Abstract
There has been a resurgence of interest in the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotics (OAB) before elective colorectal surgery. Until now, clinical trials and meta-analyses have not compared all 4 approaches (MBP with OAB, OAB only, MBP only, or no preparation) simultaneously. To perform a network meta-analysis to clarify which approach in colorectal surgery is associated with the lowest rate of surgical site infection (SSI). Five electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club. and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness from database inception to November 27, 2017. Only data from randomized clinical trials were included. Inclusion criteria were RCTs that reported on SSI rates or other complications based on MBP or OAB status. Quality of studies was appraised by the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Total, incisional, and organ/space SSI rates. Secondary outcomes included rates of anastomotic leak, mortality, readmissions/reoperations, urinary tract infection, and pulmonary complications. Thirty-eight randomized clinical trials among 8458 patients (52.1% male) were included, providing 4 direct comparisons and 2 indirect comparisons for 8 outcome measures. On Bayesian analysis, MBP with OAB vs MBP only was associated with reduced SSI (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% equal-tail credible interval [CrI], 0.57-0.88). There was no significant difference between MBP with OAB vs OAB only (OR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.56-1.62). Oral antibiotics without MBP was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in SSI compared with any other group (except for a risk reduction in organ/space SSI when indirectly compared with no preparation) (OR, 0.13; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.55). There was no difference in SSI between MBP only vs no preparation (OR, 0.84; 95% CrI, 0.69-1.02). In this network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, MBP with OAB was associated with the lowest risk of SSI. Oral antibiotics only was ranked as second best, but the data available on this approach were limited. There was no difference between MBP only vs no preparation. In addition, there was no difference in rates of anastomotic leak, readmissions, or reoperations between any groups.
Highlights
There has been a resurgence of interest in the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotics (OAB) before elective colorectal surgery (CRS)
On Bayesian analysis, MBP with OAB vs MBP only was associated with reduced surgical site infection (SSI)
There was no significant difference between MBP with OAB vs OAB only (OR, 0.95; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.56-1.62)
Summary
There has been a resurgence of interest in the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotics (OAB) before elective colorectal surgery (CRS). This is a current and controversial topic, not owing to a lack of high-quality evidence but because studies on this topic have reported a diverse range of outcomes. Despite the American Society for Enhanced Recovery and the Perioperative Quality Initiative joint consensus statement recommending the “routine use of a combined isosmotic mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics before elective CRS”1(p6) to reduce surgical site infection (SSI), there has been a lack of consensus between international guidelines in United States, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Most indicated that they used MBP before rectal surgery, and 30% used MBP before colonic surgery[3] despite a large body of evidence showing no benefit with MBP.[4]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.