serum potassium (p = .004) and calcium (p = .005) were higher in the enema group after surgery. The decrease in serum calcium was more significant in the enema + PEG group (p = .027). More patients in the enema + PEG group developed hypokalaemia (p = .035) or hypocalcaemia (p = .008) after surgery. The incidence of thrombus and surgical site infection was similar and earlier bowel movement was evident in the enema group (p = .000). Overall, the enema group used more laxatives (p = .026). Using enema alone before TPFR reduces the incidence of electrolyte disturbances with no increase in surgical complications in elderly patients.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? TPFR is an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in elderly women. Bowel preparation performed before gynecological surgery can reduce surgical site infection, but increase discomfort and electrolyte disturbance.What do the results of this study add? The levels of serum potassium and calcium were lower in the enema + PEG group than in the enema group after surgery and more patients developed hypokalaemia or hypocalcaemia in the enema + PEG group. The incidence of thrombus and surgical site infection was similar between the two groups. Bowel movement was earlier in the enema group.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or future research? Using enema alone before TPFR reduces the incidence of electrolyte disturbance and does not increase surgical complications. This conclusion needs to be confirmed by random controlled trial studies in the future.