Is Mechanical Bowel Preparation Necessary for Gynecologic Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Effectiveness of Mechanical Bowel Preparation before Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgery: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the effect of bowel preparation using only oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) solution versus oral PEG solution combined with mechanical sodium phosphate (NaP) enema on the surgical field visualization in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic procedures.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to either a single oral PEG solution or an oral PEG solution combined by mechanical NaP enema. The intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, the ease of manipulation of the bowels, and overall difficulty level of the surgery were evaluated by the surgeon using a self-administered questionnaire. After the surgery, the patients completed a survey assessing postoperative gastrointestinal discomfort.

RESULTS

A total of 114 women were enrolled and randomized to oral PEG solution-only group (n = 48), and oral PEG plus mechanical NaP enema group (n = 66). Forty-two women in oral PEG-only group and 59 oral PEG plus NaP enema group completed the study. There was no difference in intraoperative visualization or overall difficulty of the operation between the two groups, and bowel manipulation was easier in the oral PEG-only group. Also, there was no difference in operating time between the groups. The patients' level of gastrointestinal discomfort after the surgery was not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Routine use of mechanical NaP enema before robot-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic surgery is not recommended, because it has no additional benefit regarding intraoperative visualization or the surgical level of difficulty over oral bowel preparation methods.

Comparative evaluation of enema alone and in combination with oral polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before transvaginal pelvic floor reconstruction in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort study

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the value of using an enema alone for mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before transvaginal pelvic floor reconstruction (TPFR) in patients ≥65 years old. In total, 190 patients were included [81 in the enema group vs. 109 in the enema + polyethylene glycol (PEG) group]. The levels of serum potassium (p = .004) and calcium (p = .005) were higher in the enema group after surgery. The decrease in serum calcium was more significant in the enema + PEG group (p = .027). More patients in the enema + PEG group developed hypokalaemia (p = .035) or hypocalcaemia (p = .008) after surgery. The incidence of thrombus and surgical site infection was similar and earlier bowel movement was evident in the enema group (p = .000). Overall, the enema group used more laxatives (p = .026). Using enema alone before TPFR reduces the incidence of electrolyte disturbances with no increase in surgical complications in elderly patients.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? TPFR is an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in elderly women. Bowel preparation performed before gynecological surgery can reduce surgical site infection, but increase discomfort and electrolyte disturbance.What do the results of this study add? The levels of serum potassium and calcium were lower in the enema + PEG group than in the enema group after surgery and more patients developed hypokalaemia or hypocalcaemia in the enema + PEG group. The incidence of thrombus and surgical site infection was similar between the two groups. Bowel movement was earlier in the enema group.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or future research? Using enema alone before TPFR reduces the incidence of electrolyte disturbance and does not increase surgical complications. This conclusion needs to be confirmed by random controlled trial studies in the future.

Controversies in preoperative bowel preparation in gynecologic and gynecologic oncology surgery: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to assess the impact of mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation on surgical performance and to investigate their role before gynecologic surgical procedures regarding the infection rates. We also aim to study the updated evidence regarding the use of these different types of bowel preparation, as well as the current preoperative practice applied.

METHODS

An extensive search of the literature was conducted with Medline/PubMed, and the Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews being used for our primary search.

RESULTS

To date, due to the conflicting guidelines by the scientific societies, surgeons do not use a specific pattern of bowel preparation regimen. There are no strong evidence supporting mechanical bowel preparation, but instead, in many cases, patients' adverse effects, both physiological and psychological have been noted. On the other hand, the combined use of oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel preparation has been proven beneficial in colorectal surgery in reducing postoperative morbidities.

CONCLUSION

Based on current literature, in gynecologic surgeries with minimal probability of intraluminal entry, a regimen without any bowel preparation should be applied. The combined administration of both mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation, or even the use of the oral antibiotics alone, should be preserved for cases of increased complexity, where bowel involvement is highly anticipated, such as in gynecologic oncology, as stated in the ERAS protocols. Nonetheless, further research specific to gynecologic surgery is required.

Use of bowel preparation does not reduce postoperative infectious morbidity following minimally invasive or open hysterectomies

BACKGROUND

Literature on the use of bowel preparation in gynecologic surgery is scarce and limited to minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. The decision on the use of bowel preparation before benign or malignant hysterectomies is mostly driven by extrapolating data from the colorectal literature.

OBJECTIVE

Bowel preparation is a controversial element within enhanced recovery protocols, and literature investigating its efficacy in gynecologic surgery is scarce. Our aim was to determine if mechanical bowel preparation alone, oral antibiotics alone, or a combination are associated with decreased rates of surgical site infections or anastomotic leaks compared to no bowel preparation following benign or malignant hysterectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified women who underwent hysterectomy between January 2006 and July 2017 using OptumLabs, a large US commercial health plan database. Inverse propensity score weighting was used separately for benign and malignant groups to balance baseline characteristics. Primary outcomes of 30-day surgical site infection, anastomotic leaks, and major morbidity were assessed using multivariate logistic regression that adjusted for race, census region, household income, diabetes, and other unbalanced variables following propensity score weighting.

RESULTS

A total of 224,687 hysterectomies (benign, 186,148; malignant, 38,539) were identified. Median age was 45 years for the benign and 54 years for the malignant cohort. Surgical approach was as follows: benign: laparoscopic/robotic, 27.2%; laparotomy, 32.6%; vaginal, 40.2%; malignant: laparoscopic/robotic, 28.8%; laparotomy, 47.7%; vaginal, 23.5%. Bowel resection was performed in 0.4% of the benign and 2.8% of the malignant cohort. Type of bowel preparation was as follows: benign: none, 93.8%; mechanical bowel preparation only, 4.6%; oral antibiotics only, 1.1%; mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, 0.5%; malignant: none, 87.2%; mechanical bowel preparation only, 9.6%; oral antibiotics only, 1.8%; mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, 1.4%. Use of bowel preparation did not decrease rates of surgical site infections, anastomotic leaks, or major morbidity following benign or malignant hysterectomy. Among malignant abdominal hysterectomies, there was no difference in the rates of infectious morbidity between mechanical bowel preparation alone, oral antibiotics alone, or mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, compared to no preparation.

CONCLUSION

Bowel preparation does not protect against surgical site infections or major morbidity following benign or malignant hysterectomy, regardless of surgical approach, and may be safely omitted.

Preoperative Bowel Preparation in Minimally Invasive and Vaginal Gynecologic Surgery

Bowel preparation traditionally refers to the removal of bowel contents via mechanical cleansing measures. Although it has been a common practice for more than 70 years, its use is based mostly on expert opinion rather than solid evidence. Mechanical bowel preparation in minimally invasive and vaginal gynecologic surgery is strongly debated, since many studies have not confirmed its effectiveness, neither in reducing postoperative infectious morbidity nor in improving surgeons' performance. A comprehensive search of Medline/PubMed and the Cochrane Library Database was conducted, for related articles up to June 2019, including terms such as "mechanical bowel preparation," "vaginal surgery," "minimally invasive," and "gynecology." We aimed to determine the best practice regarding bowel preparation before these surgical approaches. In previous studies, bowel preparation was evaluated only via mechanical measures. The identified randomized trials in laparoscopic approach and in vaginal surgery were 8 and 4, respectively. Most of them compare different types of preparation, with patients being separated into groups of oral laxatives, rectal measures (enema), low residue diet, and fasting. The outcomes of interest are the quality of the surgical field, postoperative infectious complications, length of hospital stay, and patients' comfort during the whole procedure. The results are almost identical regardless of the procedure's type. Routine administration of bowel preparation seems to offer no advantage to any of the objectives mentioned above. Taking into consideration the fact that in most gynecologic cases there is minimal probability of bowel intraluminal entry and, thus, low surgical site infection rates, most scientific societies have issued guidelines against the use of any bowel preparation regimen before laparoscopic or vaginal surgery. Nonetheless, surgeons still do not use a specific pattern and continue ordering them. However, according to recent evidence, preoperative bowel preparation of any type should be omitted prior to minimally invasive and vaginal gynecologic surgeries.

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.

Guidelines for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations-2019 update

BACKGROUND

This is the first updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery.

METHODS

A database search of publications using Embase and PubMed was performed. Studies on each item within the ERAS gynecologic/oncology protocol were selected with emphasis on meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohort studies. These studies were then reviewed and graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS protocol items are based on best available evidence. The level of evidence for each item is presented accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated evidence base and recommendation for items within the ERAS gynecologic/oncology perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this consensus review.

Surgical technical evidence review for gynecologic surgery conducted for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery

BACKGROUND

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in partnership with the American College of Surgeons and the Armstrong Institute at Johns Hopkins, developed the Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery, which integrates principles of implementation science into adoption of enhanced recovery pathways and promotes evidence-based perioperative care.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to review the enhanced recovery pathways literature in gynecologic surgery and provide the framework for an Improving Surgical Care and Recovery pathway for gynecologic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1990 through October 2017. Studies were included in hierarchical and chronological order: meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and interventional and observational studies. Enhanced recovery pathways components relevant to gynecologic surgery were identified through review of existing pathways. A PubMed search for each component was performed in gynecologic surgery and expanded to include colorectal surgery as needed to have sufficient evidence to support or deter a process. This review focuses on surgical components; anesthesiology components are reported separately in a companion article in the anesthesiology literature.

RESULTS

Fifteen surgical components were identified: patient education, bowel preparation, elimination of nasogastric tubes, minimization of surgical drains, early postoperative mobilization, early postoperative feeding, early intravenous fluid discontinuation, early removal of urinary catheters, use of laxatives, chewing gum, peripheral mu antagonists, surgical site infection reduction bundle, glucose management, and preoperative and postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. In addition, 14 components previously identified in the colorectal Improving Surgical Care and Recovery pathway review were included in the final pathway.

CONCLUSION

Evidence and existing guidelines support 29 protocol elements for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery in gynecologic surgery.

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.