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: 5.7). 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.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite randomized trials and meta-analyses demonstrating the safety of omitting mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery, private practice surgeons may hesitate to eliminate MBP for fear of being outside community standards. This study evaluated the safety of eliminating MBP before colectomy in a private practice setting. METHODS: This prospective observational study included elective abdominal colorectal operations from one surgeon's practice from October 2008 to June 2011. MBP was not routinely utilized after November 2009. Postoperative 30-day complication rates and length of hospital stay were compared in patients with and without MBP. Multivariable regression models were developed to compare outcomes among study groups, adjusting for demographics, diagnoses, procedures, and year. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were analyzed. Demographics were similar between groups. Laparoscopic procedures were more common in patients without MBP due to increased laparoscopy over time (43 vs. 61 %, p = 0.03). As regards complications, infection rates were similar between groups (MBP 10.5 % vs. no MBP(NMBP) 11.4 %, adj p = 0.57). Patients without MBP had a shorter length of hospital stay (median: 6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.01), but those differences were not statistically significant after adjustment (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Private practice surgeons should embrace evidence-based practice changes and make efforts to quantitatively evaluate the safety of those changes. Omission of MBP for most elective colectomy procedures appears to be safe with no significant increase in complications or length of hospital stay. Because MBP has substantial drawbacks, there is little justification for its routine use in the majority of elective abdominal colorectal procedures.
    Techniques in Coloproctology 03/2013; · 1.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The presence of intraluminal tumour cells in colorectal cancer is known, as is their ability to implant in colorectal anastomoses, causing perianastomotic tumour growth. There is no consensus as to the volume and agent to use for rectal washout. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of our current routine for rectal washout in eliminating intraluminal tumour cells. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients undergoing low anterior resection or low Hartmann's procedure for rectal cancer at our unit were included. After the pelvic dissection was completed, the bowel was cross-clamped distal to the tumour and the prewashout sample (no. 1), was obtained by instilling 50 ml of saline and collecting the return fluid. A rectal washout followed using 500 ml of sterile water, 2 × 500 ml of 70 % ethanol and 500 ml of sterile water (sample no. 2-4) and the postwashout sample (no. 5) was obtained by using 50 ml of saline. The samples were examined and categorized as non-malignant or malignant at the Department of Pathology. The usual pathology report information was also assessed. RESULTS: In 33 of the 60 patients, cancer cells were identified in the prewashout sample. The rectal washout eliminated intraluminal cancer cells in 30 of the 33 patients. All of the remaining 3 had a higher blood loss (p = 0.026) and a tendency towards more polypoidal tumours (p = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: A rectal washout volume larger than 2,000 ml might be necessary to eliminate all intraluminal tumour cells in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.
    Techniques in Coloproctology 05/2013; · 1.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The usefulness of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colon surgery was recently challenged by many multicenter clinical trials and meta-analyses. The objectives of this study were to investigate current national opinions about MBP and prophylactic antibiotics (PA) and to provide preliminary data for developing future Korean guidelines for MBP and PA administration in colorectal surgery. A questionnaire was mailed to 129 colorectal specialists. The questionnaires addressed the characteristics of the hospital, the MBP methods, and the uses of oral and intravenous antibiotics. A total of 73 questionnaires (56.6%) were returned. First, in regard to MBP methods, most surgeons (97.3%) used MBP for a mean of 1.36 days. Most surgeons (98.6%) implemented whole bowel irrigation and used polyethylene glycol (83.3%). Oral antibiotic use was indicated in over half (52.1%) of the responses, the average number of preoperative doses was three, and the mean time of administration was 24.2 hours prior to the operation. Finally, the majority of responders stated that they used intravenous antibiotics (95.9%). The responses demonstrated that second-generation cephalosporin-based regimens were most commonly prescribed, and 75% of the surgeons administered these regimens until three days after the operation. The results indicate that most surgeons used MBP and intravenous antibiotics and that half of them administered oral PA in colorectal surgery preparations. The study recommends that the current Korean guidelines should be adapted to adequately reflect the medical status in Korea, to consider the medical environment of the various hospitals, and to establish more accurate and relevant guidelines.
    Annals of coloproctology. 08/2013; 29(4):160-6.