Colon and rectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation: a randomized prospective 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.

Is mechanical bowel preparation necessary to reduce surgical site infection following colon surgery? Protocol for a multicentre Canadian randomized controlled trial

AIM

There is significant practice variation with respect to the use of bowel preparation to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) following colon surgery. Although intravenous antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation + oral antibiotics (IVA + MBP + OA) has been shown to be superior to IVA + MBP and IVA, there are insufficient high-quality data from randomized controlled trails (RCTs) that directly compare these options. This is an important question, because if IVA + OA has similar effectiveness to IVA + MBP + OA, mechanical bowel preparation can be safely omitted, and the associated side effects avoided. The aim of this work is to compare rates of SSI following IVA + OA + MBP (MBP) versus IVA + OA (OA) for elective colon surgery.

METHOD

This is a multicentre, parallel, two-arm, noninferiority RCT comparing IVA + OA + MBP versus IVA + OA. The primary outcome is the overall rate of SSI 30 days following surgery. Secondary outcomes are length of stay and 30-day emergency room visit and readmission rates. The planned sample size is 1062 subjects with four participating high-volume centres. Overall SSI rates 30 days following surgery between the treatment groups will be compared using a general linear model. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with linear regression for continuous outcomes, logistic regression for binary outcomes and modified Poisson regression for count data.

CONCLUSION

It is expected that IVA + OA will work similarly to IVA + MBP + OA and that this work will provide definitive evidence showing that MBP is not necessary to reduce SSI. This is highly relevant to both patients and physicians as it will have the potential to significantly change practice and outcomes following colon surgery in Canada and beyond.

Gastrointestinal Ostomies in Children: A Primer for the Pediatrician

Despite the advancement of medical therapies in the care of the preterm neonate, in the management of short bowel syndrome and the control of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease, the need to create fecal ostomies remains a common, advantageous treatment option for many medically complex children.

Oral Antibiotics Alone versus Oral Antibiotics Combined with Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matching Re-Analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 Prospective Cohorts

The evidence regarding the role of oral antibiotics alone (oA) or combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MoABP) for elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. A prospective database of 8359 colorectal resections gathered over a 32-month period from 78 Italian surgical units (the iCral 2 and 3 studies), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables together with 60-day adverse events, was re-analyzed to identify a subgroup of 1013 cases (12.1%) that received either oA or MoABP. This dataset was analyzed using a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 243 patients each were obtained: group A (oA) and group B (MoABP). The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher AL risk [14 (5.8%) vs. 6 (2.5%) events; OR: 3.77; 95%CI: 1.22-11.67; p = 0.021], while no significant difference was recorded between the two groups regarding SSIs. These results strongly support the use of MoABP for elective colorectal resections.

Risk factors analysis of surgical site infections in postoperative colorectal cancer: a nine-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients undergoing surgery are at a high risk of developing surgical site infections (SSIs), which contribute to increased morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and escalated healthcare costs. Understanding the incidence, risk factors, and impact of SSIs is crucial for effective preventive strategies and improved patient outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed data from 431 CRC patients who underwent surgery at Huangshan Shoukang Hospital between 2014 and 2022. The clinical characteristics and demographic information were collected. The incidence and impact of SSIs were evaluated, and independent risk factors associated with SSIs were identified using multivariable logistic regresison. A nomogram plot was constructed to predict the likelihood of SSIs occurrence.

RESULTS

The overall incidence rate of SSIs was 7.65% (33/431). Patients with SSIs had significantly longer hospital stays and higher healthcare costs. Risk factors for SSIs included elevated Body Mass Index (BMI) levels (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23; P = 0.017), the presence of diabetes (odds ratio, 3.88; 95% CI, 1.42 - 9.48; P = 0.01), as well as specific surgical factors such as open surgical procedures (odds ratio, 2.39; 95% CI [1.09; 5.02]; P = 0.031), longer surgical duration (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI [1.01; 1.84]; P = 0.046), and the presence of a colostomy/ileostomy (odds ratio, 3.17; 95% CI [1.53; 6.62]; P = 0.002). Utilizing multivariable regression analysis, which encompassed factors such as open surgical procedures, the presence of diabetes and colostomy/ileostom, the nomogram plot functions as a visual aid in estimating the individual risk of SSIs for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk factors for SSIs included higher BMI levels, the presence of diabetes, open surgical procedures, longer surgical duration, and the presence of colostomy/ileostomy. The nomogram plot serves as a valuable tool for risk assessment and clinical decision-making.

Region-specific protection effect of preoperative oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation before laparoscopic colorectal resection: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Oral antibiotics (OA) combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) significantly decrease the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs). However, the prophylactic effects in region-specific colorectal surgery have not been assessed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-centre, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted from 2019 to 2022. Patients were eligible if they were diagnosed with nonmetastatic colorectal malignancy, and laparoscopic colorectal surgery was indicated. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the experimental (OA+MBP preparation) or control group (MBP preparation). The randomization was further stratified by resected region. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSIs. Patients were followed up for 1 month postoperatively, and all complications were recorded.

RESULT

Between 2019 and 2022, 157 and 152 patients were assigned to the experimental and control groups, respectively, after 51 patients were excluded. The incidence of SSIs in the control group (27/152) was significantly higher than that in the experimental group (13/157; P =0.013), as was the incidence of superficial SSIs (5/157 vs. 14/152, P =0.027) and deep SSIs (7/157 vs. 16/152, P =0.042). After redistribution according to the resected region, the incidence of SSIs was significantly higher in the control group with left-sided colorectal resection (descending, sigmoid colon, and rectum) (9/115 vs. 20/111, P =0.022) but was similar between the groups with right-sided colon resection (ascending colon) (3/37 vs. 7/36, P =0.286). No differences were noted between the groups in terms of other perioperative complications.

CONCLUSION

OA+MBP before colorectal surgery significantly reduced the incidence of SSIs. Such a prophylactic effect was particularly significant for left-sided resection. This preparation mode should be routinely adopted before elective left-region colorectal surgeries.

How to prevent postoperative ileus in colorectal surgery? a systematic review

Postoperative ileus (PI) after colorectal surgery is a common surgical problem. This systematic review aimed to investigate the available data in the literature to reduce the PI in the area of colorectal surgery out of the enhanced recovery after surgery principles, referring to published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, and to provide recommendations according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The authors conducted bibliographic research on 1 December 2022. The authors retained meta-analyses and RCTs. The authors concluded that when we combined colonic mechanical preparation with oral antibiotic decontamination, the authors found a significant reduction in PI. The open approach was associated with a higher PI rate. The robotic and laparoscopic approaches had similar PI rates. Low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery presented a PI similar to that of high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery. There was no difference between the isoperistaltic and antiperistaltic anastomoses or between the intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses. This study summarized the available data in the literature, including meta-analyses and RCTs. For a higher level of evidence, additional multicenter RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs remain necessary.

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.

Mechanical bowel preparation and antibiotics in elective colorectal surgery: network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of intravenous antibiotics at anaesthetic induction in colorectal surgery is the standard of care. However, the role of mechanical bowel preparation, enemas, and oral antibiotics in surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and other perioperative outcomes remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal preoperative bowel preparation strategy in elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs was performed with searches from PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2022. Primary outcomes included surgical site infection and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality rate, ileus, length of stay, return to theatre, other infections, and side effects of antibiotic therapy or bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs involving 16 314 patients were included in the final analysis: 3465 (21.2 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics alone, 5268 (32.3 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation, 1710 (10.5 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics, 4183 (25.6 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation, 262 (1.6 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + enemas, and 1426 (8.7 per cent) had oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation. With intravenous antibiotics as a baseline comparator, network meta-analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in total surgical site infection risk with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics (OR 0.47 (95 per cent c.i. 0.32 to 0.68)) and intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation (OR 0.55 (95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.76)), whereas oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation resulted in a higher surgical site infection rate compared with intravenous antibiotics alone (OR 1.84 (95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 2.81)). Anastomotic leak rates were lower with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics (OR 0.63 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.90)) and intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation (OR 0.62 (95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.94)) compared with intravenous antibiotics alone. There was no significant difference in outcomes with mechanical bowel preparation in the absence of intravenous antibiotics and oral antibiotics in the main analysis.

CONCLUSION

A bowel preparation strategy with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics, with or without mechanical bowel preparation, should represent the standard of care for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

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.

The Role of the Gut Microbiome on the Development of Surgical Site Infections

Despite advances in antisepsis techniques, surgical site infection remains the most common and most costly reason for hospital readmission after surgery. Wound infections are conventionally thought to be directly caused by wound contamination. However, despite strict adherence to surgical site infection prevention techniques and bundles, these infections continue to occur at high rates. The contaminant theory of surgical site infection fails to predict and explain most postoperative infections and still remains unproven. In this article we provide evidence that the process of surgical site infection development is far more complex than what can be explained by simple bacterial contamination and hosts' ability to clear the contaminating pathogen. We show a link between the intestinal microbiome and distant surgical site infections, even in the absence of intestinal barrier breach. We discuss the Trojan-horse mechanisms by which surgical wounds may become seeded by pathogens from within one's own body and the contingencies that need to be met for an infection to develop.

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.

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.

Oral Antibiotics Bowel Preparation Without Mechanical Preparation for Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgeries: Current Practice and Future Prospects

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of preoperative oral antibiotics alone compared with mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in minimally invasive surgery is still a matter of debate.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the trend of surgical site infection rates in parallel to the utilization of bowel preparation modality over time for minimally invasive colorectal surgeries in the United States.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective analysis.

SETTINGS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was the source of data for this study.

PATIENTS

Adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery and reported bowel preparation modality were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the trends and the comparison of surgical site infection rates for mutually exclusive groups according to the underlying disease (colorectal cancer, IBD, and diverticular disease) who underwent bowel preparation using oral antibiotics or combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation. Patients who underwent rectal surgery were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

A total of 30,939 patients were included. Of them, 12,417 (40%) had rectal resections. Over the 7-year study period, mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation utilization increased from 29.3% in 2012 to 64.0% in 2018; p < 0.0001 at the expense of no preparation and mechanical bowel preparation alone. Similarly, oral antibiotics utilization increased from 2.3% in 2012 to 5.5% in 2018; p < 0.0001. For patients with colon cancer, patients who had oral antibiotics alone had higher superficial surgical site infection rates than patients who had combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (1.9% vs 1.1%; p = 0.043). Superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection rates were similar for all other comparative colon surgery groups (cancer, IBD, and diverticular disease). Patients with rectal cancer who had oral antibiotics had higher rates of deep surgical site infection (0.9% vs 0.1%; p = 0.004). However, superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection rates were similar for all other comparative rectal surgery groups.

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSION

This study revealed widespread adoption of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation and increased adoption of oral antibiotics over the study period. Surgical site infection rates are similar from a clinical relevance standpoint among most comparative groups, questioning the systematic preoperative addition of mechanical bowel preparation to oral antibiotics alone in all patients for minimally invasive colorectal surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B828 .

PREPARACIN INTESTINAL CON ANTIBITICOS ORALES SIN PREPARACIN MECNICA EN CIRUGAS COLORRECTALES MNIMAMENTE INVASIVAS PRCTICA ACTUAL Y PERSPECTIVAS FUTURAS

ANTECEDENTES:La eficacia de los antibióticos orales preoperatorios solos en comparación con la preparación intestinal mecánica mas antibióticos orales en la cirugía mínimamente invasiva es un tema de debate que todavía esta en curso.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar la tendencia de las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico en relacion a la utilización de la modalidad de preparación intestinal a lo largo del tiempo en cirugías colorrectales mínimamente invasivas en los Estados Unidos.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos.PACIENTES:Pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía colorrectal electiva y reportados con modalidad de preparación intestinal.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Tendencias y comparacion de las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico para grupos mutuamente excluyentes según la enfermedad subyacente (cáncer colorrectal, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y enfermedad diverticular) que se sometieron a preparación intestinal usando antibióticos orales exclusivamente o preparación intestinal mecánica combinada con antibióticos orales. Los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía rectal se analizaron por separado.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 30.939 pacientes. De ellos, 12.417 (40%) se sometieron a resecciones rectales. Durante el período de estudio de siete años, la preparación mecánica del intestino y la utilización de antibióticos orales aumentó del 29,3% en 2012 al 64,0% en 2018; p < 0,0001 sobre la no preparación y de la preparación intestinal mecánica exclusivamente. De manera similar, la utilización de antibióticos orales ha aumentado del 2,3% en 2012 al 5,5% en 2018; p < 0,0001. Para los pacientes con cáncer de colon, los pacientes que recibieron antibióticos orales solos tuvieron mayores tasas de infección superficial del sitio quirúrgico en comparación con los pacientes que recibieron una preparación intestinal mecánica combinada con antibióticos orales (1,9% frente a 1,1%; p = 0,043). Las tasas de infección superficial, profundo del sitio quirúrgico y de los compartimientos intraabdominales fueron similares para todos los demás grupos de cirugía de colon (cáncer, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y enfermedad diverticular). Los pacientes con cáncer de recto que recibieron antibióticos orales tuvieron tasas más altas de infección profunda del sitio quirúrgico (0,9% frente a 0,1%; p = 0,004). Sin embargo, las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico superficial, profundo y de los compartimientos intraabdominales fueron similares comparativamente para todos los demás grupos de cirugía rectal.LIMITACIONES:Carácter retrospectivo del análisis.CONCLUSIONES:Este estudio reveló la adopción generalizada de preparación intestinal mecánica y antibióticos orales y una mayor aceptación de antibióticos orales durante el período de estudio. Las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico parecen ser similares desde un punto de vista de relevancia clínica entre la mayoría de los grupos comparados, lo que cuestiona la adición preoperatoria sistemática de preparación intestinal mecánica a antibióticos orales solos en todos los pacientes para cirugía colorrectal mínimamente invasiva. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B828 . (Traducción- Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

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.

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.

Strategies for Antibiotic Administration for Bowel Preparation Among Patients Undergoing Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Network Meta-analysis

Importance

There are discrepancies in guidelines on preparation for colorectal surgery. While intravenous (IV) antibiotics are usually administered, the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), enemas, and/or oral antibiotics (OA) is controversial.

Objective

To summarize all data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met selection criteria using network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the ranking of different bowel preparation treatment strategies for their associations with postoperative outcomes.

Data Sources

Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases with no language constraints, including abstracts and articles published prior to 2021.

Study Selection

Randomized studies of adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery with appropriate aerobic and anaerobic antibiotic cover that reported on incisional surgical site infection (SSI) or anastomotic leak were selected for inclusion in the analysis. These were selected by multiple reviewers and adjudicated by a separate lead investigator. A total of 167 of 6833 screened studies met initial selection criteria.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

NMA was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were extracted by multiple independent observers and pooled in a random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were incisional SSI and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included other infections, mortality, ileus, and adverse effects of preparation.

Results

A total of 35 RCTs that included 8377 patients were identified. Treatments compared IV antibiotics (2762 patients [33%]), IV antibiotics with enema (222 patients [3%]), IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (628 patients [7%]), MBP with IV antibiotics (2712 patients [32%]), MBP with IV antibiotics with OA (with good IV antibiotic cover in 925 patients [11%] and with good overall antibiotic cover in 375 patients [4%]), MBP with OA (267 patients [3%]), and OA (486 patients [6%]). The likelihood of incisional SSI was significantly lower for those receiving IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (rank 1) and MBP with adequate IV antibiotics with OA (rank 2) compared with all other treatment options. The addition of OA to IV antibiotics, both with and without MBP, was associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. There were minimal differences between treatments in anastomotic leak and in any of the secondary outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

This NMA demonstrated that the addition of OA to IV antibiotics were associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. The results support the addition of OA to IV antibiotics to reduce incisional SSI among patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

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.

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.

Prevention of anastomotic leak in rectal cancer surgery with local antibiotic decontamination: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled single center trial

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leak and other infectious complications are septic complications of rectal cancer surgery caused by bacteria. Data from registry analysis show a beneficial effect of local antimicrobial administration on anastomotic leaks, but data are inconsistent in recent clinical trials. Therefore, our aim was to study the efficacy of topical antibiotic treatment on the incidence of anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled, single center trial was conducted. Patients received either placebo and amphotericin B or decontamination with polymyxin B, tobramycin, vancomycin, and amphotericin B four times per day starting the day before surgery until postoperative day 7. If a protective ileostomy was created, a catheter was placed transanally and the medication was administered locally to the anastomotic site. All patients received an intravenous perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis.

RESULTS

The trial had to be stopped for ethical reasons after first interim analysis with 80 patients instead of the initially planned 280 patients. Of the 40 patients randomized to receive placebo, eight (20%) developed anastomotic leak compared to only 2 (5%) in the treatment group of 40 patients (decontamination) with significant difference in the χ² test (p = 0.0425). Twenty percent of the placebo group and 12.5% in the treatment group developed infectious complications not associated with anastomotic leak (p = 0.5312). One patient (2.5%) in the placebo group died (p = 0.3141).

CONCLUSION

Local decontamination with polymyxin, tobramycin, vancomycin, and amphotericin B is safe and effective in the prevention of anastomotic leak in rectal cancer surgery.

Risk factors analysis for surgical site infection following elective colorectal resection: a retrospective regression analysis

Background:

A surgical site infection (SSI) is a major post-operative complication from elective colorectal surgery; however, few studies have focused on evaluating the risk factors for SSI. This study aimed to analyze the relative correlation of medical and environmental factors as well as patient-related factors that contribute to the incidence of all types of SSI.

Methods:

A retrospective search for eligible patients was conducted using the patient database of the Gastrointestinal Surgery Center of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from January 2011 to August 2017. Pre-operative demographic and surgical data were extracted and recoded according to the study protocol. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to clarify factors affecting the incidence of SSI. Propensity analysis was conducted to minimize bias in the demographic characteristics to explore the prophylactic effect of pre-operative administration of oral antibiotics.

Results:

Univariate analysis of the baseline characteristics revealed that younger age (odds ratio [OR]: 0.378; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.218–0.657) and pre-operative oral antibiotic use (OR: 0.465; 95% CI: 0.255–0.850) were protective factors, while pre-operative anemia (OR: 4.591; 95% CI: 2.567–8.211), neoadjuvant chemotherapy history (OR: 2.398; 95% CI: 1.094–5.256), and longer surgical duration (OR: 2.393; 95% CI: 1.349–4.246; P = 0.002) were identified as risk factors for SSI. Multivariate analysis indicated that age (P = 0.003), surgical duration (P = 0.001), and pre-operative oral antibiotic use (P < 0.001) were independent factors that affect the incidence of SSI. Furthermore, a propensity-matched analysis confirmed the protective effect of oral antibiotic use, with a 1-day course of oral antibiotic producing a similar effect to a 3-day course.

Conclusions:

Age, surgical duration, and pre-operative oral antibiotic use were associated with the incidence of SSI. However, pre-operative oral antibiotic use was the only controllable factor. From the results of our study, pre-operative oral antibiotic use is recommended before elective colorectal surgery and a 1-day course is enough to provide the protective effect.

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics reduces surgical site infection after elective colorectal surgery for malignancies: results of a propensity matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a major postoperative complication after colorectal surgery. Current study aims to evaluate prophylactic function of oral antibiotic (OA) intake in combination with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) relative to MBP alone with respect to postoperative SSI incidence.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of eligible patients was conducted using the databases of the Gastrointestinal Surgery Centre, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from 2011 to 2017. Data pertaining to postoperative hospital stay length, expenses, SSI incidence, anastomotic fistula incidence, and rates of other complications were extracted and compared. A propensity analysis was conducted to minimize bias associated with demographic characteristics. Subgroup analyses were performed to further explore protective effects of OA in different surgical sites.

RESULTS

The combination of OAs and MBP was related to a significant decrease in the incidence of overall SSIs, superficial SSI, and hospitalization expenses. The MBP + OA modality was particularly beneficial for patients undergoing left-side colon or rectum resections, with clear prophylactic efficacy. The combination of MPB + OA did not exhibit significant prophylactic efficacy in patients undergoing right hemi-colon resection. Age, surgical duration, and application of OA were all independent factors associated with the occurrence of SSIs.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the combination of OA + MBP should be recommended for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, particularly for operations on the left side of the colon or rectum.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04258098. Retrospectively registered.

Re-examining causes of surgical site infections following elective surgery in the era of asepsis

The currently accepted assumption that most surgical site infections (SSIs) occurring after elective surgery under standard methods of antisepsis are due to an intraoperative contamination event, remains unproven. We examined the available evidence in which microbial cultures of surgical wounds were taken at the conclusion of an operation and determined that such studies provide more evidence to refute that an SSI is due to intraoperative contamination than support it. We propose that alternative mechanisms of SSI development should be considered, such as when a sterile postoperative wound becomes infected by a pathogen originating from a site remote from the operative wound-eg, from the gums or intestinal tract (ie, the Trojan Horse mechanism). We offer a path forward to reduce SSI rates after elective surgery that includes undertaking genomic-based microbial tracking from the built environment (ie, the operating room and hospital bed), to the patient's own microbiome, and then to the surgical site. Finally, we posit that only by generating this dynamic microbial map can the true pathogenesis of SSIs be understood enough to inform novel preventive strategies against infection following elective surgery in the current era of asepsis.

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.

[Oral antibiotic prophylaxis for bowel decontamination before elective colorectal surgery : Current body of evidence and recommendations]

Despite a growing body of evidence from randomized controlled studies, register data and meta-analyses, there is an ongoing controversy about decontamination of the digestive tract before elective colorectal surgery. Currently, mechanical bowel preparation alone can no longer be recommended as there is a lack of evidence for an advantage in terms of risk reduction for infectious complications, anastomotic leakage, morbidity and mortality. In contrast, the administration of oral antibiotics in addition to the obligatory intravenous single shot antibiotic prophylaxis has shown an additive reduction of the risk of up to 50% for the occurrence of postoperative infectious complications; however, due to a lack of data it is unclear if mechanical bowel preparation could even improve the positive effects of combined intravenous and oral antibiotics. Therefore, further studies are necessary. At the current time the occurrence of anastomotic leakage cannot be prevented, independent of whether preoperative bowel decontamination is performed.

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus no bowel preparation for elective colectomy (MOBILE): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, single-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

Decreased surgical site infections (SSIs) and morbidity have been reported with mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) compared with no bowel preparation (NBP) in colonic surgery. Several societies have recommended routine use of MOABP in patients undergoing colon resection on the basis of these data. Our aim was to investigate this recommendation in a prospective randomised context.

METHODS

In this multicentre, parallel, single-blinded trial, patients undergoing colon resection were randomly assigned (1:1) to either MOABP or NBP in four hospitals in Finland, using a web-based randomisation technique. Randomly varying block sizes (four, six, and eight) were used for randomisation, and stratification was done according to centre. The recruiters, treating physicians, operating surgeons, data collectors, and analysts were masked to the allocated treatment. Key exclusion criteria were need for emergency surgery; bowel obstruction; colonoscopy planned during surgery; allergy to polyethylene glycol, neomycin, or metronidazole; and age younger than 18 years or older than 95 years. Study nurses opened numbered opaque envelopes containing the patient allocated group, and instructed the patients according to the allocation group to either prepare the bowel, or not prepare the bowel. Patients allocated to MOABP prepared their bowel by drinking 2 L of polyethylene glycol and 1 L of clear fluid before 6 pm on the day before surgery and took 2 g of neomycin orally at 7 pm and 2 g of metronidazole orally at 11 pm the day before surgery. The primary outcome was SSI within 30 days after surgery, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who were randomly allocated to and underwent elective colon resection with an anastomosis) along with safety analyses. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02652637, and EudraCT, 2015-004559-38, and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Between March 17, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 738 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of the 417 patients who were randomised (209 to MOABP and 208 to NBP), 13 in the MOABP group and eight in the NBP were excluded before undergoing colonic resection; therefore, the modified intention-to-treat analysis included 396 patients (196 for MOABP and 200 for NBP). SSI was detected in 13 (7%) of 196 patients randomised to MOABP, and in 21 (11%) of 200 patients randomised to NBP (odds ratio 1·65, 95% CI 0·80-3·40; p=0·17). Anastomotic dehiscence was reported in 7 (4%) of 196 patients in the MOABP group and in 8 (4%) of 200 in the NBP group, and reoperations were necessary in 16 (8%) of 196 compared with 13 (7%) of 200 patients. Two patients died in the NBP group and none in the MOABP group within 30 days.

INTERPRETATION

MOABP does not reduce SSIs or the overall morbidity of colon surgery compared with NBP. We therefore propose that the current recommendations of using MOABP for colectomies to reduce SSIs or morbidity should be reconsidered.

FUNDING

Vatsatautien Tutkimussäätiö Foundation, Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth's Foundation, and Helsinki University Hospital research funds.

Influence of preoperative enema application on the return of gastrointestinal function in elective Cesarean sections: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

There is an extensive literature on the mechanical bowel preparation by an enema in colorectal, abdominal, and gynecologic surgeries that provide evidence against the use of enema. There are, however, few studies investigating the effect of enema prior to elective Cesarean sections. The aim of this study is to investigate whether preoperative enema facilitates the return of gastrointestinal activity in pregnant women undergoing elective Cesarean section.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The surgeon-blinded prospective randomized controlled study included 225 elective Cesarean patients between the ages of 18 and 44. The patients were randomized into two groups: those who had enema preoperatively (n = 114) and those who did not (n = 111). The outcome measures were first bowel sound time and first flatus time, the length of hospital stay, the rate of mid ileus symptoms, and additional analgesic and antiemetic need.

RESULTS

In the non-enema group, the time of the first bowel sound, flatus time, length of hospital stay, the rates of additional analgesic need, additional antiemetic need, and mild ileus symptoms were respectively 10.5 ± 5.8 hours, 16.0 ± 7.6 hours, 1.9 ± 0.3 days, 8.1%, 7.2%, and 2.7%. For the enema group, the same parameters were respectively 11.6 ± 4.7 hours, 17.5 ± 6.5 hours, 1.8 ± 0.3 days, 7%, 6.1% ,and 1.8%. For all parameters, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p values were respectively .09, .12, .8, .79, .68, and .26).

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that preoperative enema in elective cesarean sections does not prevent postoperative gastrointestinal complications and does not shorten the recovery of bowel movements or length of hospital stay.

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 Oral Antibiotic Preparation in Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the impact of the use of oral antibiotics (OAB) with or without mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on outcome in elective colorectal surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Meta-analyses have demonstrated that MBP does not impact upon postoperative morbidity or mortality, and as such it should not be prescribed routinely. However, recent evidence from large retrospective cohort and database studies has suggested that there may be a role for combined OAB and MBP, or OAB alone in the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI).

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies including adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, receiving OAB with or without MBP was performed. The outcome measures examined were SSI, anastomotic leak, 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, development of ileus, reoperation and Clostridium difficile infection.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies with 69,517 patients (28 randomized controlled trials, n = 6437 and 12 cohort studies, n = 63,080) were included. The combination of MBP+OAB versus MBP alone was associated with a significant reduction in SSI [risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.56, P < 0.00001, I = 13%], anastomotic leak (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.70, P < 0.00001, I = 0%), 30-day mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.76, P < 0.0001, I = 0%), overall morbidity (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63-0.71, P < 0.00001, I = 0%), and development of ileus (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.98, P = 0.04, I = 36%), with no difference in Clostridium difficile infection rates. When a combination of MBP+OAB was compared with OAB alone, no significant difference was seen in SSI or anastomotic leak rates, but there was a significant reduction in 30-day mortality, and incidence of postoperative ileus with the combination. There is minimal literature available on the comparison between combined MBP+OAB versus no preparation, OAB alone versus no preparation, and OAB versus MBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests a potentially significant role for OAB preparation, either in combination with MBP or alone, in the prevention of postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery. Further high-quality evidence is required to differentiate between the benefits of combined MBP+OAB or OAB alone.

Bowel preparation for colostomy reversal in children

PURPOSE

Pediatric bowel preparation protocols used before colostomy reversal vary. The aim of this study is to determine institutional practices at our institution and evaluate the impact of bowel preparations on postoperative outcomes and hospital length of stay in children.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of children ≤18 years old undergoing colostomy reversal at Texas Children's Hospital (TCH) between 12/2013 and 8/2017. Preoperative bowel regimens and outcomes were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum and Fishers Exact tests. Continuous variables are presented as median [IQR].

RESULTS

Sixty-one children underwent colostomy reversal. Thirty-eight (62%) did not receive a preoperative bowel preparation. The two cohorts were similar in age, gender, and race. The most common indication for colostomy was anorectal malformation for thirty-seven (61%). Time from admission to surgery (19 h [17, 23] vs 3 [2, 3]; p < 0.01) and HLOS (6 days [5, 8] vs 5 [4, 6]; p = 0.02) were both longer in the bowel preparation cohort. Complications (3 [13%] vs 5 [22%]; p = 0.12) and 90-day readmissions (3 [13%] vs 6 [16%]; p = 0.64) were similar in both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Foregoing bowel preparation may have the potential to improve cost and reduce morbidity in children undergoing colostomy closure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

STUDY TYPE

Treatment study.

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.

Tactics to Prevent Intra-Abdominal Infections in General Surgery

BACKGROUND

Abdominal infections following surgery have many severe consequences. Several effective, well-evaluated infection prevention and control processes exist to avoid these infections.

METHODS

This manuscript reviews and provides supporting evidence for common management strategies useful to avoid postoperative abdominal infection.

RESULTS

Prevention of abdominal infection begins with preparation of the environment using standard infection control practices. Peri-operative use of systemic antibiotics, an antibiotic bowel preparation in colorectal surgery, and effective antiseptic preparation of the surgical site all reduce infection rates. Peri-operative supplemental oxygenation, maintenance of core body temperature, and physiologic euglycemia will reduce both incisional and organ-space infections in the abdominal surgery patient. Strategic use of irrigation and drain placement may be useful in some circumstances.

CONCLUSION

Specific methods of prevention are documented to reduce intra-abdominal infections. Prevention requires a multi-disciplinary team including the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and all operating room personnel.

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.

Impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis

AIM

To analyse the effect of mechanical bowel preparation vs no mechanical bowel preparation on outcome in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing adult patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation with those receiving no mechanical bowel preparation, subdivided into those receiving a single rectal enema and those who received no preparation at all prior to elective colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies (23 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational studies) including 21568 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery were included. When all studies were considered, mechanical bowel preparation was not associated with any significant difference in anastomotic leak rates (OR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.74 to 1.10, P = 0.32), surgical site infection (OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.24, P = 0.96), intra-abdominal collection (OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.63 to 1.17, P = 0.34), mortality (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.57 to 1.27, P = 0.43), reoperation (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.75 to 1.12, P = 0.38) or hospital length of stay (overall mean difference 0.11 d, 95%CI: -0.51 to 0.73, P = 0.72), when compared with no mechanical bowel preparation, nor when evidence from just randomized controlled trials was analysed. A sub-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation vs absolutely no preparation or a single rectal enema similarly revealed no differences in clinical outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

In the most comprehensive meta-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery to date, this study has suggested that the use of mechanical bowel preparation does not affect the incidence of postoperative complications when compared with no preparation. Hence, mechanical bowel preparation should not be administered routinely prior to elective colorectal surgery.

What Is "Enhanced Recovery," and How Can I Do It?

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery (ER) and fast-track protocols were initially implemented in the perioperative management of the surgical patient over 20 years ago. These standardized protocols are now broadly implemented across most surgical specialties for its many benefits. ER is well known for its positive effects on decreasing length of stay and complications. However, patient-centric outcomes for adequate pain control, functional recovery, costs, and overall patient experience are less considered.

HOW I DO IT

A successful ER foundation stands on the pillars of several perioperative care principles: early feeding, early ambulation, goal-directed fluid therapy, and opiate-sparing analgesia. Moreover, it requires a multi-disciplinary team buy-in (including patient and family) that must also be thoughtfully executed. The following is a review of key elements within successful evidence-based ER protocols and relevant concepts to consider when starting a successful enhanced recovery program.

Role of oral antibiotics for prophylaxis against surgical site infections after elective colorectal surgery

Over the past few decades, surgeons have made many attempts to reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI) after elective colorectal surgery. Routine faecal diversion is no longer practiced in elective colonic surgery and mechanical bowel preparation is on the verge of being eliminated altogether. Intravenous antibiotics have become the standard of care as prophylaxis against SSI for elective colorectal operations. However, the role of oral antibiotics is still being debated. We review the available data evaluating the role of oral antibiotics as prophylaxis for SSI in colorectal 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.

Anastomotic Leakage and Chronic Presacral Sinus Formation After Low Anterior Resection: Results From a Large Cross-sectional Study

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about late detected anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer, and the proportion of leakages that develops into a chronic presacral sinus.

METHODS

In this collaborative snapshot research project, data from registered rectal cancer resections in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit in 2011 were extended with additional treatment and long-term outcome data. Independent predictors for anastomotic leakage were determined using a binary logistic model.

RESULTS

A total of 71 out of the potential 94 hospitals participated. From the 2095 registered patients, 998 underwent a low anterior resection, of whom 88.8% received any form of neoadjuvant therapy. Median follow-up was 43 months (interquartile range 35-47). Anastomotic leakage was diagnosed in 13.4% within 30 days, which increased to 20.0% (200/998) beyond 30 days. Nonhealing of the leakage at 12 months was 48%, resulting in an overall proportion of chronic presacral sinus of 9.5%. Independent predictors for anastomotic leakage at any time during follow-up were neoadjuvant therapy (odds ratio 2.85; 95% confidence interval 1.00-8.11) and a distal (≤3 cm from the anorectal junction on magnetic resonance imaging) tumor location (odds ratio 1.88; 95% confidence interval 1.02-3.46).

CONCLUSIONS

This cross-sectional study of low anterior resection for rectal cancer in the Netherlands in 2011, with almost routine use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy, shows that one third of anastomotic leakages is diagnosed beyond 30 days, and almost half of the leakages eventually do not heal. Chronic presacral sinus is a significant clinical problem that deserves more attention.

Does bowel preparation for inflammatory bowel disease surgery matter?

AIM

The purpose of this study was to determine if bowel preparation influences outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing surgery.

METHODS

The database of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, Procedure Targeted Colectomy, from 2012 to 2014 was analyzed. Inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing colorectal resection with or without bowel preparation were included in the study.

RESULTS

In all, 3679 patients with inflammatory bowel disease were identified. 42.5% had no bowel preparation, 21.5% had mechanical bowel preparation only, 8.8% had oral antibiotic bowel preparation only and 27.2% had combined mechanical and oral antibiotic preparation. Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic preparation is associated with lower rates of anastomotic leak, ileus, surgical site infection, organ space infection, wound dehiscence and sepsis/septic shock.

CONCLUSION

Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic preparation for inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing colectomy is associated with decreased rates of surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, ileus. Combined bowel preparation should be the standard of care for inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing colorectal resection.

Evolution of the operative management of colon trauma

For any trauma surgeon, colon wounds remain a relatively common, yet sometimes challenging, clinical problem. Evolution in operative technique and improvements in antimicrobial therapy during the past two centuries have brought remarkable improvements in both morbidity and mortality after injury to the colon. Much of the early progress in management and patient survival after colon trauma evolved from wartime experience. Multiple evidence-based studies during the last several decades have allowed for more aggressive management, with most wounds undergoing primary repair or resection and anastomosis with an acceptably low suture line failure rate. Despite the abundance of quality evidence regarding management of colon trauma obtained from both military and civilian experience, there remains some debate among institutions regarding management of specific injuries. This is especially true with respect to destructive wounds, injuries to the left colon, blunt colon trauma and those wounds requiring colonic discontinuity during an abbreviated laparotomy. Some programs have developed data-driven protocols that have simplified management of destructive colon wounds, clearly identifying those high-risk patients who should undergo diversion, regardless of mechanism or anatomic location. This update will describe the progression in the approach to colon injuries through history while providing a current review of the literature regarding management of the more controversial wounds.