Preparar el colon para la cirugía. ¿Necesidad real o nada más (y nada menos) que el peso de la tradición?

Oncologic colorectal surgical site infection: oral or not oral antibiotic preparation, that is the question

PURPOSE

Surgical wound infection is the most frequent postoperative complication in abdominal surgery, especially at the colorectal level. The aim of this study is analysing the results of mechanical colon preparation combined with oral antibiotic versus mechanical colon preparation without antibiotic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing elective surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study had been developed from November 2017 to February 2020. We have included a total of 281 consecutive patients undergoing elective colon and rectal oncological surgeries by the same surgical group using laparoscopic and open approaches. Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) approaches were excluded. Exposed patients undergoing colon and rectal cancer surgery received mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics with three doses of neomycin 1 g and erythromycin 500 mg the day before surgery.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was reduction in surgical wound infection rates before and after starting the oral antibiotic therapy from 17 to 6% (p < 0.05). As a secondary analysis, we evaluated the anastomotic dehiscence rate, corresponding with a decrease from 12 to 3% (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotic therapy is still not unanimously carried out in all the medical hospitals. In this report, we show that mechanical bowel preparation in combination with oral antibiotic reduces the risk of surgical wound infection and anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing colon and rectal cancer surgery.

[Selective intestinal preparation in a multimodal rehabilitation program. Influence on preoperative comfort and the results after colorectal surgery]

INTRODUCTION

Despite there being no evidence of the advantages of its use, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to be routine in colorectal surgery. Our objective is to analyse the impact of its selective use, as regards patient comfort and results, comparing a perioperative multimodal rehabilitation program (MMRH) with conventional care (CC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective study of 108 patients proposed for elective surgery, assigned consecutively 2:1 to an MMRH protocol which only included MBP in rectal surgery with low anastomosis, or to CC in whom MBP was used except in right colon surgery. We also studied two Groups (A and B) with and without the use of MBP. Their tolerance, results and postoperative recovery variables were analysed.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were included in Group A, and 69 in Group B. A MMRH protocol was used in another 69 patients. The Group A patients had more abdominal pain, anal discomfort, nausea and thirst, but there were no differences as regards, death, overall or local complications, whilst there was less complications, suture failures and death in the MMRH when compared with CC Group (P<.05). There were no advantages observed in the use of MBP as regards the start of bowel movements, tolerance to diet or hospital stay, but these parameters were favourable to the MMRH when compared with CC Group.

CONCLUSIONS

The restriction of MBP is safe, and associated with an MMRH program, contributes to a faster and more comfortable recovery, without increasing complications.

[A prospective, randomised, controlled study on the need to mechanically prepare the colon in scheduled colorectal surgery]

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical preparation of the colon (MPC) in colorectal surgery has been a dogma that has been questioned over the last few years. The objective of this study is to demonstrate that morbidity in scheduled colorectal surgery is the same or lower without MPC.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Patients subjected to scheduled left colon and rectal surgery with primary anastomosis randomised into two groups. The "Preparation" group (MPC) received MPC and the "non-preparation" group (No-MPC) had only cleaning enemas. The variables collected were: demographic, oncological, nutritional, risk prediction models and morbidity-mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 193 patients included: 69 received MPC and 71 did not; 89 patients with colocolic anastomosis (MPC, 38; no MPC, 51) and 50 colorectal (MPC, 31; no MPC, 19). Statistically significant differences were seen in the overall analysis in favour of "no preparation" as regards morbidity (43.55 % with MPC and 27% with No MPC) and nosocomial infection (27.5% and 11.4%). There was 11.6% wound infections in the MPC compared to 5.7% in the no MPC, which was not statistically significant. The only mortalities were in the MPC group 2/69 (2.9% of patients). As regards the location of the anastomosis, in the colocolics the differences were more pronounced, with statistically significant differences in the morbidity, anastomosis dehiscence, and nosocomial infection variables. The effect of no MPC was not so evident in colorectal anastomosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that there is no benefit in MPC before surgery in colocolic anastomosis. No-MPC is not associated with a higher morbidity in wound infection or anastomotic dehiscence. In colorectal anastomosis the differences are not so evident, therefore a much bigger series needs to be studied.

[A prospective, randomised, controlled study on the need to mechanically prepare the colon in scheduled colorectal surgery]

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical preparation of the colon (MPC) in colorectal surgery has been a dogma that has been questioned over the last few years. The objective of this study is to demonstrate that morbidity in scheduled colorectal surgery is the same or lower without MPC.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Patients subjected to scheduled left colon and rectal surgery with primary anastomosis randomised into two groups. The "Preparation" group (MPC) received MPC and the "non-preparation" group (No-MPC) had only cleaning enemas. The variables collected were: demographic, oncological, nutritional, risk prediction models and morbidity-mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 193 patients included: 69 received MPC and 71 did not; 89 patients with colocolic anastomosis (MPC, 38; no MPC, 51) and 50 colorectal (MPC, 31; no MPC, 19). Statistically significant differences were seen in the overall analysis in favour of "no preparation" as regards morbidity (43.55 % with MPC and 27% with No MPC) and nosocomial infection (27.5% and 11.4%). There was 11.6% wound infections in the MPC compared to 5.7% in the no MPC, which was not statistically significant. The only mortalities were in the MPC group 2/69 (2.9% of patients). As regards the location of the anastomosis, in the colocolics the differences were more pronounced, with statistically significant differences in the morbidity, anastomosis dehiscence, and nosocomial infection variables. The effect of no MPC was not so evident in colorectal anastomosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that there is no benefit in MPC before surgery in colocolic anastomosis. No-MPC is not associated with a higher morbidity in wound infection or anastomotic dehiscence. In colorectal anastomosis the differences are not so evident, therefore a much bigger series needs to be studied.

[Retrospective analysis of the use of the Spanish words severo and severidad in CIRUGIA ESPANOLA during 2007]

INTRODUCTION

The Spanish words severo (severe) and severidad (severity) are usually used as a synonyms of grave (serious) and gravedad (seriousness), although the Spanish Royal Academy of Language (Real Academia Española [RAE]) specifically recommends not to use them in this sense. A retrospective analysis to evaluate the use of the words severo and severidad in Cirugía Española during 2007 was performed.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

All the articles published in Cirugía Española during 2007 were reviewed. The articles in which severo and/or severidad were present were selected. For each article, the month of publication, the type of article, the geographic origin and the exact sentence containing these words were analyzed. Correctness and incorrectness of their use was studied according to the RAE normative.

RESULTS

A total of 33 articles were selected. Every month (except for January) had, at least, 2 articles. Thirty-one of the articles were from Spain whereas 2 were from Hispano-America. Eleven cases were original articles, 7 reviews, 6 case reports, 3 editorials, 3 special articles and 3 letters to the editor.

CONCLUSIONS

The Spanish words severo and severidad are inadequately used too often in scientific texts. It must be avoided using them as a synonym of grave, importante or serio, incorrect translations of the English word severe.

Rehabilitación mutimodal en cirugía colorrectal. Sobre la resistencia al cambio en cirugía y las demandas de la sociedad

Perioperative management is one of the fields of surgery most hide bound by tradition and conventional attitudes are difficult to modify even in the face of strong scientific evidence. One of the advances that has most helped to improve the results of colorectal surgery is multimodal or fast-track rehabilitation, which aims to enhance recovery, reduce morbidity, and shorten the length of hospital stay. This modality is based on a multidisciplinary approach provided by surgeons, anesthesiologists and other staff and aims to decrease the response to physiopathological changes induced by surgical aggression. There is evidence to support the use of preoperative oral carbohydrate therapy and oral bowel preparation, the avoidance of intraoperative fluid excess, and the maintenance of normothermia on postoperative recovery. Other factors that can also reduce complications are epidural analgesia, avoidance of drainage and nasogastric decompression, early oral feeding, and minimally invasive surgery. There is strong evidence that the combined use of these and other measures enhances postsurgical recovery, although many of these measures are currently little used in daily practice.