The comparison of saline enema and bisacodyl in rectal preparation before anorectal surgery

The necessity of preoperative enema preparation for hemorrhoidal surgery: a single-center comparative study

BACKGROUND

Hemorrhoidal surgery is a common treatment for high-grade hemorrhoids. The necessity of preoperative enema preparation (PEP) in hemorrhoidal surgery is inconclusive. This study aims to evaluate the benefit and safety of PEP in hemorrhoidal surgery.

METHODS

This comparative study analyzed data from electronic medical record database and outpatient questionnaire archive. Data of patients who underwent hemorrhoidal surgery from March 2020 to February 2021 were obtained. Patients were allocated to either the PEP or non-PEP group. Primary outcome measurements were postoperative pain and oral analgesic use. Secondary outcomes were the number of days until first defecation, length of hospital stay, time to return to work, incidence of urinary retention, delayed bleeding, and local infection.

RESULTS

Data of 270 consecutive patients, with 130 and 140 in the PEP and non-PEP groups, respectively, who underwent hemorrhoidal surgery were analyzed. Most patients underwent stapled hemorrhoidopexy, with 106 (81.54%) in PEP group and 113 (80.71%) in non-PEP group. The mean pain score was significantly higher in PEP than in non-PEP group at day 0 (6.21 ± 3.23 vs 5.31 ± 3.14), day 1 (5.79 ± 2.89 vs 4.68 ± 3.02), and day 2 (5.35 ± 2.86 vs 4.42 ± 2.76). No significant differences in postoperative recovery or complications rate were noted between groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings revealed that performing PEP before hemorrhoidal surgery produced no benefit when compared with not performing PEP. Typically, the procedure of PEP is inconvenient and discomforting for patients. Therefore, we suggest that it can be omitted in hemorrhoidal surgery.

Randomized clinical trial on the use of a colon-occlusion device to assist rectal washout

Background

Transrectal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery is currently limited by the inherent risk of surgical site infection due to peritoneal contamination after rectotomy. Coloshield has been developed as a temporary colon occlusion device to facilitate rectal washout. However, effectiveness and safety has not been evaluated in humans.

Methods

Twenty-two patients have been randomly assigned to undergo proctological intervention with a rectal washout with and without the use of Coloshield. Patients and assessors were blinded. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) has been determined 30 min as well as immediately after rectal washout. Feasibility, pain, intra- and postoperative morbidity as well as bowel function and continence 6 weeks after surgery were assessed.

Results

BBPS 30 min after rectal washout with and without Coloshield was in mean 2.42 ± 1.02 and 2.12 ± 0.89 (p = 0.042). Mean BBPS immediately after rectal washout was 2.39 ± 1.02 and 2.24 ± 0.66 (p = 0.269). Mean BBPS immediately after rectal washout and 30 min thereafter did not differ (p = 0.711). Coloshield application was feasible without any complications. The median (interquartile range) numeric rating scale for pain 4 h after surgery was 1 (0–1) and 3 (0–4) (p = 0.212). Six weeks after surgery 0/11 and 1/11 patients suffered from evacuation difficulties (p = 1.0) and the median Vaizey–Wexner score was 1 (0–3) and 1 (0–2) (p = 0.360).

Conclusions

Coloshield application in humans is feasible and safe. Slight benefits in rectal preparation by washout are found when Coloshield is used. Colon occlusion by Coloshield for transrectal NOTES should be evaluated within clinical studies.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02579330