INTRODUCTION: Despite several meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials showing no benefit to patients, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) remains the standard of practice for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature of trials that prospectively compared MBP with no MBP for patients undergoing elective colorectal resection. We searched MEDLINE, LILACS, and SCISEARCH, abstracts of pertinent scientific meetings and reference lists for each article found. Experts in the field were queried as to knowledge of additional reports. Outcomes abstracted were anastomotic leaks and wound infections. Meta-analysis was performed using Peto Odds ratio. RESULTS: Of 4,601 patients (13 trials), 2,304 received MBP (Group 1) and 2,297 did not (Group 2). Anastomotic leaks occurred in 97(4.2%) patients in Group 1 and in 81(3.5%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.214, CI 95%:0.899-1.64, P = 0.206). Wound infections occurred in 227(9.9%) patients in Group 1 and in 201(8.8%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.156, CI 95%:0.946-1.413, P = 0.155). DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates that MBP provides no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, thus, supporting elimination of routine MBP in elective colorectal surgery. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, MBP is of no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal resection and need not be recommended to meet "standard of care."
INTRODUCTION: Despite several meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials showing no benefit to patients, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) remains the standard of practice for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature of trials that prospectively compared MBP with no MBP for patients undergoing elective colorectal resection. We searched MEDLINE, LILACS, and SCISEARCH, abstracts of pertinent scientific meetings and reference lists for each article found. Experts in the field were queried as to knowledge of additional reports. Outcomes abstracted were anastomotic leaks and wound infections. Meta-analysis was performed using Peto Odds ratio. RESULTS: Of 4,601 patients (13 trials), 2,304 received MBP (Group 1) and 2,297 did not (Group 2). Anastomotic leaks occurred in 97(4.2%) patients in Group 1 and in 81(3.5%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.214, CI 95%:0.899-1.64, P = 0.206). Wound infections occurred in 227(9.9%) patients in Group 1 and in 201(8.8%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.156, CI 95%:0.946-1.413, P = 0.155). DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates that MBP provides no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, thus, supporting elimination of routine MBP in elective colorectal surgery. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, MBP is of no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal resection and need not be recommended to meet "standard of care."
Authors: Laurence E McCahill; John W Ahern; Linda A Gruppi; James Limanek; Gail A Dion; Jessica A Sussman; Christina B McCaffrey; Diane B Leary; Margaret B Lesage; Richard M Single Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2007-04
Authors: Caroline M E Contant; Wim C J Hop; Hans Pieter van't Sant; Henk J M Oostvogel; Harm J Smeets; Laurents P S Stassen; Peter A Neijenhuis; Floris J Idenburg; Cees M Dijkhuis; Piet Heres; Willem F van Tets; Jos J G M Gerritsen; Wibo F Weidema Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-12-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Adrian Businger; Gabriela Grunder; Marc-Olivier Guenin; Christoph Ackermann; Ralph Peterli; Markus von Flüe Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2010-10-24 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Pascal H E Teeuwen; R P Bleichrodt; C Strik; J J M Groenewoud; W Brinkert; C J H M van Laarhoven; H van Goor; A J A Bremers Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2009-09-25 Impact factor: 3.452