Article

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

Surgical Gastroenterology Department, Ferderal University of São Paulo, Marivaldo Fernandes, 152 apto. 13, Guarujá, São Paulo, Brazil, 11 440-050.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2009; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001544.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The presence of bowel contents during 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.
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, and The Cochrane Library; by handsearching relevant medical journals and conference proceedings, and through personal communication with colleagues.Searches were performed March 13, 2008.
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).
Four new trials were included at this update (total 13 RCTs with 4777 participants; 2390 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2387 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery) .Anastomotic leakage occurred:(i) in 10.0% (14/139) of Group A, compared with 6.6% (9/136) of Group B for low anterior resection; Peto OR 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73 to 4.10).(ii) in 2.9% (32/1226) of Group A, compared with 2.5% (31/1228) of Group B for colonic surgery; Peto OR 1.13 (95% CI: 0.69 to 1.85). Overall anastomotic leakage occurred in 4.2% (102/2398) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (82/2378) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 (95% CI: 0.941 to 1.69). Wound infection occurred in 9.6% (232/2417) of Group A, compared with 8.3% (200/2404) of Group B; Peto OR 1.19 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.45). Sensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results.
There is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from MBP. The belief that MBP is necessary before elective colorectal surgery should be reconsidered. Further research on patients submitted for elective colorectal surgery in whom bowel continuity is restored, with stratification for colonic and rectal surgery, is still warranted.

2 Followers
 · 
101 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that the rate of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery does not differ between patients with or without preoperative bowel preparation. There is, however, still an ongoing discussion that infectious complications consequential to anastomotic leakage, in particular sepsis, are more severe in patients without preoperative bowel cleaning. The aim of this study is to evaluate the assumption that postoperative sepsis in patients undergoing colorectal surgery without mechanical preoperative bowel irrigation is more severe compared to patients with bowel preparation. Methods: In the surgical unit in a teaching hospital in Zurich pa-tients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were consecutively included in the study. 367 patients with colorectal surgery between December 2000 and April 2004 underwent preoperative mechanical bowel irrigation. From May 2004 until April 2008 colorectal surgery was performed in 367 patients without bowel irrigation. Outcomes of interest are: Severity of sepsis in patients with postoperative anastomotic leakage, assessed by the necessity of referral to ICU, length of stay in the ICU and total length of hospital stay. Results: 734 patients were included in the study, 367 patients with and 367 without preoperative bowel preparation. In 43 patients an anastomotic insufficiency was diagnosed, 26 in the group with and in 17 patients without preoperative irrigation. 14 of these cases developed sepsis and were referred to ICU, 8 (31%) in the group with and 6 (35%) in the group without preparative irrigation. Between the two groups there were no significant differences in mortality, length of stay on ICU and total length of hospital stay. Conclusions: The results of our study provide no indication that the course of sepsis, associated with anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, is more severe in patients without preoperative bowel preparation, compared to those with bowel cleaning.
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 12/1997; 40(11):1396-7. DOI:10.1007/BF02050831 · 3.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectif et méthodes252 patients ambulatoires devant bénéficier d’une première coloscopie à visée diagnostique ont été inclus dans un essai d’équivalence randomisé, en simple aveugle, comparant l’efficacité, la tolérance et l’acceptabilité de 2 préparations coliques: une solution à base de phosphate de sodium (NaP) ou à base de polyéthylène glycol (PEG). La propreté colique était évaluée sur une échelle en 5 points (1: très propre, 2: liquides clairs, 3: selles liquides, 4: résidus pâteux, 5: résidus solides), par le pourcentage de muqueuse colique visualisée et par la satisfaction globale de l’endoscopiste. La tolérance était appréciée cliniquement et biologiquement, et l’acceptabilité évaluée par un questionnaire rempli par le patient. RésultatsSur le critère principal (pourcentage de scores 1 ou 2), une efficacité du NaP au moins équivalente à celle du PEG a été trouvée sur le critère principal concernant l’ensemble du côlon. La propreté colique, estimée par le pourcentage de patients dont plus de 90% de la muqueuse était visualisée, était supérieure dans le groupe NaP au niveau du recto-sigmoïde, du côlon gauche et du côlon transverse (p=0,03, p=0,01, p=0,007 respectivement). L’évaluation globale de la propreté colique par l’endoscopiste était meilleure dans le groupe NaP (p=0,01). L’acceptabilité était significativement meilleure dans le groupe NaP en termes de facilité à prendre la préparation et de quantité absorbée. Plus de patients étaient prêts à reprendre la même préparation si nécessaire dans le groupe NaP (p=0,001). La tolérance clinique était bonne et globalement meilleure dans le groupe NaP, les sensations de ballonnement abdominal étant moins fréquentes dans ce groupe. La tolérance biologique était comparable en ce qui concerne la natrémie, la chlorémie, l’urémie, la créatininémie, la magnésémie et l’albuminémie. La kaliémie diminuait dans les deux groupes mais de façon plus importante dans le groupe NaP. La phosphorémie augmentait de façon significative dans le groupe NaP, tandis que la calcémie diminuait davantage dans le groupe NaP que dans le groupe PEG. Ces modifications ioniques étaient sans traduction clinique. ConclusionDans cette étude, le NaP a montré une efficacité au moins équivalente à celle du PEG, pour une acceptabilité et une tolérance clinique meilleures. En l’absence de contre indication et sous réserve du respect de ses précautions d’emploi, le NaP constitue une préparation colique de première intention à la coloscopie.
    Acta Endoscopica 09/2001; 31(5):703-708. DOI:10.1007/BF03022144 · 0.16 Impact Factor