In the Absence of a Mechanical Bowel Prep, Does the Addition of Pre-Operative Oral Antibiotics to Parental Antibiotics Decrease the Incidence of Surgical Site Infection after Elective Segmental Colectomy?

A Novel Machine Learning Approach to Predict Textbook Outcome in Colectomy

BACKGROUND

Several calculators exist to predict risk of postoperative complications. However, in low-risk procedures such as colectomy, a tool to determine the probability of achieving the ideal outcome could better aid clinical decision-making, especially for high-risk patients. A textbook outcome is a composite measure that serves as a surrogate for the ideal surgical outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the most important factors for predicting textbook outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer undergoing colectomy and to create a textbook outcome decision support tool using machine learning algorithms.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis study.

SETTINGS

Data were collected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

PATIENTS

Adult patients undergoing elective colectomy for nonmetastatic colon cancer (2014-2020) were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Textbook outcome was the main outcome, defined as no mortality, no 30-day readmission, no postoperative complications, no 30-day reinterventions, and a hospital length of stay of ≤5 days. Four models (logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and eXtreme Gradient Boosting) were trained and validated. Ultimately, a web-based calculator was developed as proof of concept for clinical application.

RESULTS

A total of 20,498 patients who underwent colectomy for nonmetastatic colon cancer were included. Overall, textbook outcome was achieved in 66% of patients. Textbook outcome was more frequently achieved after robotic colectomy (77%), followed by laparoscopic colectomy (68%) and open colectomy (39%, p < 0.001). eXtreme Gradient Boosting was the best performing model (area under the curve = 0.72). The top 5 preoperative variables to predict textbook outcome were surgical approach, patient age, preoperative hematocrit, preoperative oral antibiotic bowel preparation, and patient sex.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective nature of the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Using textbook outcome as the preferred outcome may be a useful tool in relatively low-risk procedures such as colectomy, and the proposed web-based calculator may aid surgeons in preoperative evaluation and counseling, especially for high-risk patients. See Video Abstract .

UN NUEVO ENFOQUE DE APRENDIZAJE AUTOMTICO PARA PREDECIR EL RESULTADO DE LOS LIBROS DE TEXTO EN COLECTOMA

ANTECEDENTES:Existen varias calculadoras para predecir el riesgo de complicaciones posoperatorias. Sin embargo, en procedimientos de bajo riesgo como la colectomía, una herramienta para determinar la probabilidad de lograr el resultado ideal podría ayudar mejor a la toma de decisiones clínicas, especialmente para pacientes de alto riesgo. Un resultado de libro de texto es una medida compuesta que sirve como sustituto del resultado quirúrgico ideal.OBJETIVO:Identificar los factores más importantes para predecir el resultado de los libros de texto en pacientes con cáncer de colon no metastásico sometidos a colectomía y crear una herramienta de apoyo a la toma de decisiones sobre los resultados de los libros de texto utilizando algoritmos de aprendizaje automático.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de análisis retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Los datos se obtuvieron de la base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes adultos sometidos a colectomía electiva por cáncer de colon no metastásico (2014-2020).MEDIDAS PRINCIPALES DE RESULTADO:El resultado de los libros de texto fue el resultado principal, definido como ausencia de mortalidad, reingreso a los 30 días, complicaciones posoperatorias, reintervenciones a los 30 días y una estancia hospitalaria ≤5 días. Se entrenaron y validaron cuatro modelos (regresión logística, árbol de decisión, bosque aleatorio y XGBoost). Finalmente, se desarrolló una calculadora basada en la web como prueba de concepto para su aplicación clínica.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 20.498 pacientes sometidos a colectomía por cáncer de colon no metastásico. En general, el resultado de los libros de texto se logró en el 66% de los pacientes. Los resultados de los libros de texto se lograron con mayor frecuencia después de la colectomía robótica (77%), seguida de la colectomía laparoscópica (68%) y la colectomía abierta (39%) (p<0,001). XGBoost fue el modelo con mejor rendimiento (AUC=0,72). Los cinco principales variables preoperatorias para predecir el resultado en los libros de texto fueron el abordaje quirúrgico, la edad del paciente, el hematocrito preoperatorio, la preparación intestinal con antibióticos orales preoperatorios y el sexo femenino.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por la naturaleza retrospectiva del análisis.CONCLUSIONES:El uso de los resultados de los libros de texto como resultado preferido puede ser una herramienta útil en procedimientos de riesgo relativamente bajo, como la colectomía, y la calculadora basada en la web propuesta puede ayudar a los cirujanos en la evaluación y el asesoramiento preoperatorios, especialmente para pacientes de alto riesgo. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

New understanding of gut microbiota and colorectal anastomosis leak: A collaborative review of the current concepts

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a life-threatening postoperative complication following colorectal surgery, which has not decreased over time. Until now, no specific risk factors or surgical technique could be targeted to improve anastomotic healing. In the past decade, gut microbiota dysbiosis has been recognized to contribute to AL, but the exact effects are still vague. In this context, interpretation of the mechanisms underlying how the gut microbiota contributes to AL is significant for improving patients' outcomes. This review concentrates on novel findings to explain how the gut microbiota of patients with AL are altered, how the AL-specific pathogen colonizes and is enriched on the anastomosis site, and how these pathogens conduct their tissue breakdown effects. We build up a framework between the gut microbiota and AL on three levels. Firstly, factors that shape the gut microbiota profiles in patients who developed AL after colorectal surgery include preoperative intervention and surgical factors. Secondly, AL-specific pathogenic or collagenase bacteria adhere to the intestinal mucosa and defend against host clearance, including the interaction between bacterial adhesion and host extracellular matrix (ECM), the biofilm formation, and the weakened host commercial bacterial resistance. Thirdly, we interpret the potential mechanisms of pathogen-induced poor anastomotic healing.

Impact of bowel preparation on elective colectomies for diverticulitis: analysis of the NSQIP database

Background

Recent data based on large databases show that bowel preparation (BP) is associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. However, it remains unclear whether BP in elective colectomies would lead to similar results in patients with diverticulitis. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether bowel preparation affected the surgical site infections (SSI) and anastomotic leakage (AL) in patients with diverticulitis undergoing elective colectomies.

Study design

We identified 16,380 diverticulitis patients who underwent elective colectomies from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) colectomy targeted database (2012–2017). Multivariate logistic regression models were employed to investigate the impact of different bowel preparation strategies on postoperative complications, including SSI and AL.

Results

In the identified population, a total of 2524 patients (15.4%) received no preparation (NP), 4715 (28.8%) mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone, 739 (4.5%) antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) alone, and 8402 (51.3%) MBP + ABP. Compared to NP, patients who received any type of bowel preparations showed a significantly decreased risk of SSI and AL after adjustment for potential confounders (SSI: MBP [OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.70–0.96], ABP [0.69, 95%CI: 0.52–0.92]; AL: MBP [OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.51–0.86], ABP [0.56, 95%CI: 0.34–0.93]), where the combination type of MBP + ABP had the strongest effect (SSI:OR = 0.58, 95%CI:0.50–0.67; AL:OR = 0.46, 95%CI:0.36–0.59). The significantly decreased risk of 30-day mortality was observed in the bowel preparation of MBP + ABP only (OR = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.13–0.79). After the further stratification by surgery procedures, patients who received MBP + ABP showed consistently lower risk for both SSI and AL when undergoing open and laparoscopic surgeries (Open: SSI [OR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.37–0.69], AL [OR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.25–0.91]; Laparoscopic: SSI [OR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.47–0.72, AL [OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.35–0.68]).

Conclusions

MBP + ABP for diverticulitis patients undergoing elective open or laparoscopic colectomies was associated with decreased risk of SSI, AL, and 30-day mortality. Benefits of MBP + ABP for diverticulitis patients underwent robotic surgeries warrant further investigation.

Dissecting the Perioperative Care Bundle

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are comprehensive perioperative care pathways designed to mitigate the physiologic stressors associated with surgery and, in turn, improve clinical outcomes and lead to health care cost savings. Although individual components may differ, ERAS protocols are typically organized as multimodal care "bundles" that, when followed closely and in their entirety, are meant to generate amplified cumulative benefits. This manuscript examines some of the critical components, describes some areas where the science is weak (but dogma may be strong), and provides some of the evidence or lack thereof behind components of a standard ERAS protocol.

Collecting Site-Level Data on Organisms Causing Surgical Site Infections to Guide Quality Improvement

Surgical site infections (SSIs) negatively affect patients and health care organizations. We conducted a descriptive, correlational study at two hospitals that provide care to rural patients in one Midwestern state. The study purposes were to describe: types of organisms causing reportable organ/space SSIs that occurred within 30 days of an open or a laparoscopic abdominal surgery (N = 20), and commonalities in patient- and care-related factors to provide baseline information for site-level prevention efforts for quality improvement. We identified Escherichia coli in almost half of the SSI cases (n = 9, 45%). Common patient-related factors included ethnicity, smoking, and dirty or contaminated wounds. Common care-related factors included longer surgery times (> 60 minutes), unplanned surgeries, and procedures that involved the colon or small bowel. Personnel can use site-level data to monitor prevalent types of organisms causing SSIs, enabling an evidence-based, interdisciplinary approach to develop and test methods to enhance prevention.

Oral neomycin and bacitracin are effective in preventing surgical site infections in elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre, randomized, parallel, single-blinded trial (COLORAL-1)

Several regimens of oral and intravenous antibiotics (OIVA) have been proposed with contradicting results, and the role of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is still controversial. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of oral antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing Surgical Site Infections (SSI) in elective colorectal surgery. In a multicentre trial, we randomized patients undergoing elective colorectal resection surgery, comparing the effectiveness of OIVA versus intravenous antibiotics (IVA) regimens to prevent SSI as the primary outcome (NCT04438655). In addition to intravenous Amoxicillin/Clavulanic, patients in the OIVA group received Oral Neomycin and Bacitracin 24 h before surgery. MBP was administered according to local habits which were not changed for the study. The trial was terminated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many centers failed to participate as well as the pandemic changed the rules for engaging patients. Two-hundred and four patients were enrolled (100 in the OIVA and 104 in the IVA group); 3 SSIs (3.4%) were registered in the OIVA and 14 (14.4%) in the IVA group (p = 0.010). No difference was observed in terms of anastomotic leak. Multivariable analysis indicated that OIVA reduced the rate of SSI (OR 0.21 / 95% CI 0.06–0.78 / p = 0.019), while BMI is a risk factor of SSI (OR 1.15 / 95% CI 1.01–1.30 p = 0.039). Subgroup analysis indicated that 0/22 patients who underwent OIVA/MBP + vs 13/77 IVA/MBP- experienced an SSI (p = 0.037). The early termination of the study prevents any conclusion regarding the interpretation of the data. Nonetheless, Oral Neomycin/Bacitracin and intravenous beta-lactam/beta-lactamases inhibitors seem to reduce SSI after colorectal resections, although not affecting the anastomotic leak in this trial. The role of MBP requires more investigation.

En bloc pelvic resection of ovarian cancer with rectosigmoid colectomy: a literature review

Maximal cytoreductive surgery is an important prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To achieve maximal cytoreductive surgery, en bloc pelvic resection with rectosigmoid colectomy can be an effective surgical strategy. This surgical methodology was first described in 1968 as "radical oophorectomy." Since then, it has been adopted by many medical institutions around the world, and its safety has been shown by many studies. However, research on the surgical method is still lacking due to the limited number of prospective comparative studies. We will review the journals on en bloc pelvic resection with rectosigmoid colectomy published to date and discuss its efficacy, complications, and surgical techniques of the procedures.

Preoperative Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Reduces Surgical Site Infections After Elective Colorectal Surgery: Results From a Before-After Study

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common complications after colorectal procedures and remain an important source of morbidity and costs. Preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis is a potential infection control strategy, but its effectiveness without simultaneous use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine whether preoperative oral antibiotics reduce the risk of deep SSIs in elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a before-after analysis in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Patients who underwent surgery between January 2012 and December 2015 were included. On 1 January 2013, oral antibiotic prophylaxis with tobramycin and colistin was implemented as standard of care prior to colorectal surgery. The year before implementation was used as the control period. The primary outcome was a composite of deep SSI and/or mortality within 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 1410 patients, 352 underwent colorectal surgery in the control period and 1058 in the period after implementation of the antibiotic prophylaxis. We observed a decrease in incidence of the primary endpoint of 6.2% after prophylaxis implementation. When adjusted for confounders, the risk ratio for development of the primary outcome was 0.58 (95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.79). Other findings included a decreased risk of anastomotic leakage and a reduction in the length of postoperative stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis prior to colorectal surgery is associated with a significant decrease in SSI and/or mortality in a setting without MBP. Preoperative oral antibiotics can therefore be considered without MBP for patients who undergo colorectal surgery.

Prevention of severe infectious complications after colorectal surgery using oral non-absorbable antimicrobial prophylaxis: results of a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common complications after colorectal surgery. Oral non-absorbable antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) can be administered preoperatively to reduce the risk of SSIs. Its efficacy without simultaneous mechanical cleaning is unknown.

METHODS

The Precaution trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in six Dutch hospitals. Adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery were randomized to receive either a three-day course of preoperative OAP with tobramycin and colistin or placebo. The primary composite endpoint was the incidence of deep SSI or mortality within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included both infectious and non-infectious complications at 30 days and six months after surgery.

RESULTS

The study was prematurely ended due to the loss of clinical equipoise. At that time, 39 patients had been randomized to active OAP and 39 to placebo, which reflected 8.1% of the initially pursued sample size. Nine (11.5%) patients developed the primary outcome, of whom four had been randomized to OAP (4/39; 10.3%) and five to placebo (5/39; 12.8%). This corresponds to a risk ratio in the intention-to-treat analysis of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-2.78). In the per-protocol analysis, the relative risk was 0.64 (95% CI 0.12-3.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Observational data emerging during the study provided new evidence for the effectiveness of OAP that changed both the clinical and medical ethical landscape for infection prevention in colorectal surgery. We therefore consider it unethical to continue randomizing patients to placebo. We recommend the implementation of OAP in clinical practice and continuing monitoring of infection rates and antibiotic susceptibilities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The PreCaution trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register under NL5932 (previously: NTR6113) as well as in the EudraCT register under 2015-005736-17.

Prevention of Anastomotic Leak Via Local Application of Tranexamic Acid to Target Bacterial-mediated Plasminogen Activation: A Practical Solution to a Complex Problem

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the role of bacterial- mediated plasminogen (PLG) activation in the pathogenesis of anastomotic leak (AL) and its mitigation by tranexamic acid (TXA).

BACKGROUND

AL is the most feared complication of colorectal resections. The pathobiology of AL in the setting of a technically optimal procedure involves excessive submucosal collagen degradation by resident microbes. We hypothesized that activation of the host PLG system by pathogens is a central and targetable pathway in AL.

METHODS

We employed kinetic analysis of binding and activation of human PLG by microbes known to cause AL, and collagen degradation assays to test the impact of PLG on bacterial collagenolysis. Further, we measured the ability of the antifibrinolytic drug TXA to inhibit this process. Finally, using mouse models of pathogen-induced AL, we locally applied TXA via enema and measured its ability to prevent a clinically relevant AL.

RESULTS

PLG is deposited rapidly and specifically at the site of colorectal anastomoses. TXA inhibited PLG activation and downstream collagenolysis by pathogens known to have a causal role in AL. TXA enema reduced collagenolytic bacteria counts and PLG deposition at anastomotic sites. Postoperative PLG inhibition with TXA enema prevented clinically and pathologically apparent pathogen-mediated AL in mice.

CONCLUSIONS

Bacterial activation of host PLG is central to collagenolysis and pathogen-mediated AL. TXA inhibits this process both in vitro and in vivo. TXA enema represents a promising method to prevent AL in high-risk sites such as the colorectal anastomoses.

Oral antibiotics prior to colorectal surgery: Do they have to be combined with mechanical bowel preparation?

To reduce the of risk infection after colorectal surgery, oral antibiotic preparation (OAP) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) can be applied. Whether OAP can be used without MBP is unclear. A meta-analysis of observational studies demonstrated comparable effectiveness of OAP with and without MBP regarding SSI risk.

The Role of Bowel Preparation in Open, Minimally Invasive, and Converted-to-Open Colectomy

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation before colectomy is considered an effective strategy to decrease postoperative complications. However, data regarding the effect of bowel preparation in patients undergoing minimally invasive colectomy are limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of different bowel preparation strategies in patients undergoing open, minimally invasive, and converted-to-open elective colectomies.

METHODS

We identified 39,355 patients who underwent elective colectomy from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program colectomy-targeted database (2012-2016). Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact of different bowel preparation strategies on postoperative complications and mortality in three subapproach groups: open (n = 12,141), minimally invasive (n = 23,057), and converted to open (n = 4157).

RESULTS

Overall, a total of 10,066 (25.6%) patients received no preparation (NP), 11,646 (29.5%) mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone, 1664 (4.2%) antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) alone, and 15,979 (40.6%) MBP + ABP. Compared with NP, MBP + ABP showed the strongest protective effects. MBP + ABP was associated with reduced risk of major complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.66), infectious complications (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.46-0.54), any complications (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.51-0.60), 30-d mortality (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48-0.96), anastomotic leak (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.43-0.58), and length of stay ≥ 4 d (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.61-0.67) in overall population. These protective effects, except for 30-d mortality, were observed in open, minimally invasive, and converted-to-open groups. When the analysis was limited to robotic surgery only, MBP + ABP was only associated with reduced risk of major complications (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.38-0.97) compared with NP. The protective effects remained similar over the study time period.

CONCLUSIONS

MBP + ABP is a preferred preoperative strategy in open, minimally invasive, and converted-to-open colectomy.

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.

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 role of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics for left-sided laparoscopic and open elective restorative colorectal surgery with and without faecal diversion

BACKGROUND

There is significant variation in the use of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics prior to left-sided elective colorectal surgery. There has been no consensus internationally.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were divided into four groups: those who had mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation alone, oral antibiotics alone and no preparation. The main outcome measures included overall, superficial, deep and organ/space surgical site infections. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, ileus and rate of Clostridium difficile.

RESULTS

A total of 5729 patients were included for analysis. The overall surgical site infection rate (any superficial, deep or organ/space infection) was significantly lower in the mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics approach when compared to no preparation (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.59, P < 0.0001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics maintained a lower risk of overall surgical site infections. MBP and OAB also had a protective effect on anastomotic leak in both the laparoscopic and open cohorts (laparoscopic multivariable adjusted OR = 0.42 (0.19-0.94), P = 0.035; open multivariable adjusted OR = 0.3 (0.12-0.77), P = 0.012). Mechanical bowel preparation alone and oral antibiotics alone was not associated with a significant decrease in surgical site infections. There was no increase in C. difficile occurrences with the use of oral antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics significantly minimised surgical site infections and anastomotic leak following both laparoscopic and open left-sided restorative colorectal surgery. Mechanical bowel preparation alone did not reduce surgical site infections. There was a trend to reduction in surgical site infections with oral antibiotics alone.

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.

The role of oral antibiotics prophylaxis in prevention of surgical site infection in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) continues to be a challenge in colorectal surgery. Over the years, various modalities have been used in an attempt to reduce SSI risk in elective colorectal surgery, which include mechanical bowel preparation before surgery, oral antibiotics and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis at induction of surgery. Even though IV antibiotics have become standard practice, there has been a debate on the exact role of oral antibiotics.

AIM

The primary aim was to identify the role of oral antibiotics in reduction of SSI in elective colorectal surgery. The secondary aim was to explore any potential benefit in the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in relation to SSI in elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies after 1980, which investigated the effectiveness of oral antibiotic prophylaxis and/or MBP in preventing SSIs in elective colorectal surgery were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-three RCTs and eight cohorts were included. The results indicate a statistically significant advantage in preventing SSIs with the combined usage of oral and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. Furthermore, our analysis of the cohort studies shows no benefits in the use of MBP in prevention of SSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of oral antibiotics to systemic antibiotics could potentially reduce the risk of SSIs in elective colorectal surgery. Additionally, MBP does not seem to provide a clear benefit with regard to SSI prevention.

Rates and burden of surgical site infections associated with pediatric colorectal surgery: insight from the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to characterize the rates of surgical site infections (SSI) associated with colorectal procedures in children and the relative burden of these events within the scope of pediatric surgical practice.

METHODS

The NSQIP-Pediatric Public Use File was queried for all pediatric surgery procedures captured from 50 hospitals during 2012-2013. Rates of incisional and deep organ/space SSIs (ISSI and OSI, respectively) were calculated for all procedures, and the relative burden of SSIs from the entire dataset attributable to colorectal procedures was determined.

RESULTS

Colorectal procedures accounted for 2.5% (2872/114,395) of the NSQIP-P caseload and contributed 7.1% of the SSI burden. The SSI rate for all colorectal procedures was 5.9% (ISSI:3.2%; OSI:2.7%), and the highest rates were associated with total abdominal colectomy (11.4%) partial colectomy (8.3%), and colostomy closure (5.0%). Inflammatory bowel disease contributed the greatest relative burden of SSIs among colorectal diagnoses (24.9%; ISSI:22%; OSI:28.6%), followed by Hirschsprung's Disease (14.2%; ISSI:15.4%; OSI:12.8%) and anorectal malformations (12.4%; ISSI:17.6%; OSI:6.4%).

CONCLUSION

Colorectal procedures are responsible for a disproportionate burden of SSIs within pediatric surgery. The rate and relative burden of SSIs are particularly high for colostomy closure, partial colectomy, and procedures for inflammatory bowel disease. Efforts to reduce SSI burden may be best focused on this cohort of children.