A randomized single blind comparison of conventional bowel preparation and unplanned preoperative preparation for pelvic organ prolapse

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the influence of conventional preoperative intestinal preparation and unplanned preparation on the visual field of pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery. Methods: The patients who underwent transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery in Peking University People's Hospital from September 2017 to July 2018 were selected as the research objects except those who had undergone colorectal surgery and chronic constipation. The surgery doctor was blinded by intestinal preparation. There was no intestinal preparation in non intestinal preparation group and polyethylene glycol was taken orally in intestinal preparation group. The main outcome measures were the effect of intestinal contents on the surgical field, the presence of fecal leakage, and the nature and volume of fecal leakage. The standard of fecal contamination was: mild, less than 15 ml, moderate, 15-30 ml, and severe, >30 ml. Secondary indicators were patient satisfaction and symptoms of routine bowel preparation. Results: A total of 120 patients (60 cases of non intestinal preparation group, 60 cases of intestinal preparation group) were selected, including transvaginal hysterectomy, vaginal anterior or posterior colporrhaphy (some patients with anterior prolapse repair with mesh), sacrospinal ligament suspension, total colpectomy and colpocleisis, laparoscopic sacral colpopexy, anti-incontinence surgery. The median age of the patients in non intestinal preparation group was 62 years, and the median age of intestinal preparation group was 60 years. There were no significant differences in median age, anesthesia, operation method, blood loss, operation time and perioperative infection between the two groups (all P>0.05). Fecal contamination occurred in 10% (6/60) of the patients without intestinal preparation and 32% (19/60) of the patients with intestinal preparation (P=0.042). Comparing the two groups, 10% (6/60) of the patients with intestinal preparation had moderate and severe contamination, and the patients without intestinal preparation was only 2% (1/60), there was significant difference (P=0.017). In intestinal preparation group, nausea (8%, 5/60), vomiting (5%, 3/60), abdominal distension (22%, 13/60), fatigue (5%, 3/60) and palpitation (2%, 1/60) were higher than those in non intestinal preparation group. Conclusions: Intestinal preparation with oral laxatives before pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery is not beneficial to the cleaning of the surgical field and increases the discomfort of intestinal preparation. It is safe and feasible for most patients with pelvic organ prolapse to perform pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery without intestinal preparation.