Tajima Y, Ishida H, Yamamoto A, Chika N, Onozawa H, Matsuzawa T, Kumamoto K, Ishibashi K, Mochiki E. 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.
Surg Today 2015;
46:735-40. [PMID:
26319220 DOI:
10.1007/s00595-015-1239-7]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2015] [Accepted: 07/29/2015] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse