UNLABELLED: Aim of that study was to prove, whether a solution containing polyethyleneglycol (PEG) is more useful in comparison to the normal method using Ringer's-lactate solution for preoperative bowel preparation. METHODS:From January 1990 up to February 1991 we compared in a prospective randomized simple blind study on 110 patients the whole gut solution (Hewitt) to a bowel preparation with PEG (Oralav). RESULTS: The patients, that were prepared in the common way (Ringer's-lactate, control group; n = 54) were approximately given the double amount of liquid (9663 ml) as those in the other group (target group; n = 54: 4777 ml). We found no significant differences concerning the electrolytes. Hemoglobin (-1.1 g/dl) and hematocrit (-3.5%) were significantly lower in the control group. Both groups showed a similar frequency of nausea (control group 25% vs target group 34%). Vomiting was mainly found in the control group (20.8% vs 1.9%). Both groups showed comparably good results in bowel cleansing. Between the two groups we found no differences in specific bowel bacterial flora. Characteristic and number of postoperative complications were similar low (5.7 vs 3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Due to a better compliance by oral application, the lower given amounts of liquid and the equal cleansing effect we prefer the use of the PEG containing solution (Oralav).
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: Aim of that study was to prove, whether a solution containing polyethyleneglycol (PEG) is more useful in comparison to the normal method using Ringer's-lactate solution for preoperative bowel preparation. METHODS: From January 1990 up to February 1991 we compared in a prospective randomized simple blind study on 110 patients the whole gut solution (Hewitt) to a bowel preparation with PEG (Oralav). RESULTS: The patients, that were prepared in the common way (Ringer's-lactate, control group; n = 54) were approximately given the double amount of liquid (9663 ml) as those in the other group (target group; n = 54: 4777 ml). We found no significant differences concerning the electrolytes. Hemoglobin (-1.1 g/dl) and hematocrit (-3.5%) were significantly lower in the control group. Both groups showed a similar frequency of nausea (control group 25% vs target group 34%). Vomiting was mainly found in the control group (20.8% vs 1.9%). Both groups showed comparably good results in bowel cleansing. Between the two groups we found no differences in specific bowel bacterial flora. Characteristic and number of postoperative complications were similar low (5.7 vs 3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Due to a better compliance by oral application, the lower given amounts of liquid and the equal cleansing effect we prefer the use of the PEG containing solution (Oralav).