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

Impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on gut microbiota in colorectal surgery: insights from an Eastern European stewardship study

Introduction

Antibiotic overuse is driving a global rise in antibiotic resistance, highlighting the need for robust antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) initiatives to improve prescription practices. While antimicrobials are essential for treating sepsis and preventing surgical site infections (SSIs), they can inadvertently disrupt the gut microbiota, leading to postoperative complications. Treatment methods vary widely across nations due to differences in drug choice, dosage, and therapy duration, affecting antibiotic resistance rates, which can reach up to 51% in some countries. In Romania and the Republic of Moldova, healthcare practices for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis differ significantly despite similarities in genetics, culture, and diet. Romania's stricter healthcare regulations result in more standardized antibiotic protocols, whereas Moldova's limited healthcare funding leads to less consistent practices and greater variability in treatment outcomes.

Methods

This study presents the results of a prospective cross-border investigation involving 86 colorectal cancer patients from major oncological hospitals in Romania and Moldova. We analyzed fecal samples collected from patients before and 7 days post-antibiotic treatment, focusing on the V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene.

Results

Our findings indicate that inconsistent antibiotic prophylaxis policies-varying in type, dosage, or therapy duration-significantly impacted the gut microbiota and led to more frequent dysbiosis compared to stricter prophylactic antibiotic practices (single dose, single product, limited time).

Discussion

We emphasize the need for standardized antibiotic prophylaxis protocols to minimize dysbiosis and its associated risks, promoting more effective antimicrobial use, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Effect of electroacupuncture versus sham electroacupuncture on postoperative ileus after laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative ileus (POI) is an inevitable complication after abdominal surgery, often hindering recovery and prolonging hospital stay. Despite the increasing use of electroacupuncture (EA) as an alternative treatment for gastrointestinal dysfunction, its effectiveness for POI is still controversial. This study aims to verify the efficacy and safety of EA in alleviating POI.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The study is a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial. A total of 174 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer will be randomly assigned to an EA group and a sham acupuncture group at a ratio of 1:1. Treatment for both groups will commence on the first day after the operation and continue once a day for four consecutive days. The primary outcome is time to first defecation. Secondary outcomes include time to first flatus, time to first tolerance to liquid and semiliquid diet, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C, V.4.0), postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative pain and abdominal distension, the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index, Self-Rating Depression Scale, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale, length of the postoperative hospital stay, time to first postoperative ambulation, evaluation of the expected value of acupuncture, and satisfaction evaluation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. This study protocol (V.2.0, 1 October 2023) involves human participants and has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Sichuan Cancer Hospital (number KY-2023-041-01), Meishan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (number 2024LC001) and The Seventh People's Hospital of Chengdu (number KY2024-001-01). Each individual who agrees to participate in the research will provide written informed consent after the objectives and procedures of this study are explained to them.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2400079645. Registered on 8 January 2024.

Outcome of a 3-day vs 7-day selective digestive tract decontamination-based regimen for oral antibiotic bowel decontamination in left-sided colorectal surgery: A noninferiority study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgery still experiences high rates of infectious complications, such as anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infections (SSIs). Therefore, oral antibiotic bowel decontamination (OABD) has experienced a renaissance. However, data on perioperative selective digestive tract decontamination (SDD)-based regimens or combined bowel preparation are inconsistent. Nonetheless, with widespread use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery concepts, the ideal length for perioperative SDD treatment has to be reconsidered.

METHODS

Perioperative outcome was analyzed in a cohort of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer in a retrospective study. Additional to usual perioperative outcome measures, including AL, SSIs, and overall infectious complications, the efficacy of a shortened 3-day perioperative OABD treatment was compared with the efficacy of a 7-day perioperative OABD treatment based on a noninferiority analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 256 patients were included into analysis, of whom 84 and 172 patients were treated by 3-day and 7-day perioperative OABD regimens, respectively. AL occurred in 1.2% of patients in the 3-day group and 5.2% of patients in the 7-day group, and SSIs occurred in 3.6% of patients in the 3-day group and 5.8% of patients in the 7-day group, without significant difference. The shortened 3-day perioperative SDD-based regimen was noninferior to the regular 7-day perioperative SDD-based regimen concerning the rates of AL, SSIs, and infectious complications.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrated noninferiority of a shortened 3-day SDD-based treatment vs a 7-day SDD-based treatment for AL, SSIs, and overall infectious complications.

Personalised medicine based on host genetics and microbiota applied to colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks second in incidence and third in cancer mortality worldwide. This situation, together with the understanding of the heterogeneity of the disease, has highlighted the need to develop a more individualised approach to its prevention, diagnosis and treatment through personalised medicine. This approach aims to stratify patients according to risk, predict disease progression and determine the most appropriate treatment. It is essential to identify patients who may respond adequately to treatment and those who may be resistant to treatment to avoid unnecessary therapies and minimise adverse side effects. Current research is focused on identifying biomarkers such as specific mutated genes, the type of mutations and molecular profiles critical for the individualisation of CRC diagnosis, prognosis and treatment guidance. In addition, the study of the intestinal microbiota as biomarkers is being incorporated due to the growing scientific evidence supporting its influence on this disease. This article comprehensively addresses the use of current and emerging diagnostic, prognostic and predictive biomarkers in precision medicine against CRC. The effects of host genetics and gut microbiota composition on new approaches to treating this disease are discussed. How the gut microbiota could mitigate the side effects of treatment is reviewed. In addition, strategies to modulate the gut microbiota, such as dietary interventions, antibiotics, and transplantation of faecal microbiota and phages, are discussed to improve CRC prevention and treatment. These findings provide a solid foundation for future research and improving the care of CRC patients.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) implementation in cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Insights from Italian peritoneal surface malignancies expert centers

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a complex procedure that involves extensive peritoneal and visceral resections followed by intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program aims to achieve faster recovery by maintaining pre-operative organ function and reducing the stress response following surgery. A recent publication introduced dedicated ERAS guidelines for CRS and HIPEC with the aim of extending the benefits to patients with peritoneal surface malignancies.

METHODS

A survey was conducted among 21 Italian centers specializing in peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) treatment to assess adherence to ERAS guidelines. The survey covered pre/intraoperative and postoperative ERAS items and explored attitudes towards ERAS implementation.

RESULTS

All centers completed the survey, demonstrating expertise in PSM treatment. However, less than 30 % of centers adopted ERAS protocols despite being aware of dedicated guidelines. Preoperative optimization was common, with variations in bowel preparation methods and fasting periods. Intraoperative normothermia control was consistent, but fluid management practices varied. Postoperative practices, including routine abdominal drain placement and NGT management, varied greatly among centers. The majority of respondents expressed an intention to implement ERAS, citing concerns about feasibility and organizational challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

The study concludes that Italian centers specialized in PSM treatment have limited adoption of ERAS protocols for CRS ± HIPEC, despite being aware of guidelines. The variability in practice highlights the need for standardized approaches and further evaluation of ERAS applicability in this complex surgical setting to optimize patient care.

Racial Disparities in Bowel Preparation and Post-Operative Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Combined pre-operative bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (OAB) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is the current recommendation for elective colorectal surgery. Few have studied racial disparities in bowel preparation and subsequent post-operative complications.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used 2015-2021 ACS-NSQIP-targeted data for elective colectomy for colon cancer. Multivariate regression evaluated predictors of post-operative outcomes: post-operative ileus, anastomotic leak, surgical site infection (SSI), operative time, and hospital length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

72,886 patients were evaluated with 82.1% White, 11.1% Black, and 6.8% Asian or Asian Pacific Islander (AAPI); 4.2% were Hispanic and 51.4% male. Regression accounting for age, sex, ASA classification, comorbidities, and operative approach showed Black, AAPI, and Hispanic patients were more likely to have had no bowel preparation compared to White patients receiving MBP+OAB. Compared to White patients, Black and AAPI patients had higher odds of prolonged LOS and pro-longed operative time. Black patients had higher odds of post-operative ileus.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial disparities exist in both bowel preparation administration and post-operative complications despite the method of bowel preparation. This warrants exploration into discriminatory bowel preparation practices and potential differences in the efficacy of bowel preparation in specific populations due to biological or social differences, which may affect outcomes. Our study is limited by its use of a large database that lacks socioeconomic variables and patient data beyond 30 days.

Influence of additional prophylactic oral antibiotics during mechanical bowel preparation on surgical site infection in patients receiving colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic antibiotics (PAs) are standard for preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) post-colorectal surgery. This study aims to compare the effect of additional empiric oral antibiotics (OAs) alongside routine PAs to identify SSI risk factors.

METHODS

A retrospective observatory analysis was conducted from January 2019 to December 2022 at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The cohort was divided into two groups: PA given 1 h before surgery and discontinued within 24 h, and OA administered empiric OAs during mechanical bowel preparation in addition to PA.

RESULTS

From a total of 6736 patients, 3482 were in the PA group and 3254 in the OA group. SSI incidence showed no significant intergroup difference (p = 0.374) even after propensity score matching (p = 0.338). The multivariable analysis revealed male sex [odds ratio (OR): 2.153, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.626-2.852, and p = 0.001], open surgery (OR: 3.335, 95% CI: 2.456-4.528, and p = 0.001), dirty wound (OR: 2.171, 95% CI: 1.256-3.754, and p = 0.006), and an operation time of more than 145 min (OR: 2.110, 95% CI: 1.324-3.365, and p = 0.002) as SSI risk factors. In rectal surgery subgroup, OA demonstrated a protective effect against SSI (OR: 0.613, 95% CI: 0.408-0.922, and p = 0.019) and in laparoscopic approach (OR: 0.626, 95% CI: 0.412-0.952, and p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

OA did not affect SSI incidence in colorectal surgeries. Male sex, open surgery, dirty wounds, and longer operation time were risk factors for SSI. However, for rectal and laparoscopic surgery, OA was a protective factor for SSI.

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort

BACKGROUND

Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation.

METHODS

A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

The effect of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound related complications: A meta-analysis

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), a routine nursing procedure before paediatric bowel surgery, is widely should in clinical practice, but its necessity remains controversial. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the effect of preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound-related complications in order to analyse the clinical application value of MBP in paediatric bowel surgery. As of November 2023, we searched four online databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. Two investigators screened the collected studies against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and ROBINS-I was used to evaluate the quality of studies. Using RevMan5.3, a meta-analysis of the collected data was performed, and a fixed-effect model or a random-effect model was used to analyse OR, 95% CI, SMD, and MD. A total of 11 studies with 2556 patients were included. Most of studies had moderate-to-severe quality bias. The results of meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications related to postoperative infections in children with MBP before bowel surgery versus those with No MBP, wound infection (OR 1.11, 95% CI:0.76 ~ 1.61, p = 0.59, I2 = 5%), intra-abdominal infection (OR 1.26, 95% CI:0.58 ~ 2.77, p = 0.56, I2 = 9%). There was no significant difference in the risk of postoperative bowel anastomotic leak (OR 1.07, 95% CI:0.68 ~ 1.68, p = 0.78, I2 = 12%), and anastomotic dehiscence (OR 1.67, 95% CI:0.13 ~ 22.20, p = 0.70, I2 = 73%). Patients' intestinal obstruction did not show an advantage of undergoing MBP preoperatively, with an incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR 1.95, 95% CI:0.55 ~ 6.93, p = 0.30, I2 = 0%). Based on existing evidence that preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery did not reduce the risk of postoperative wound complications, we cautiously assume that MBP before surgery is unnecessary for children undergoing elective bowel surgery. However, due to the limited number of study participants selected for this study and the overall low quality of evidence, the results need to be interpreted with caution. It is suggested that more high quality, large-sample, multicenter clinical trials are required to validate our findings.

Bowel preparation for elective colectomy in Crohn's disease: results from a global cohort study using the NSQIP database

AIM

The role of bowel preparation before colectomy in Crohn's disease patients remains controversial. This retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation in patients diagnosed with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy.

METHOD

Data were collected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participant user files from 2016 to 2021. A total of 6244 patients with Crohn's disease who underwent elective colectomy were included. The patients were categorized into two groups: those who received combined colon preparation (mechanical and antibiotic) and those who did not receive any form of bowel preparation. The primary outcomes assessed were the rate of anastomotic leak and the occurrence of deep organ infection. Secondary outcomes included all-cause short-term mortality, clinical-related morbidity, ostomy creation, unplanned reoperation, operative time, hospital length of stay and ileus.

RESULTS

Combined colon preparation was associated with significantly reduced risks of anastomotic leak (relative risk 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.95, P = 0.021) and deep organ infection (relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83, P < 0.001). Additionally, patients who underwent colon preparation had lower rates of ostomy creation, shorter hospital stays and a decreased incidence of ileus. However, there was no significant difference in all-cause short-term mortality or the need for unplanned reoperation between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation may have clinical benefits for patients with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy.

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.

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

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

Strategies to reduce ileus after colorectal surgery: A qualitative umbrella review of the collective evidence

BACKGROUND

Various strategies were proposed to reduce postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery. This umbrella review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of current evidence on measures to reduce the incidence and severity of postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus to identify systematic reviews that assessed the efficacy of interventions used to prevent postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery. Data on study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes were summarized in a narrative manner.

RESULTS

A total of 26 systematic reviews incorporating various strategies like early oral feeding, gum chewing, coffee consumption, medications, and acupuncture were included. Early oral feeding reduced postoperative ileus and accelerated bowel function return. The most assessed intervention was chewing gum, which was associated with a median reduction of postoperative ileus by 45% (range, 11%-59%) and shortening of the time to first flatus and time to defecation by a median of 11.9 and 17.7 hours, respectively. Coffee intake showed inconsistent results, with a median shortening of time to flatus and time to defecation by 1.32 and 14.45 hours, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Early oral feeding, chewing gum, and alvimopan were the most commonly assessed and effective strategies for reducing postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery. Medications used to reduce postoperative ileus included alvimopan, intravenous lidocaine, dexamethasone, probiotics, and oral antibiotics. Intravenous dexamethasone and lidocaine and oral probiotics helped hasten bowel function return. Acupuncture positively impacted the recovery of bowel function.

Mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Italian colorectal anastomotic leakage (iCral) study group prospective cohorts

Retrospective evaluation of the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on data derived from two prospective open-label observational multicenter studies in Italy regarding elective colorectal surgery. MBP for elective colorectal surgery remains a controversial issue with contrasting recommendations in current guidelines. The Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group, therefore, decided to estimate the effects of no MBP (treatment variable) versus MBP for elective colorectal surgery. A total of 8359 patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis were enrolled in two consecutive prospective studies in 78 surgical centers in Italy from January 2019 to September 2021. A retrospective PSMA was performed on 5455 (65.3%) cases after the application of explicit exclusion criteria to eliminate confounders. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infections (SSI) rates; the secondary endpoints included SSI subgroups, overall and major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. Overall length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was also considered. Two well-balanced groups of 1125 patients each were generated: group A (No MBP, true population of interest), and group B (MBP, control population), performing a PSMA considering 21 covariates. Group A vs. group B resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of AL [42 (3.5%) vs. 73 (6.0%) events; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.84; p = 0.005]. No difference was recorded between the two groups for SSI [73 (6.0%) vs. 85 (7.0%) events; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63-1.22; p = 0.441]. Regarding the secondary endpoints, no MBP resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of reoperation and LOS > 6 days. This study confirms that no MBP before elective colorectal surgery is significantly associated with a lower risk of AL, reoperation rate, and LOS < 6 days when compared with MBP.

Meta-analysis of efficacy of perioperative oral antibiotics in intestinal surgery with surgical site infection

OBJECTIVES

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a serious complication of intestinal surgery. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of different preoperative oral antibiotic preparation (OABP) compared with intravenous antibiotic preparation (IVAP) and/or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP).

METHODS

A meta-analysis consisting of adult patients adopting oral antibiotics versus other regimens during the preoperative preparation of elective intestinal surgery was performed. The outcome included overall SSI, organ space SSI, superficial SSI, deep SSI, and mortality rate.

RESULTS

A total of 35 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of 8445 adult patients were included in our present analysis. OABP regimens were combined with IVAP in 29 RCTs. In general, the incidence of overall SSI in the OABP group was less compared with the IVAP alone or IVAP+MBP group (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.69, P < .00001, I2 = 47%). Metronidazoles plus quinolones or aminoglycosides showed the best effect on reducing the overall SSI. OABP in combination with preoperative and postoperative IVAP was both significantly associated with reduced SSI. IVAP before and within 24 h after surgery showed the best advantage. No difference was found between the OABP without IVAP group and the control group in reducing SSI. OABP regimens also demonstrated a lower incidence rate of organ space SSI, superficial SSI, deep SSI, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

OABP in combination with preoperative IVAP and within 24 h post-operation significantly reduced the incidence of SSI in intestinal surgery. Metronidazoles accompanied with quinolones or aminoglycosides might be the appropriate combinations for OABP regimens.

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.

Early outcomes from the Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy Anastomosis study (MIRCAST)

BACKGROUND

The impact of method of anastomosis and minimally invasive surgical technique on surgical and clinical outcomes after right hemicolectomy is uncertain. The aim of the MIRCAST study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (ICA and ECA respectively), each using either a laparoscopic approach or robot-assisted surgery during right hemicolectomies for benign or malignant tumours.

METHODS

This was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational, monitored, non-randomized, parallel, four-cohort study (laparoscopic ECA; laparoscopic ICA; robot-assisted ECA; robot-assisted ICA). High-volume surgeons (at least 30 minimally invasive right colectomy procedures/year) from 59 hospitals across 12 European countries treated patients over a 3-year interval The primary composite endpoint was 30-day success, defined by two measures of efficacy-absence of surgical wound infection and of any major complication within the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were: overall complications, conversion rate, duration of operation, and number of lymph nodes harvested. Propensity score analysis was used for comparison of ICA with ECA, and robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Some 1320 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (laparoscopic ECA, 555; laparoscopic ICA, 356; robot-assisted ECA, 88; robot-assisted ICA, 321). No differences in the co-primary endpoint at 30 days after surgery were observed between cohorts (7.2 and 7.6 per cent in ECA and ICA groups respectively; 7.8 and 6.6 per cent in laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups). Lower overall complication rates were observed after ICA, specifically less ileus, and nausea and vomiting after robot-assisted procedures.

CONCLUSION

No difference in the composite outcome of surgical wound infections and severe postoperative complications was found between intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis or laparoscopy versus robot-assisted surgery.

Selective Decontamination with Oral Antibiotics in Colorectal Surgery: 90-day Reintervention Rates and Long-term Oncological Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Oral antibiotics (OAB) in colorectal surgery have been shown to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs) and possibly anastomotic leakage. However, evidence on long-term follow-up, reintervention rates and 5-year oncological follow-up is lacking. The current study aims at elucidating this knowledge gap.

METHODS

This study evaluated the long-term effectiveness of perioperative 'Selective decontamination of the digestive tract' (SDD) in colorectal cancer surgery. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage within 90 days, secondary outcomes included infectious complications, reinterventions, readmission, hospital stay, and 5-year overall and disease-free-survival. Statistical analysis including univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of 90-day outcomes, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used for the 5-year survival outcomes.

RESULTS

In total 455 patients were analyzed, 228 participants in the SDD group and 227 in the control group. Anastomotic leakage rate was not statistically different between the SDD and control group (6.6% versus 9.7%). One or more infectious complications occurred in 15.4% of patients in the SDD group and in 28.2% in the control group (OR 0.46, 95% C.I. 0.29 - 0.73). In the SDD group 8,8% of patients required a reintervention compared to 16,3% of patients in the control group (OR 0.47, 95% C.I. 0.26 - 0.84). After multivariable analysis SDD remained significant in reducing both infectious complications and reinterventions after 90-days follow-up. There was no difference between SDD and control group in 5-year overall survival and disease-free-survival.

CONCLUSION

SDD as OAB is effective in reducing 90-days postoperative infectious complications and reinterventions. As such, SDD as standard OAB in elective colorectal surgery is highly recommended.

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.

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.

Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update

The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute-care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their surgical-site infection (SSI) prevention efforts. This document updates the Strategies to Prevent Surgical Site Infections in Acute Care Hospitals published in 2014. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). It is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the American Hospital Association (AHA), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise.

Role of the Microbiome in Malignancy

The conceptual underpinning of carcinogenesis has been strongly influenced by an expanded understanding of the human microbiome. Malignancy risks in diverse organs have been uniquely tied to aspects of the resident microbiota in different organs and systems including the colon, lungs, pancreas, ovaries, uterine cervix, and stomach; other organs are increasingly linked to maladaptive aspects of the microbiome as well. In this way, the maladaptive microbiome may be termed an oncobiome. Microbe-driven inflammation, anti-inflammation, and mucosal protection failure, as well as diet-induced microbiome derangement are all mechanisms that influence malignancy risk. Therefore, they also offer potential avenues of diagnostic and therapeutic intervention to modify malignancy risk, and to perhaps interrupt progression toward cancer in different sites. Each of these mechanisms will be explored using colorectal malignancy as a prototype condition to demonstrate the microbiome's role in carcinogenesis.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

The Influence of the Microbiome on Anastomotic Leak

Anastomotic leak, defined by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer as "a communication between the intra- and extraluminal compartments owing to a defect of the integrity of the intestinal wall at the anastomosis," is one of the most devastating complications in colorectal surgery. Much work has been done to identify causes of leak; however, despite advances in surgical technique, the prevalence of anastomotic leak has remained at around 11%. The potential causative role of bacteria in the etiopathology of anastomotic leak was established in the 1950s. More recently, alterations in the colonic microbiome have been shown to affect rates of anastomotic leak. Multiple perioperative factors that alter the homeostasis of the gut microbiota community structure and function have been linked to anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery. Here, we discuss the role of diet, radiation, bowel preparation, medications including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, morphine, and antibiotics, and specific microbial pathways that have been implicated in anastomotic leak via their effects on the microbiome.

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.

Exploring the roles of intestinal flora in enhanced recovery after surgery

Striving to optimize surgical outcomes, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway mitigates patients' stress through the implementation of evidence-based practices during the pre-, intra-, and postoperative periods. Intestinal flora is a sophisticated ecosystem integrating with the host and the external environment, which serves as a mediator in diverse interventions of ERAS to regulate human metabolism and inflammation. This review linked gut microbes and their metabolites with ERAS interventions, offering novel high-quality investigative proponents for ERAS. ERAS could alter the composition and function of intestinal flora in patients by alleviating various perioperative stress responses. Modifying gut flora through multiple modalities, such as diet and nutrition, to accelerate recovery might be a complementary approach when exploring novel ERAS initiatives. Meanwhile, the pandemic of COVID-19 and the availability of promising qualitative evidence created both challenges and opportunities for the establishment of ERAS mode.

Examining the Role of Microbiota-Centered Interventions in Cancer Therapeutics: Applications for Urothelial Carcinoma

Modern advances in genomic and molecular technologies have sparked substantial research on the human intestinal microbiome over the past decade. A deeper understanding of the microbiome has illuminated that dysbiosis, or a disruption in the microbiome, is associated with inflammatory disease states and carcinogenesis. Novel therapies that target the microbiome and restore healthy flora may have value in dampening the immunopathologic state induced by dysbiosis. A narrative review of the literature on the use of microbiota-centered interventions (MCIs) was conducted. Several randomized clinical trials show that MCIs can augment response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in patients with metastatic cancer. Clinical trials have also demonstrated that modulation of the intestinal microbiome can enhance recovery and reduce infectious complications in the surgical management of colorectal adenocarcinoma. Overall, these major discoveries suggest future clinical applications of MCIs for a wide range of immune-mediated conditions. These results may also translate to improved patient outcomes in systemic immunotherapy for urothelial carcinoma as well as in patients recovering from radical cystectomy (RC), which is complicated by high infection rates. Further research is needed to evaluate the optimal bacterial composition of microbiota-centered therapies and the specific cellular changes that lead to improved tumor antigen recognition after microbiota-centered therapies.

A bélelőkészítés lehetőségei és hazai gyakorlata a tervezett colorectalis műtétek előtt

Introduction

The bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is a controversial topic in the surgical practice. During the last 15 years numerous publications concerning the necessity and options of the bowel preparation were published. The aim of our team was to perform a survey about the current, domestic practice as well as to give a short overview of the relevant literature and recommendations.

Methods

50 surgical departments performing colorectal surgeries routinely were asked to fill out an online, anonymous survey. The data of the survey filled out by 40 surgical departments were analyzed separately for the surgeries of the right colon, the left colon, and the rectum.

Results

Based on the results, there is a high heterogeneity concerning the mode of the bowel preparation: in case of the right colon 7 different combinations, in case of the left colon and rectum 3-3 different combinations of bowel preparation methods are used.

Conclusions

In the current domestic practice there is a high heterogeneity regarding the modes of the bowel preparation before the elective colorectal surgery, which are presumably based mainly on individual experience. The methods of the bowel preparation used by the majority of the surgical centers are not in accordance with the current international recommendations. A preparation of a Hungarian consensus document in this topic would be beneficial.

The Use of Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Call for Change in Practice

Elective colorectal surgery is associated with one of the highest rates of surgical site infections (SSIs), which result in prolonged length of stay, morbidity, and mortality for these patients and have a significant financial burden to healthcare systems. In an effort to reduce the frequency of SSI rates associated with colorectal surgery, the 2018 World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines recommend the routine use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) in adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. However, this recommendation remains a topic of debate internationally. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines, last revised in 2019, recommend against the routine use of MBP and do not address the issue of OAP. In this communication, we reviewed the current guidelines and examined the most recent evidence from randomised-control trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses on the effect of MBP and OAP on SSI rates since the 2019 NICE guideline review. This recent evidence clearly demonstrated an SSI-risk-reduction benefit with the additional use of OAP and the combination of MBP and OAP in this group of patients, and we therefore highlight the need for change of the current NICE guidelines.

Risk Factors for Severe Postoperative Complications after Oncologic Right Colectomy: Unicenter Analysis

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the potential risk factors for severe postoperative complications after oncologic right colectomy. Materials and Methods: All consecutive patients with right colon cancer who underwent right colectomy in our department between 2016 and 2021 were retrospectively included in this study. The Clavien-Dindo grading system was used to evaluate postoperative complications. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to investigate risk factors for postoperative severe complications. Results: Of the 144 patients, there were 69 males and 75 females, with a median age of 69 (IQR 60-78). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were 41.7% (60 patients) and 11.1% (16 patients), respectively. The anastomotic leak rate was 5.3% (7 patients). Severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grades III-V) were present in 20 patients (13.9%). Univariate analysis showed the following as risk factors for postoperative severe complications: Charlson score, lack of mechanical bowel preparation, level of preoperative proteins, blood transfusions, and degree of urgency (elective/emergency right colectomy). In the logistic binary regression, the Charlson score (OR = 1.931, 95% CI = 1.077-3.463, p = 0.025) and preoperative protein level (OR = 0.049, 95% CI = 0.006-0.433, p = 0.007) were found to be independent risk factors for postoperative severe complications. Conclusions: Severe complications after oncologic right colectomy are associated with a low preoperative protein level and a higher Charlson comorbidity index.

Effect of oral antimicrobial prophylaxis on surgical site infection after elective colorectal surgery: multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether oral antimicrobial prophylaxis as an adjunct to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis reduces surgical site infections after elective colorectal surgery.

DESIGN

Multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.

SETTING

11 university and non-university hospitals in France between 25 May 2016 and 8 August 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

926 adults scheduled for elective colorectal surgery.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomised to receive either a single 1 g dose of ornidazole (n=463) or placebo (n=463) orally 12 hours before surgery, in addition to intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis before surgical incision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included individual types of surgical site infections and major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade 3 or higher) within 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 960 patients who were enrolled, 926 (96%) were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 63 years and 554 (60%) were men. Surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery occurred in 60 of 463 patients (13%) in the oral prophylaxis group and 100 of 463 (22%) in the placebo group (absolute difference -8.6%, 95% confidence interval -13.5% to -3.8%; relative risk 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.80). The proportion of patients with deep infections was 4.8% in the oral prophylaxis group and 8.0% in the placebo group (absolute difference -3.2%, 95% confidence interval -6.4% to -0.1%). The proportion of patients with organ space infections was 5.0% in the oral prophylaxis group and 8.4% in the placebo group (absolute difference -3.4%, -6.7% to -0.2%). Major postoperative complications occurred in 9.1% patients in the oral prophylaxis group and 13.6% in the placebo group (absolute difference -4.5%, -8.6% to -0.5%).

CONCLUSION

Among adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery, the addition of a single 1 g dose of ornidazole compared with placebo before surgery significantly reduced surgical site infections.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02618720.

Dysbiosis and Gastrointestinal Surgery: Current Insights and Future Research

Surgery of the gastrointestinal tract can result in deep changes among the gut commensals in terms of abundance, function and health consequences. Elective colorectal surgery can occur for neoplastic or inflammatory bowel disease; in these settings, microbiota imbalance is described as a preoperative condition, and it is linked to post-operative complications, as well. The study of bariatric patients led to several insights into the role of gut microbiota in obesity and after major surgical injuries. Preoperative dysbiosis and post-surgical microbiota reassessment are still poorly understood, and they could become a key part of preventing post-surgical complications. In the current review, we outline the most recent literature regarding agents and molecular pathways involved in pre- and post-operative dysbiosis in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Defining the standard method for microbiota assessment in these patients could set up the future approach and clinical practice.

Mechanical bowel preparation with or without oral antibiotics for rectal resection for cancer (REPCA trial): a study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is still a lack of randomized trials assessing the clinical value of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotics (OA) before rectal surgery. Existing studies are inconsistent regarding OA. The aim of this study is to examine the role of MBP with or without OA (using Alfa Normix^®) on postoperative complications in patients undergoing rectal resection for cancer.

METHODS

We are conducting a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing MBP (Moviprep^®) with OA (Alfa Normix^®) versus MBP alone in patients undergoing elective rectal resection for cancer. Patients with rectal or rectosigmoid cancer are randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint is incisional surgical site infection (SSI) assessed within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints are anastomotic leakage (AL), organ/space SSI, other postoperative complications, intraoperative complications, operation time, bowel preparation quality, bowel preparation adherence. Intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses will be performed.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the REPCA trial will demonstrate whether MBP + OA is superior to MBP alone in rectal cancer surgery. This trial might influence current preoperative practice and improve postoperative outcomes.

Effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery. A systematic literature search up to June 2022 was performed and 6026 subjects with lower gastrointestinal surgery at the baseline of the studies; 3090 of them were using the wound protector, and 2936 were using no wound protector. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery using the dichotomous methods with a random or fixed-effect model. The surgical site wound infection was significantly lower with single-ring wound protectors (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.83, P = .004), and dual-ring wound protectors (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.56, P < .001) in subjects with lower gastrointestinal surgery compared with no wound protector. The surgical site wound infection was significantly lower with single-ring wound protectors, and dual-ring wound protectors in subjects with lower gastrointestinal surgery compared with no wound protector. The analysis of outcomes should be with caution because of the low sample size of 5 out of 28 studies in the meta-analysis and a low number of studies in certain comparisons.

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.

Delivery of drinking, eating and mobilising (DrEaMing) and its association with length of hospital stay after major noncardiac surgery: observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery pathways are associated with improved postoperative outcomes. However, as enhanced recovery pathways have become more complex and varied, compliance has reduced. The 'DrEaMing' bundle re-prioritises early postoperative delivery of drinking, eating, and mobilising. We investigated relationships between DrEaMing compliance, postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications in a prospective multicentre major surgical cohort.

METHODS

We interrogated the UK Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme dataset. Analyses were conducted in four stages. In an exploratory cohort, we identified independent predictors of DrEaMing. We quantified the association between delivery of DrEaMing (and its component variables) and prolonged LOS in a homogenous colorectal subgroup and assessed generalisability in multispecialty patients. Finally, LOS and complications were compared across hospitals, stratified by DrEaMing compliance.

RESULTS

The exploratory cohort comprised 22 218 records, the colorectal subgroup 7230, and the multispecialty subgroup 5713. DrEaMing compliance was 59% (13 112 patients), 60% (4341 patients), and 60% (3421), respectively, but varied substantially between hospitals. Delivery of DrEaMing predicted reduced odds of prolonged LOS in colorectal (odds ratio 0.51 [0.43-0.59], P<0.001) and multispecialty cohorts (odds ratio 0.47 [0.41-0.53], P<0.001). At the hospital level, complications were not the primary determinant of LOS after colorectal surgery, but consistent delivery of DrEaMing was associated with significantly shorter LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery of bundled and unbundled DrEaMing was associated with substantial reductions in postoperative LOS, independent of the effects of confounder variables. Consistency of process delivery, and not complications, predicted shorter hospital-level length of stay. DrEaMing may be adopted by perioperative health systems as a quality metric to support improved patient outcomes and reduced hospital length of stay.

Optimized perioperative management (fast-track, ERAS) to enhance postoperative recovery in elective colorectal surgery

Aim

This manuscript provides information on the history, principles, and clinical results of Fast-track or ERAS concepts to optimize perioperative management (OPM).

Methods

With the focus on elective colorectal surgery description of the OPM concept and its elements for with special attention to the prevention of infectious complications and clinical results compared to traditional care will be given using recent systematic literature reviews. Additionally, clinical results for other major abdominal procedures are given.

Results

An optimized perioperative management protocol for elective colorectal resections will currently consist of 25 perioperative elements. These elements include the time from before hospital admission (patient education, screening, and treatment of possible risk factors like anemia, malnutrition, cessation of nicotine or alcohol abuse, optimization of concurrent systemic disease, physical prehabilitation, carbohydrate loading, adequate bowel preparation) to the preoperative period (shortened fasting, non-sedative premedication, prophylaxis of PONV and thromboembolic complications), intraoperative measures (systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, standardized anesthesia, normothermia and normovolemia, minimally invasive surgery, avoidance of drains and tubes) as well as postoperative actions (early oral feeding, enforced mobilization, early removal of a urinary catheter, stimulation of intestinal propulsion, control of hyperglycemia). Most of these elements are based on high-level evidence and will also have effects on the incidence of postoperative infectious complications.

Conclusion

Optimized perioperative management should be mandatory for elective surgery today as it enhances postoperative patient recovery, reduces morbidity and infectious complications.

Antibiotic Bowel Decontamination in Gastrointestinal Surgery—A Single-Center 20 Years’ Experience

Objective

Anastomotic leakage, surgical site infections, and other infectious complications are still common complications in gastrointestinal surgery. The concept of perioperative antibiotic bowel decontamination demonstrates beneficial effects in single randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but data from routine clinical use are still sparse. Our aim was to analyze the data from the routine clinical use of perioperative antibiotic bowel decontamination in gastrointestinal surgery.

Methods

Based on 20 years’ experience, we performed a retrospective analysis of all cases in oncologic gastrointestinal surgery with the use of antibiotic bowel decontamination in gastric, sigmoid, and rectal cancer. Clinical data and perioperative outcomes were analyzed, especially regarding anastomotic leakage, surgical site infections, and other infectious complications.

Results

A total of n = 477 cases of gastrointestinal surgery in gastric cancer (n = 80), sigmoid cancer (n = 168), and rectal cancer (n = 229) using a perioperative regimen of antibiotic bowel decontamination could be included in this analysis. Overall, anastomotic leakage occurred in 4.4% (2.5% gastric cancer, 3.0% sigmoid cancer, 6.1% rectal cancer) and surgical site infections in 9.6% (6.3% gastric cancer, 9.5% sigmoid cancer, 10.9% rectal cancer). The incidence of all infectious complications was 13.6% (12.5% gastric cancer, 11.3% sigmoid cancer, 15.7% rectal cancer). Mortality was low, with an overall rate of 1.1% (1.3% gastric cancer, 1.8% sigmoid cancer, 0.4% rectal cancer). Antibiotic decontamination was completed in 98.5%. No adverse effects of antibiotic bowel decontamination could be observed.

Conclusion

Overall, in this large cohort, we can report low rates of surgery-related serious morbidity and mortality when perioperative antibiotic bowel decontamination is performed. The rates are lower than other clinical reports. In our clinical experience, the use of perioperative antibiotic bowel decontamination appears to improve patient safety and surgical outcomes during gastrointestinal oncologic procedures in a routine clinical setting.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Supplementary Information

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

Electroacupuncture versus sham electroacupuncture in the treatment of postoperative ileus after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative ileus (POI) is an inevitable complication of almost all abdominal surgeries, which results in prolonged hospitalisation and increased healthcare costs. Various treatment strategies have been developed for POI but with limited success. Electroacupuncture (EA) might be a potential therapy for POI. However, evidence from rigorous trials that evaluated the effectiveness of EA for POI is limited. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine whether EA can safely reduce the time to the first defecation after laparoscopic surgery in patients with POI.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre randomised sham-controlled trial will be conducted in four hospitals in China. A total of 248 eligible participants with colorectal cancer who will undergo laparoscopic surgery will be randomly allocated to an EA group and a sham EA group in a 1:1 ratio. Treatment will be performed starting on postoperative day 1 and continued for four consecutive days, once per day. If the participant is discharged within 4 days after surgery, the treatment will cease on the day of discharge. The primary outcome will be the time to first defecation. The secondary outcome measures will include time to first flatus, tolerability of semiliquid and solid food, length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, abdominal distension, postoperative pain, postoperative analgesic, time to first ambulation, blinding assessment, credibility and expectancy and readmission rate.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (number 2020BZHYLL0116) and the institutional review board of each hospital. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. This study protocol (V.3.0, 6 March 2020) involves human participants and was approved by the ethics committees of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (number 2020BZHYLL0116), Beijing Friendship Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University (number 2020-P2-069-01), Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University (number 2020-3-11-2), National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College (number 20/163-2359), and the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University (number QYFYKYLL711311920). The participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000038444.

Risk Nomogram Does Not Predict Anastomotic Leakage After Colon Surgery Accurately: Results of the Multi-center LekCheck Study

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a dreaded complication after colorectal surgery. Preoperatively identifying high-risk patients can help to reduce the incidence of this complication. For this reason, AL risk nomograms have been developed. The objective of this study was to test the AL risk nomogram developed by Frasson, et al. for validity and to identify risk-factors for AL.

METHODS

From the international multi-center LekCheck study database, patients who underwent colonic surgery with the formation of an anastomosis were included. Data were prospectively collected between 2016 and 2019 at 14 hospitals. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (AUROC) were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 643 patients were included. The median age was 70 years and 51% were male. The majority underwent surgery for malignancies (80.7%). The overall AL rate was 9.2%. The risk nomogram was not predictive for AL in the population tested (AUROC 0.572). Low preoperative haemoglobin (p = 0.006), intraoperative hypothermia (p = 0.02), contamination of the operative field (p = 0.004), and use of epidural analgesia (p = 0.02) were independent risk-factors for AL.

CONCLUSION

The AL risk nomogram could not be validated using the international LekCheck study database. In the future, intraoperative predictive factors for AL, as identified in this study, should also be included in AL risk predictors.

Attitudes towards Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) interventions in colorectal surgery: nationwide survey of Australia and New Zealand colorectal surgeons

BACKGROUND

Whilst Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) has been widely accepted in the international colorectal surgery community, there remains significant variations in ERAS programme implementations, compliance rates and best practice recommendations in international guidelines.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to colorectal surgeons from Australia and New Zealand after ethics approval. It evaluated specialist attitudes towards the effectiveness of specific ERAS interventions in improving short term outcomes after colorectal surgery. The data were analysed using a rating scale and graded response model in item response theory (IRT) on Stata MP, version 15 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

Of 300 colorectal surgeons, 95 (31.7%) participated in the survey. Of eighteen ERAS interventions, this study identified eight strategies as most effective in improving ERAS programmes alongside early oral feeding and mobilisation. These included pre-operative iron infusion for anaemic patients (IRT score = 7.82 [95% CI: 6.01-9.16]), minimally invasive surgery (IRT score = 7.77 [95% CI: 5.96-9.07]), early in-dwelling catheter removal (IRT score = 7.69 [95% CI: 5.83-9.01]), pre-operative smoking cessation (IRT score = 7.68 [95% CI: 5.49-9.18]), pre-operative counselling (IRT score = 7.44 [95% CI: 5.58-8.88]), avoiding drains in colon surgery (IRT score = 7.37 [95% CI: 5.17-8.95]), avoiding nasogastric tubes (IRT score = 7.29 [95% CI: 5.32-8.8]) and early drain removal in rectal surgery (IRT score = 5.64 [95% CI: 3.49-7.66]).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey has demonstrated the current attitudes of colorectal surgeons from Australia and New Zealand regarding ERAS interventions. Eight of the interventions assessed in this study including pre-operative iron infusion for anaemic patients, minimally invasive surgery, early in-dwelling catheter removal, pre-operative smoking cessation, pre-operative counselling, avoidance of drains in colon surgery, avoiding nasogastric tubes and early drain removal in rectal surgery should be considered an important part of colorectal ERAS programmes.