Mechanical Bowel Preparation Group Research Articles

Evaluation of primary anastomosis in prepared/unprepared colo-rectal surgeries, and correlation with physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity scoring

Background: Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is a common practice for colo-rectal surgeries. Our aim was to study whether preoperative MBP has a positive impact on the outcome of colo-rectal anastomosis, and their correlation with co-morbid conditions (calculated by POSSUM score). Methods: This was a prospective study. Patients for colo-rectal anastomosis were randomized into group A (MBP group), and group B (NMBP group). Record was made of demography, diagnosis, POSSUM score, and complications in the form of wound infection, anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal abscesses, reoperation and mortality. According to the POSSUM score, patients were divided into two groups, and complications were correlated according to it. Results: Neither of the primary outcome (leak, abdominal abscess, or wound infection), and secondary outcomes (reoperation and mortality) showed any difference. Similar were the results for physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity ( POSSUM) scoring. Conclusions: Mechanical bowel preparation and POSSUM predicted morbidity has no effect over integrity of the anastomosis, wound infection and abdominal abscesses in colo-rectal surgeries.

Guidelines for pre- and intra-operative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations — Part I

Guidelines for pre- and intra-operative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations — Part I

Impact of mechanical bowel preparation on survival after colonic cancer resection.

A randomized study in 1999-2005 of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) preceding colonic resection found no decrease in postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term effect of MBP regarding cancer recurrence and survival after colonic resections. The cohort of patients with colonic cancer in the MBP study was followed up for 10 years. Data were collected from registers run by the National Board of Health and Welfare. Register data were validated against information in patient charts. Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariable analysis of factors predictive of cancer-specific survival. Register analysis showed significantly fewer recurrences, and better cancer-specific and overall survival in the MBP group. After validation, 839 of 1343 patients remained for analysis (448 MBP, 391 no MBP). Eighty (17·9 per cent) of 448 patients in the MBP group and 88 (22·5 per cent) of 391 in the no-MBP group developed a cancer recurrence (P = 0·093). The 10-year cancer-specific survival rate was 84·1 per cent in the MBP group and 78·0 per cent in the no-MBP group (P = 0·019). Overall survival rates were 58·8 and 56·0 per cent respectively (P = 0·186). Patients receiving MBP before elective colonic cancer surgery had significantly better cancer-specific survival after 10 years.

Cellular changes of the colon after mechanical bowel preparation

BackgroundThe 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. MethodsSixty-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. ResultsApoptosis 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). ConclusionsMBP 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.

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

PurposeTo 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 MethodsMBP 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.ResultsIn 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).ConclusionRight- 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.

Mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before colorectal surgery: A randomized prospective trial in a tertiary care institute

Background:In the first half of 20th century; mortality from colorectal surgery often exceeded 20%, mainly due to sepsis. Modern surgical techniques and improved perioperative care have significantly lowered the mortality rate. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is aimed at cleansing the large bowel of fecal content thus reducing morbidity and mortality related to colorectal surgery. We carried out a study aimed to investigate the outcomes of colorectal surgery with and without MBPs, to avoid unpleasant side-effects of MBP and also to design a protocol for preparation of a patient for colorectal surgery.Materials and Methods:This was a prospective study over a period of March 2008-May 2010 carried out at Department of General Surgery of our institution. A total of 63 patients were included in this study; among those 32 patients were operated with MBPs and 31 without it; admitted in in-patient department undergoing resection of left colon and rectum for benign and malignant conditions in both emergency and elective conditions.Results:Anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal collections was detected clinically and radiologically in 2 and 4 patients in each group respectively. P > 0.5 in both situations, indicating statistically no difference between results of two groups. Wound infections were detected in 12 (37.5%) patients with MBP group and 11 (35.48%) patients without MBP.Conclusion:The present results suggest that the omission of MBP does not impair healing of colonic anastomosis; neither increases the risk of leakage.

Does mechanical bowel preparation ameliorate damage from rectal injury in radical prostatectomy? Analysis of 151 rectal injury cases

To evaluate whether mechanical bowel preparation before radical prostatectomy ameliorates damage from rectal injury in radical prostatectomy. Among 35,099 radical prostatectomy cases in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database 2007-2012, those where a rectal injury occurred were stratified into a preoperative mechanical bowel preparation group (polyethylene glycol electrolyte, magnesium citrate solution and sodium picosulfate) and a non-mechanical bowel preparation group. The associations between mechanical bowel preparation and rectal injury were evaluated by multivariate regression analysis for: (i) subsequent infectious complications; (ii) requirement of delayed colostomy formation after primary closure; (iii) postoperative length of stay; and (iv) total costs. Covariates were age, surgical approach, Charlson Comorbidity Index, T and N category, hospital volume, hospital academic status, and colostomy formation. Overall, 151 rectal injury cases (0.43%) were identified. Of those, 73 patients (48%) received mechanical bowel preparation. Multivariate analyses showed that all four outcomes were not statistically different between mechanical bowel preparation and non-mechanical bowel preparation groups (infectious complication rate: 12% vs 10%, P = 0.80; delayed colostomy rate: 21% vs 31%, P = 0.34; length of stay: 28 vs 30 days, P = 0.84; and total costs: $24,665 vs $23,837, P = 0.81). Our analysis did not detect a beneficial impact of mechanical bowel preparation on perioperative morbidity associated with rectal injury during radical prostatectomy. This finding suggests that mechanical bowel preparation might be safely omitted before radical prostatectomy.

Is mechanical bowel preparation in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy beneficial? An analysis of a Japanese national database

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Recently, the ineffectiveness of bowel mechanical preparation prior to colorectal surgery was focused on. Although its effectiveness was widely accepted in laparoscopic prostatectomy, the data were limited. This retrospective multicentre study compared laparoscopic prostatectomy cases with and without bowel preparation and did not demonstrate the preparation's preferable effect in operation time and complication incidence, which suggested justification of the omission of bowel preparation. To evaluate the effect of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on peri-operative outcomes. Patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for T1-T2 tumours between 2008 and 2010 were identified in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Patients were classified into a preoperative MBP group and a non-MBP group. The effects of MBP were evaluated by multivariate regression analysis of overall complication rate, operation time, postoperative length of stay (PLOS) and total costs with generalized estimating equations adjustment involving age, body mass index, Charlson score, hospital academic status and hospital volume. Comparing the 154 non-MBP and 580 MBP patients, overall complication rate, operation time, PLOS and total costs were 6.5% vs 6.9% (P = 0.860), 222 vs 250 min (P = 0.001), 11 vs 10 days (P < 0.001) and 18,941 vs 19,015 US dollars (P = 0.032), respectively. In the multivariate analyses, no significant differences were observed for the four outcomes (P = 0.961, 0.194, 0.383 and 0.993, respectively). Complications were more frequently observed in older patients, and operation time tended to be longer in patients with higher body mass index and in hospitals with lower volumes. Longer PLOS and higher total costs were associated with older age, higher Charlson score and lower hospital volume. We could not find any superiority of MBP on overall complications, operation time, PLOS and total costs in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The results support that MBP can be omitted prior to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for T1-T2 prostate cancer.

Optimizing working-space in laparoscopy: measuring the effect of mechanical bowel preparation in a porcine model

Adequate working space is a prerequisite for safe and efficient minimal access surgery. No objective data exist in literature about the effect of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on working space in laparoscopic surgery. We objectively measured this effect with computed tomography in a porcine laparoscopy model. Using standardized anesthesia, twelve 20-kg pigs without MBP and eight 20-kg pigs with MBP were studied with computed tomography at intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) levels of 0, 5, 10, and 15 mmHg. Volumes and dimensions of the pneumoperitoneum were measured on reconstructed CT images and compared between the pigs with and those without MBP. A reproducible and statistically significant increase of approximately 500 ml in pneumoperitoneum volume was found in the MBP group at all levels of IAP. This represents a 43 % relative increase at a pneumoperitoneum pressure of 5 mmHg, 21 % at IAP 10 mmHg, and 18 % at IAP 15 mmHg. Peak inspiratory pressure was lower at IAP 0 and 5 mmHg in the MBP group. Anteroposterior diameter in the group with MBP was lower at 0 mmHg, but abdominal dimensions were similar in both groups at all other IAPs. This shows that the gain in working space is due to a diminished volume of the intra-abdominal content and not to compression or displacement of the bowel. MBP increases working space by reducing bowel content. Especially at low intra-abdominal working pressures, the increase in working space associated with MBP could represent an important benefit in challenging laparoscopic surgery.

Does Mechanical Bowel Preparation Improve Quality of Laparoscopic Nephrectomy? Propensity Score-matched Analysis in Japanese Series

To assess the effect of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before laparoscopic nephrectomy in terms of operation time and perioperative complications. Patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy for T1-T3 tumors were identified in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database from 2008 to 2010. The patients were stratified into a preoperative MBP group (polyethylene glycol electrolyte, magnesium citrate solution, and sodium picosulfate) and a non-MBP group and were matched using one-to-one propensity score matching according to age, sex, Charlson score, T category, hospital volume, and hospital academic status. The operation time, postoperative length of stay, and overall complication rate were assessed by multivariate regression analyses. Of 2740 patients in 355 hospitals, 1110 pairs were generated. The median operation time, postoperative stay, and overall complication rate (MBP vs non-MBP group) was 278 and 268 minutes (P<.004), 10.3 and 10.0 days (P=.695), and 11.8% and 11.4% (P=.740), respectively. The multivariate regression analyses did not find significant superiority of MBP for the 3 endpoints (all P>.05). A shorter operation time was significantly associated with female sex and early-stage tumor. Older age, greater Charlson score, and lower hospital volume adversely affected the postoperative stay and overall complication rate. Stage T3 tumor was unfavorable for the postoperative stay. Our large-scale propensity score-matched analysis did not demonstrate a benefit for MBP in operation time, postoperative stay, or overall complications. The results suggest that MBP can be safely omitted before laparoscopic nephrectomy for T1-T3 tumors.

Objective Assessment of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Motility in Elective Colonic Resection Using a Radiopaque Marker Provides an Evidence for the Abandonment of Preoperative Mechanical Bowel Preparation

It has been suggested that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) has no benefit in terms of anastomotic healing, infection rate, or improvement in the postoperative course in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, and that it should be abandoned. However, the effect of MBP on postoperative gastrointestinal motility has been assessed subjectively. In this randomized trial, we objectively assessed the effect of MBP on postoperative gastrointestinal motility and mobility in elective colonic resection. In total, 79 patients scheduled to undergo elective colonic resection for cancer were randomized to MBP or no-MBP groups prior to surgery. All patients ingested radiopaque markers before surgery to evaluate postoperative gastrointestinal motility, objectively evaluated by the transition of the markers at postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, 5 and 7. The groups were then further subdivided into open and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) groups and evaluated in terms of gastrointestinal motility and postoperative mobility. There was no significant difference between the no-MBP and MBP groups in terms of perioperative and postoperative course. In the LAC subgroup, there was no significant difference between the no-MBP and MBP groups in terms of marker transition. However, in the open subgroup, there was a significant difference between the groups in terms of the residual ratio of markers in the small intestine at POD 3 (no-MBP 35.3% vs. MBP 69.2%; p=0.041), excretion rate of markers at POD 5 (no-MBP 49.7% vs. MBP 8.8%; p=0.005), and residual ratio in the small intestine at POD 7 (no-MBP 3.1% vs. MBP 28.8%; p=0.028). Additionally, the excretion rate in the no-MBP group was significantly higher than in the MBP group at POD 7 (74.1% vs. 33.8%; p=0.007). Our data provide additional evidence to support the abandonment of MBP in elective open colonic surgery.

Comparison of oral polyethylene glycol plus a large volume glycerine enema with a large volume glycerine enema alone in patients undergoing colorectal surgery for malignancy: a randomized clinical trial

Recent meta-analyses and randomized clinical trials have concluded that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before elective colorectal surgery is not associated with a reduction of surgical site infection (SSI). The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the impact of preoperative MBP for colon and rectal cancer surgery in comparison with a single glycerine enema. Patients scheduled for radical colorectal resection for malignancy with primary anastomosis were randomized to preoperative MBP (4 l of polyethylene glycol) (group 1, 114 patients) plus a glycerine 5% enema (2 l) or a single glycerine 5% enema (2 l) (group 2, 115 patients). The postoperative incidence of SSI was recorded prospectively. Patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopy or robotic) accounted for 55 and 51 in groups 1 and 2 respectively. In all, 229 patients were included in the study, 114 in group 1 and 115 in group 2. At least one SSI was reported in 16 (14.0%) group 1 and in 20 (17.8%) group 2 patients (P=0.475). Perioperative mortality was nil. The incidence of SSI was comparable also in the 73 patients who had a low anterior resection (seven of 33 vs eight of 40, P=1.000), and for the 106 patients who underwent a minimally invasive procedure (nine of 55 vs four of 51, P=0.241). A single large-volume glycerine enema is effective bowel preparation before colorectal resection whether performed by an open or minimally invasive technique.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage, but the belief that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications is based on observational data and expert opinions only.An enema before the rectal surgery to clean the rectum and facilitate the manipulation for the mechanical anastomosis is used for many surgeons. This is analysed separately To determine the security and effectiveness of MBP on morbidity and mortality in colorectal surgery. Publications describing trials of MBP before elective colorectal surgery were sought through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IBECS and The Cochrane Library; by handsearching relevant medical journals and conference proceedings, and through personal communication with colleagues.Searches were performed December 1, 2010. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants submitted for elective colorectal surgery. Eligible interventions included any type of MBP compared with no MBP. Primary outcomes included anastomosis leakage - both rectal and colonic - and combined figures. Secondary outcomes included mortality, peritonitis, reoperation, wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, and overall surgical site infections. Data were independently extracted and checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of randomisation, blinding, type of analysis, and number lost to follow up were recorded. For analysis, the Peto-Odds Ratio (OR) was used as the default (no statistical heterogeneity was observed). At this update six trials and a new comparison (Mechanical bowel preparation versus enema) were added. Altogether eighteen trials were analysed, with 5805 participants; 2906 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2899 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation Versus No Mechanical Bowel Preparation results were:1. Anastomotic leakage for low anterior resection: 8.8% (38/431) of Group A, compared with 10.3% (43/415) of Group B; Peto OR 0.88 [0.55, 1.40].2. Anastomotic leakage for colonic surgery: 3.0% (47/1559) of Group A, compared with 3.5% (56/1588) of Group B; Peto OR 0.85 [0.58, 1.26].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (101/2275) of Group A, compared with 4.5% (103/2258) of Group B; Peto OR 0.99 [0.74, 1.31].4. Wound infection: 9.6% (223/2305) of Group A, compared with 8.5% (196/2290) of Group B; Peto OR 1.16 [0.95, 1.42].Sensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation (A) Versus Rectal Enema (B) results were:1. Anastomotic leakage after rectal surgery: 7.4% (8/107) of Group A, compared with 7.9% (7/88) of Group B; Peto OR 0.93 [0.34, 2.52].2. Anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery: 4.0% (11/269) of Group A, compared with 2.0% (6/299) of Group B; Peto OR 2.15 [0.79, 5.84].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (27/601) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (21/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.32 [0.74, 2.36].4. Wound infection: 9.9% (60/601) of Group A, compared with 8.0% (49/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 [0.85, 1.88]. Despite the inclusion of more studies with a total of 5805 participants, there is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation, nor the use of rectal enemas. In colonic surgery the bowel cleansing can be safely omitted and induces no lower complication rate. The few studies focused in rectal surgery suggested that mechanical bowel preparation could be used selectively, even though no significant effect was found. Further research on patients submitted for elective rectal surgery, below the peritoneal verge, in whom bowel continuity is restored, and studies with patients submitted to laparoscopic surgeries are still warranted.

Rectal Cancer Surgery With or Without Bowel Preparation

To assess with a single-blinded, multicenter, randomized trial, the postoperative results in patients undergoing sphincter-saving rectal resection for cancer without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP). The collective evidence from literature strongly suggests that MBP, before elective colonic surgery, is of no benefit in terms of postoperative morbidity. Very few data and no randomized study are available for rectal surgery and preliminary results conclude toward the safety of rectal resection without MBP. From October 2007 to January 2009, patients scheduled for elective rectal cancer sphincter-saving resection were randomized to receive preoperative MBP (ie, retrograde enema and oral laxatives) or not. Primary endpoint was the overall 30-day morbidity rate. Secondary endpoints included mortality rate, anastomotic leakage rate, major morbidity rate (Dindo III or more), degree of discomfort for the patient, and hospital stay. A total of 178 patients (103 men), including 89 in both groups (no-MBP and MBP groups), were included in the study. The overall and infectious morbidity rates were significantly higher in no-MBP versus MBP group, 44% versus 27%, P = 0.018, and 34% versus 16%, P = 0.005, respectively. Regarding both anastomotic leakage and major morbidity rates, there was no significant difference between no-MBP and MBP group: 19% versus 10% (P = 0.09) and 18% versus 11% (P = 0.69), respectively. Moderate or severe discomfort was reported by 40% of prepared patients. Mortality rate (1.1% vs 3.4%) and mean hospital stay (16 vs 14 days) did not differ significantly between both groups. This first randomized trial demonstrated that rectal cancer surgery without MBP was associated with higher risk of overall and infectious morbidity rates without any significant increase of anastomotic leakage rate. Thus, it suggests continuing to perform MBP before elective rectal resection for cancer.

Randomized clinical trial of the influence of mechanical bowel preparation on faecal microflora in patients undergoing colonic cancer resection

This study investigated the influence of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on faecal microflora, using rRNA-targeted reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction in patients undergoing colonic cancer resection. Forty-two patients undergoing elective colonic surgery were randomized into MBP or no-MBP groups (21 in each group). The main outcome was the bacterial microflora and faecal organic acid content of faecal material obtained at operation. Clinical characteristics were similar in the two groups. Bowel content in the resected specimens did not differ significantly. The count of bacterial microflora, such as Bifidobacterium and total Lactobacillus, in both intraoperative faecal material and first material after surgery was significantly lower in the MBP group than the no-MBP group (P < 0·050). Levels of faecal organic acids, such as acetic acid, propionic acid and butyric acid, in intraoperative faecal material were significantly lower, and levels of lactic acid were significantly higher, in the MBP group than in the no-MBP group (P < 0·050). The succinic acid level was significantly higher after surgery than before operation in the MBP group (P = 0·008). Preoperative MBP caused an imbalance in the bowel microflora, suggesting that it offers no advantages in terms of enterobacterial microflora for patients undergoing colonic cancer resection. UMIN000003153 (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).

Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials on the Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation Before Colorectal Surgery

Earlier meta-analyses of small randomized trials suggested that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) should be omitted before colorectal surgery because it does not affect complication rates 0 mortality and may be even harmful; however, more recent large randomized trials suggested an increased occurrence of pelvic abscesses in the absence of MBP. Therefore, an updated large meta-analysis was conducted to re-evaluate the role of MBP in colorectal surgery. Furthermore, the influence of different kind of MBP regimes on infectious outcomes was examined. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the QUOROM statement; the inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing MBP with no MBP before colorectal surgery. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage; secondary outcomes were other septic complications. Fourteen trials were included with a total number of 4859 patients: 2452 in the MBP group and 2407 in the no MBP group. We found no statistical difference between the groups for anastomotic leakage [OR = 1.12 (0.82-1.53), P = 0.46], pelvic or abdominal abscess (P = 0.75), and wound sepsis (P = 0.11). When all surgical site infections were considered, the meta-analysis favored no MBP [OR = 1.40 (1.05-1.87), P = 0.02].Sensitivity analyses showed similar results for all subgroups but when poor or small trials were excluded, there was a slightly higher risk of deep abdominal abscesses with no MBP, however, the number needed to harm was as high as 333 patients, suggesting this difference to be not clinically relevant. The use of different MBP regimes did not influence primary and secondary outcomes. The main limitation concerned rectal surgery for which the limited data preclude any interpretation. Although it did not confirm the harmful effect of mechanical bowel preparation (suggested by previous meta-analyses), this meta-analysis including almost 5000 patients, demonstrates with a high level of evidence that any kind of mechanical bowel preparation should be omitted before colonic surgery.

Mechanical Bowel Preparation in Intestinal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature

IntroductionDespite several meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials showing no benefit to patients, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) remains the standard of practice for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature of trials that prospectively compared MBP with no MBP for patients undergoing elective colorectal resection. We searched MEDLINE, LILACS, and SCISEARCH, abstracts of pertinent scientific meetings and reference lists for each article found. Experts in the field were queried as to knowledge of additional reports. Outcomes abstracted were anastomotic leaks and wound infections. Meta-analysis was performed using Peto Odds ratio. ResultsOf 4,601 patients (13 trials), 2,304 received MBP (Group 1) and 2,297 did not (Group 2). Anastomotic leaks occurred in 97(4.2%) patients in Group 1 and in 81(3.5%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.214, CI 95%:0.899–1.64, P = 0.206). Wound infections occurred in 227(9.9%) patients in Group 1 and in 201(8.8%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.156, CI 95%:0.946–1.413, P = 0.155). DiscussionThis meta-analysis demonstrates that MBP provides no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, thus, supporting elimination of routine MBP in elective colorectal surgery. ConclusionIn conclusion, MBP is of no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal resection and need not be recommended to meet “standard of care.”

Rectal cancer surgery without mechanical bowel preparation

: Eight randomized clinical trials and two meta-analyses recently questioned the value of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colorectal surgery. However, very few patients having rectal surgery were included in these studies. The aim of this study was to assess whether rectal cancer surgery can be performed safely without MBP. The postoperative course was assessed in 52 consecutive unselected patients who underwent rectal cancer resection and sphincter preservation without MBP. This group was compared with a group of 61 matched patients in whom MBP was performed before surgery. The overall morbidity rate after rectal resection was higher in patients who had MBP than in those who did not (51 versus 31 per cent; P = 0.036). The incidence of symptomatic anastomotic leakage was similar in the two groups (8 versus 10 per cent respectively; P = 1.000). Although not significant, peritonitis occurred more frequently in the absence of MBP (2 versus 6 per cent; P = 0.294). A trend towards a higher rate of infectious complications was noted in patients who had MBP (23 versus 12 per cent; P = 0.141), but MBP was associated with a significantly higher rate of infectious extra-abdominal complications (11 versus 0 per cent; P = 0.014). Mean hospital stay was significantly longer in the MBP group (12 versus 10 days; P = 0.022). Elective rectal surgery for cancer without MBP may be associated with reduced postoperative morbidity.

Preoperative mechanical preparation of the colon: the patient's experience

BackgroundPreoperative mechanical bowel preparation can be questioned as standard procedure in colon surgery, based on the result from several randomised trials.MethodsAs part of a large multicenter trial, 105 patients planned for elective colon surgery for cancer, adenoma, or diverticulitis in three hospitals were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding perceived health including experience with bowel preparation. There were 39 questions, each having 3 – 10 answer alternatives, dealing with food intake, pain, discomfort, nausea/vomiting, gas distension, anxiety, tiredness, need of assistance with bowel preparation, and willingness to undergo the procedure again if necessary.Results60 patients received mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and 45 patients did not (No-MBP). In the MBP group 52% needed assistance with bowel preparation and 30% would consider undergoing the same preoperative procedure again. In the No-MBP group 65 % of the patients were positive to no bowel preparation. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to postoperative pain and nausea. On Day 4 (but not on Days 1 and 7 postoperatively) patients in the No-MBP group perceived more discomfort than patients in the MBP group, p = 0.02. Time to intake of fluid and solid food did not differ between the two groups. Bowel emptying occurred significantly earlier in the No-MBP group than in the MBP group, p = 0.03.ConclusionMechanical bowel preparation is distressing for the patient and associated with a prolonged time to first bowel emptying.

Mechanical bowel preparation before gynecologic laparoscopy: a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial

To evaluate the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before gynecologic laparoscopy, using as the primary endpoint the appropriateness of the surgical field as judged by the surgeon. Prospective, randomized, single-blind clinical trial. Academic department specializing in gynecologic surgery. One-hundred sixty-two patients scheduled for laparoscopy. The evening before laparoscopy, patients were randomized to either MBP with 90 mL of oral sodium phosphate (NaP) or no bowel preparation. Patient discomfort was evaluated with a visual analogue scale. Bowel preparation was evaluated by a surgeon (blind to bowel-preparation status) using a 5-point scale. Surgical difficulty, operating times, and postoperative complications were recorded. Preoperative discomfort was significantly greater in the MBP group. No significant difference in the evaluation of the surgical field, operative difficulty, operative time, and postoperative complications was present between the two groups. Bowel preparation with oral NaP does not offer any significant advantage in patients undergoing laparoscopy for benign gynecologic conditions. In addition, MBP significantly increases preoperative discomfort.