Elimination of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing cystectomy and urinary diversion

IntroductionThe utility of a preoperative mechanical bowel preparation prior to bowel surgery has recently been questioned. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes between patients undergoing cystectomy with urinary diversion with or without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.MethodsSeventy patients underwent radical cystectomy and urinary diversion between May 2008 and August 2009 for bladder cancer. The first cohort of patients (n = 37) underwent cystectomy and diversion during the period May 2008–December 2008 and underwent a preoperative mechanical bowel preparation including a clear liquid diet, magnesium citrate solution, and an enema before surgery. The second cohort of patients underwent surgery during the period of January 2009–August 2009 (n=33). These patients were given a regular diet before surgery and did not undergo a mechanical bowel preparation except for the enema before surgery was performed to decrease rectal/colonic distention. Outcome measures included gastrointestinal and overall complications, and perioperative outcomes including recovery of bowel function.ResultsThere were no differences with regard to recovery of bowel function, time to discharge, or overall complication rates between the 2 groups. More specifically, the rate of GI complications was not different in prepped patients vs. nonprepped patients (22% vs. 15%; P = 0.494). There were no occurrences of bowel anastomotic leak, fistula, abscess, peritonitis, or surgical site infection in either group. One perioperative death occurred in the nonprepped group secondary to cardiovascular complications.ConclusionsPreoperative mechanical bowel preparation prior to radical cystectomy with urinary diversion does not demonstrate any significant advantage in perioperative outcomes, including gastrointestinal complications. Further studies aimed at measuring patient satisfaction and larger randomized trials will be beneficial in evaluating the role of mechanical bowel preparation prior to urinary diversion.     

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of colorectal surgery with or without mechanical bowel preparation

BACKGROUND: Mechanical bowel preparation is used routinely before colorectal surgery, but some randomized clinical trials have suggested that it is of no benefit. This study assesses whether such bowel preparation may safely be omitted before elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: A search of the literature was performed; the inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing bowel preparation with no preparation in colorectal surgery. The methodological quality of included trials was assessed. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage; secondary outcomes were other septic complications. The meta-analysis was conducted using the Peto one-step method. RESULTS: Eleven trials were retrieved, of which seven, containing 1454 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. There was no heterogeneity between the trials. Significantly more anastomotic leakage was found after mechanical bowel preparation (5.6 versus 3.2 per cent; odds ratio 1.75 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.05 to 2.90); P = 0.032). All other endpoints (wound infection, other septic complications and non-septic complications) also favoured the no-preparation regimen, but the differences were not statistically significant. Sensitivity analysis showed that these results were similar when trials of poor quality were excluded. Subgroup analysis showed that anastomotic leakage was significantly greater after bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) compared with no preparation, but not after other types of preparation. CONCLUSION: There is good evidence to suggest that mechanical bowel preparation using PEG should be omitted before elective colorectal surgery. Other bowel preparations should be evaluated by further large randomized trials.     

Effect of mechanical bowel preparation on anastomotic integrity following low anterior resection in dogs

To assess the effect of mechanical bowel preparation on anastomotic integrity after low anterior resection, 36 mongrel dogs were randomized to have low anterior resection with or without mechanical bowel preparation. All dogs received prophylactic antibiotics and anastomotic integrity was assessed on the ninth postoperative day by barium enema, inspection of anastomoses for defects after careful excision at laparotomy, and anastomotic bursting pressures. Bursting pressures were significantly higher (P less than 0.005) in the group with bowel preparation. Anastomotic defects were present in 13 per cent of animals with bowel preparation and 47 per cent without bowel preparation (P = 0.057). Pelvic abscess and death from peritonitis occurred in 6 per cent of the group with bowel preparation and 29 per cent of the unprepared group. Mechanical bowel preparation significantly enhanced anastomotic integrity and reduced complications in this model.     

Colon and rectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation: a randomized prospective trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether elective colon and rectal surgery can be safely performed without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Mechanical bowel preparation is routinely done before colon and rectal surgery, aimed at reducing the risk of postoperative infectious complications. However, in cases of penetrating colon trauma, primary colonic anastomosis has proven to be safe even though the bowel is not prepared. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective colon and rectal resections with primary anastomosis were prospectively randomized into two groups. Group A had mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol before surgery, and group B had their surgery without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. Patients were followed up for 30 days for wound, anastomotic, and intra-abdominal infectious complications. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty patients were included in the study, 187 in group A and 193 in group B. Demographic characteristics, indications for surgery, and type of surgical procedure did not significantly differ between the two groups. Colo-colonic or colorectal anastomosis was performed in 63% of the patients in group A and 66% in group B. There was no difference in the rate of surgical infectious complications between the two groups. The overall infectious complications rate was 10.2% in group A and 8.8% in group B. Wound infection, anastomotic leak, and intra-abdominal abscess occurred in 6.4%, 3.7%, and 1.1% versus 5.7%, 2.1%, and 1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that elective colon and rectal surgery may be safely performed without mechanical preparation.     

A multicenter evaluation of the role of mechanical bowel preparation in pediatric colostomy takedown

BackgroundIn response to studies in adults that have failed to demonstrate a benefit for mechanical bowel preparation in colonic surgery, we sought to evaluate the utility of mechanical bowel preparation in a multicenter, retrospective study of children who underwent colostomy takedown.MethodsThe records of 272 children who underwent colostomy takedown at 3 large children's hospitals were reviewed, and the utilization of mechanical bowel preparation and perioperative antibiotics was noted. Length of stay and the incidences of wound, anastomotic, and other complications were compared.ResultsA polyethylene glycol bowel prep was administered to 187 children. All subjects received perioperative, intravenous antibiotics, and 52% of those with bowel preps received preoperative oral antibiotics. Subjects in the bowel prep group had a significantly higher incidence of wound infection (P = .04) and longer length of stay (P = .05). Oral antibiotics did not affect outcome.ConclusionsThe use of a mechanical bowel preparation in children before colostomy takedown was associated with a greater risk for wound infection, no protection from other complications, and a longer length of stay. This suggests that bowel preparation may be safely omitted in many children who undergo colonic surgery, thereby reducing cost and discomfort.     

肠道准备方法对膀胱癌患者术后肠道清洁度和药物服用依从性的影响

目的 分析不同肠道准备方法对膀胱癌患者术后药物治疗的影响.方法 选择2013年10月至2014年11月来本院治疗膀胱癌的患者84例,随机分成对照组和研究组,各42例.两组均采用常规肠道准备方法,对照组同时服用蓖麻油后灌肠,研究组同时服用聚乙二醇电解质+蓖麻油后灌肠,观察两组肠道准备效果.结果 研究组肠道清洁情况明显优于对照组,不良反应发生率明显少于对照组,术后用药依从性明显高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 对膀胱癌患者采用常规肠道准备方法加聚乙二醇电解质+蓖麻油后灌肠效果更明显,能有效地减少肠道准备时不良反应的发生率,提高肠道清洁度及术后用药的依从性,可作为膀胱癌患者术前肠道准备的首选方法.     

Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery with Primary Intraperitoneal Anastomosis by a Single Surgeon: Interim Analysis of a Prospective Single-Blinded Randomized Trial

We report an interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial designed to investigate whether preoperative mechanical bowel preparation influences the rate of surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure after elective colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis performed by a single surgeon. Patients scheduled to undergo an elective colorectal procedure with a primary intraperitoneal anastomosis were randomized to receive either oral polyethylene glycol lavage solution and enemas (group A) or no preparation (group B). Surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure were investigated. Of 97 patients included, 48 were assigned to group A and 49 to group B. Twelve (12.4%) developed wound infections, six in each group (12.5 vs. 12.2%; NS). Intra-abdominal sepsis was only seen in group A (n = 3, 6.3%). Anastomotic failure occurred in four patients in group A (8.3%) vs. two patients in group B (4.1%) (NS). The overall complication rate in group A was 27.1%, vs. 16.3% in group B. The number needed to harm was 9.3. Our interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial suggests that a surgeon may have the same or even worse outcomes when mechanical bowel preparation is routinely used for colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis. This work was presented in abstract form at the 47th Meeting of the Society of Surgery of The Alimentary Tract.     

Senna vs polyethylene glycol for mechanical preparation the evening before elective colonic or rectal resection: a multicenter controlled trial. French Association for Surgical Research.

HYPOTHESIS: Senna is more efficient than polyethylene glycol as mechanical preparation before elective colorectal surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, single-blind study. SETTING: Multicenter study (18 centers). PATIENTS: Five hundred twenty-three consecutive patients with colonic or rectal carcinoma or sigmoid diverticular disease, undergoing elective colonic or rectal resection followed by immediate anastomosis. INTERVENTION: Two hundred sixty-two patients were randomly allotted to receive senna (1 package diluted in a glass of water) and 261 to receive polyethylene glycol (2 packages diluted in 2-3 L of water), administered the evening before surgery. All patients received 5% povidone iodine antiseptic enemas (2 L) the evening and the morning before surgery. Ceftriaxone sodium and metronidazole were given intravenously at anesthetic induction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Degree of colonic and rectal cleanliness. RESULTS: Colonic cleanliness was better (P=.006), fecal matter in the colonic lumen was less fluid (P=.001), and the risk for moderate or large intraoperative fecal soiling was lower (P=.11) with senna. Overall, clinical tolerance did not differ significantly between groups, but 20 patients receiving polyethylene glycol (vs 16 with senna) had to interrupt their preparation, and 15 patients (vs 8 with senna) complained of abdominal distension. Senna, however, was better tolerated (P = .03) in the presence of stenosis. There was no statistically significant difference found in the number of patients with postoperative infective complications (14.7% vs 17.7%) or anastomotic leakage (5.3% vs 5.7%) with senna and polyethylene glycol, respectively. CONCLUSION: Mechanical preparation before colonic or rectal resection with senna is better and easier than with polyethylene glycol and should be proposed in patients undergoing colonic or rectal resection, especially patients with stenosis.     

Evaluation of morbidity and mortality after anastomotic leakage following elective colorectal surgery in patients treated with or without mechanical bowel preparation

Background

A previous multicenter randomized trial demonstrated that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) does not guard against anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery. The aim of this complementary study was to evaluate the effects of MBP on morbidity and mortality after anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery.

Methods

A subgroup analysis was performed of a randomized trial comparing the incidence of anastomotic leakage and septic complications with and without MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Results

Elective colorectal surgery was performed in 1,433 patients with primary anastomoses, of whom 63 patients developed anastomotic leakage. Twenty-eight patients (44%) received MBP and 35 patients (56%) did not. Mortality rate, initial need for surgical reintervention, and extent of bowel contamination did not differ between groups (29% vs 40%; P = .497, P = .667, and P = .998, respectively).

Conclusions

No benefit of MBP was found regarding morbidity and mortality after anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery.     

Colonoscopic enema as rescue for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a prospective,observational study

Aim Colonoscopy may need to be rescheduled because of inadequate bowel preparation. We evaluated the effectiveness of colonoscopic enema as rescue for an inadequate 1‐day bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Method Patients referred for afternoon colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in the study during a 1‐year period. Patients took bowel preparation (polyethylene glycol) solution on the morning of the endoscopy. If during colonoscopy the bowel preparation was poor, an enema of polyethylene glycol solution (500 ml) was instilled into the colon at the level of the hepatic flexure via the biopsy channel of the colonoscope which was then removed. The patient was allowed to recover from the propofol sedation and used the bathroom to evacuate the enema. The colonoscope was then introduced and the examination continued. Results Of 504 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 26 (4.9%) received an enema. The median age was 59 (29–79) years and 19 (73%) were female. A subsequent successful colonoscopy was achieved in 25/26 (96%). There were no complications. The mean time spent for the entire colonoscopy from the initial preparation to the end of the examination including the enema was 7.6 ± 1.1 h (5.4 h preparation, 0.2 h first colonoscopy + enema, 0.66 h waiting in the lavatory, 0.33 h second colonoscopy and 1 h for recovery). Conclusion Colonoscopic enema was highly successful as rescue for patients with inadequate bowel preparation and avoided postponement of the procedure.     

Pre‐operative mechanical bowel cleansing or not? an updated meta‐analysis

OBJECTIVES: Pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation has been considered an efficient regimen against leakage and infectious complications, after colorectal resections. This dogma is based only on observational data and experts' opinions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library and abstracts from major gastroenterological congresses were searched. No language restrictions were applied. The selection criterion used was randomised clinical trials (RCT) comparing any kind of mechanical bowel preparation with no preparation in patients submitted to elective colorectal surgery and where anastomotic leakage, mortality, and wound infection were outcome measurements. Data were independently extracted by the reviewers and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same reviewers. For meta-analysis the Peto-Odds ratio was used. RESULTS: Of 1592 patients (9 RCTs), 789 were allocated to mechanical bowel preparation (Group A) and 803 to no preparation (Group B) before elective colorectal surgery. Anastomotic leakage developed in 48 (6%) of 772 patients in A compared with 25 (3.2%) of 777 patients in B; Peto OR 2.03, 95% (CI: 1.28-3.26; P = 0.003). Wound infection occurred in 59 (7.4%) of 791 patients in A and in 43 (5.4%) of 803 patients in B; Peto OR 1.46, 95% (CI: 0.97-2.18; P = 0.07); Five (1%) of 509 patients died in group in A compared with 3 (0.61%) of 516 patients in group B; Peto OR 1.72, 95% (CI: 0.43-6.95; nonsignificant). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation. On the contrary taking colorectal surgery as a whole, pre-operative bowel cleansing leads to a higher rate of anastomotic leakage. The dogma that mechanical bowel preparation is necessary before elective colorectal surgery has to be reconsidered.     

Single-blinded Randomized Trial of Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colon Surgery with Primary Intraperitoneal Anastomosis

Abstract Introduction   We report the final analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial designed to investigate whether omission of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation increases the rate of surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure after elective colon surgery with intraperitoneal anastomosis by a single surgeon. Patients and Methods   Patients scheduled to undergo an elective colon or proximal rectal resection with a primary anastomosis by a single surgeon were randomized to receive either oral polyethylene glycol (Group A) or no mechanical bowel preparation (Group B). Patients were followed by an independent surgeon. Results   One hundred and forty nine patients were enrolled. Three patients (2%) were preoperatively excluded because of active immunosuppression and 13 (9%) were excluded from the final analysis. Of the remaining 129 patients, 65 were assigned to Group A and 64 to Group B. Thirty patients (23.2%) developed wound infection, (Group A = 24.6% and Group B = 17.2%; NS). There were three cases of intra-abdominal sepsis a (Group A 4.6%). The anastomotic failure rate was 5.4% (n = 7), four patients in Group A (6.2%) vs. three patients in Group B (4.7%) (NS). When SSI and anastomotic failure were combined, the complication rate in Group A was 35.4% vs. 21.9% for Group B. The NNH was 7.4. Conclusion   Our final analysis shows that a single surgeon will not have a higher rate of either surgical-site infection or anastomotic failure if he/she routinely omits preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. This work was presented in abstract form at the 50th Meeting of the Society of Surgery of The Alimentary Tract.     

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

Aim 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. Method 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. Results 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). Conclusion A single large‐volume glycerine enema is effective bowel preparation before colorectal resection whether performed by an open or minimally invasive technique.     

Bowel Cleansing Before Bowel Surgery: Major Discordance Between Evidence and Practice

Mechanical bowel cleansing (preparation) before colorectal surgery is commonly practiced, and medical care guidelines consent to this regimen. This has been an incontestable routine for surgeons for more than 100 years. However, during the last years, several randomized control trials and three meta-analyses led to the accumulation of enough evidence to conclude that no significant benefit is derived from this practice and thus, elective colorectal surgery can be safely done without mechanical bowel cleansing. Furthermore, several complications are attributed to mechanical bowel cleansing including anastomotic leakage, wound infections, and septic and non-septic complications that sometimes lead to the need for reoperation. Surgeons around the world may have to seriously reconsider the common practice of preoperative mechanical bowel cleansing. Despite the unquestionable practical value of mechanical bowel cleansing for bowel handling during anastomotic confection, we believe that current literature provides strong evidence that passed the line where this time-honored tradition may be finally called into question.     

Predicting anastomotic disruption after emergent small bowel surgery

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Small bowel anastomoses performed in the emergent setting have a high risk of leakage. Attention to technical detail is imperative but does not guarantee success in these situations. We sought out factors that could play a role in the process of anastomotic dehiscence under these conditions. METHODS: 70 patients underwent 74 emergency small bowel anastomoses over a 21-month period in our institution during this prospective study. Patients with anastomotic disruption formed the case group and those without, the control group. Several preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative variables identified at the outset of the study were analyzed for possible associations with anastomotic dehiscence. RESULTS: Suture line disruption occurred in 26 of 74 anastomoses (35%). The duration of symptoms before presentation did not differ significantly between groups. Hypoalbuminemia (p = 0.004), hyponatremia at presentation (p = 0.012), and intraoperative hypotension (p = 0.042) were found to be significantly associated with disruption. Neither the nature of the primary pathology in the bowel nor the anastomotic level had a significant bearing on anastomotic leakage. CONCLUSION: Risk factors for leakage of emergent small bowel anastomoses include hypoalbuminemia, hyponatremia at presentation, and intraoperative hypotension. Under these circumstances, the creation of a temporary stoma or exteriorization may be a wiser option than primary anastomosis.     

Randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before elective left-sided colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND: Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is performed routinely before colorectal surgery to reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the outcome of patients who underwent elective left-sided colorectal surgery with or without MBP. METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective left-sided colorectal resection with primary anastomosis were randomized to preoperative MBP (3 litres of polyethylene glycol) (group 1) or surgery without MBP (group 2). Postoperative abdominal infectious complications and extra-abdominal morbidity were recorded prospectively. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-three patients were included in the study, 78 in group 1 and 75 in group 2. Demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The overall rate of abdominal infectious complications (anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal abscess, peritonitis and wound infection) was 22 per cent in group 1 and 8 per cent in group 2 (P = 0.028). Anastomotic leak occurred in five patients (6 per cent) in group 1 and one (1 per cent) in group 2 (P = 0.210) [corrected] Extra-abdominal morbidity rates were 24 and 11 per cent respectively (P = 0.034). Hospital stay was longer for patients who had MBP (mean(s.d.) 14.9(13.1) versus 9.9(3.8) days; P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Elective left-sided colorectal surgery without MBP is safe and is associated with reduced postoperative morbidity.     

Phosphate salt bowel preparation regimens alter perioperative acid-base and electrolyte balance

BACKGROUND: Hyperphosphatemic acidosis and severe electrolyte disturbances caused by phosphate salts (PO) used for mechanical bowel preparation have been described in occasional case reports prior to bowel resection surgery. We hypothesized that PO used preoperatively for bowel preparation may cause more pronounced acid base and electrolyte changes than polyethylene glycol (PG). METHODS: Forty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status II-III patients were randomly allocated to receive either PO or PG for bowel preparation before intra-abdominal surgery (bowel resection or other major elective intra-abdominal surgeries). Measurements of pH, base deficit, blood gases, lactate, hemoglobin, calcium, magnesium, potassium and phosphorus were undertaken before the laxative administration, intraoperatively, and postoperatively. RESULTS: Preoperative demographic, hemodynamic and laboratory data were similar in the two groups. Intraoperative calcium (8.4 [0.6] vs 9 [0.5] mg x dL(-1)) and pH (7.35 [0.04] vs 7.41 [0.03]) were lower, while lactate (1.3 [0.4] vs 0.9 [0.3] mmol x L(-1)) was higher with PO. Postoperative calcium, magnesium and potassium were lower (8 [0.5] vs 8.9 [0.2] mg x dL(-1), 1.68 [0.3] vs 1.8 [0.4] and 3.5 [0.36] vs 3.7 [0.33] mEq x L(-1) respectively) while phosphorus (4.1 [0.3] vs 3.3 [0.2] mEq x L(-1)) was higher with PO. A higher percentage of abnormal values for calcium, potassium, phosphorus and base deficit (66% vs 33%, 25% vs 10%, 19% vs 2% and 28.3% vs 5% respectively) were observed with PO. CONCLUSIONS: Calcium and magnesium changes were more pronounced in patients who received PO for bowel preparation.     

The efficacy of whole gut irrigation with polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution in elective colorectal surgery for cancer

Sixty-four patients undergoing elective operations for cancer of the colon and rectum were given mechanical bowel preparation in the form of whole gut irrigation with polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution. When their colonic cleansing scores were compared, it was found that the preparation was significantly less effective in the left colon (n = 49) than in the right (n = 15), the mean (SEM) scores being 3.8 (0.56) and 2.65 (1.01), respectively, p less than 0.001. We then compared the scores of 26 patients with stenosing lesions with those of 38 that were not: in the right colon the score for stenosing tumours was 3.9 (0.14) compared with 3.8 (0.25) for non-stenosing tumours. In the left colon, however, they were 2.3 (0.23) and 2.9 (0.18), respectively (p less than 0.01). We conclude that stenosis of the colon caused by malignant lesions reduces the efficacy of mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution in the left colon but not in the right colon.     

Prophylaxis with whole gut irrigation and antimicrobials in colorectal surgery. A prospective, randomized double-blind clinical trial

In a prospective, randomized double-blind trial, the efficacy of whole gut irrigation as preoperative bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery was evaluated alone and in combination with two antimicrobial agents in 148 patients. The antimicrobial regimens were metronidazole alone or metronidazole and ampicillin administered systemically preoperatively and continued for 3 days. Whole gut irrigation was completed without any discomfort in 87 percent of the patients. In 3 percent, the irrigation was stopped and the patients were excluded from the study. Abdominal wound infection developed in 32 percent of the patients after whole gut irrigation, and the addition of metronidazole decreased this incidence to 22 percent (not significant). The incidence in wound infections in the group receiving metronidazole as well as ampicillin was 2 percent, and this difference was highly significant compared with both other groups. No significant difference was found for the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses (p = 0.06), infection of the perineal wound, or anastomotic leakage. No difference in the postoperative infection rate was found between a bowel containing fecal fluid or fecal masses, but when a bowel was clean, significantly fewer infectious complications were found. Whole gut irrigation is a rapid, well-tolerated, easily performed, and safe form of preoperative bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery if combined with systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis consisting of antimicrobial agents effective against anaerobic and aerobic organisms.     

Impaired anastomotic healing after preoperative radiotherapy followed by anterior resection for treatment of rectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal carcinoma undergoing total mesorectal excision (TME) have a lower recurrence rate with preoperative radiotherapy (RT). The aim of this study was to assess the side-effects in patients who had preoperative RT compared with those who did not receive it (because of palliative resections, advanced age or refusal). METHODS: From January 2001 to March 2003, 40 patients underwent resection and double-stapled anastomosis for rectal carcinoma. We compared 17 patients who received RT followed by resection and low rectal anastomosis, with 23 patients who did not have RT. RESULTS: After surgery 7/17 of the patients who had received RT developed anastomotic leaks. Anastomotic leakage was seen only once in the patients who did not have RT (41% v. 4%, p = 0.006). A protective stoma, which was performed in 11 patients in the RT group, did not prevent anastomotic leakage (4/11 leakage with stoma v. 3/6 leakage without stoma, p = 0.64). Median hospital stay was longer in the RT group (17.4 v. 13.7 days, p = 0.017). There was no difference in the number of minor postoperative complications between the two groups (24% v. 22%). CONCLUSION: Compared with surgery alone, preoperative short-term RT increased the number of anastomotic leaks and hospital stay, whether or not a protective stoma was performed.