Bowel Preparation Prior to Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: What Is the Current Practice?

Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence demonstrates minimal impact of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on reducing postoperative complications following elective colectomy. This study investigated the necessity of MBP prior to elective colonic resection.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing the effects of MBP with no preparation before elective colectomy, up until May 26, 2023. Surgical-related outcomes were compiled and subsequently analyzed. The primary outcomes included the incidence of anastomosis leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI), analyzed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3).

RESULTS

The analysis included 14 studies, comprising seven RCTs with 5146 participants. Demographic information was consistent across groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of AL ((P = 0.43, OR = 1.16, 95% CI (0.80, 1.68), I2 = 0%) or SSI (P = 0.47, OR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.73, 1.96), I2 = 0%), nor were there significant differences in other outcomes. Subgroup analysis on oral antibiotic use showed no significant changes in results. However, in cases of right colectomy, the group without preparation showed a significantly lower incidence of SSI (P = 0.01, OR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.86), I2 = 1%). No significant differences were found in other subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence robustly indicates that MBP before elective colectomy does not confer significant benefits in reducing postoperative complications. Therefore, it is justified to forego MBP prior to elective colectomy, irrespective of tumor location.

Is There a Role for Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation for Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

To date, all meta-analyses on oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OA) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colorectal surgery have included results of both open and minimally invasive approaches. Mixing both procedures may lead to false conclusions. The aim of the study was to assess the available evidence of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and other complications following minimally invasive elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library from 2000 to May 1, 2022. Comparative randomized and non-randomized studies were included. We reviewed the use of oral OA, MBP and combinations of these treatments. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Rob v2 and Robins-I tools.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies (7 randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort studies). Meta-analysis of the included studies showed that the combination of MBP + OA was associated with a significant reduction in SSI, AL and overall morbidity compared with the other options no preparation, MBP only and OA only.  CONCLUSION: Adding OA with MBP has a positive impact in reducing the incidence of SSI, AL and overall morbidity after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Therefore, the combination of OA and MBP should be encouraged in this selected group of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery.

A European survey of bowel preparation in colorectal surgery

AIM

Meta-analysis has shown that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) does not improve outcomes in colonic surgery; however, there is uncertainty regarding MBP use in laparoscopic and rectal surgery and the addition of oral antibiotic regimens. The aim of this study was to assess current use of bowel preparation among European surgeons.

METHOD

An online survey was circulated to members of the European Society of Coloproctology. Chi-squared analysis was used to compare subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 426 surgeons responded to the survey. MBP is routinely prescribed by 29.6% of respondents prior to colonic surgery and in 77.0% prior to rectal surgery. In the cohort performing > 30% of colorectal operations laparoscopically (n = 294), routine use of MBP in colonic surgery was significantly lower (19.7% vs 51.5%, P < 0.01). Less than 10% prescribe oral antibiotic bowel preparation whereas 96% prescribe perioperative intravenous antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Among the majority of respondents to this survey, MBP is used routinely for rectal operations. For colonic surgery, laparoscopic surgeons have a significantly lower use of MBP. Use of oral antibiotic bowel preparation remains uncommon.

Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect Clinical Severity of Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous multicenter randomized trials demonstrated that omitting mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) did not increase anastomotic leakage rates or other infectious complications. However, the most serious concern regarding the omission of MBP is ongoing fecal peritonitis after anastomotic leakage occurs. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical manifestations and severity of anastomotic leakage between patients who underwent MBP and those who did not.

METHODS

This study was a single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. From January 2006 to September 2013, 1369 patients who underwent elective rectal cancer resection with primary anastomosis were identified and analyzed.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage rates were not significantly different between patients who did not undergo MBP (77/831, 9.27%) and those who did (42/538, 7.81%). However, a significantly lower rate of clinical leakage requiring surgical exploration was observed in the leakage without MBP group (30/77, 39.0%) compared with the leakage with MBP group (30/42, 71.4%) (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage as assessed by the length of hospital stay, time to resuming a normal diet, length of antibiotic use, ileus rate, transfusion rate, ICU admission rate, and mortality rate between the leakage without MBP and leakage with MBP groups.

CONCLUSION

MBP was not found to affect the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage in elective rectal cancer surgery.

Effectiveness of Minimal Bowel Preparation With Oral Bisacodyl Before Laparoscopic Radical Proctectomy: Case-Control Comparison of Bisacodyl and Polyethylene Glycol as Oral Laxative Agents

The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of minimal mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) using oral bisacodyl before laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Preoperative MBP using conventional oral laxatives in laparoscopic proctectomy may detrimentally affect morbidity and surgical outcomes. Between March 2010 and December 2014, 272 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic proctectomy were included in the current study. A total of 85 patients undergoing bowel preparation with oral bisacodyl (bisacodyl group) were individually matched to patients receiving polyethylene glycol (PEG group) using propensity score matching. Operative outcomes, morbidity, and mortality were compared between the matched groups. The quality of bowel cleansing was much poorer in the bisacodyl group than in the PEG group (excellent, 43.5% versus 68.2%; fair, 41.2% versus 16.5%; and poor, 15.3% versus 15.3%; P &lt; 0.001). The degree of small bowel distension (collapsed, 56.4% versus 52.9%; mildly distended, 41.2% versus 40.0%; and severely distended, 2.4% versus 7.1%; P = 0.452) and postoperative outcomes, including time to first flatus (3.0 versus 3.0 days, P = 0.426); hospital stay (16.0 versus 15.0 days, P = 0.215); anastomotic leakage rate (8.2% versus 5.9%, P = 0.549); and mortality (0 versus 1.2%, P = 1.000), were similar between the bisacodyl group and the PEG group, respectively. MBP using oral bisacodyl before laparoscopic proctectomy was feasible and safe with respect to morbidity and surgical outcomes. Minimal bowel preparation with bisacodyl seems to be a useful preparation method for laparoscopic proctectomy.

Laparoscopic colon resection: To prep or not to prep? Analysis of 1535 patients

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before elective open colon resection does not reduce the rate of postoperative anastomotic leakage. However, MBP is still routinely used in many countries, and there are very limited data regarding the utility of preoperative MBP in patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection (LCR). The aim of this study was to challenge the use of MBP before elective LCR.

METHODS

It is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. All patients undergoing elective LCR with primary anastomosis and no stoma were included. Preoperative MBP with polyethylene glycol solution was used routinely between April 1992 and December 2004, and then it was abandoned. The early postoperative outcomes in patients who had preoperative MBP (MBP group) and in patients who underwent LCR without preoperative MBP (No-MBP group) were compared.

RESULTS

From April 1992 to December 2014, 1535 patients underwent LCR: 706 MBP patients and 829 No-MBP patients. There were no differences in demographic data, indication for surgery and type of procedure performed between MBP and No-MBP group patients. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was similar between the two groups (3.4 vs. 3.6 %, p = 0.925). No differences were observed in intra-abdominal abscesses (0.6 vs. 0.8 %, p = 0.734), wound infections (0.6 vs. 1.4 %, p = 0.149), infectious extra-abdominal complications (1.8 vs. 3 %, p = 0.190), and non-infectious complications (6.1 vs. 6.8 %, p = 0.672). The overall reoperation rate was 4.6 % for MBP patients and 5 % for No-MBP patients (p = 0.813).

CONCLUSION

The use of preoperative MBP does not seem to be associated with lower incidence of intra-abdominal septic complications after LCR.

Treatment of colorectal anastomotic leakage: results of a questionnaire amongst members of the Dutch Society of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery is correlated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Although many studies focus on risk factors and detection, studies on the treatment strategy for colorectal anastomotic leakage are scarce. A national questionnaire amongst 350 members of the Dutch Society for Gastrointestinal Surgery was undertaken on the current treatment of colorectal anastomotic leakage. The response was 40% after two anonymous rounds. 27% of the respondents state that a leaking anastomosis above the level of the promontory should be salvaged in ASA 1-2 patients <80 years of age, for ASA 3 and/or >80 years of age this percentage is 7.3%. For an anastomosis under the promontory, 50% of the respondents choose preserving the anastomosis for ASA 1-2 compared to 17% for ASA 3 and/or >80 years of age. In ASA 1-2 patients with a local abscess after a rectum resection without protective ileostomy, 31% of the respondents will create an protective ileostomy, 40% break down the anastomosis to create a definite colostomy, in ASA 3 and/or >80 years of age 14% of the respondents create a protective ileostomy and 63% a definitive colostomy. In ASA 1-2 patients with peritonitis after a rectum resection with deviating ileostomy, 31% prefer a laparotomy for lavage and repair of the anastomosis, 25% for lavage without repair and 36% of the respondents prefer to break down the anastomosis. When the patient is ASA 3 and/or >80 years of age, 13% prefer repair, 9% a lavage and 74% breaking down the anastomosis. This questionnaire shows that in contrast to older people, more surgeons make an effort to preserve the anastomosis in younger people.

Optimizing working-space in laparoscopy: measuring the effect of mechanical bowel preparation in a porcine model

BACKGROUND

Adequate working space is a prerequisite for safe and efficient minimal access surgery. No objective data exist in literature about the effect of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on working space in laparoscopic surgery. We objectively measured this effect with computed tomography in a porcine laparoscopy model.

METHODS

Using standardized anesthesia, twelve 20-kg pigs without MBP and eight 20-kg pigs with MBP were studied with computed tomography at intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) levels of 0, 5, 10, and 15 mmHg. Volumes and dimensions of the pneumoperitoneum were measured on reconstructed CT images and compared between the pigs with and those without MBP.

RESULTS

A reproducible and statistically significant increase of approximately 500 ml in pneumoperitoneum volume was found in the MBP group at all levels of IAP. This represents a 43 % relative increase at a pneumoperitoneum pressure of 5 mmHg, 21 % at IAP 10 mmHg, and 18 % at IAP 15 mmHg. Peak inspiratory pressure was lower at IAP 0 and 5 mmHg in the MBP group. Anteroposterior diameter in the group with MBP was lower at 0 mmHg, but abdominal dimensions were similar in both groups at all other IAPs. This shows that the gain in working space is due to a diminished volume of the intra-abdominal content and not to compression or displacement of the bowel.

CONCLUSIONS

MBP increases working space by reducing bowel content. Especially at low intra-abdominal working pressures, the increase in working space associated with MBP could represent an important benefit in challenging laparoscopic surgery.