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.

Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence demonstrates minimal impact of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on reducing postoperative complications following elective colectomy. This study investigated the necessity of MBP prior to elective colonic resection.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing the effects of MBP with no preparation before elective colectomy, up until May 26, 2023. Surgical-related outcomes were compiled and subsequently analyzed. The primary outcomes included the incidence of anastomosis leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI), analyzed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3).

RESULTS

The analysis included 14 studies, comprising seven RCTs with 5146 participants. Demographic information was consistent across groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of AL ((P = 0.43, OR = 1.16, 95% CI (0.80, 1.68), I2 = 0%) or SSI (P = 0.47, OR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.73, 1.96), I2 = 0%), nor were there significant differences in other outcomes. Subgroup analysis on oral antibiotic use showed no significant changes in results. However, in cases of right colectomy, the group without preparation showed a significantly lower incidence of SSI (P = 0.01, OR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.86), I2 = 1%). No significant differences were found in other subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence robustly indicates that MBP before elective colectomy does not confer significant benefits in reducing postoperative complications. Therefore, it is justified to forego MBP prior to elective colectomy, irrespective of tumor location.

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.

Preoperative Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Gynecologic Surgeries: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before benign laparoscopic or vaginal gynecologic surgeries.

DATA SOURCES

Database searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Sciences and citations and reference lists published up to December 2021.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials in any language comparing MBP with no preparation were included. Two reviewers independently screened 925 records and extracted data from 12 selected articles and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials tool. A random-effects model was used for the analysis. Surgeon findings (surgical field view, quality of bowel handling and bowel preparation), operative outcomes (blood loss, operative time, length of stay, surgical site infection), and patient's preoperative symptoms and satisfaction were collected.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Thirteen studies (1715 patients) assessing oral and rectal preparations before laparoscopic and vaginal gynecologic surgeries were included. No significant differences were observed with or without MBP on surgical field view (primary outcome, risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.05, p = .66, I2 = 0%), bowel handling (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95-1.08, p = .78, I2 = 67%), or bowel preparation. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in perioperative findings. MBP was associated with increased pain (mean difference [MD] 11.62[2.80-20.44], I2 = 76, p = .01), weakness (MD 10.73[0.60-20.87], I2 = 94, p = .04), hunger (MD 17.52 [8.04-27.00], I2 = 83, p = .0003), insomnia (MD 10.13[0.57-19.68], I2 = 82, p = .04), and lower satisfaction (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.87, I2 = 76%, p = .002) compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

MBP has not been associated with improved surgical field view, bowel handling, or operative outcome. However, in view of the adverse effects induced, its routine use before benign gynecologic surgeries should be abandoned.

Effect of preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation on the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery, and does oral antibiotic regime matter? a bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Surgical site infection (SSI) impacts 5-20% of patients after elective colorectal surgery. There are varying reports on the effectiveness of oral antibiotics (OAB) with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in preventing SSI. We aim to determine the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI after elective colorectal surgery. We also determine if a specific OAB regimen will be more effective than others.

METHODS

This study investigated the impact of OAB and MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ACP Journal Club, and Embase databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published by June 2022. All RCTs comparing various preoperative bowel preparation regimens, including pairwise or multi-intervention comparisons, were included. To establish the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis on all RCTs. We further performed subgroup analysis to determine the most effective OAB regimen.

RESULTS

Among included 46 studies with a total of 12690 patients, patients in the MBP + OAB group were less likely to have SSI than those having MBP-only (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.39-0.76), and without MBP and OAB (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.32-0.84). OAB regimen C (kanamycin + metronidazole) and A (neomycin + metronidazole) demonstrated a significantly reduced incidence of SSI, compared to regimen B (neomycin + erythromycin) with OR 0.24 (95% CrI 0.07-0.79) and 0.26 (95% CrI 0.07-0.99) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

OAB with MBP reduces the risk of SSI after elective colorectal surgery. Providing adequate aerobic and anaerobic coverage with OAB may confer better protection against SSI.

The role of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics in prevention of anastomotic leakage following restorative resection for primary rectal cancer - a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leakage after colorectal cancer resection is a feared postoperative complication seen among up till 10-20% of patients, with a higher risk following rectal resection than colon resection. Recent studies suggest that the combined use of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics may have a preventive effect on anastomotic leakage. This systematic review aims to explore the association between preoperative mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics and the risk of anastomotic leakage following restorative resection for primary rectal cancer.

METHODS

Three databases were systematically searched in February 2022. Studies reporting anastomotic leakage rate in patients, who received mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics before elective restorative resection for primary rectal cancer, were included. A meta-analysis was conducted based on the risk ratios of anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

Among 839 studies, 5 studies met the eligibility criteria. The median number of patients were 6111 (80-29,739). The combination of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics was associated with a decreased risk of anastomotic leakage (risk ratio = 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.39-0.69), p-value < 0.001). Limitations included a low number of studies, small sample sizes and the studies being rather heterogenous.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the use of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics is associated with a decreased risk of anastomotic leakage among patients undergoing restorative resection for primary rectal cancer. The limitations of the review should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

Is colostomy closure without mechanical bowel preparation safe in pediatric patients? A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is largely used worldwide prior to colostomy closure in children, although its benefits are questioned by scientific evidence, and its use can cause adverse reactions. We hypothesized that colostomy closure procedures in children are not associated with increased complications (surgical site infection [SSI] and anastomotic leakage) when performed without MBP. Thus, we conducted a noninferiority trial to compare the safety and efficacy of colostomy takedown with and without MBP.

METHODS

A randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at Hospital Infantil de Mexico in Mexico City from 2015 to 2019, in which the experimental group did not receive MBP prior to colostomy closure. A total of 79 patients were analyzed, and the primary outcomes were safety-related. Data were analyzed using the chi-squared test, Student's t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate.

RESULTS

The demographics in both groups were comparable. Statistical analysis revealed equivalence in safety outcomes (superficial SSI, 22.5% vs 15.3% p = 0.420; deep SSI, 7.5% vs 0% p = 0.081; reoperation, p = 0.320; intestinal occlusion, p = 0.986); no anastomotic leakage was observed in any group. Secondary outcomes such as fasting time and length of hospital stay after surgery were also similar between the groups. However, patients who received MBP were admitted 2 days before surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that withholding MBP prior to colostomy takedowns in children is not associated with increased complications. Omitting MBP also leads to less discomfort and shortens hospital length of stay, suggesting that it has safer and more effective procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Randomized controlled clinical trial with adequate statistical power.

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.

High-intensity mechanical bowel preparation before curative colorectal surgery is associated with poor long-term prognosis

PURPOSE

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) has been widely used to reduce intestinal feces and bacteria and is considered necessary to prevent surgical infections. However, it is still controversial which intensity level of MBP is the most beneficial for patients before colorectal surgery. Our study aimed to determine the impact of different intensity levels of MBP on the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

METHODS

We evaluated 694 patients pathologically diagnosed with CRC and underwent MBP before surgery at 4 general hospitals from January 2011 to December 2015. The survival status of patients, the disease progression, and the time of death or progression were obtained through telephone follow-up at the deadline October 10, 2018. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox proportional hazard models. Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method followed by the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Of 694 patients included, 462 received low-intensity MBP and 232 received high-intensity MBP. A significantly higher PFS in low-intensity MBP was observed (p = 0.009). PFS at 2000 days was 69.331% in the low-intensity arm and 58.717% in the high-intensity arm. Patients who underwent low-intensity MBP also showed higher OS (p = 0.009). Nine patients in the low-intensity MBP group received secondary surgery, and two patients in the high-intensity MBP group received secondary surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective cohort, low-intensity MBP was associated with better PFS and OS, which could provide a reference for doctors when choosing the intensity of MBP.

Mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics reduces infectious complications and anastomotic leak in elective colorectal surgery: a pooled-analysis with trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVE

A pooled analysis combined with trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted in order to explore the effect of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) combined with oral antibiotic bowel decontamination (OAB) versus MBP alone on patients who have undergone colorectal resection.

METHODS

Comprehensive and systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, and Clinical Trials.gov databases were conducted. The quality of literature was evaluated using Cochrane risk bias assessment tool as well as Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score. A pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies was performed comparing patients who underwent colorectal resection and received MBP plus OAB or MBP alone. The outcome endpoints were the incidence of anastomotic leak (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI). TSA is a tool used to assess the reliability of currently available evidence to determine further clinical trial validation.

RESULTS

The analysis included a total of 22 studies involving 8852 patients, including 3016 patients in the MBP + OAB group and 4415 patients exposed to MBP alone. The pooled analysis showed that the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leak was significantly lower in the group treated with MBP plus OAB compared with MBP alone (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.23-0.81, P = 0.009, I2 = 73%). The incidence of postoperative surgical site infections was significantly lower in the group exposed to the combination of MBP and OAB compared with MBP alone (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.32-0.46, P < 0.0001, I2 = 24%). The TSA demonstrated significant benefits of MBP plus OAB intervention in terms of AL and SSI.

CONCLUSION

MBP combined with OAB significantly reduces the incidence of AL and SSI in patients after colorectal resection compared with MBP alone.

Discontinuation of mechanical bowel preparation in advanced ovarian cancer surgery: an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) initiative

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of discontinuation of mechanical bowel preparation in advanced ovarian cancer surgery within the context of the ERAS program.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent cytoreductive surgery with simultaneous colon and/or rectal resection from January 2012 to November 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) was given (pre-ERAS) or not (post-ERAS). Patient characteristics, including duration of antibiotic treatment, surgical complexity, and incidence of surgical and nonsurgical complications, were compared.

RESULTS

During the study period, 114 patients who underwent colon and/or rectal resection were examined, of whom 39 received MBP and 75 did not receive MBP (NMBP). On comparison between the two groups, no significant differences were noted in the assessed patient characteristics, including mean age, FIGO stage, ASA class, BMI, or residual tumor. One patient (2.6%) in the MBP group, and 4 patients (5.3%) in the NMBP group experienced an anastomotic leakage (p = 0.11). No significant differences were found with respect to surgical site infection. (p = 0.5).

CONCLUSION

MBP was not associated with any specific benefit for advanced ovarian cancer surgery. Gynecologic oncologists who use MBP should consider discontinuing this practice.

Association of bowel preparation with surgical-site infection in gynecologic oncology surgery: Post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between bowel preparation and surgical-site infection (SSI) incidence following colorectal resection during gynecologic oncology surgery.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis used data from a randomized controlled trial of patients enrolled from 03/01/2016-08/20/2019 with presumed gynecologic malignancy investigating negative-pressure wound therapy among those requiring laparotomy. Patients were treated preoperatively without bowel preparation, oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP), or OABP plus mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) per surgeon preference. Univariate and multivariable analyses with stepwise model selection for SSI were performed for confirmed gynecologic malignancies requiring colorectal resection.

RESULTS

Of 161 cases, 15 (9%) had no preparation, 39 (24%) OABP only, and 107 (66%) OABP+MBP. The overall SSI rate was 19% (n = 31)-53% (n = 8/15) in the no preparation, 21% (n = 8/39) in the OABP alone, and 14% (n = 15/107) in the OABP+MBP groups (P = 0.003). The difference between OABP and OABP+MBP was non-significant (P = 0.44). The median length of stay was 9 (range, 6-12), 6 (range, 5-8), and 7 days (range, 6-10), respectively (P = 0.045). The overall complication rate (34%; n = 54) did not significantly vary by preparation type (P = 0.23). On univariate logistic regression analysis, OABP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06-0.80) and OABP+MBP (OR, 0.14; 95% CI: 0.04-0.45) were associated with decreased SSI risk compared to no preparation (P = 0.004). On multivariate analysis, both methods of preparation retained a significant impact on SSI rates (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Bowel preparation is associated with reduced SSI incidence and is beneficial for patients undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery with anticipated colorectal resection. Further investigation is needed to determine whether OABP alone is sufficient.

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.

The Effect of Mechanical Bowel Preparation on the Surgical Field in Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries.

METHODS

The patients randomized to a MBP group and a no preparation (NMBP) group. The senior surgeon remained blinded to the bowel regimen used by the patient. Intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery were evaluated using a numeric rating scale (NRS).

RESULTS

We enrolled 120 patients, of whom 109 completed the study, with 51 and 58 patients in the MBP and NMBP groups, respectively. The intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, intestinal load, and NRS scores for overall ease of surgery were better in the NMBP group (p = .03, p = .048, and p = .022, respectively). The results of the assessments also revealed no significant differences in surgical field visualization, ease of bowel handling, overall ease of surgery, or the time that patients experienced passage of flatus between obese (BMI > 30 kg/m²) and non-obese (BMI ≤ 30 kg/m²) patients in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study revealed that MBP did not improve the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field or the overall ease of surgery. Moreover, MBP had no benefit when operating on patients who had a high BMI. Therefore, we do not recommend routine MBP before laparoscopic gynecological surgeries.

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.

Mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics in colorectal cancer surgery: a nationwide population-based study

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for reducing surgical site infection in colorectal surgery recommend mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics; however, this recommendation remains controversial. This study aimed to reveal the effect of oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This study was a nationwide population-based retrospective study. Data between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database were analyzed. Patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery were included.

RESULTS

A total of 20,740 patients were finally included, comprising 14,554 (70.2%) who underwent mechanical bowel preparation alone and 6186 (29.8%) who underwent mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics. The mechanical bowel preparation alone group was older than the mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics group (65.7 ± 11.9 vs. 64.7 ± 11.8 years, p < 0.001). Rectal cancer patients and patients who underwent open surgery were more likely to receive mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics. Patients who underwent mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics demonstrated lower surgical-site infection rate (2.9% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (11.7 ± 5.5 vs. 13.5 ± 7.3 days, p < 0.001), and lower medical cost (US$7414 ± 2762 vs. US$7791 ± 3235, p < 0.001) than those who underwent mechanical bowel preparation alone. The 30-day readmission rates and mortality were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics reduces surgical site infection, hospital stay, and medical cost in colorectal cancer surgery.

Impact of oral antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical site infection after rectal surgery: results of randomized trial

AIM

To evaluate the impact of oral antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical site infection (SSI) rate after rectal surgery.

METHODS

It was a single-center 1:1 randomized controlled open parallel trial (registration number NCT03436719). The patients undergoing rectal resection for benign and malignant tumors were assigned randomly to two groups: the oral plus intravenous (IV) antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) and the IV antibiotic prophylaxis only. The primary endpoint was the overall rate of SSI.

RESULTS

Between November 2017 and December 2018, 116 (male-55, the mean age-64 years) patients were enrolled into the trial. Of them, 57 had oral erythromycin 500 mg + metronidazole 500 mg a day before surgery and 1,000 mg of cephalosporin IV 30-90 min before operation. In the other group, 59 patients had the same IV antibiotics only. The incidence of SSIs was 22% (13/59) and 3.5% (2/57) correspondingly (р = 0.002). The statistically significant difference was detected for superficial SSI 0 (0%) vs. 5 (8.5%) (p = 0.03) and organ/space SSI 2 (3.5%) vs. 9 (15.3%) (p = 0.03), respectively. A multivariate analysis of risk factors of SSI identified two independent ones: bacterial contamination of the pelvic cavity ≥ 10⁵ CFU at the end of surgery OR 17.9, 95% CI 2.1-150.0 (p = 0.008) and oral antimicrobial prophylaxis OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-0.8 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Oral-parenteral AP significantly reduced the risk of SSI following elective rectal surgery. Bacterial contamination of the pelvic cavity ≥ 10⁵ CFU at the end of surgery and oral antimicrobial prophylaxis were independent risk factors of SSI.

The use of an implemented infection prevention bundle reduces the incidence of surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: a retrospective single center analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical-site infections (SSIs) represent the most common complications after colorectal surgery (CS). Role of preoperative administration of oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), alone or in combination, in the prevention of SSIs after CS is debated. Aim of this study was to assess the effect of the introduction of an Implemented Infection Prevention Bundle (IIPB) in preventing SSIs in CS.

METHODS

A group of 251 patients (Group 1) who underwent CS receiving only preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) was compared to a Group of 107 patients (Group 2) who also received the IIPB. The IIPB consisted of the combination of oral administrations of three doses of Rifaximin 400 mg and MBP the day before surgery and in the administration of a cleansing enema the day of the surgical procedure.

RESULTS

At the univariate analysis, Group 2 showed significant lower rates of wound infection (WI) (2.8% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.021) and anastomotic leakage (AL) (2.8% vs. 14.7%; p = 0.001) with shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; p < 0.0001). The probability of postoperative AL was lower in Group 2; patients in this Group resulted protected from AL; a statistically significant Odds ratio of 0.16 (CI 0.05-0.55 p = 0.0034) was found. In diabetic patients, that were at higher risk of WI (OR 3.53, CI 1.49-8.35 p = 0.002), despite having any impact on anastomotic dehiscence, the use of IIPB significantly reduced the rate of WI (0% vs 28.1%; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The use of an IIPB significantly reduces rates of SSIs and post-operative hospital stay after CS.

Efficacy and safety of an abbreviated perioperative care bundle versus standard perioperative care in children undergoing elective bowel anastomoses: A randomized, noninferiority trial

PURPOSE

The aim was to evaluate if an abbreviated perioperative care bundle (APCB) is noninferior to the standard care, in terms of efficacy and safety, in pediatric patients undergoing bowel anastomoses.

METHODS

A randomized, open, noninferiority trial with two parallel groups of equal size was carried out at the National Institute of Pediatrics in Mexico City, Mexico, from April 2016 to July 2018. The total number analyzed was 74 (37 per group). The APCB comprised same day admission, avoidance of mechanical bowel preparation, optimized antibiotic prophylaxis, and early feeding. Statistical analysis was done with Fisher's exact test or Chi², and Student's T test.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found for demographic variables and type of disease, either for the safety (anastomotic leakage, p 0.753; organ/space surgical site infection, p 0.500) or for some efficacy outcomes (ileus or bowel obstruction, p 0.693). Other efficacy outcomes were better in the study group, with shorter median times for feeding tolerance (19 h vs. 92 h, p < 0.001), for first bowel movement (15 h vs. 36 h, p < 0.001), and for discharge (1 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The abbreviated care bundle was proven to be as safe but more efficacious than the standard care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I - randomized controlled trial with adequate statistical power.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: are oral, intravenous or both best and is mechanical bowel preparation necessary?

BACKGROUND

The benefit of adding oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OA) to intravenous prophylaxis (IV) in elective colorectal surgery to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) and whether the benefit of OA requires a mechanical bowel cleansing (MBP) are assessed in a systematic review. Meta-analyses compare randomized trials of IV versus IV plus OA, both with MBP; OA versus IV plus OA, both again with MBP; OA plus IV in studies randomizing patients to MBP or no MBP; and IV versus IV plus OA in patients with no MBP.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from 1965 to April 1, 2020. The outcome assessed was SSI, superficial and deep, but not organ space. For each included study, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 1. For each comparison, meta-analysis was performed from data from eligible studies to obtain a summary effect and heterogeneity using RevMan. Sensitivity analyses were performed excluding studies of poor quality. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE for each comparison.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies published in 1971-2020 from 55 publications reporting 12,297 patients were eligible for inclusion. A total of 36 studies compared IV to OA plus IV with MBP. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for SSI with oral and IV vs. IV alone are 0.47, 0.40-0.56. The RR in 19 studies for IV plus OA versus OA alone is 0.48, 0.38-0.62. The RR for OA plus IV with MBP versus without MBP in 5 studies is 1.17, 0.84-1.64. The RR for OA plus IV versus IV alone when no bowel prep was used in two studies is 0.36, 0.18-0.72. RRs were similar in sensitivity analyses. The GRADE is high for the first two comparisons, moderate for the 3rd, and low for the 4th due to imprecision and heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined OA and IV is superior to either alone in preventing SSI. The certainty of evidence is such that further research is unlikely to alter this relationship when MBP is used. In randomized trials of MBP, OA plus IV shows no benefit from MBP versus no MBP. The last comparison shows in just two studies that as in the first meta-analysis, but in the absence of MBP, combined OA plus IV is also superior to IV alone.

A Review of Bowel Preparation Before Colorectal Surgery

Infectious complications are the biggest problem during bowel surgery, and one of the approaches to minimize them is the bowel cleaning method. It was expected that bowel cleaning could facilitate bowel manipulation as well as prevent infectious complications and further reduce anastomotic leakage. In the past, with the development of antibiotics, bowel cleaning and oral antibiotics (OA) were used together. However, with the success of emergency surgery and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery, bowel cleaning was not routinely performed. Consequently, bowel cleaning using OA was gradually no longer used. Recently, there have been reports that only bowel cleaning is not helpful in reducing infectious complications such as surgical site infection (SSI) compared to OA and bowel cleaning. Accordingly, in order to reduce SSI, guidelines are changing the trend of only intestinal cleaning. However, a consistent regimen has not yet been established, and there is still controversy depending on the location of the lesion and the surgical method. Moreover, complications such as Clostridium difficile infection have not been clearly analyzed. In the present review, we considered the overall bowel preparation trends and identified the areas that require further research.

[Current practice patterns of preoperative bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a nation-wide survey of Chinese surgeons]

Objective: To understand the current practice of preoperative bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery in China. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted through wechat. The content of the questionnaire survey included professional title of the participants, the hospital class, dietary preparation and protocol, oral laxatives and specific types, oral antibiotics, gastric intubation, and mechanical enema before elective colorectal surgery. A stratified analysis based on hospital class was conducted to understand their current practice of preoperative bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery. Result: A total of 600 questionnaires were issued, and 516 (86.00%) questionnaires of participants from different hospitals, engaged in colorectal surgery or general surgeons were recovered, of which 366 were from tertiary hospitals (70.93%) and 150 from secondary hospitals (29.07%). For diet preparation, the proportions of right hemicolic, left hemicolic and rectal surgery were 81.59% (421/516), 84.88% (438/516) and 84.88% (438/516) respectively. The average time of preoperative dietary preparation was 2.03 days. The study showed that 85.85% (443/516) of surgeons chose oral laxatives for bowel preparation in all colorectal surgery, while only 4.26% (22/516) of surgeons did not choose oral laxatives. For mechanical enema, the proportions of right hemicolic, left hemicolic and rectal surgery were 19.19% (99/516), 30.04% (155/516) and 32.75% (169/516) respectively. Preoperative oral antibiotics was used by 34.69% (179/516) of the respondents. 94.38% (487/516) of participants were satisfied with bowel preparation, and 55.43% (286/516) of participants believed that preoperative bowel preparation was well tolerated. In terms of preoperative oral laxatives, there was no statistically significant difference between different levels of hospitals [secondary hospitals vs. tertiary hospitals: 90.00% (135/150) vs. 84.15% (308/366), χ(2)=2.995, P=0.084]. Compared with the tertiary hospitals, the surgeons in the secondary hospitals accounted for higher proportions in diet preparation [87.33% (131/150) vs. 76.78% (281/366), χ(2)=7.369, P=0.007], gastric intubation [54.00% (81/150) vs. 36.33% (133/366), χ(2)=13.672, P<0.001], preoperative oral antibiotics [58.67% (88/150) vs. 24.86% (91/366), χ(2)=12.259, P<0.001] and enema [28.67% (43/150) vs. 15.30% (56/366), χ(2)=53.661, P<0.001]. Conclusion: Although the preoperative bowel preparation practice in elective colorectal surgery for most of surgeons in China is basically the same as the current international protocol, the proportions of mechanical enema and gastric intubation before surgery are still relatively high.

[Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery]

The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to surgical site infections (SSI), anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative complications theologically. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgery aims to reduce fecal materials and bacterial count with the objective to decrease SSI rate, including AL. Based on many observational data, meta-analysis and multicenter randomized control trials (RTC), non-MBP did not increase AL rates or SSI and other complications in colon and even rectal surgery. In 2011 Cochrane review, there is no significant benefit MBP compared with non-MBP in colon surgery and also no better benefit MBP compared with rectal enemas in rectal surgery. However, in surgeon's perspectives, MBP is still in widespread surgical practice, despite the discomfort caused in patients, and general targeting of the colon microflora with antibiotics continues to gain popularity despite the lack of understanding of the role of the microbiome in anastomotic healing. Recently, there are many evidence suggesting that MBP+oral antibiotics (OA) should be the growing gold standard for colorectal surgery. However, there are rare RCT studies and still no solid evidences in OA preparation, so further studies need results in both MBP and OA and only OA for colorectal surgery. Also, MBP studies in patients with having minimally invasive surgery (MIS; laparoscopic or robotics) colorectal surgery are still warranted. Further RCT on patients having elective left side colon and rectal surgery with primary anastomosis in whom sphincter saving surgery without MBP in these MIS and microbiome era.

The impact of perioperative care on complications and short term outcome in ARM type rectovestibular fistula: An ARM-Net consortium study

BACKGROUND

The impact of perioperative care interventions on postreconstructive complications and short-term colorectal outcome in patients with anorectal malformation (ARM) type rectovestibular fistula is unknown.

METHODS

An ARM-Net consortium multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed including 165 patients with a rectovestibular fistula. Patient characteristics, perioperative care interventions, timing of reconstruction, postreconstructive complications and the colorectal outcome at one year of follow-up were registered.

RESULTS

Overall complications were seen in 26.8% of the patients, of which 41% were regarded major. Differences in presence of enterostomy, timing of reconstruction, mechanical bowel preparation, antibiotic prophylaxis and postoperative feeding regimen had no impact on the occurrence of overall complications. However, mechanical bowel preparation, antibiotic prophylaxis ≥48 h and postoperative nil by mouth showed a significant reduction in major complications. The lowest rate of major complications was found in the group having these three interventions combined (5.9%). Multivariate analyses did not show independent significant results of any of the perioperative care interventions owing to center-specific combinations. At one year follow-up, half of the patients experienced constipation and this was significantly higher among those with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in perioperative care interventions do not seem to impact the incidence of overall complications in a large cohort of European rectovestibular fistula-patients. Mechanical bowel preparation, antibiotic prophylaxis ≥48 h, and postoperative nil by mouth showed the least major complications. Independency could not be established owing to center-specific combinations of interventions.

TYPE OF STUDY

Treatment study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

[Preoperative bowel conditioning]

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal surgery is still associated with a relevant morbidity with the intestinal microbiome being of high importance in the pathogenesis of infectious complications. Various approaches, such as mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) with or without administration of oral antibiotics, fasting or dietary supplements aim at modulating the intestinal flora.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes the current literature pertinent to the influence of preoperative bowel conditioning on postoperative morbidity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was performed using the mentioned keywords with a focus on recent meta-analyses.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Bowel conditioning reduces postoperative infectious complications. Promising approaches are MBP plus administration of oral antibiotics, dietary supplements aiming at stabilization of the intestinal flora as well as the screening for and equilibration of malnutrition. The use of MBP as monotherapy without antibiotics should no longer be considered part of the clinical routine.

Outcome of no oral antibiotic prophylaxis and bowel preparation in Crohn's diseases surgery

BACKGROUND

Recent studies support the use of mechanical bowel preparation and/or oral antibiotic prophylaxis in patients operated on for Crohn's disease (CD); however, data are scarce, especially for laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, this study was carried out to investigate the effect of laparoscopic surgery on complication rates in patients not undergoing standardized bowel preparation but single shot antibiotics.

METHODS

In this study 255 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic intestinal resection for CD at a tertiary referral center between 1997 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Superficial surgical site infections (SSI), organ/space infections and ileus were recorded and grouped according to the type of resection (colorectal vs. small intestine ± ileocecal).

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the groups were comparable. Colorectal resections showed a significantly increased risk of organ/space infection (4.6% in small intestine ± ileocecal vs. 14.3% in colorectal resections p = 0.039). The superficial SSI rate was low in both groups (1.8% in small intestine ± ileocecal resection vs. 0% in colorectal resections, p = 1.000). Univariate binary logistic regression analysis revealed a statistically significant influence of duration of surgery (p = 0.001) and type of resection (p = 0.031) on organ/space infection. In multivariate analysis, only duration of surgery (OR 1.111, 95% CI 1.026-1.203 for every 10 min, p = 0.009) remained significant for postoperative organ/space infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-shot antibiotic therapy without bowel preparation is safe in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery and was associated with a low number of complications; however, organ/space infections were more common if colorectal resections were performed. Therefore, combined bowel preparation might be beneficial when the (sigmoid) colon or rectum are involved.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The value of mechanical bowel preparation prior to pediatric colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before pediatric colorectal surgery remains the standard of care for many pediatric surgeons, though the value of MBP remains unclear. The aim of this study was to systematically review and analyze the effect of MBP on the incidence of postoperative complications; anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal infection, and wound infection, following colorectal surgery in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched to compare the effect of MBP versus no MBP prior to elective pediatric colorectal surgery on postoperative complications. After critical appraisal of included studies, meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

1731 papers were retrieved; 2 randomized controlled trials and 4 retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of evidence was low. MBP before colorectal surgery did not significantly decrease the occurrence of anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal infection, or wound infection compared to no MBP.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the existing evidence, the use of MBP before colorectal surgery in children seems not to decrease the incidence of postoperative complications compared to no MBP. To overcome confounding factors such as antibiotic prophylaxis, age and type of operation, a multicentre prospective study is suggested to validate these results.

Current practice patterns of preoperative bowel preparation in colorectal surgery: a nation-wide survey by the Chinese Society of Colorectal Cancer

Background

The optimal preoperative bowel preparation for colorectal surgery remains controversial. However, recent studies have established that bowel preparation varies significantly among countries and even surgeons at the same institution. This survey aimed to obtain information on the current practice patterns of bowel preparation for colorectal surgery in China.

Methods

A paper-based survey was circulated to the members of the Chinese Society of Colorectal Cancer (CSCC). The survey responses were collected and analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed for all the categorical variables according to the responses to individual questions.

Results

Three hundred forty-one members completed the questionnaire. Regarding surgical practice, 203 (59.5%) performed > 50% of the colorectal operations laparoscopically or robotically; the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone was significantly higher (63.5 vs 31.9%; P < 0.001). The respondents who performed > 200 colonic or rectal resections provided significantly more MBP alone (79.6 vs 39.1%, P < 0.001; 76.6 vs 43.2%, P < 0.001; respectively). Among hospitals with fewer than 500 beds, 52.4% of the respondents used MBP + oral antibiotics preparation (OAP) + enema, a significantly higher percentage than the respondents of hospitals with more than 500 beds (P < 0.001). Nearly 40% of the respondents prescribed OAP in regimens; meanwhile, 74.8% prescribed preoperative intravenous antibiotics.

Conclusions

The study demonstrates considerable variation among members from the CSCC. These findings should be considered when developing multicenter trials and to provide more definitive answers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12957-018-1440-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effectiveness of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation on anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

It has been a standard practice to perform mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to colorectal surgery to reduce the risk of colorectal anastomotic leakages (CAL). The latest Cochrane systematic review suggests there is no benefit for MBP in terms of decreasing CAL, but new studies have been published. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to update current evidence for the effectiveness of preoperative MBP on CAL in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Consequently, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched from 2010 to March 2017 for randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared the effects of MBP in colorectal surgery on anastomotic leakages. The outcome CAL was expressed in odds ratios and analysed with a fixed-effects analysis in a meta-analysis. Quality assessment was performed by the cochrane risk of bias tool and grades of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Eight studies (1065 patients) were included. The pooled odds ratio showed no significant difference of MBP in colorectal surgery on CAL (odds ratio (OR) = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.68-1.94). According to GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence was low. To conclude, MBP for colorectal surgery does not lower the risk of CAL. These results should, however, be interpreted with caution due to the small sample sizes and poor quality. Moreover, the usefulness of MBP in rectal surgery is not clear due to the lack of stratification in many studies. Future research should focus on high-quality, adequately powered RCTs in elective rectal surgery to determine the possible effects of MBP.

Comparing inpatient versus outpatient bowel preparation in children and adolescents undergoing appendicovesicostomy

PURPOSE

The need for mechanical inpatient bowel preparation (IBP) in reconstructive pediatric urology has come under scrutiny, secondary to literature demonstrating little benefit regarding outcomes. Starting in 2013, a majority of patients undergoing reconstructive procedures at our institution no longer underwent IBP. We hypothesized that outpatient bowel preparation (OBP) would reduce length of stay (LOS) without increasing postoperative complications after appendicovesicostomy surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An institutional database of patients undergoing lower urinary tract reconstruction between May 2010 and December 2014 was reviewed. Starting in 2013, a departmental decision was made to replace IBP with OBP. Patients undergoing an augmentation cystoplasty or continent ileovesicostomy were excluded because of insufficient numbers undergoing OBP. Patients undergoing IBP were admitted 1 day prior to surgery and received polyethylene glycol/electrolyte solution. A personalized preoperative OBP was introduced in 2013. Cost data were obtained from the Pediatric Health Information System.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria, with 30 (44.8%) undergoing IBP. There were no differences with respect to gender, age, presence of ventriculoperitoneal shunt, body mass index, glomerular filtration rate, preoperative diagnosis, operative time, and prior or simultaneous associated surgeries (p ≥ 0.07). Patients undergoing an IBP had a longer median LOS (7 vs. 5 days, p = 0.0002) and a higher median cost (US$4,288, p = 0.01). Postoperative complications in both groups were uncommon and were classified as Clavien-Dindo grade 1-2, with no statistical difference (IBP 20.0% vs. OBP 5.4%, p = 0.13). No serious postoperative complication occurred, such as a dehiscence, bowel obstruction, or shunt infection.

DISCUSSION

This is the first analysis of hospitalization costs and IBP, showing a higher median cost of US$4288 compared with OBP. The LOS was shorter with an OBP (figure), similar to a previous report. Similar complication rates between the groups add to the growing body of literature that avoidance of IBP is safe in pediatric lower urinary tract reconstruction. Being a retrospective review of a practice change, differences in care that influenced cost and LOS may be missing. Also, as the surgeons do not know if a usable appendix is initially present, our data may not extrapolate to all patients. Despite these potential limitations, our data support the safety of utilizing OBP in patients with a high likelihood of a usable appendix, including those undergoing a synchronous Malone antegrade continence enema via a split-appendix technique.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing an appendicovesicostomy, preoperative IBP led to longer LOS and higher costs of hospitalization. OBP was not associated with increased risks of postoperative complications.

American Society for Enhanced Recovery (ASER) and Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) joint consensus statement on prevention of postoperative infection within an enhanced recovery pathway for elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgery (CRS) patients are an at-risk population who are particularly vulnerable to postoperative infectious complications. Infectious complications range from minor infections including simple cystitis and superficial wound infections to life-threatening situations such as lobar pneumonia or anastomotic leak with fecal peritonitis. Within an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP), there are multiple approaches that can be used to reduce the risk of postoperative infections.

METHODS

With input from a multidisciplinary, international group of experts and through a focused (non-systematic) review of the literature, and use of a modified Delphi method, we achieved consensus surrounding the topic of prevention of postoperative infection in the perioperative period for CRS patients.

DISCUSSION

As a part of the first Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI-1) workgroup meeting, we sought to develop a consensus statement describing a comprehensive, yet practical, approach for reducing postoperative infections, specifically for CRS within an ERP. Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative infection. To reduce SSI, we recommend routine use of a combined isosmotic mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics before elective CRS and that infection prevention strategies (also called bundles) be routinely implemented as part of colorectal ERPs. We recommend against routine use of abdominal drains. We also give consensus guidelines for reducing pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI).

Prevention of Perioperative Anastomotic Healing Complications: Anastomotic Stricture and Anastomotic Leak

The anastomotic healing complications of postoperative leak and stricture continue to plague surgeons despite many broadly targeted interventions. Evaluation of preventive measure efficacy is difficult due to inconsistent definitions and reporting of these complications. Few interventions have been shown to impact rates of leakage or stricture. However, new evidence is emerging that the intestinal microbiota can play an important role in the development of anastomotic complications. A more holistic approach to understanding the mechanisms of anastomotic complications is needed in order to develop tailored interventions to reduce their frequency. Such an approach may require a more complete definition of the role of the microbiota in anastomotic healing.

Induction of potentially lethal hypermagnesemia, ischemic colitis, and toxic megacolon by a preoperative mechanical bowel preparation: report of a case

A 67-year-old man was diagnosed with rectal cancer. The tumor invaded the subserosal layer, but it was not large, and there was no sign of obstruction. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy reduced the size of the tumor. The patient was admitted to our hospital for surgery. For mechanical bowel preparation, he ingested 34 g of magnesium citrate (Magcorol P®), but then developed severe shock, a disturbance of consciousness, and acidemia, and he required catecholamines and mechanical ventilation. X-ray, CT, and laboratory tests revealed ischemic colitis, toxic megacolon, and hypermagnesemia (16.3 mg/dL). After 2 days of temporary hemodialysis and an enema to reduce his blood magnesium concentration, he recovered and left the intensive care unit. However, the left side of his colon had suffered ischemic damage and become irreversibly atrophied. One month later, he underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and left-side colectomy for the rectal cancer and severe ischemic colitis of the left side of the colon. Histopathology confirmed the rectal cancer with a grade 2 chemotherapeutic effect and severe ischemic colitis of the left side of the colon. Hence, the present case suggests that severe ischemic colitis, toxic megacolon, and hypermagnesemia can occur after taking a magnesium laxative without obstruction of the intestine.

Rectal enema is an alternative to full mechanical bowel preparation for primary rectal cancer surgery

AIM

According to the French GRECCAR III randomized trial, full mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for rectal surgery decreases the rate of postoperative morbidity, in particular postoperative infectious complications, but MBP is not well tolerated by the patient. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a preoperative rectal enema (RE) might be an alternative to MBP.

METHODS

An analysis was performed of 96 matched cohort patients undergoing rectal resection with primary anastomosis and protective ileostomy at two different university teaching hospitals, whose rectal cancer management was comparable except for the choice of preoperative bowel preparation (MBP or RE). Prospective databases were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

Patients were well matched for age, gender, body mass index and Charlson index. The surgical approach and cancer characteristics (level above anal verge, stage and use of neoadjuvant therapy) were comparable between the two groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 10% of patients having MBP and in 8% having RE (P = 1.00). Pelvic abscess formation (6% vs 2%, P = 0.63) and wound infection (8% vs 15%, P = 0.55) were also comparable. Extra-abdominal infection (13% vs 13%, P = 1.00) and non-infectious abdominal complications such as ileus and bleeding (27% and 31%, P = 0.83) were not significantly different. Overall morbidity was comparable in the two groups (50% vs 54%, P = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

A simple RE before rectal surgery seems not to be associated with more postoperative infectious complications nor a higher overall morbidity than MBP.

Comparison of the risk of surgical site infection and feasibility of surgery between sennoside versus polyethylene glycol as a mechanical bowel preparation of elective colon cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To validate the usefulness of sennoside as a substitute for polyethylene glycol (PEG) as a mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colon cancer surgery.

METHODS

We performed a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial comparing the use of sennoside and PEG in MBP for elective colon cancer surgery, in terms of the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and the feasibility of surgery.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of SSIs was 2.9 % in the sennoside group (n = 68) and 6.3 % in the PEG group (n = 63) with a difference of 3.4 % (95 % confidence interval 6.9-10.6 %). The intraoperative spillage of the stool materials in the sennoside and PEG groups was 4.4 and 3.1 %, respectively, and was not significantly different (p = 0.71), even the upstream stool consistency, was more frequently observed to be non-stool in the PEG group (65.1 vs. 30.9 %, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

MBP with sennoside could be a substitution for PEG in elective colon cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic colon resection: To prep or not to prep? Analysis of 1535 patients

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before elective open colon resection does not reduce the rate of postoperative anastomotic leakage. However, MBP is still routinely used in many countries, and there are very limited data regarding the utility of preoperative MBP in patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection (LCR). The aim of this study was to challenge the use of MBP before elective LCR.

METHODS

It is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. All patients undergoing elective LCR with primary anastomosis and no stoma were included. Preoperative MBP with polyethylene glycol solution was used routinely between April 1992 and December 2004, and then it was abandoned. The early postoperative outcomes in patients who had preoperative MBP (MBP group) and in patients who underwent LCR without preoperative MBP (No-MBP group) were compared.

RESULTS

From April 1992 to December 2014, 1535 patients underwent LCR: 706 MBP patients and 829 No-MBP patients. There were no differences in demographic data, indication for surgery and type of procedure performed between MBP and No-MBP group patients. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was similar between the two groups (3.4 vs. 3.6 %, p = 0.925). No differences were observed in intra-abdominal abscesses (0.6 vs. 0.8 %, p = 0.734), wound infections (0.6 vs. 1.4 %, p = 0.149), infectious extra-abdominal complications (1.8 vs. 3 %, p = 0.190), and non-infectious complications (6.1 vs. 6.8 %, p = 0.672). The overall reoperation rate was 4.6 % for MBP patients and 5 % for No-MBP patients (p = 0.813).

CONCLUSION

The use of preoperative MBP does not seem to be associated with lower incidence of intra-abdominal septic complications after LCR.

An Open-Label Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Mechanical Bowel Preparation vs Nonmechanical Bowel Preparation in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Personal Experience

Over the last two decades, preoperative mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery has been criticized. Yet, many surgeons are still in favor of its use simply because of the belief that it achieves better clearance of the colonic fecal load. The objective of this study is to compare the outcome with regard to patient compliance and postoperative complications following elective colorectal surgery between two groups of patients, one with bowel prepared mechanically and the other by nonmechanical means. This open-label prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in a high-volume tertiary government referral hospital of Kolkata over a period of 3 years. It included 71 patients, divided into two groups, admitted for elective colorectal resection procedures in one surgical unit. Both methods of bowel preparation were equally well tolerated, and there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications or mortality between the two groups.

Prevention of infectious complications after elective colorectal surgery in children: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee comprehensive review

OBJECTIVE

This goal of this review was to examine the clinical evidence in support of commonly utilized measures intended to reduce complications following elective colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCE

Literature searches were performed to identify relevant studies from Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane databases.

STUDY SELECTION

The American Pediatric Surgery Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee selected eight questions to address this topic systematically in the context of three management areas: 1) appropriate utilization of systemic antibiotics for colorectal procedures, 2) reduction of stool burden through mechanical bowel preparation, and 3) intraluminal gut decontamination through use of enteral nonabsorbable antibiotics. Primary outcomes of interest included the occurrence of infectious and mechanical complications related to stool burden and intraluminal bacterial concentration (incisional surgical site infection, anastomotic leakage, and intraabdominal abscess).

RESULTS

The evidence in support of each management category was systematically reviewed, graded, and summarized in the context of the review's primary outcomes. Practice recommendations were made as deemed appropriate by the committee.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical evidence in support of interventions to reduce infectious complications following colorectal surgery is derived almost exclusively from the adult literature. High-quality evidence to guide clinical practice in children is sorely needed, as the available data may have only limited relevance to pediatric colorectal diseases.

The impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) based on the occurrence of anastomosis leakage, surgical site infection (SSI), and severity of surgical complication when performing elective colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MBP and non-MBP patients were matched using propensity score. The outcomes were evaluated according to tumor location such as right- (n=84) and left-sided colon (n=50) and rectum (n=100). In the non-MBP group, patients with right-sided colon cancer did not receive any preparation, and patients with both left-sided colon and rectal cancers were given one rectal enema before surgery.

RESULTS

In the right-sided colon surgery, there was no anastomosis leakage. SSI occurred in 2 (4.8%) and 4 patients (9.5%) in the non-MBP and MBP groups, respectively. In the left-sided colon cancer surgery, there was one anastomosis leakage (4.0%) in each group. SSI occurred in none in the rectal enema group and in 2 patients (8.0%) in the MBP group. In the rectal cancer surgery, there were 5 anastomosis leakages (10.0%) in the rectal enema group and 2 (4.0%) in the MBP group. SSI occurred in 3 patients (6.0%) in each groups. Severe surgical complications (Grade III, IV, or V) based on Dindo-Clavien classification, occurred in 7 patients (14.0%) in the rectal enema group and 1 patient (2.0%) in the MBP group (p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Right- and left-sided colon cancer surgery can be performed safely without MBP. In rectal cancer surgery, rectal enema only before surgery seems to be dangerous because of the higher rate of severe postoperative complications.

Cellular changes of the colon after mechanical bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on the intracellular environment, specifically evaluating butyrate transport, within the colon of the Sprague-Dawley rat.

METHODS

Sixty-eight Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized to either an MBP group (n = 34) or a control group (n = 34). Twenty-four hours after the completion of the MBP, both groups were euthanized, and the colons were harvested. The level of cellular apoptosis was investigated after DNA fragmentation, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase cleavage, and caspase assays. Western blot analysis was performed to measure the expression of the butyrate transporter protein, monocarboxylate transporters 1, and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (a marker for tissue proliferation). Immunohistochemical staining was performed to further investigate cellular proliferation. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) was determined using two-tailed t-test.

RESULTS

Apoptosis was detected without significant differences in both groups. Western Blot analysis demonstrated that the expression of the monocarboxylate transporters 1 protein is downregulated in the MBP group (10.18 ± 3.09) compared with the control group (16.73 ± 7.39, P = 0.001), and proliferating cell nuclear antigen levels showed a decrease in cellular proliferation in the MBP group (13.35 ± 5.88) compared with the control (20.07 ± 7.55, P = 0.018). Immunohistochemistry confirmed a decrease in cellular proliferation after MBP with 23.4 ± 7.8% of the cells staining positive for Ki-67 in the MBP group versus 28.6 ± 7.9% in the control group (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

MBP has a negative impact on cellular proliferation and intracellular transport of butyrate within the rat colon, not related to apoptosis. This is the first study to demonstrate the intracellular effects that MBP has on the rat colon.

Use of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics for elective colorectal procedures in children: is current practice evidence-based?

PURPOSE

It is well established through randomized trials that oral antibiotics given with or without a mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to colorectal procedures reduce complications, while MBP given alone provides no benefit. We aimed to characterize trends surrounding bowel preparation in children and determine whether contemporary practice is evidence-based.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing colorectal procedures at 42 children's hospitals (1/2/2007-12/31/2011) was performed. Patients were analyzed for diagnosis, pre-admission status, and inpatient bowel preparation. Bowel preparation was considered evidence-based if oral antibiotics were utilized with or without a MBP.

RESULTS

49% of all patients were pre-admitted (n=5,473), and the most common diagnoses were anorectal malformations (55%), inflammatory bowel disease (26%), and Hirschsprung's Disease (19%). The most common preparation approaches were MBP alone (54.3%), MBP+oral antibiotics (18.8%), and oral antibiotics alone (4.2%), although significant variation was found in hospital-specific rates for each approach (MBP alone: 0-96.1%, MBP+oral antibiotics: 0-83.6%, orals alone: 0-91.6%, p<0.0001). Only 22.9% of all patients received an evidence-based preparation (range by hospital: 0-92.3%, p<0.0001), and this rate decreased significantly during the five-year study period (27.6% in 2007 vs. 17.3% in 2011, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

According to the best available clinical evidence, less than a quarter of all children pre-admitted for elective colorectal procedures receive a bowel preparation proven to reduce infectious complications.

Mechanical bowel preparation and prophylactic antibiotic administration in colorectal surgery: a survey of the current status in Korea

Purpose

The usefulness of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colon surgery was recently challenged by many multicenter clinical trials and meta-analyses. The objectives of this study were to investigate current national opinions about MBP and prophylactic antibiotics (PA) and to provide preliminary data for developing future Korean guidelines for MBP and PA administration in colorectal surgery.

Methods

A questionnaire was mailed to 129 colorectal specialists. The questionnaires addressed the characteristics of the hospital, the MBP methods, and the uses of oral and intravenous antibiotics.

Results

A total of 73 questionnaires (56.6%) were returned. First, in regard to MBP methods, most surgeons (97.3%) used MBP for a mean of 1.36 days. Most surgeons (98.6%) implemented whole bowel irrigation and used polyethylene glycol (83.3%). Oral antibiotic use was indicated in over half (52.1%) of the responses, the average number of preoperative doses was three, and the mean time of administration was 24.2 hours prior to the operation. Finally, the majority of responders stated that they used intravenous antibiotics (95.9%). The responses demonstrated that second-generation cephalosporin-based regimens were most commonly prescribed, and 75% of the surgeons administered these regimens until three days after the operation.

Conclusion

The results indicate that most surgeons used MBP and intravenous antibiotics and that half of them administered oral PA in colorectal surgery preparations. The study recommends that the current Korean guidelines should be adapted to adequately reflect the medical status in Korea, to consider the medical environment of the various hospitals, and to establish more accurate and relevant guidelines.

Fast-track colorectal surgery

In recent years, fast-track surgery has been attracting more and more attention; however, many people remain concerned about the safety and effectiveness of fast-track colorectal surgery. In this paper we discuss how the main components of fast-track colorectal surgery (no routine mechanical bowel preparation, epidural anaesthesia or analgesia, laparoscopic operation, early removal of nasogastric tube and drainage tube, early postoperative oral feeding) affect the incidence of postoperative complications. Meanwhile, we evaluate the effectiveness of fast-track colorectal surgery in terms of shortened length of hospital stay, facilitated recovery, reduced insulin resistance, and better preserved immune function. Besides, we summarize the difficulties confronted during the implementation of fast-track colorectal surgery. We conclude that fast-track colorectal surgery is a safe and effective approach that deserves to be popularized in clinical practice.

The role of mechanical bowel preparation in gynecologic laparoscopy

Various combinations of dietary restriction, antibiotic regimens, and mechanical preparations have become routine in preoperative surgical planning for elective colon surgery. This practice has also become commonplace in the field of gynecology, either for planned bowel surgery or in complex cases that are believed to be high risk for inadvertent bowel injury. As the trend in gynecologic surgery shifts toward more minimally invasive approaches, the complexity of cases being performed by laparoscopy and robotics continues to increase. In addition, laparoscopic surgical techniques have a different set of inherent risks and challenges as compared with open pelvic operations. This review summarizes the available data surrounding the use of mechanical bowel preparations, specifically with regard to gynecologic laparoscopy.

Bowel preparation: current status

Despite emerging evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses questioning its use, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to hold an accepted place among surgeons. MBP has been administered to patients for over a century, and though the methods and agents used for intestinal cleansing have evolved over time, many surgeons still embrace MBP as a necessary, essential regimen. The accepted rationale for MBP includes evacuation of stool to allow visualization of the luminal surfaces as well as to reduce the fecal flora, which is believed to translate into lower risk of infectious and anastomotic complications at surgery. The authors describe the history of MBP as it relates to colorectal surgery and review the agents currently used for mechanical bowel preparation. Additionally, they summarize the recent trials, meta-analyses, and other emerging data from the medical literature that suggest MBP offers no benefit as a preoperative measure and question its place in current surgical practice.