PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) in prevention of postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery. METHOD: A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was done to identify randomized controlled trials involving comparison of postoperative complications after mechanical bowel preparation with PEG (PEG group) and no preparation (control group). A meta-analysis was set up to distinguish overall difference between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of five randomized controlled trials was identified according to our inclusion criteria. The use of PEG for mechanical bowel preparation did not significantly reduce the rate of surgical site infection (SSI; odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.39 (0.85-2.25); P = 0.19) including incisional SSI (OR 95% CI, 1.44 (0.88-2.33); P = 0.15), organ/space SSI (OR 95% CI, 1.10 (0.43-2.78); P = 0.49), anastomotic leak (OR 95% CI,1.78 (0.95-3.33; P = 0.07), mortality (OR 95% CI, 1.24 (0.37-4.14; P = 0.73), infectious complications (OR 95% CI, 1.14 (0.62-2.08); P = 0.67), and hospital stay (weighted mean difference 95% CI, 2.17 (-2.90-7.25); P = 0.40) except main complications (OR 95% CI, 1.76 (1.09-2.85); P = 0.02), of which the rate increased significantly in the PEG group. CONCLUSION: The use of mechanical bowel preparation with PEG does not significantly lower postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) in prevention of postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery. METHOD: A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was done to identify randomized controlled trials involving comparison of postoperative complications after mechanical bowel preparation with PEG (PEG group) and no preparation (control group). A meta-analysis was set up to distinguish overall difference between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of five randomized controlled trials was identified according to our inclusion criteria. The use of PEG for mechanical bowel preparation did not significantly reduce the rate of surgical site infection (SSI; odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.39 (0.85-2.25); P = 0.19) including incisional SSI (OR 95% CI, 1.44 (0.88-2.33); P = 0.15), organ/space SSI (OR 95% CI, 1.10 (0.43-2.78); P = 0.49), anastomotic leak (OR 95% CI,1.78 (0.95-3.33; P = 0.07), mortality (OR 95% CI, 1.24 (0.37-4.14; P = 0.73), infectious complications (OR 95% CI, 1.14 (0.62-2.08); P = 0.67), and hospital stay (weighted mean difference 95% CI, 2.17 (-2.90-7.25); P = 0.40) except main complications (OR 95% CI, 1.76 (1.09-2.85); P = 0.02), of which the rate increased significantly in the PEG group. CONCLUSION: The use of mechanical bowel preparation with PEG does not significantly lower postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery.
Authors: L Oliveira; S D Wexner; N Daniel; D DeMarta; E G Weiss; J J Nogueras; M Bernstein Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Oded Zmora; Ahmad Mahajna; Barak Bar-Zakai; Danny Rosin; Dan Hershko; Moshe Shabtai; Michael M Krausz; Amram Ayalon Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jennifer Blumetti; Myda Luu; George Sarosi; Kathleen Hartless; Jackie McFarlin; Betty Parker; Sean Dineen; Sergio Huerta; Massimo Asolati; Esteban Varela; Thomas Anthony Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.982
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: B G Wolff; R W Beart; R R Dozois; J H Pemberton; A R Zinsmeister; R L Ready; M B Farnell; J A Washington; J Heppell Journal: Arch Surg Date: 1988-07
Authors: Marc Zerey; Lisa Martin Hawver; Ziad Awad; Dimitrios Stefanidis; William Richardson; Robert D Fanelli Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Luo Yang; Heng-shan Chen; Blayne Welk; John D Denstedt; Kunjie Wang; Hong Li; Qiang Wei; Xiang Li Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2012-11-17 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Scott C Dolejs; Michael J Guzman; Alyssa D Fajardo; Bruce W Robb; Bryan K Holcomb; Ben L Zarzaur; Joshua A Waters Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: R Siegel; M A Cuesta; E Targarona; F G Bader; M Morino; R Corcelles; A M Lacy; L Påhlman; E Haglind; K Bujko; H P Bruch; M M Heiss; M Eikermann; E A M Neugebauer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Mansi Shah; Clayton T Ellis; Michael R Phillips; Amy Marzinsky; William Adamson; Timothy Weiner; Kimberly Erickson; Sang Lee; Patricia A Lange; Sean E McLean Journal: Am Surg Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 0.688