Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common emergency general surgical conditions worldwide. Uncomplicated/simple appendicitis can be treated with appendectomy or antibiotics. Some studies have suggested possible benefits with antibiotics with reduced complications, length of hospital stay, and the number of days off work. However, surgery may improve success of treatment as antibiotic treatment is associated with recurrence and future need for surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated/simple acute appendicitis compared with appendectomy for resolution of symptoms and complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov) on 19 July 2022. We also searched for unpublished studies in conference proceedings together with reference checking and citation search. There were no restrictions on date, publication status, or language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies where most participants were adults with uncomplicated/simple appendicitis. Interventions included antibiotics (by any route) compared with appendectomy (open or laparoscopic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Primary outcomes included mortality and success of treatment, and secondary outcomes included number of participants requiring appendectomy in the antibiotic group, complications, pain, length of hospital stay, sick leave, malignancy in the antibiotic group, negative appendectomy rate, and quality of life. Success of treatment definitions were heterogeneous although mainly based on resolution of symptoms rather than incorporation of long-term recurrence or need for surgery in the antibiotic group.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies in the review covering 1675 participants randomised to antibiotics and 1683 participants randomised to appendectomy. One study was unpublished. All were conducted in secondary care and two studies received pharmaceutical funding. All studies used broad-spectrum antibiotic regimens expected to cover gastrointestinal bacteria. Most studies used predominantly laparoscopic surgery, but some included mainly open procedures. Six studies included adults and children. Almost all studies aimed to exclude participants with complicated appendicitis prior to randomisation, although one study included 12% with perforation. The diagnostic technique was clinical assessment and imaging in most studies. Only one study limited inclusion by sex (male only). Follow-up ranged from hospital admission only to seven years. Certainty of evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias (due to lack of blinding and loss to follow-up) and imprecision. Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether there was any difference in mortality due to the very low-certainty evidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 4.95; 1 study, 492 participants). There may be 76 more people per 1000 having unsuccessful treatment in the antibiotic group compared with surgery, which did not reach our predefined level for clinical significance (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96; I2 = 69%; 7 studies, 2471 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes At one year, 30.7% (95% CI 24.0 to 37.8; I2 = 80%; 9 studies, 1396 participants) of participants in the antibiotic group required appendectomy or, alternatively, more than two-thirds of antibiotic-treated participants avoided surgery in the first year, but the evidence is very uncertain. Regarding complications, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in episodes of Clostridium difficile diarrhoea due to very low-certainty evidence (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.89; 1 study, 1332 participants). There may be a clinically significant reduction in wound infections with antibiotics (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.68; I2 = 16%; 9 studies, 2606 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether antibiotics affect the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess or collection (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.07; I2 = 19%; 6 studies, 1831 participants), or reoperation (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.16; 1 study, 492 participants) due to very low-certainty evidence, mainly due to rare events causing imprecision and risk of bias. It is uncertain if antibiotics prolonged length of hospital stay by half a day due to the very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.01; I2 = 97%; 11 studies, 3192 participants). The incidence of malignancy was 0.3% (95% CI 0 to 1.5; 5 studies, 403 participants) in the antibiotic group although follow-up was variable. Antibiotics probably increased the number of negative appendectomies at surgery (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.49; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 707 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics may be associated with higher rates of unsuccessful treatment for 76 per 1000 people, although differences may not be clinically significant. It is uncertain if antibiotics increase length of hospital stay by half a day. Antibiotics may reduce wound infections. A third of the participants initially treated with antibiotics required subsequent appendectomy or two-thirds avoided surgery within one year, but the evidence is very uncertain. There were too few data from the included studies to comment on major complications.

Beyond high-risk: analysis of the outcomes of extreme-risk patients in the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit

Patients who require emergency laparotomy are defined as high risk if their 30-day predicted risk of mortality is ≥ 5%. Despite a large difference in the characteristics of patients with a mortality risk score of between 5% and 50%, these outcomes are aggregated by the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA). Our aim was to describe the outcomes of the cohort of patients at extreme risk of death, which we defined as having a NELA-predicted 30-day mortality of ≥ 50%. All patients enrolled in the NELA database between December 2012 and 2020 were included. We compared patient characteristics; length of hospital stay; rates of unplanned return to the operating theatre; and 90-day survival in extreme-risk groups (predicted ≥ 50%) and high-risk patients (predicted 5-49%). Of 161,337 patients, 5193 (3.2%) had a predicted mortality of ≥ 50%. When patients were further subdivided, 2437 (47%) had predicted mortality of 50-59% (group 50-59); 1484 (29%) predicted mortality of 60-69% (group 60-69); 840 (16%) predicted mortality of 70-79% (group 70-79); and 423 (8%) predicted mortality of ≥ 80% (group 80+). Extreme-risk patients were significantly more likely to have been admitted electively than high-risk patients (p < 0.001). Length of stay increased from a median (IQR [range]) of 26 (16-43 [0-271]) days in group 50-59 to 35 (21-56 [0-368]) days in group 80+, compared with 17 (10-30 [0-1136]) days for high-risk patients. Rates of unplanned return to the operating theatre were higher in extreme-risk groups compared with high-risk patients (11% vs. 8%). The 90-day survival was 43% in group 50-59, 34% in group 60-69, 27% in group 70-79 and 17% in group 80+. These data underscore the need for a differentiated approach when discussing risk with patients at extreme risk of mortality following an emergency laparotomy. Clinicians should focus on patient priorities on quantity and quality of life during informed consent discussions before surgery. Future work should extend beyond the immediate postoperative period to encompass the longer-term outcomes (survival and function) of patients who have emergency laparotomies.

Quantitative futility in emergency laparotomy: an exploration of early-postoperative death in the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit

BACKGROUND

Quantitative futility is an appraisal of the risk of failure of a treatment. For those who do not survive, a laparotomy has provided negligible therapeutic benefit and may represent a missed opportunity for palliation. The aim of this study was to define a timeframe for quantitative futility in emergency laparotomy and investigate predictors of futility using the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) database.

METHODS

A two-stage methodology was used; stage one defined a timeframe for futility using an online survey and steering group discussion; stage two applied this definition to patients enrolled in NELA December 2013-December 2020 for analysis. Futility was defined as all-cause mortality within 3 days of emergency laparotomy. Baseline characteristics of this group were compared to all others. Multilevel logistic regression was carried out with potentially clinically important predictors defined a priori.

RESULTS

Quantitative futility occurred in 4% of patients (7442/180,987). Median age was 74 years (range 65-81 years). Median NELA risk score was 32.4% vs. 3.8% in the surviving cohort (p < 0.001). Early mortality patients more frequently presented with sepsis (p < 0.001). Significant predictors of futility included age, arterial lactate and cardiorespiratory co-morbidity. Frailty was associated with a 38% increased risk of early mortality (95% CI 1.22-1.55). Surgery for intestinal ischaemia was associated with a two times greater chance of futile surgery (OR 2.67; 95% CI 2.50-2.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative futility after emergency laparotomy is associated with quantifiable risk factors available to decision-makers preoperatively. These findings should be incorporated qualitatively by the multidisciplinary team into shared decision-making discussions with extremely high-risk patients.

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

BACKGROUND

Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres.

METHODS

This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low-middle-income countries.

RESULTS

In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of 'single-use' consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low-middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION

This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high- and low-middle-income countries.

PANC Study (Pancreatitis: A National Cohort Study): national cohort study examining the first 30 days from presentation of acute pancreatitis in the UK

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is a common, yet complex, emergency surgical presentation. Multiple guidelines exist and management can vary significantly. The aim of this first UK, multicentre, prospective cohort study was to assess the variation in management of acute pancreatitis to guide resource planning and optimize treatment.

METHODS

All patients aged greater than or equal to 18 years presenting with acute pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria, from March to April 2021 were eligible for inclusion and followed up for 30 days. Anonymized data were uploaded to a secure electronic database in line with local governance approvals.

RESULTS

A total of 113 hospitals contributed data on 2580 patients, with an equal sex distribution and a mean age of 57 years. The aetiology was gallstones in 50.6 per cent, with idiopathic the next most common (22.4 per cent). In addition to the 7.6 per cent with a diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis, 20.1 per cent of patients had a previous episode of acute pancreatitis. One in 20 patients were classed as having severe pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria. The overall mortality rate was 2.3 per cent at 30 days, but rose to one in three in the severe group. Predictors of death included male sex, increased age, and frailty; previous acute pancreatitis and gallstones as aetiologies were protective. Smoking status and body mass index did not affect death.

CONCLUSION

Most patients presenting with acute pancreatitis have a mild, self-limiting disease. Rates of patients with idiopathic pancreatitis are high. Recurrent attacks of pancreatitis are common, but are likely to have reduced risk of death on subsequent admissions.

The virtual uncertainty of futility in emergency surgery

Futility is a controversial topic within surgery. This editorial defines the concept, explains the differing types of surgical futility, and discusses the ethical issues around the subject.

WE5.10 Death in the early post-operative period: recognising the concept of non-beneficiality in emergency laparotomy and modelling its predictors

Background

The publication of data from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) has resulted in overall improvement in post-operative mortality rates. However, little is known about the characteristics of patients that die in the immediate post-operative period. These patients may represent a missed opportunity for the consideration of palliation. We describe this specific group of patients where death occurred within three days of emergency laparotomy, and investigate predictors of early mortality.

Methods

All patients enrolled in the NELA database from December 2013–2020 were included. Early post-operative death was defined as all-cause mortality within three days of emergency laparotomy. Multi-level logistic regression was carried out with potentially clinically important predictors defined a priori. Frailty was modelled separately due to missing data.

Results

Four per cent of patients (7,442/180,987) died in the early post-operative period and 85% were admitted to critical care post-operatively. Median NELA risk score was 32.4% compared to 3.8% in the rest of the cohort (p&lt;0.001). One in four patients were commenced on an end-of-life pathway following laparotomy. Significant predictors on multivariate analysis included female sex, increasing age, higher ASA, surgery for intestinal ischaemia or perforation, hypotension, reduced GCS, urgency of surgery, cardiac and respiratory signs (n=178,442). The addition of frailty (n=52,766) was also predictive (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.22–1.55) when added to the model.

Conclusion

Early post-operative mortality is associated with quantifiable predictable factors in addition to the NELA risk score. This finding has significant implications for the multi-disciplinary team having shared decision-making discussions with extremely high-risk patients.

The false dichotomy of surgical futility in the emergency laparotomy setting: scoping review

BACKGROUND

Futile is defined as 'the fact of having no effect or of achieving nothing'. Futility in medicine has been defined through seven guiding principles, which in the context of emergency surgery, have been relatively unexplored. This scoping review aimed to identify key concepts around surgical futility as it relates to emergency laparotomy.

METHODS

Using the Arksey and O'Malley framework, a scoping review was conducted. A search of the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and Embase was performed up until 1 November 2021 to identify literature relevant to the topic of futility in emergency laparotomy.

RESULTS

Three cohort studies were included in the analysis. A total of 105 157 patients were included, with 1114 patients reported as futile. All studies were recent (2019 to 2020) and focused on the principle of quantitative futility (assessment of the probability of death after surgery) within a timeline after surgery: two defining futility as death within 48 hours of surgery and one as death within 72 hours. In all cases this was derived from a survival histogram. Predictors of defined futile procedures included age, level of independence prior to admission, surgical pathology, serum creatinine, arterial lactate, and pH.

CONCLUSION

There remains a paucity of research defining, exploring, and analysing futile surgery in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. With limited published work focusing on quantitative futility and the binary outcome of death, research is urgently needed to explore all principles of futility, including the wishes of patients and their families.

SP1.1.11Is polyp detection rate a suitable surrogate measure for adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy?

Aims

The Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) has set key quality indicators for colonoscopy, which includes an adenoma detection rate of a minimum of 15%. Given the difficulty in reporting adenoma detection rate, JAG have stated that polyp detection rate is accepted as a surrogate measure. Our aim was to assess whether polyp detection rate can be used as a substitute marker for adenoma detection, by examining the histology of samples taken as polyps to determine what proportion are truly adenomas.

Methods

The pathology department provided a registry of all histological samples taken from the colon or rectum during a one-year period April 2017 to April 2018. These samples were cross-referenced with the endoscopy report to assess which were identified as “polyps” by the performing endoscopist. The pathology report was then reviewed to determine what the histological conclusion was for each “polyp”.

Results

A total of 1601 colorectal histology samples were reviewed, taken by 32 different endoscopists. 451 of these were identified as polyps by the performing endoscopist. On histological review 153 (33.9%) were not adenomas of the colon or rectum. Common alternative histological diagnoses were hyperplastic polyp, inflammatory polyp and normal tissue. Rarer alternative histological diagnoses were melanosis coli, submucosal leiomyoma and endometriosis of the rectum.

Conclusions

Polyp detection rate which is used as a surrogate marker for adenoma detection rate is an inaccurate measure of colonoscopy quality.

TP10.2.10A Prospective Analysis of Imaging Modalities in Appendicitis during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Aims

Acute appendicitis is a common general surgical emergency, occurring in 90-100 per 100,000 patients per year. Clinical practice in the UK involves either a clinical or ultrasound (US) diagnosis, with computed tomography (CT) reserved for cases of suspected complicated appendicitis. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic management pathways were altered, this study sought to capture that.

Methods

This prospective study included adult patients with suspected appendicitis at a single UK centre from March-June 2020. The primary outcome measures were rates of US and CT imaging. Secondary outcomes included subsequent operative and histological findings.

Results

Seventy-five patients were included. A clinical diagnosis of appendicitis was made in 11 (15%). Thirty-five (47%) patients had CT, 22 (29%) had an US and 7 (9%) had both. The appendix was visualised in only 10 patients and a radiological diagnosis of appendicitis was made in 6 cases. Appendicitis was confirmed on histology in 67% of subsequently operated cases.

CT evidence of appendicitis correlated with operative appendicitis in 93% (28/30) of cases. There were two cases of appendiceal malignancy not demonstrated on CT. Correlation of complicated appendicitis between CT and operative findings was poor; one third (10/28) of patients had appendiceal perforation not identified on CT.

Conclusions

The use of CT for diagnosing appendicitis was markedly increased during the first wave of the pandemic. The appendix was visualised infrequently on ultrasound, but when seen correlated well with histological findings. CT was superior at detecting appendicitis but failed to differentiate well between complicated and uncomplicated disease.

BJS.01Antibiotics as an alternative to appendicectomy in uncomplicated adult appendicitis: analysis of a prospective, multicentre cohort study

Aims

Recent randomised controlled trials have shown that non-operative management of acute appendicitis with antibiotics can prevent the need for surgery in 71-84% of patients within 90-days.  Changes in the management of appendicitis, brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, have allowed for this large-scale observational study, which aims to report the outcomes of operative and non-operative management of appendicitis, including non-operative management rates at 90-days.

Methods

This prospective, multicentre cohort study at 97 sites across Great Britain and Ireland included adult patients with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of appendicitis. Propensity-score matching was conducted using age, sex, BMI, frailty, co-morbidity, adult appendicitis score and CRP. Outcomes in the non-operative group were 90-day treatment failure, and in the matched groups 30-day complications and length of hospital stay (LOS).

Results

This analysis included 3420 patients, of whom 1402 (41%) had initial non-operative treatment and 2018 (59%) had operative management. The success rate of non-operative management was 80% (1116) at 90-days, with 18 patients (6%) that failed non-operative management having a histologically normal appendix. Following propensity score matching, 2444 patients were included in the outcomes analysis. In the propensity score matched groups, there was a reduction in complications in the non-operative management group compared to the operative group (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.50) and a shorter median LOS (2.5 vs 3 days, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Non-operative management of appendicitis is associated with fewer complications, a shorter LOS, and avoids surgery in the majority of patients.

Antibiotics as first-line alternative to appendicectomy in adult appendicitis: 90-day follow-up from a prospective, multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Uncomplicated acute appendicitis can be managed with non-operative (antibiotic) treatment, but laparoscopic appendicectomy remains the first-line management in the UK. During the COVID-19 pandemic the practice altered, with more patients offered antibiotics as treatment. A large-scale observational study was designed comparing operative and non-operative management of appendicitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate 90-day follow-up.

METHODS

A prospective, cohort study at 97 sites in the UK and Republic of Ireland included adult patients with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of appendicitis that either had surgery or non-operative management. Propensity score matching was conducted using age, sex, BMI, frailty, co-morbidity, Adult Appendicitis Score and C-reactive protein. Outcomes were 90-day treatment failure in the non-operative group, and in the matched groups 30-day complications, length of hospital stay (LOS) and total healthcare costs associated with each treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 3420 patients were recorded: 1402 (41 per cent) had initial antibiotic management and 2018 (59 per cent) had appendicectomy. At 90-day follow-up, antibiotics were successful in 80 per cent (1116) of cases. After propensity score matching (2444 patients), fewer overall complications (OR 0.36 (95 per cent c.i. 0.26 to 0.50)) and a shorter median LOS (2.5 versus 3 days, P < 0.001) were noted in the antibiotic management group. Accounting for interval appendicectomy rates, the mean total cost was €1034 lower per patient managed without surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study found that antibiotics is an alternative first-line treatment for adult acute appendicitis and can lead to cost reductions.

O3 Forming a novel trainee-led research collaborative during times of crisis: Lessons learned from the COVID:HAREM collaborative

Introduction

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the effect it would have on our healthcare system was unknown. As a result, surgical guidelines shifted to recommend non-operative management despite uncertainty of its efficacy compared to standard operative management. Within general surgery, nowhere was this more relevant than with the management of appendicitis, the most common abdominal emergency worldwide. This novel research collaborative was set up during the COVID-19 pandemic to assess the outcomes of appendicitis patients managed with antibiotics compared to appendicectomy.

Methods

Without the time to obtain funding for the project, trainee-driven recruitment of sites was vital and used established trainee-led regional research networks and twitter (@Covidharem). Further backing was provided by surgical societies who published and promoted the study protocol on their platforms. The steering group used surgical networks and contacts to recruit sites who were not already involved and RedCap was used for data entry to allow for real time monitoring of data completion.

Results

In just twelve weeks, 471 individual collaborators were recruited from 101 sites across the United Kingdom and Ireland. The collaborative went from inception to 500 patients uploaded in 30 days. The collaborative to date has recruited nearly 3500 patients, published both the protocol and an interim analysis within 4 months, and hosted a highly successful webinar.

Conclusion

Quality research can be achieved in times of crisis, the key to successful projects is trainee driven and led, focussed “snapshots” that can be implemented rapidly during the dynamic environment of a crisis.

Decision-making for older patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: defining patient and clinician values and priorities

AIM

There remains limited knowledge on what patients value and prioritize in their decision to undergo emergency laparotomy (ELap) and during their subsequent recovery. The aim of this study was to explore factors in decision-making and to reach a consensus amongst patients on the 10 most important priorities in decision-making in ELap.

METHODS

Patients aged over 65 years who had required an ELap decision within the preceding 12 months (regardless of management) were identified and invited to attend a modified Delphi process focus group.

RESULTS

A total of 20 participants attended: eight patients, four relatives and eight perioperative specialists. The perioperative specialists group defined 12 important factors for perioperative decision-making. The patient group agreed that only six (50%) of these factors were important: independence, postoperative complications, readmission to hospital, requirement for stoma formation, delirium (including long-term cognition) and presence of an advocate (such as a friend or family member). Open discussion refined multiple themes. Agreement was reached by patients and relatives about 10 factors that they valued as most important in their ELap patient journey: return to independence, realistic expectations, postoperative complications, what to expect postoperatively, readmission to hospital, nutrition, postoperative communication, stoma, follow-up and delirium.

CONCLUSION

Patients and clinicians have different values and priorities when discussing the risks and implications of undergoing ELap. Patients value quality of life outcomes, in particular, the formation of a stoma, returning to their own home and remaining independent. This work is the first to combine both perspectives to guide future ELap research outcomes.

The impact of peri-operative intravenous lidocaine on postoperative outcome after elective colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There has recently been increasing interest in the use of peri-operative intravenous lidocaine (IVL) due to its analgesic, anti-inflammatory and opioid-sparing effects. However, these potential benefits are not well established in elective colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of peri-operative IVL infusion on postoperative outcome in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing peri-operative IVL with placebo infusion in elective colorectal surgery. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pain scores up to 48 h. The secondary outcome measures included time to return of gastrointestinal function, postoperative morphine requirement, anastomotic leak, local anaesthetic toxicity and hospital length of stay.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases were searched on 5 November 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were RCTs evaluating the role of peri-operative IVL vs. placebo in adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Exclusion criteria were paediatric patients, noncolorectal or emergency procedures, non-RCT methodology or lack of relevant outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were included (n = 508 patients; 265 who had undergone IVL infusion, 243 who had undergone placebo infusion). IVL infusion was associated with a significant reduction in time to defecation (mean difference -12.06 h, 95% CI -17.83 to -6.29, I = 93%, P = 0.0001), hospital length of stay (mean difference -0.76 days, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.19, I = 45%, P = 0.009) and postoperative pain scores at early time points, although this difference does not meet the threshold for a clinically relevant difference. There was no difference in time to pass flatus (mean difference -5.33 h, 95% CI -11.53 to 0.88, I = 90%, P = 0.09), nor in rates of surgical site infection or anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides some support for the administration of peri-operative IVL infusion in elective colorectal surgery. However, further evidence is necessary to fully elucidate its potential benefits in light of the high levels of study heterogeneity and mixed quality of methodology.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.