Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre randomised trial

Advances in Bowel Preparation and Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Open and Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery

Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent a major source of postoperative complications adversely impacting morbidity and mortality indices in surgical care. The discovery of antibiotics in the mid-20th century, and their ensuing use for preoperative antimicrobial bowel preparation and prophylaxis, drastically reduced the occurrence of SSIs providing a major tool to surgeons of various specialties, including urology. Because, the appropriate use of these antimicrobials is critical for their continued safety and efficacy, an understanding of the recommendations guiding their application is essential for all surgeons. Here, we comprehensively review these recommendations with a focus on open and laparoscopic urologic surgeries.

Pre-Operative Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect the Impact of Anastomosis Leakage in Left-Side Colorectal Surgery-A Single Center Observational Study

Despite rapid advances in colorectal surgery, morbidity and mortality rates in elective gastrointestinal surgery play a significant role. For decades, there have been tempestuous discussions on preventative measures to minimize the risk of anastomotic dehiscence. When mechanical bowel preparation before an elective procedure, one of the key hypotheses, was introduced into practice, it was assumed that it would decrease the number of infectious complications and anastomotic dehiscence. The advancements in antibiotic treatment supported the concomitant administration of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation. In the prospective study conducted at our clinic, we performed left-side colorectal procedures without prior mechanical preparation. All patients enrolled in the study underwent the surgery and were observed in the 3rd Surgical Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia, from January 2019 to January 2020. As a control group, we used a similar group of patients with MBP. Our observed group included 87 patients with tumors in the left part of their large intestine (lineal flexure, descendent colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum). Dixon laparoscopic resection was performed in 26 patients. Sigmoid laparoscopic resection was performed in 27 patients. In 12 patients, the procedure was started laparoscopically but had to be converted due to adverse anatomical conditions. The conservative approaches mostly included Dixon resections (19 patients), sigmoid colon resections (5 patients), left-side hemicolectomies (6 patients), and Miles' tumor resections, with rectal amputation (4 patients). Our study highlighted the fact that MBP does not have an unequivocal benefit for patients with colorectal infection, which has an impact on the development of anastomotic dehiscence.

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.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic segmental left colectomy for splenic flexure cancer - a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 342 cases

INTRODUCTION

While intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) has been widely used in totally laparoscopic right colectomy, its application in laparoscopic segmental left colectomy for splenic flexure cancer remains underexplored, particularly in large-scale studies with long-term outcomes. This research aims to assess the technical feasibility and oncological efficacy of IA in treating colonic splenic flexure carcinoma, drawing insights from both short-term and long-term outcomes of a retrospective cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 342 patients diagnosed with colonic splenic flexure carcinoma in three Chinese medical centers. These patients underwent laparoscopic segmental left colectomy between December 2014 and December 2019 across three medical institutions. Comprehensive data encompassing demographics, disease features, pathological characteristics, operative details, and both short-term and long-term outcomes were gathered and scrutinized. Using propensity scores, each patient from the IA cohort was paired with a counterpart from the extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) cohort.

RESULTS

IA was performed on 129 patients, while 213 underwent EA. Post-propensity score matching resulted in 129 matched pairs. After matching, many baseline characteristics were balanced. The IA cohort exhibited several advantages, including shorter incision lengths ( P <0.001) and more extensive proximal and distal resection margins ( P =0.003, P <0.001). Additionally, the IA method facilitated a more rapid postoperative recovery as indicated by quicker return of bowel movements (resumption of passing flatus [2.7 (1.0-7.0) days vs. 3.3 (2.0-8.0) days, P <0.001] and defecation [3.7 (1.0-9.0)] days vs. 4.5 (2.0-9.0) days, P <0.001]), faster discharges [6.6 (3.0-15.0) days vs. 8.3 (5.0-20.0) days, P <0.001], and decreased need for rescue analgesics ( P <0.001). The rate of postoperative complications, as rated by the Clavien-Dindo classification, remained consistent across both techniques ( P =0.087). Furthermore, the cosmetic outcome rated by Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire and Scoring System (PSAQ) was markedly superior in the IA group ( P <0.001). Both approaches demonstrated equivalent 5-year overall (82.7% vs. 82.1%, P =0.419) and disease-free survival (80.9% vs. 78.1%, P =0.476). Subsequent stratification analysis revealed that IA achieved comparable 5-year overall (80.7% vs. 82.0%, P =0.647) and disease-free survival (78.1% vs. 76.4%, P =0.734) in patients with locally advanced colon cancer.

CONCLUSION

Employing IA for laparoscopic segmental left colectomy in cases of splenic flexure carcinoma is not only safe but also offers enhanced cosmetic results and expedited postoperative recovery. Oncologically speaking, IA in left segmental colectomy for splenic flexure carcinoma can yield therapeutic outcomes comparable to those of EA, even in patients with locally advanced colon cancer.

The Impact of Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics in Colorectal Cancer Surgery (MECCA Study): A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Colorectal cancer surgery has been associated with surgical site infections (SSIs), leading to an increase in postoperative morbidity, length of stay and total cost. The aim of the present randomized study was to investigate the relationship between the preoperative administration of oral antibiotic therapy and SSI rate, as well as other postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Material and Methods: Patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery in a university surgical department were included in the present study. Patients were randomized into two groups using the "block randomization" method. The intervention group received three doses of 400 mg rifaximin and one dose of 500 mg metronidazole per os, as well as mechanical bowel preparation the day before surgery. The control group underwent only mechanical bowel preparation the day before surgery. The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03563586). Results: Two hundred and five patients were finally included in the present study, 97 of whom received preoperative antibiotic therapy per os (intervention group). Patients of this group demonstrated a significantly lower SSI rate compared with patients who did not receive preoperative antibiotic therapy (7% vs. 16%, p = 0.049). However, preoperative antibiotic administration was not correlated with any other postoperative outcome (anastomotic leak, overall complications, readmissions, length of stay). Conclusions: Preoperative antibiotic therapy in combination with mechanical bowel preparation seemed to be correlated with a lower SSI rate after colorectal cancer surgery.

Mismatch of populations between randomised controlled trials of perioperative interventions in major abdominal surgery and current clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Demographics of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery are changing. External validity of relevant RCTs may be limited by participants not resembling patients encountered in clinical practice. We aimed to characterise differences in age, weight, BMI, and ASA grade between participants in perioperative trials in major abdominal surgery and patients in a reference real-world clinical practice sample. The secondary aim was to investigate whether time since trial publication was associated with increasing mismatch between these groups.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for multicentre RCTs from inception to September 2022. Studies of perioperative interventions in adults were included. Studies that limited enrolment based on age, weight, BMI, or ASA status were excluded. We compared trial cohort age, weight, BMI, and ASA distribution to those of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery at our tertiary referral hospital during September 2021 to September 2022. We used a local, single-institution reference sample to reflect the reality of clinical practice (i.e. patients treated by a clinician in their own hospital, rather than averaged nationally). Mismatch was defined using comparison of summary characteristics and ad hoc criteria based on differences relevant to predicted mortality risk after surgery.

RESULTS

One-hundred and six trials (44,499 participants) were compared to a reference cohort of 2792 clinical practice patients. Trials were published a median (IQR [range]) 13.4 (5-20 [0-35]) years ago. A total of 94.3% of trials were mismatched on at least one characteristic (age, weight, BMI, ASA). Recruitment of ASA 3 + participants in trials increased over time, and recruitment of ASA 1 participants decreased over time (Spearman's Rho 0.58 and - 0.44, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients encountered in our current local clinical practice are significantly different from those in our defined set of perioperative RCTs. Older trials recruit more low-risk than high-risk participants-trials may thus 'expire' over time. These trials may not be generalisable to current patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, and meta-analyses or guidelines incorporating these trials may therefore be similarly non-applicable. Comparison to local, rather than national cohorts, is important for meaningful on-the-ground evidence-based decision-making.

Identification of Risk Factors and Phenotypes of Surgical Site Infection in Patients After Abdominal Surgery

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the current incidence rate and risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) after abdominal surgery in China and to further demonstrate the clinical features of patients with SSI.

BACKGROUND

Contemporary epidemiology and clinical features of SSI after abdominal surgery remain poorly characterized.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted from March 2021 to February 2022; the study included patients who underwent abdominal surgery at 42 hospitals in China. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for SSI. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to explore the population characteristics of SSI.

RESULTS

In total, 23,982 patients were included in the study, of whom 1.8% developed SSI. There was a higher SSI incidence in open surgery (5.0%) than in laparoscopic or robotic surgeries (0.9%). Multivariable logistic regression indicated that the independent risk factors for SSI after abdominal surgery were older age, chronic liver disease, mechanical bowel preparation, oral antibiotic bowel preparation, colon or pancreas surgery, contaminated or dirty wounds, open surgery, and colostomy/ileostomy. LCA revealed 4 subphenotypes in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Types α and β were mild subclasses with a lower SSI incidence; whereas types γ and δ were the critical subgroups with a higher SSI incidence, but their clinical features were different.

CONCLUSIONS

LCA identified 4 subphenotypes in patients who underwent abdominal surgery. Types γ and δ were critical subgroups with a higher SSI incidence. This phenotype classification can be used to predict SSI after abdominal surgery.

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation using conventional versus hyperosmolar polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (TLUMP test): a phase III, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

A hyperosmolar ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol-electrolyte (ASC-PEG) lavage solution ensures excellent bowel preparation before colonoscopy; however, no study has demonstrated the efficacy of this lavage solution before surgery. This study aimed to establish the non-inferiority of ASC-PEG to the standard polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial. Overall, 188 patients scheduled for laparoscopic colorectal resection for single colorectal adenocarcinomas were randomly assigned to undergo preparation with different PEG solutions between August 2017 and April 2020 at four hospitals in Japan. Participants received ASC-PEG (Group A) or PEG-ELS (Group B) preoperatively. The primary endpoint was the ratio of successful bowel preparations using the modified Aronchick scale, defined as "excellent" or "good."

RESULTS

After exclusion, 86 and 87 patients in Groups A and B, respectively, completed the study, and their data were analyzed. ASC-PEG was not inferior to PEG-ELS in terms of effective bowel preparation prior to laparoscopic colorectal resection (0.93 vs. 0.92; 95% confidence interval, - 0.078 to 0.099, p = 0.007). The total volume of cleansing solution intake was lower in Group A than in Group B (1757.0 vs. 1970.1 mL). Two and three severe postoperative adverse events occurred in Groups A and B, respectively. Patient tolerance of the two solutions was almost equal.

CONCLUSIONS

ASC-PEG is effective for preoperative bowel preparation in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer and is non-inferior to PEG-ELS.

Effect of preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation on the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery, and does oral antibiotic regime matter? a bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Surgical site infection (SSI) impacts 5-20% of patients after elective colorectal surgery. There are varying reports on the effectiveness of oral antibiotics (OAB) with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in preventing SSI. We aim to determine the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI after elective colorectal surgery. We also determine if a specific OAB regimen will be more effective than others.

METHODS

This study investigated the impact of OAB and MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ACP Journal Club, and Embase databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published by June 2022. All RCTs comparing various preoperative bowel preparation regimens, including pairwise or multi-intervention comparisons, were included. To establish the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis on all RCTs. We further performed subgroup analysis to determine the most effective OAB regimen.

RESULTS

Among included 46 studies with a total of 12690 patients, patients in the MBP + OAB group were less likely to have SSI than those having MBP-only (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.39-0.76), and without MBP and OAB (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.32-0.84). OAB regimen C (kanamycin + metronidazole) and A (neomycin + metronidazole) demonstrated a significantly reduced incidence of SSI, compared to regimen B (neomycin + erythromycin) with OR 0.24 (95% CrI 0.07-0.79) and 0.26 (95% CrI 0.07-0.99) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

OAB with MBP reduces the risk of SSI after elective colorectal surgery. Providing adequate aerobic and anaerobic coverage with OAB may confer better protection against SSI.

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.

Bowel Preparation Before Nonelective Sigmoidectomy for Sigmoid Volvulus: Highly Beneficial but Vastly Underused

BACKGROUND

Although strong evidence exists for combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation before elective colorectal resection, the utility of preoperative bowel preparation for patients undergoing sigmoid resection after endoscopic decompression of sigmoid volvulus has not been previously examined. The goal of this study was to evaluate the association between bowel preparation and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing semielective, same-admission sigmoid resection for acute volvulus.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients from the 2012 to 2019 Colectomy-Targeted American College of Surgeons NSQIP dataset who underwent sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis after admission for sigmoid volvulus were included. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the risk-adjusted 30-day postoperative outcomes of patients who received combined preoperative bowel preparation with those of patients who received either partial (mechanical or oral antibiotic alone) or incomplete bowel preparation. Effort was made to exclude patients whose urgency of clinical condition at hospital admission precluded an attempt at preoperative decompression and subsequent bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Included were 2,429 patients, 322 (13.3%) of whom underwent complete bowel preparation and 2,107 (86.7%) of whom underwent partial or incomplete bowel preparation. Complete bowel preparation was protective against several postoperative complications (including anastomotic leak), mortality, and prolonged postoperative hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a significant benefit for complete bowel preparation before semielective, same-admission sigmoid resection in patients with acute sigmoid volvulus. However, only a small percentage of patients in this national sample underwent complete preoperative bowel preparation. Broader adoption of bowel preparation may reduce overall rates of complication in patients who require sigmoid colectomy due to volvulus.

Preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The success of elective colorectal surgery is mainly influenced by the surgical procedure and postoperative complications. The most serious complications include anastomotic leakages and surgical site infections (SSI)s, which can lead to prolonged recovery with impaired long-term health.  Compared with other abdominal procedures, colorectal resections have an increased risk of adverse events due to the physiological bacterial colonisation of the large bowel. Preoperative bowel preparation is used to remove faeces from the bowel lumen and reduce bacterial colonisation. This bowel preparation can be performed mechanically and/or with oral antibiotics. While mechanical bowel preparation alone is not beneficial, the benefits and harms of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the use of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and trial registries on 15 December 2021. In addition, we searched reference lists and contacted colorectal surgery organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants undergoing elective colorectal surgery comparing combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MBP+oAB) with either MBP alone, oAB alone, or no bowel preparation (nBP). We excluded studies in which no perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis was given.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Pooled results were reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 RCTs analysing 5264 participants who underwent elective colorectal surgery. None of the included studies had a high risk of bias, but two-thirds of the included studies raised some concerns. This was mainly due to the lack of a predefined analysis plan or missing information about the randomisation process. Most included studies investigated both colon and rectal resections due to malignant and benign surgical indications. For MBP as well as oAB, the included studies used different regimens in terms of agent(s), dosage and timing.  Data for all predefined outcomes could be extracted from the included studies. However, only four studies reported on side effects of bowel preparation, and none recorded the occurrence of adverse effects such as dehydration, electrolyte imbalances or the need to discontinue the intervention due to side effects. Seventeen trials compared MBP+oAB with sole MBP. The incidence of SSI could be reduced through MBP+oAB by 44% (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74; 3917 participants from 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and the risk of anastomotic leakage could be reduced by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.99; 2356 participants from 10 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). No difference between the two comparison groups was found with regard to mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.82; 639 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.32; 2013 participants from 6 studies, low-certainty of evidence) and length of hospital stay (MD -0.19, 95% CI -1.81 to 1.44; 621 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared MBP+oAB with sole oAB. No difference was demonstrated between the two treatment alternatives in terms of SSI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.21; 960 participants from 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence), anastomotic leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.45; 960 participants from 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.50; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.33; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.1 respectively 0.2, 95% CI -0.68 to 1.08; data from 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (396 participants) compared MBP+oAB versus nBP. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of MBP+oAB on the incidence of SSI as well as mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23 respectively RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; low-certainty evidence), while no effect on the risk of anastomotic leakages (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.42; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81; low-certainty evidence) or the length of hospital stay (MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.8 to 1; low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, our results suggest that MBP+oAB is probably more effective than MBP alone in preventing postoperative complications. In particular, with respect to our primary outcomes, SSI and anastomotic leakage, a lower incidence was demonstrated using MBP+oAB. Whether oAB alone is actually equivalent to MBP+oAB, or leads to a reduction or increase in the risk of postoperative complications, cannot be clarified in light of the low- to very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, it remains unclear whether omitting preoperative bowel preparation leads to an increase in the risk of postoperative complications due to limited evidence. Additional RCTs, particularly on the comparisons of MBP+oAB versus oAB alone or nBP, are needed to assess the impact of oAB alone or nBP compared with MBP+oAB on postoperative complications and to improve confidence in the estimated effect. In addition, RCTs focusing on subgroups (e.g. in relation to type and location of colon resections) or reporting side effects of the intervention are needed to determine the most effective approach of preoperative bowel preparation.

Bundles reduce anastomosis leak in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. A propensity score-matched study

Background

anastomosis leak still being a handicap in colorectal surgery. Bowel mechanical preparation and oral antibiotics are not a practice recommended in many clinical practice guides. The aim is to analyse the decrease in frequency and severity of postoperative complications, mainly related to anastomotic leak, after the establishment of a bundle.

Methods

Single-center, before-after study. A bundle was implemented to reduce anastomotic leaks and their consequences. The Bundle group were matched to Pre-bundle group by propensity score matching. Mechanical bowel preparation, oral and intravenous antibiotics, inflammatory markers measure and early diagnosis algorithm were included at the bundle.

Results

The bundle group shown fewer complications, especially in Clavien Dindós Grade IV complications (2.3% vs. 6.2% p < 0.01), as well as a lower rate of anastomotic leakage (15.5% vs. 2.2% p < 0.01). A significant decrease in reinterventions, less intensive unit care admissions, a shorter hospital stay and fewer readmissions were also observed. In multivariate analysis, the application of a bundle was an anastomotic leakage protective factor (OR 0.121, p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The implementation of our bundle in colorectal surgery which include oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation and inflammatory markers, significantly reduces morbidity adjusted to severity of complications, the anastomotic leakage rate, hospital stay and readmissions.

Register study

The study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov Code: nct04632446.

Association of bowel preparation with surgical-site infection in gynecologic oncology surgery: Post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between bowel preparation and surgical-site infection (SSI) incidence following colorectal resection during gynecologic oncology surgery.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis used data from a randomized controlled trial of patients enrolled from 03/01/2016-08/20/2019 with presumed gynecologic malignancy investigating negative-pressure wound therapy among those requiring laparotomy. Patients were treated preoperatively without bowel preparation, oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP), or OABP plus mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) per surgeon preference. Univariate and multivariable analyses with stepwise model selection for SSI were performed for confirmed gynecologic malignancies requiring colorectal resection.

RESULTS

Of 161 cases, 15 (9%) had no preparation, 39 (24%) OABP only, and 107 (66%) OABP+MBP. The overall SSI rate was 19% (n = 31)-53% (n = 8/15) in the no preparation, 21% (n = 8/39) in the OABP alone, and 14% (n = 15/107) in the OABP+MBP groups (P = 0.003). The difference between OABP and OABP+MBP was non-significant (P = 0.44). The median length of stay was 9 (range, 6-12), 6 (range, 5-8), and 7 days (range, 6-10), respectively (P = 0.045). The overall complication rate (34%; n = 54) did not significantly vary by preparation type (P = 0.23). On univariate logistic regression analysis, OABP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06-0.80) and OABP+MBP (OR, 0.14; 95% CI: 0.04-0.45) were associated with decreased SSI risk compared to no preparation (P = 0.004). On multivariate analysis, both methods of preparation retained a significant impact on SSI rates (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Bowel preparation is associated with reduced SSI incidence and is beneficial for patients undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery with anticipated colorectal resection. Further investigation is needed to determine whether OABP alone is sufficient.

Has network meta-analysis resolved the controversies related to bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery?

AIM

There are discrepancies in the guidelines on preparation for colorectal surgery. While intravenous antibiotics (IV) are usually administered, the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and/or oral antibiotics (OA) is controversial. A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) demonstrated that the addition of OA reduced incisional surgical site infections (iSSIs) by more than 50%. We aimed to perform a NMA including only the highest quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in order to determine the ranking of different treatment strategies and assess these RCTs for methodological problems that may affect the conclusions of the NMAs.

METHOD

A NMA was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. RCTs of adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery with appropriate antibiotic cover and with at least 250 participants recruited, clear definition of endpoints and duration of follow-up extending beyond discharge from hospital were included. The search included Medline, Embase, Cochrane and SCOPUS databases. Primary outcomes were iSSI and anastomotic leak (AL). Statistical analysis was performed in Stata v.15.1 using frequentist routines.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs including 5107 patients were identified. Treatments compared IV (2218 patients), IV + OA (460 patients), MBP + IV (1405 patients), MBP + IV + OA (538 patients) and OA (486 patients). The likelihood of iSSI was significantly lower for IV + OA (rank 1) and MBP + IVA + OA (rank 2), reducing iSSIs by more than 50%. There were no differences between treatments for AL. Methodological issues included differences in definition, assessment and frequency of primary endpoint infections and the limited number of participants included in some treatment options.

CONCLUSION

While this NMA supports the addition of OA to IV to reduce iSSI it also highlights unanswered questions and the need for well-designed pragmatic RCTs.

A Network Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Effect of Preoperative Oral Antibiotics with and Without Mechanical Bowel Preparation on Surgical Site Infection Rate in Colorectal Surgery

Objective

To compare the effect of different methods of bowel preparation on the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Background

Recent guidelines advise mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (MBP-OA) for the prevention of SSI in colorectal surgery. Recent trials suggest oral antibiotics (OA) alone may be sufficient.

Methods

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched from inception until 10-08-2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple methods of bowel preparation (mechanical bowel preparation [MBP], OA, MBP-OA, or no preparation) with regards to clinical outcomes such as incidence of SSI, AL, and mortality rates. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the network effects of the different treatment options.

Results

We included 48 studies with 13,611 patients. Compared to no preparation, combined direct and indirect network estimates showed a relative risk (RR) for SSI of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.72) for MBP-OA, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49-0.95) for OA, and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.26) for MBP. The RR for MBP-OA compared to OA was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60-1.19); in sensitivity analysis of mainly laparoscopic procedures this effect of MBP-OA was more profound (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99).

Conclusions

This network meta-analysis of RCTs finds that both mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and oral antibiotics alone are comparably effective in the prevention of SSI. The evidence is uncertain about the relative benefit of MBP-OA compared to OA alone. Therefore, it seems justified to use either of the 2 for the prevention of SSI in colorectal 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.

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.

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in colorectal surgery reduces anastomotic leakage and costs: a propensity score analysis

Purpose

Anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) account for most postoperative complications in colorectal surgery. The aim of this retrospective trial was to investigate whether perioperative selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) reduces these complications and to provide a cost-effectiveness model for elective colorectal surgery.

Methods

All patients operated between November 2016 and March 2020 were included in our analysis. Patients in the primary cohort (PC) received SDD and those in the historical control cohort (CC) did not receive SDD. In the case of rectal/sigmoid resection, SDD was also applied via a transanally placed Foley catheter (TAFC) for 48 h postoperatively. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to identify risk factors for AL and SSI. Costs were calculated based on German diagnosis-related group (DRG) fees per case.

Results

A total of 308 patients (154 per cohort) with a median age of 62.6 years (IQR 52.5–70.8) were analyzed. AL was observed in ten patients (6.5%) in the PC and 23 patients (14.9%) in the CC (OR 0.380, 95% CI 0.174–0.833; P = 0.016). SSI occurred in 14 patients (9.1%) in the PC and 30 patients in the CC (19.5%), representing a significant reduction in our SSI rate (P = 0.009). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that SDD is highly effective in saving costs with a number needed to treat of 12 for AL and 10 for SSI.

Conclusion

SDD significantly reduces the incidence of AL and SSI and saves costs for the general healthcare system.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-022-02540-6.

Intraoperative Colonic Irrigation for Low Rectal Resections With Primary Anastomosis: A Fail-Safe Surgical Model

Aim

Regardless the technological developments in surgery, the anastomotic leakage (AL) rate of low rectal anastomosis remains high. Though various perioperative protocols have been tested to reduce the risk for AL, there is no standard peri-operative management approach in rectal surgery. We aim to assess the short-term outcome of a multidisciplinary approach to reduce the rates of ALs using a fail-safe-model using preoperative and intraoperative colonic irrigation in low rectal resections with primary anastomosis.

Methods

Between January 2015 and December 2020, 92 patients received low rectal resections for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis and diverting ileostomy. All these patients received pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) without antibiotics as well as intraoperative colonic irrigation. The intraoperative colonic irrigation was performed via the efferent loop of the ileostomy. All data were analyzed by SPSS for descriptive and inferential analyses.

Results

In the study period, 1.987 colorectal surgical procedures were performed. This study reports AL in 3 (3.3%) of 92 recruited patients. Other postoperative complications (Dindo-Clavien I-IV) were reported in 25 patients (27.2%), which occurred mainly due to non-surgical reasons such as renal dysfunction and sepsis. According to the fail-safe model, AL was treated by endoscopic or re-do surgery. The median postoperative length of hospitalization was 8 days (4–45) days.

Conclusion

This study validates the effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary fail-safe model with a pre-operative MBP and an intraoperative colonic irrigation in reducing AL rates. Intraoperative colonic irrigation is a feasible approach that lowers the AL rates by reducing fecal load and by decontamination of the colon and anastomotic region. Our study does not recommend a pre-operative administration of oral antibiotics for colorectal decontamination.

Preoperative Elemental Diet before Laparoscopic Anterior Resection in Patients with Advanced Stenotic Rectal Cancer

Objectives:

To evaluate the feasibility of our new preoperative enteral nutrition protocol using Elental^Ⓡ without mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before laparoscopic anterior resection (LAR) in patients with advanced stenotic rectal cancer.

Methods:

Among 74 patients with advanced rectal cancer (clinical stages T3 and T4) scheduled to undergo LAR, 42 patients with stenotic rectal cancer were administered Elental^Ⓡ (900 kcal/day) without MBP before LAR (group S). Thirty-two patients without stenosis (group NS) did not receive preoperative nutritional support but underwent MBP.

Results:

Group S patients were maintained in a fasting state and received an elemental diet approximately 10 days preoperatively without severe adverse effects. The incidence of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ grade 2) was significantly lower in group S than that in group NS (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 6.046, P = 0.008). Logistic regression analysis revealed that group NS exhibited higher risks of developing postoperative complications than those exhibited by group S (OR: 4.32, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-17.28, P = 0.018). Among preoperative characteristics, the clinical tumor stage indicated a significant intergroup difference. Thus, the clinical stage was selected as a covariate and adjusted in the logistic regression model to calculate a covariate-adjusted OR. Group NS exhibited a higher incidence of postoperative complications than group S (adjusted OR: 6.05, 95% CI: 1.58-28.35, P = 0.008).

Conclusions:

Administration of an elemental diet using Elental^Ⓡ without MBP before LAR is a feasible strategy in patients with advanced stenotic rectal cancer. Application of this research may encourage use of Elental^Ⓡ in the clinical setting.

A Review of Bowel Preparation Before Colorectal Surgery

Infectious complications are the biggest problem during bowel surgery, and one of the approaches to minimize them is the bowel cleaning method. It was expected that bowel cleaning could facilitate bowel manipulation as well as prevent infectious complications and further reduce anastomotic leakage. In the past, with the development of antibiotics, bowel cleaning and oral antibiotics (OA) were used together. However, with the success of emergency surgery and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery, bowel cleaning was not routinely performed. Consequently, bowel cleaning using OA was gradually no longer used. Recently, there have been reports that only bowel cleaning is not helpful in reducing infectious complications such as surgical site infection (SSI) compared to OA and bowel cleaning. Accordingly, in order to reduce SSI, guidelines are changing the trend of only intestinal cleaning. However, a consistent regimen has not yet been established, and there is still controversy depending on the location of the lesion and the surgical method. Moreover, complications such as Clostridium difficile infection have not been clearly analyzed. In the present review, we considered the overall bowel preparation trends and identified the areas that require further research.

Mechanical bowel preparation before gynecologic laparoscopic procedures: Is it time to abandon this practice?

AIM

To examine the influence of mechanical bowel preparation on surgical field visualization and patients' quality of life during benign gynecologic laparoscopic procedures.

METHODS

A single blind, randomized, controlled trial was undertaken with laparoscopic gynecologic surgical patients to one of the following three groups: liquid diet on the preoperative day; mechanical bowel preparation with oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution; minimal residue diet for 3 days. Primary outcomes included assessment of the condition of small and large bowel and the overall quality of the surgical field. Additional measures included assessment of patients' preoperative symptoms, tolerance of the preparation method and compliance to the protocol, postoperative symptoms and bowel function.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-four patients were randomized as follows: 49 to liquid diet, 47 to mechanical bowel preparation, and 48 to minimal residue diet. Most characteristics were similar across groups. The intraoperative surgical view and the condition of large and small bowel were equal or inferior at the patients who received mechanical bowel preparation compared with the other groups. The 4-point Likert scale scoring for small bowel (2.51 vs. 2.72 vs. 2.81, p = 0.04), large bowel (2.26 vs. 2.38 vs. 2.48, p = 0.32) and overall operative field quality (2.34 vs. 2.67 vs. 2.67, p = 0.03) demonstrated no advantage from the use of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation over liquid diet and minimal residue diet, respectively. Preoperative discomfort was significantly greater in the mechanical bowel preparation group.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical bowel preparation before gynecologic laparoscopic operations for benign pathology could be safely abandoned.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN59502124 (No 59502124).

Fluid management: An update for perioperative practitioners

An interprofessional team approach is required to achieve optimum fluid balance for patients during the perioperative period. Incorrect management of fluid assessment and monitoring is associated with adverse outcomes. The scientific understanding of perioperative fluid balance has improved over recent years leading to changes in clinical practice with regard to volume and choice of intravenous fluid. It is important that perioperative practitioners have an understanding of intravenous fluid, fluid compartmentalisation, fluid mechanics and intravascular fluid control mechanisms. Optimum fluid status not only shortens hospital stay but also reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and complication profiles. This article aims to provide perioperative practitioners with a comprehensive overview of fluid management. It will cover important issues surrounding physiological control of fluid balance, choice of intravenous fluid therapy, methods to monitor intravascular volume and factors which influence delivery.

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.

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

RESULTS

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

CONCLUSIONS

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

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.

Prospective randomised controlled trial using the REthinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) platform and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) to compare no preparation versus preoperative oral antibiotics alone for surgical site infection rates in elective colon surgery: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating preoperative oral antibiotics (OA) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) rate following colon surgery, there has never been an RCT published comparing OA alone versus no preparation. Of the four possible regimens (OA alone, MBP alone, OA plus MBP and no preparation), randomised evidence is conflicting for studied groups. Furthermore, guidelines vary, with recommendations for OA alone, OA plus MBP or no preparation. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) has automated data collection for surgical patients. Similarly, the 'REthinking Clinical Trials' (REaCT) platform increases RCT enrolment by simplifying pragmatic trial design. In this novel RCT protocol, we combine REaCT and NSQIP to compare OA alone versus no preparation for SSI rate reduction in elective colon surgery. To our knowledge, this is the first published RCT protocol that leverages NSQIP for data collection. In our feasibility study, 67 of 74 eligible patients (90%) were enrolled and 63 of 67 (94%) were adherent to protocol. The 'REaCT-NSQIP' trial design has great potential to efficiently generate level I evidence for other perioperative interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

SSI rates following elective colorectal surgery after preoperative OA or no preparation will be compared. We predict 45% relative rate reduction of SSI, improvement in length of stay, reduced costs and increased quality of life, with similar antibiotic-related complications. Consent, using the 'integrated consent model', and randomisation on a mobile device are completed by the surgeon in a single clinical encounter. Data collection for the primary end point is automatic through NSQIP. Analysis of cost per weighted case, cost utility and quality-adjusted life years will be done.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by The Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board. Results will be disseminated in surgical conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03663504; Pre-results, recruitment phase.

Italian multi-society modified Delphi consensus on the definition and management of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of anastomotic leak (AL) has not decreased over the past decades and some important grey areas remain in its definition, prevention, and management. The aim of this study was to reach a national consensus on the definition of AL and to identify key points to be applied in clinical practice.

METHODS

A 3-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Ten representative members of the major Italian surgical scientific societies with proven colorectal expertise were selected after a call to action. After a comprehensive literature search, each expert drew a list of evidence-based statements which were voted in round one by the scientific board. Panel members were asked to mark "totally disagree", "partially agree" or "totally agree" for each statement and provide comments. The same voting method was used for round 2. Round 3 consisted of a final face-to-face meeting.

RESULTS

Thirty-three statements (clustered into 14 topics) were included in round 1. Following the third voting round, a final list of 16 items was formulated, which encompass the following 9 topics: AL definition, patient- and operative-related risk factors, prevention measures, bowel preparation, surgical technique, intraoperative assessment, early diagnosis, radiological diagnosis and management of specific patterns of AL. The overall response rate was 100% for all items in all the three rounds.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi survey identified items that expert colorectal surgeons agreed were important to be applied in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of AL. This represents the first consensus involving all relevant national scientific societies, defining important and shared concepts in the diagnosis and management of AL.

Colorectal Surgical Site Infection Prevention Kits Prior to Elective Colectomy Improve Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Patient compliance with preoperative mechanical and antibiotic bowel preparation, skin washes, carbohydrate loading, and avoidance of fasting are key components of successful colorectal ERAS and surgical site infection (SSI)-reduction programs. In July 2016, we began a quality improvement project distributing a free SSI Prevention Kit (SSIPK) containing patient instructions, mechanical and oral bowel preparation, chlorhexidine washes, and carbohydrate drink to all patients scheduled for elective colectomy, with the goal of improving patient compliance and rates of SSI.

METHODS

This was a prospective data audit of our first 221 SSIPK+ patients, who were compared to historical controls (SSIPK-) of 1760 patients undergoing elective colectomy from January 2013 to March 2017. A 1:1 propensity score system accounted for nonrandom treatment assignment. Matched patients' complications, particularly postoperative infection and ileus, were compared.

RESULTS

SSIPK+ (n = 219) and SSIPK- (n = 219) matched patients were statistically identical on demographics, comorbidities, BMI, surgical indication, and procedure. SSIPK+ patients had higher compliance with mechanical (95% vs 71%, P < 0.001) and oral antibiotic (94% vs 27%, P < 0.001) bowel preparation. This translated into lower overall SSI rates (5.9% vs 11.4%, P = 0.04). SSIPK+ patients also had lower rates of anastomotic leak (2.7% vs 6.8%, P = 0.04), prolonged postoperative ileus (5.9% vs 14.2%, P < 0.01), and unplanned intubation (0% vs 2.3%, P = 0.02). Furthermore, SSIPK+ patients had shorter mean hospital length of stay (3.1 vs 5.4 d, P < 0.01) and had fewer unplanned readmissions (5.9% vs 14.6%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in rates of postoperative pneumonia, urinary tract infection, Clostridium difficile colitis, sepsis, or death.

CONCLUSION

Provision of a free-of-charge SSIPK is associated with higher patient compliance with preoperative instructions and significantly lower rates of surgical site infections, lower rates of prolonged postoperative ileus, and shorter hospital stays with fewer readmissions. Widespread utilization of such a bundle could therefore lead to significantly improved outcomes.

[Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery]

The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to surgical site infections (SSI), anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative complications theologically. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgery aims to reduce fecal materials and bacterial count with the objective to decrease SSI rate, including AL. Based on many observational data, meta-analysis and multicenter randomized control trials (RTC), non-MBP did not increase AL rates or SSI and other complications in colon and even rectal surgery. In 2011 Cochrane review, there is no significant benefit MBP compared with non-MBP in colon surgery and also no better benefit MBP compared with rectal enemas in rectal surgery. However, in surgeon's perspectives, MBP is still in widespread surgical practice, despite the discomfort caused in patients, and general targeting of the colon microflora with antibiotics continues to gain popularity despite the lack of understanding of the role of the microbiome in anastomotic healing. Recently, there are many evidence suggesting that MBP+oral antibiotics (OA) should be the growing gold standard for colorectal surgery. However, there are rare RCT studies and still no solid evidences in OA preparation, so further studies need results in both MBP and OA and only OA for colorectal surgery. Also, MBP studies in patients with having minimally invasive surgery (MIS; laparoscopic or robotics) colorectal surgery are still warranted. Further RCT on patients having elective left side colon and rectal surgery with primary anastomosis in whom sphincter saving surgery without MBP in these MIS and microbiome era.

Surgical site infection prevention measures in General Surgery: Position statement by the Surgical Infections Division of the Spanish Association of Surgery

Surgical site infection is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs, as well as a poorer patient quality of life. Many hospitals have adopted scientifically-validated guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. Most of these protocols have resulted in improved postoperative results. The Surgical Infection Division of the Spanish Association of Surgery conducted a critical review of the scientific evidence and the most recent international guidelines in order to select measures with the highest degree of evidence to be applied in Spanish surgical services. The best measures are: no removal or clipping of hair from the surgical field, skin decontamination with alcohol solutions, adequate systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (administration within 30-60minutes before the incision in a single preoperative dose; intraoperative re-dosing when indicated), maintenance of normothermia and perioperative maintenance of glucose levels.

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.

Reducing anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: The old dogmas and the new challenges

Anastomotic leak (AL) constitutes a significant issue in colorectal surgery, and its incidence has remained stable over the last years. The use of intra-abdominal drain or the use of mechanical bowel preparation alone have been proven to be useless in preventing AL and should be abandoned. The role or oral antibiotics preparation regimens should be clarified and compared to other routes of administration, such as the intravenous route or enema. In parallel, preoperative antibiotherapy should aim at targeting collagenase-inducing pathogens, as identified by the microbiome analysis. AL can be further reduced by fluorescence angiography, which leads to significant intraoperative changes in surgical strategies. Implementation of fluorescence angiography should be encouraged. Progress made in AL comprehension and prevention might probably allow reducing the rate of diverting stoma and conduct to a revision of its indications.

[Current view on variety of bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery]

Mechanical bowel preparation used to be a standard procedure for a long time. Nowadays routine use of MBP seems to be debatable thus alternative approaches, e.g. avoiding any bowel preparation completely or using of MBP with oral antibiotics are considered. Data on performing different kinds of bowel preparation is reviewed in this article.

Preoperative bowel preparation does not favor the management of colorectal anastomotic leak

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the impact of preoperative bowel preparation on patients undergoing colorectal surgery. This is due to previous research studies, which fail to demonstrate protective effects of mechanical bowel preparation against postoperative complications. However, in recent studies, combination therapy with oral antibiotics (OAB) and mechanical bowel preparation seems to be beneficial for patients undergoing an elective colorectal operation.

AIM

To determine the association between preoperative bowel preparation and postoperative anastomotic leak management (surgical vs non-surgical).

METHODS

Patients with anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery were identified from the 2013 and 2014 Colectomy Targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database and were employed for analysis. Every patient was assigned to one of three following groups based on the type of preoperative bowel preparation: first group-mechanical bowel preparation in combination with OAB, second group-mechanical bowel preparation alone, and third group-no preparation.

RESULTS

A total of 652 patients had anastomotic leak after a colectomy from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014. Baseline characteristics were assessed and found that there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups in terms of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and other preoperative characteristics. A χ² test of homogeneity was conducted and there was no statistically/clinically significant difference between the three categories of bowel preparation in terms of reoperation.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of mechanical bowel preparation and antibiotic use in patients who are going to undergo a colon resection does not influence the treatment of any possible anastomotic leakage.

The Role of Bowel Preparation in Colorectal Surgery: Results of the 2012-2015 ACS-NSQIP Data

OBJECTIVE

To analyze potential benefits with regards to infectious complications with combined use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and ABP in elective colorectal resections.

BACKGROUND

Despite recent literature suggesting that MBP does not reduce infection rate, it still is commonly used. The use of oral antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) has been practiced for decades but its use is also controversial.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective colorectal resection in the 2012 to 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program cohorts were selected. Doubly robust propensity score-adjusted multivariable regression was conducted for infectious and other postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 27,804 subjects were analyzed; 5471 (23.46%) received no preparation, 7617 (32.67%) received MBP only, 1374 (5.89%) received ABP only, and 8855 (37.98%) received both preparations. Compared to patients receiving no preparation, those receiving dual preparation had less surgical site infection (SSI) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.39, P < 0.001], organ space infection (OR = 0.56, P ≤ 0.001), wound dehiscence (OR = 0.43, P = 0.001), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P < 0.001). ABP alone compared to no prep resulted in significantly lower rates of surgical site infection (OR = 0.63, P = 0.001), organ space infection (OR = 0.59, P = 0.005), anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P = 0.002). MBP showed no significant benefit to infectious complications when used as monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined MBP/ABP results in significantly lower rates of SSI, organ space infection, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leak than no preparation and a lower rate of SSI than ABP alone. Combined bowel preparation significantly reduces the rates of infectious complications in colon and rectal procedures without increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection. For patients undergoing elective colon or rectal resection we recommend bowel preparation with both mechanical agents and oral antibiotics whenever feasible.

Comparative Effectiveness and Risks of Bowel Preparation Before Elective Colorectal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between bowel preparation and surgical site infections (SSIs), and also other postoperative complications, after elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND

SSI is a major source of postoperative morbidity/costs after colorectal surgery. The value of preoperative bowel preparation to prevent SSI remains controversial.

METHODS

We analyzed 32,359 patients who underwent elective colorectal resections in the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program database from 2012 to 2014. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed; propensity adjustment using patient/procedure characteristics was used to account for nonrandom receipt of bowel preparation.

RESULTS

26.7%, 36.6%, 3.8%, and 32.9% of patients received no bowel preparation, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), oral antibiotics (OA), and MBP + OA, respectively. After propensity adjustment, MBP was not associated with decreased risk of SSI compared with no bowel preparation. In contrast, both OA and OA + MBP were associated with decreased risk of any SSI (adjusted odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.64; and adjusted odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.50, respectively) compared with no bowel preparation. OA and MBP + OA were associated with decreased risks of anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, readmission, and also shorter length of stay (all P < 0.05). Bowel preparation was not associated with increased risk of cardiac/renal complications compared with no preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of MBP alone before elective colorectal resection to prevent SSI is ineffective and should be abandoned. In contrast, OA and MBP + OA are associated with decreased risks of SSI and are not associated with increased risks of other adverse outcomes compared with no preparation. Prospective studies to determine the efficacy of OA are warranted; in the interim, MBP + OA should be used routinely before elective colorectal resection to prevent SSI.

Perioperative Fluid Management in the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Pathway

Fluid management is an essential component of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathway. Optimal management begins in the preoperative period and continues through the intraoperative and postoperative phases. In this review, we outline current evidence-based practices for fluid management through each phase of the perioperative period. Preoperatively, patients should be encouraged to hydrate until 2 hours prior to the induction of anesthesia with a carbohydrate-containing clear liquid. When mechanical bowel preparation is necessary, with modern isoosmotic solutions, fluid repletion is not necessary. Intraoperatively, fluid therapy should aim to maintain euvolemia with an individualized approach. While some patients may benefit from goal-directed fluid therapy, a restrictive, zero-balance approach to intraoperative fluid management may be reasonable. Postoperatively, early initiation of oral intake and cessation of intravenous therapy are recommended.

The Microbiome-Host Interaction as a Potential Driver of Anastomotic Leak

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper is to review current literature on the gut microbiome within the context of host response to surgery and subsequent risk of developing complications, particularly anastomotic leak. We provide background on the relationship between host and gut microbiota with description of the role of the intestinal mucus layer as an important regulator of host health.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite improvements in surgical technique and adherence to the tenets of creating a tension-free anastomosis with adequate blood flow, the surgical community has been unable to decrease rates of anastomotic leak using the current paradigm. Rather than adhere to empirical strategies of decontamination, it is imperative to focus on the interaction between the human host and the gut microbiota that live within us. The gut microbiome has been found to play a potential role in development of post-operative complications, including but not limited to anastomotic leak. Evidence suggests that peri-operative interventions may have a role in instigating or mitigating the impact of the gut microbiota via disruption of the protective mucus layer, use of multiple medications, and activation of virulence factors. The microbiome plays a potential role in the development of surgical complications and can be modulated by peri-operative interventions. As such, further research into this relationship is urgently needed.

Mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: Analysis of evidence and narrative review

The role of oral antibiotic prophylaxis and mechanical bowel preparation in colorectal surgery remains controversial. The lack of efficacy of mechanical preparation to improve infection rates, its adverse effects, and multimodal rehabilitation programs have led to a decline in its use. This review aims to evaluate current evidence on antegrade colonic cleansing combined with oral antibiotics for the prevention of surgical site infections. In experimental studies, oral antibiotics decrease the bacterial inoculum, both in the bowel lumen and surgical field. Clinical studies have shown a reduction in infection rates when oral antibiotic prophylaxis is combined with mechanical preparation. Oral antibiotics alone seem to be effective in reducing infection in observational studies, but their effect is inferior to the combined preparation. In conclusion, the combination of oral antibiotics and mechanical preparation should be considered the gold standard for the prophylaxis of postoperative infections in colorectal surgery.

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.

Contamination After Disinfectant Rectal Washout in Left Colectomy as a Model for Transrectal NOTES: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) with transrectal (TR) access the intraoperative opening of the rectal wall poses a risk of intraperitoneal contamination and subsequent infectious complications. A rectal washout with a disinfectant may reduce this risk. The aim of the study was to assess the intraoperative contamination on the circular stapler pin when a rectal washout with povidone-iodine (RW-PI) or Ringer solution was performed in patients undergoing left-sided colectomy. Furthermore, the additional effect of an irrigation instrument on the contamination was evaluated.

METHODS

In a patient and assessor blinded randomized controlled trial, patients undergoing left-sided colectomy were assigned to rectal washout with PI with an irrigation instrument (RW-PI; n = 23), rectal washout with Ringer solution with an irrigation instrument (RW-R; n = 21) or rectal washout with Ringer solution without an irrigation instrument (RW; n = 25). An end-to-end anastomosis with a circular stapler was performed. The contamination on the pin of the circular stapler was chosen as primary endpoint in order to simulate the intraabdominal contamination risk during TR NOTES. Secondary endpoints were contamination of the rectal mucosa, peritoneal contamination and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

The contamination rate of the pin of the circular stapler did not differ (RW-PI 39.1%, RW-R 33.3%, RW 52.0%; P = 0.421), but contamination of the rectal mucosa was reduced (47.8% versus 95.2% versus 100%; P < 0.001) and peritoneal contamination tended to be reduced (39.1% versus 71.4% versus 60.0%; P = 0.09) when a rectal washout with PI was performed. The rates of infectious complications (17.4% versus 9.5% versus 12.0%; P = 0.821) and of overall complications (30.4% versus 28.6% versus 44.0%; P = 0.476) did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an intense rectal washout with PI, contamination of the stapler pin did not differ. Intraabdominal bacterial translocation was frequently encountered even after disinfectant rectal washout with PI. Further studies might focus on the clinical impact of intraabdominal contamination in TR NOTES.

Association of Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics Before Elective Colorectal Surgery With Surgical Site Infection: A Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

There has been a resurgence of interest in the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotics (OAB) before elective colorectal surgery. Until now, clinical trials and meta-analyses have not compared all 4 approaches (MBP with OAB, OAB only, MBP only, or no preparation) simultaneously.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a network meta-analysis to clarify which approach in colorectal surgery is associated with the lowest rate of surgical site infection (SSI).

DATA SOURCES

Five electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club. and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness from database inception to November 27, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Only data from randomized clinical trials were included. Inclusion criteria were RCTs that reported on SSI rates or other complications based on MBP or OAB status. Quality of studies was appraised by the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total, incisional, and organ/space SSI rates. Secondary outcomes included rates of anastomotic leak, mortality, readmissions/reoperations, urinary tract infection, and pulmonary complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight randomized clinical trials among 8458 patients (52.1% male) were included, providing 4 direct comparisons and 2 indirect comparisons for 8 outcome measures. On Bayesian analysis, MBP with OAB vs MBP only was associated with reduced SSI (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% equal-tail credible interval [CrI], 0.57-0.88). There was no significant difference between MBP with OAB vs OAB only (OR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.56-1.62). Oral antibiotics without MBP was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in SSI compared with any other group (except for a risk reduction in organ/space SSI when indirectly compared with no preparation) (OR, 0.13; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.55). There was no difference in SSI between MBP only vs no preparation (OR, 0.84; 95% CrI, 0.69-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, MBP with OAB was associated with the lowest risk of SSI. Oral antibiotics only was ranked as second best, but the data available on this approach were limited. There was no difference between MBP only vs no preparation. In addition, there was no difference in rates of anastomotic leak, readmissions, or reoperations between any groups.

[Fast-tract: Therapist's role]

The modern model of inpatient surgical care of private and optimized state/govermental medical institutions allows us to change the paradigm of nosological attachment of the hospital bed to one profile of specialists for an adaptive model, when the wards can be reassigned depending on the needs of the hospital. In such multidisciplinary medical centers with mixed hospital beds without a nominal distinction in the nosological departments, a new therapeutic service is being developed - hospitalists, which provide a consistent curation of hospitalized patients, compensation of chronic therapeutic illnesses with patient's preparation for surgical interventions. Our work describes the experience of Fast Track recovery program with the active participation of a hospitalist in a surgical team, which is a new experience in the practice of Russian colorectal surgery.

Current practice patterns of preoperative bowel preparation in colorectal surgery: a nation-wide survey by the Chinese Society of Colorectal Cancer

Background

The optimal preoperative bowel preparation for colorectal surgery remains controversial. However, recent studies have established that bowel preparation varies significantly among countries and even surgeons at the same institution. This survey aimed to obtain information on the current practice patterns of bowel preparation for colorectal surgery in China.

Methods

A paper-based survey was circulated to the members of the Chinese Society of Colorectal Cancer (CSCC). The survey responses were collected and analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed for all the categorical variables according to the responses to individual questions.

Results

Three hundred forty-one members completed the questionnaire. Regarding surgical practice, 203 (59.5%) performed > 50% of the colorectal operations laparoscopically or robotically; the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone was significantly higher (63.5 vs 31.9%; P < 0.001). The respondents who performed > 200 colonic or rectal resections provided significantly more MBP alone (79.6 vs 39.1%, P < 0.001; 76.6 vs 43.2%, P < 0.001; respectively). Among hospitals with fewer than 500 beds, 52.4% of the respondents used MBP + oral antibiotics preparation (OAP) + enema, a significantly higher percentage than the respondents of hospitals with more than 500 beds (P < 0.001). Nearly 40% of the respondents prescribed OAP in regimens; meanwhile, 74.8% prescribed preoperative intravenous antibiotics.

Conclusions

The study demonstrates considerable variation among members from the CSCC. These findings should be considered when developing multicenter trials and to provide more definitive answers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12957-018-1440-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.