Literature DB >> 19160198

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery.

Katia K F G Guenaga1, Delcio Matos, Peer Wille-Jørgensen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the security and effectiveness of MBP on morbidity and mortality in colorectal surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: 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. SELECTION CRITERIA: 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 COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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). MAIN
RESULTS: 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. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19160198     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001544.pub3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  47 in total

1.  A systematic review of enhanced recovery protocols in colorectal surgery.

Authors:  A Rawlinson; P Kang; J Evans; A Khanna
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 2.  Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  F Cao; J Li; F Li
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Mechanical bowel preparation and antimicrobial prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery in Switzerland--a survey.

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

4.  Prophylaxis and management of wound infections after elective colorectal surgery: a survey of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons membership.

Authors:  Katharine W Markell; Ben M Hunt; Paul D Charron; Rodney J Kratz; Jeffrey Nelson; John T Isler; Scott R Steele; Richard P Billingham
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  The role of mechanical bowel preparation in gynecologic laparoscopy.

Authors:  Sarah L Cohen; Jon I Einarsson
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011

6.  Enhanced recovery after surgery programs hasten recovery after colorectal resections.

Authors:  Ned Abraham; Sinan Albayati
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-01-27

7.  Current perioperative practice in rectal surgery in Austria and Germany.

Authors:  Till Hasenberg; Friedrich Längle; Bianca Reibenwein; Karin Schindler; Stefan Post; Claudia Spies; Wolfgang Schwenk; Edward Shang
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-02-20       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Management of an extrasphincteric fistula in an HIV-positive patient by using fibrin glue: a case report with tips and tricks.

Authors:  Theodossis S Papavramidis; Ioannis Pliakos; Dimitra Charpidou; George Petalotis; Panagiotis Kollaras; Konstantinos Sapalidis; Isaak Kesisoglou; Spiros T Papavramidis
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-02-14       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Colon and rectal surgery for cancer without mechanical bowel preparation: one-center randomized prospective trial.

Authors:  Stefano Scabini; Edoardo Rimini; Emanuele Romairone; Renato Scordamaglia; Giampiero Damiani; Davide Pertile; Valter Ferrando
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-04-30       Impact factor: 2.754

10.  Antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: focus on ertapenem.

Authors:  Fausto de Lalla
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2009-11-02       Impact factor: 2.423

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.