Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation Research Articles

Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation in Elective Rectal Resection

Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation in Elective Rectal Resection

What are the effects of preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery?

What are the effects of preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery?

608 Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation in Elective Anterior Resection

Abstract Aim A single centre retrospective cohort study investigating the impact of oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) for lower anterior resections on length of hospital stay and post-operative complications. Method The pre-intervention group were all elective anterior resections between 2015 and 2016. They received mechanical bowel preparation only. The intervention group were patients undergoing elective anterior resection between 2020 and 2021. These patients were given OAP in addition to standard mechanical bowel preparation. Outcomes investigated were surgical site infections, overall length of hospital stay, anastomotic leak and return to theatre. These were then compared between the two cohorts and statistical analysis was conducted. Results The pre-intervention group consisted of 221 patients and there were 201 patients in the intervention group. 61% of patients were male, whilst other patient demographics were comparable between cohorts. The mean length of hospital stay was reduced by 26.4% (p = 0.002) and the median length of stay was reduced by one day. There was a 1.5% decrease (p = 0.50) in post-operative infections, a decrease of 26.7% (p = 0.25) in anastomotic leaks and a decrease of 45% (p = 0.13) in patients who returned to theatre. Conclusions There was a statistically significant reduction in length of hospital stay with OAP alongside mechanical preparation. Although post-operative complications such as anastomotic leaks and return to theatre were reduced, these were not statistically significant, but may still have clinical and economic importance. There is strong evidence towards the benefit of OAP reducing length of stay, which reduces cost and improves patient flow and bed capacity.

Preoperative oral antibiotic bowel preparation regimens in radical cystectomies with continent diversion.

e16610 Background: Bowel preparation regimens (BRs) were historically standard before radical cystectomy (RC) with urinary diversion to decrease infection and anastomotic breakdown. However, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol (ERAS) no longer includes BRs. Recent data show that BRs may exacerbate frailty, worsen surgical outcomes, and prolong recovery. Importantly, however, previous studies did not stratify by diversion type. We performed a population-based analysis of preoperative oral antibiotic BRs (OABRs) with RC, alongside subgroup analyses to compare outcomes by diversion type. Methods: RCs performed from 2019-2020 were identified using the new NSQIP Cystectomy-Targeted PUF. Captured variables included OABR, diversion type, demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative outcomes. Univariate analysis with two tailed chi square and t tests was performed to compare baseline characteristics, 30-day mortality, and complications. Multivariable logistic regression with stepwise-backward-elimination (p > 0.25) adjusted for mechanical BRs, operative approach, comorbidities, functional status, demographics, ASA class, labs, and staging. Results: In total, 3,894 RCs were performed, of which 357 (9.2%) included OABR. There were no significant baseline differences between the OABR and the non-OABR cohorts. On univariate analysis, OABR patients had increased operative time, length of stay (LOS), minor complications, and bleeds. On subgroup analysis, ileal conduit patients experienced higher rates of the 4 aforementioned outcomes plus deep wound infections and NGT use. However, the continent diversion subgroup was not associated with increased operative time, LOS, or any complications. Continent diversion had significantly lower rates of sepsis and ureteral fistula formation. Upon multivariable adjustment, OABR was not associated with increased rates of any complications across any subgroup. OABR did confer significantly decreased odds of sepsis in continent diversion patients. Conclusions: Supporting ERAS recommendations, this study showed that pre-RC OABRs do not improve outcomes and increase LOS for ileal conduits. However, this study uniquely included continent diversions, such as neobladders and Indiana pouches. Importantly, in continent diversion patients, OABR did not increase LOS or complications while decreasing sepsis rates. These findings suggest possible utility of OABR before RC with continent diversion.

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for all patients undergoing colorectal surgery?

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for all patients undergoing colorectal surgery?

Bowel Preparation Before Nonelective Sigmoidectomy for Sigmoid Volvulus: Highly Beneficial but Vastly Underused.

Although strong evidence exists for combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation before elective colorectal resection, the utility of preoperative bowel preparation for patients undergoing sigmoid resection after endoscopic decompression of sigmoid volvulus has not been previously examined. The goal of this study was to evaluate the association between bowel preparation and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing semielective, same-admission sigmoid resection for acute volvulus. Patients from the 2012 to 2019 Colectomy-Targeted American College of Surgeons NSQIP dataset who underwent sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis after admission for sigmoid volvulus were included. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the risk-adjusted 30-day postoperative outcomes of patients who received combined preoperative bowel preparation with those of patients who received either partial (mechanical or oral antibiotic alone) or incomplete bowel preparation. Effort was made to exclude patients whose urgency of clinical condition at hospital admission precluded an attempt at preoperative decompression and subsequent bowel preparation. Included were 2,429 patients, 322 (13.3%) of whom underwent complete bowel preparation and 2,107 (86.7%) of whom underwent partial or incomplete bowel preparation. Complete bowel preparation was protective against several postoperative complications (including anastomotic leak), mortality, and prolonged postoperative hospitalization. This study demonstrates a significant benefit for complete bowel preparation before semielective, same-admission sigmoid resection in patients with acute sigmoid volvulus. However, only a small percentage of patients in this national sample underwent complete preoperative bowel preparation. Broader adoption of bowel preparation may reduce overall rates of complication in patients who require sigmoid colectomy due to volvulus.

Preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.

Preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.

Mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation for elective rectal cancer surgery: A propensity score matching analysis using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan.

The best bowel preparation method for rectal surgery remains controversial. In this study we compared the efficacy and safety of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone and MOABP (MBP combined with oral antibiotic bowel preparation [OABP]) for rectal cancer surgery. In this retrospective study we analyzed data from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database on 37 291 patients who had undergone low anterior resection for rectal cancer from 2014 to 2017. Propensity score matching analysis was used to compare postoperative outcomes between MBP alone and MOABP. A total of 37 291 patients were divided into four groups: MBP alone: 77.7%, no bowel preparation (NBP): 16.9%, MOABP: 4.7%, and OABP alone: 0.7%. In propensity score matching analysis with 1756 pairs, anastomotic leakage (4.84% vs 7.86%, P < 0.001), small bowel obstruction (1.54% vs 3.08%, P=0.002) and reoperation (3.76% vs 5.98%, P=0.002) were less in the MOABP group than in the MBP group. The mean duration of postoperative antibiotics medication was shorter in the MOABP group (5.2d vs 7.5d, P < 0.001) than in the MBP group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of Clostridium difficile (CD) colitis (0.40% vs 0.68%, P=0.250) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colitis (0.11% vs 0.17%, P=0.654). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups (0.00% vs 0.11% respectively, P=0.157). MOABP for rectal surgery is associated with a decreased incidence of postoperative complications without increasing the incidence of CD colitis and MRSA colitis.

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

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

Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation Prior to Urgent Colectomy Reduces Odds of Organ Space Surgical Site Infections: a NSQIP Propensity-Score Matched Study

BackgroundPreoperative administration of oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) alone has been shown to reduce infectious outcomes in patients undergoing elective colectomy. However, it remains unclear if these benefits extend to the emergency setting. This is a retrospective, propensity-score matched study comparing 30-day perioperative morbidity between those who received OABP alone versus no preparation prior to urgent colectomy. MethodsUsing the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, adults undergoing urgent colectomy from 2012 to 2019 were included. Those who were clinically obstructed or who received mechanical bowel preparation were excluded. Outcomes of interest included: surgical site infection (SSI), leak, ileus, and major morbidity. ResultsOf 24,559 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 878 (3.6%) received OABP prior to urgent colectomy. Prior to matching, those receiving no preparation were more likely to have higher ASA class, diabetes, hypertension, preoperative sepsis, open procedures, and a dirty wound classification. After matching, 1756 patients, remained with 878 in each arm. Preoperative characteristics were balanced on univariate analysis. Postoperatively, patients receiving OABP experienced decreased organ space SSI (11.2% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.009) and ileus (30.3% vs. 35.3%, p = 0.029), with no difference in leak rates (3.3% vs 3.3%, p = 1.000) or NSQIP major morbidity (47.4% vs. 49.9%, p = 0.316). On multivariate logistic regression, including propensity score, the reduction in organ space SSI associated with OABP persisted (OR 0.684, 95% CI 0.516–0.903). ConclusionOABP prior to select urgent colectomies was associated with fewer organ space SSIs and may be considered when feasible.

The impact of bowel preparation on surgical site infection rates in gynecologic oncology surgery, post-hoc analysis from a randomized controlled trial (550)

<b>Objectives:</b> To determine the relationship between oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) with respect to surgical site infection (SSI) rates in patients with gynecologic cancer undergoing colorectal surgery. <b>Methods:</b> A post-hoc analysis was performed using data from a randomized controlled trial investigating the use of negative pressure wound therapy after laparotomy. Patients with presumed malignancy requiring laparotomy were enrolled from March 2016 to August 2019. For this analysis, we only included cases with confirmed gynecologic malignancy, undergoing gynecologic oncology surgeries that also required colorectal resections. The primary outcome was SSI within 30 (±5) days of surgery. Univariate and multivariable analyses with stepwise model selection for SSI were performed. <b>Results:</b> The cohort included 161 surgeries requiring one or more colorectal resections. Of these, 15 (9%) had no bowel preparation, 39 (24%) had OABP only, and 107 (67%) had OABP+MBP. There was no case in which MBP was used alone. The overall SSI rate was 19% (<i>n</i>=31) and varied significantly by bowel preparation type: 53% (<i>n</i>=8) in the no-preparation group, 21% (<i>n</i>=8) in the OABP alone group, and 14% (<i>n</i>=15) in the OABP+MBP group (p=0.003). The difference between OABP and OABP+MBP was non-significant (p=0.44). The median length of stay was nine days (range: 6-12) for patients with no preparation, six days (range: 5-8) in the OABP group, and seven days (range: 6-10) in the OABP+MBP group (p=0.045). The overall complication rate was 34% (<i>n</i>=54) and did not vary significantly by bowel preparation type: 53% (<i>n</i>=8) no preparation, 28% (<i>n</i>=11) OABP alone, 33% (<i>n</i>=35) OABP+MBP (p=0.23). The overall anastomotic leak rate was 1.2% (<i>n</i>=2), with one case occurring in the no bowel preparation cohort (6.7%), one in the OABP cohort (2.6%), and none in the OABP+MBP cohort. Univariate logistic regression found that OABP was associated with a decreased risk of SSI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06-0.80) compared with no bowel preparation; OABP+MBP was also associated with a decreased risk of SSI (OR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04-0.45) compared with no bowel preparation (p=0.004). On multivariate analysis, the use of a bowel preparation demonstrated a significant impact on SSI rates (p=0.004) when accounting for preoperative hemoglobin, partial thromboplastin time, and bowel resection type. <b>Conclusions:</b> The use of OABP is associated with a reduction in SSI rates. Adoption of bowel preparation prior to gynecologic oncology surgeries with anticipated colorectal resection reduces the risk of SSI. While the use of MBP alone has been abandoned, further investigation is needed to determine whether OABP is sufficient or whether OABP+MBP should be recommended.

Mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in patients undergoing combined hysterectomy and bowel resection (002)

Mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in patients undergoing combined hysterectomy and bowel resection (002)

Are preoperative oral antibiotics effective in reducing the incidence of anastomotic leakage after colorectal cancer surgery? Study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, randomized controlled study

IntroductionThe optimal preoperative preparation for elective colorectal cancer surgery has been debated in academic circles for decades. Previously, several expert teams have conducted studies on whether preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, such as surgical site infections and anastomotic leakage. Most of the results of these studies have suggested that preoperative mechanical bowel preparation for elective colon surgery has no significant effect on the occurrence of surgical site infections and anastomotic leakage.Methods/designThis study will examine whether oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) influences the incidence of anastomotic leakage after surgery in a prospective, multicentre, randomized controlled trial that will enrol 1500 patients who require colon surgery. The primary endpoint, incidence of anastomotic leakage, is based on 2.3% in the OABP ± mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) group in the study by Morris et al. Patients will be randomized (1:1) into two groups: the test group will be given antibiotics (both neomycin 1 g and metronidazole 0.9 g) the day before surgery, and the control group will not receive any special intestinal preparation before surgery, including oral antibiotics or mechanical intestinal preparation. All study-related clinical data, such as general patient information, past medical history, laboratory examination, imaging results, and surgery details, will be recorded before surgery and during the time of hospitalization. The occurrence of postoperative fistulas, including anastomotic leakage, will be recorded as the main severe postoperative adverse event and will represent the primary endpoint.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Chinese Ethics Committee of Registering Clinical Trials (ChiECRCT20200173). The results of this study will be disseminated at several research conferences and as published articles in peer-reviewed journals. Protocol was revised on November 22, 2021, version 4.0.Trial registrationChiCTR2000035550. Registered on 13 Aug 2020.

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in ovarian cancer debulking: Are we lowering or just trading surgical complications?

ObjectivesTo examine postoperative complications associated with preoperative mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) for patients with ovarian cancer who underwent bowel resection at cytoreductive surgery (CRS). MethodsThis was a single-institution retrospective study of patients with ovarian cancer undergoing CRS from 01/2011–12/2020 using ICD-10 diagnoses and procedure codes. Patients were stratified by those who underwent bowel resection versus no resection. Bowel resection patients were further stratified by those who underwent MOABP versus no bowel preparation. Patient demographics, tumor data, and perioperative metrics were collected. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression evaluated odds of 30-day postoperative complications in patients with bowel resection versus no resection and those with MOABP versus no bowel preparation. ResultsOf 919 patients identified, 215 (23.3%) required bowel resection, which included 81 (37.7%) who received MOABP. Patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and cancer data were similar between MOABP versus no bowel preparation patients. MOABP patients underwent more interval CRS (34.6% versus 9.0%), more optimal surgical resections (96.3% versus 83.8%), fewer diverting ostomies (13.5% versus 33.5%), and shorter hospital stays (7.1 versus 9.4 days) than no bowel preparation patients. On adjusted analyses, MOABP patients experienced significantly lower odds of deep/organ-space surgical infections and 30-day readmissions but higher odds of unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and grade 3 or higher cardiac and gastrointestinal complications. ConclusionsPatients who underwent preoperative MOABP prior to ovarian cancer CRS with bowel resection had lower odds or deep/organ-space infections and readmissions, shorter hospital stays, fewer diverting ostomies, and more optimal resections. However, these patients also experienced higher odds of ICU admissions and grade 3 or higher cardiac and gastrointestinal complications. The positive and negative postoperative outcomes in this population should be considered in clinical practice.

Preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: The aim of this review is to assess the evidence for the use of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.

Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation is associated with prolonged recurrence-free survival following surgery for colorectal cancer.

Recent studies suggest that bacteria influence the pathogenesis of primary colorectal cancer (CRC), yet their role in recurrence after resection is largely unknown. We have discovered that collagenase-producing bacteria promote cancer recurrence in mice, and that antibiotic bowel decontamination decreases colonization of these same organisms in humans. We hypothesized that preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation would improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients undergoing surgery for CRC. We reviewed a cancer registry of patients treated for CRC at a tertiary center. Patients who received bowel preparation were compared to those that did not via a 1:1-propensity score matched for follow-up, age, sex, BMI, stage, location, chemoradiation, infection, anastomotic leak, and blood transfusion. One thousand two hundred and seventy-nine patients met inclusion criteria. Following propensity score matching, 264 patients receiving bowel prep were matched to 264 patients who did not. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed that patients who received bowel prep had a significantly improved 5-year DFS compared to those that did not (76.3% vs. 64.2%;p < .01). Cox regression demonstrated that bowel prep was associated with improved DFS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.89;p < .01). Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation is independently associated with improved recurrence-free survival in patients undergoing surgery for CRC.

Another Brick in the Wall of an Ongoing Discussion– Reduction of Anastomotic Leaks after Colorectal Resection by Preoperative Mechanical Bowel Preparation in Combination with Oral and Parenteral Antibiotics?–A Clinical Retrospective Single Center Study

Background: In colorectal surgery, postoperative Anastomotic Leak (AL) is a serious complication. Besides the surgeon`s experience, bowel preparation may have an impact on AL, but the published data are still inconclusive. The purpose of this retrospective single center study was to investigate the role of preoperative Mechanical Bowel Preparation (MBP) in combination with Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation (OBP) and parenteral antibiotics in a certified highvolume colorectal center. Methods: In the period of January 2017 to December 2019, all colon and rectal surgeries were recorded and separated into emergency and elective surgeries. Patients in the elective surgery group were further divided into two groups: patients with Bowel Preparation (BP) and patients without BP and were evaluated concerning to AL, postoperative hospital length of stay and mortality. Results: Between 2017 to 2019, 625 patients underwent colorectal surgery. 262 patients had emergency operations and were therefore excluded from the study. 363 patients underwent colorectal elective surgery (197men, 166 women). 44.0% received Combined Bowel Preparation (CBP), 46.8% received no BP, 3.3% received OBP only, 4.1% received MBP only, and for 1.1% nothing was documented. CBP was not only associated with a reduction in the rate of AL (P=0.038) (14.1% vs. 4.4%), but also with reduction in mortality (P=0.032) (7.6% vs. 1.2%) and length of stay (P=0.016) (14 vs. 11 days). Conclusion: Our retrospective data showed a significant impact of preoperative intestinal preparation with MBP in combination with OBP and parenteral antibiotics on AL, length of stay and mortality. Therefore we strongly recommend the use of this regimen of preoperative BP in elective colorectal surgery.

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus no bowel preparation in right and left colectomy: subgroup analysis of MOBILE trial.

BackgroundIn retrospective series, mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) has been reported to reduce surgical-site infections (SSIs) after colectomy compared with no bowel preparation (NBP).MethodThis was a subgroup analysis of a multicentre randomized trial that included patients scheduled for elective colectomy. The MOABP group underwent mechanical bowel preparation, and took 2 g neomycin and 2 g metronidazole orally during the day before surgery. The NBP group did not undergo bowel preparation. Patients were categorized according to the side of resection (right versus left colectomy), and these subgroups compared for postoperative outcomes.ResultsAmong 217 patients undergoing right colectomy (106 in MOABP and 111 in NBP group), SSI was detected in seven (7 per cent) and 10 (9 per cent) patients (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95 per cent c.i. 0.26 to 1.95; P = 0.510), anastomotic dehiscence in two (2 per cent) and two (2 per cent) patients (OR 1.05, 0.15 to 7.58; P = 1.000), and the mean(s.d.) Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) score was 9.4(12.9) and 10.5(18.0) (mean difference –1.09; 95 per cent c.i. –5.29 to 3.11; P = 0.608) in the MOABP and NBP groups respectively. Among 164 patients undergoing left colectomy (84 in MOABP and 80 in NBP group), SSI was detected in five (6 per cent) and eight (10 per cent) patients (OR 0.57, 0.18 to 1.82; P = 0.338), anastomotic dehiscence in four (5 per cent) and five (6 per cent) patients (OR 0.75, 0.19 to 2.90; P = 0.742), and the CCI score was 10.2(13.1) and 6.5(11.0) (mean difference 3.68, –0.06 to 7.42; P = 0.053) in the MOABP and NBP groups respectively.ConclusionsMOABP did not decrease the rate of SSI or complications in patients undergoing either right or left colectomy compared with NBP.

Role of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in children with Hirschsprung's disease undergoing colostomy closure and pull-through.

BackgroundMechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) has been performed routinely before colorectal surgery in children, but the necessity was questioned recently. We evaluated the utility of MOABP in children with Hirschsprung’s disease (HSCR) undergoing colostomy closure and pull-through.MethodsThe medical records of pediatric patients with HSCR who underwent colostomy closure and pull-through in a single center from January 2010 to January 2020 were reviewed. The use of MOABP was noted. The incidence of postoperative complications, duration of postoperative antibiotic therapy, total hospital cost and length-of-stay were compared between patients receiving MOABP and no bowel preparation (NBP).ResultsA total of 64 patients were included in the study: 33 received MOABP and 31 had NBP. The respective postoperative complications in the MOABP and NBP groups were: intra-abdominal infection (18.2% vs. 29.0%), wound infection (9.1% vs. 16.1%), anastomotic leak (0 vs. 0), intestinal obstruction (6.1% vs. 0) and enterocolitis (3.03% vs. 12.90%). The duration of antibiotic therapy was 4.91±4.21 and 5.23±3.77 days (P=0.75) and hospitalization was 18.21±7.26 and 16.26±6.63 days (P=0.27) respectively. The total hospital cost in the MOABP group (4,720.14±1,858.89 USD) was higher than in the NBP group (3,749.06±2,009.97 USD) (P=0.049).ConclusionsWe did not find any clear benefit of MOABP in children with HSCR before colostomy closure and pull-through. However, a multicenter randomized controlled trial is needed to more definitely determine the best preoperative approach for children with HSCR.

Controversies in preoperative bowel preparation in gynecologic and gynecologic oncology surgery: a review of the literature.

The purpose of this review is to assess the impact of mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation on surgical performance and to investigate their role before gynecologic surgical procedures regarding the infection rates. We also aim to study the updated evidence regarding the use of these different types of bowel preparation, as well as the current preoperative practice applied. An extensive search of the literature was conducted with Medline/PubMed, and the Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews being used for our primary search. To date, due to the conflicting guidelines by the scientific societies, surgeons do not use a specific pattern of bowel preparation regimen. There are no strong evidence supporting mechanical bowel preparation, but instead, in many cases, patients' adverse effects, both physiological and psychological have been noted. On the other hand, the combined use of oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel preparation has been proven beneficial in colorectal surgery in reducing postoperative morbidities. Based on current literature, in gynecologic surgeries with minimal probability of intraluminal entry, a regimen without any bowel preparation should be applied. The combined administration of both mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation, or even the use of the oral antibiotics alone, should be preserved for cases of increased complexity, where bowel involvement is highly anticipated, such as in gynecologic oncology, as stated in the ERAS protocols. Nonetheless, further research specific to gynecologic surgery is required.