OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of mechanical bowel preparation on surgical field visualization during laparoscopic hysterectomy. METHODS: The study's primary outcome was the percentage of operations rated "good" or "excellent" in terms of surgical field visualization at the outset of the case by the primary surgeon. Additional measures included assessment of visualization during the case and patient perioperative comfort. The study was powered to detect a 20% absolute difference in the proportion of cases rated as "good" or "excellent." RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were assigned to mechanical bowel preparation and 73 to no mechanical bowel preparation. The groups were comparable regarding patient and surgery characteristics. No differences were found for this rating between groups (mechanical bowel preparation, 64 of 73 patients [87.7%], compared with no mechanical bowel preparation, 60 of 73 patients [82.2%], P=.36). Surgeons guessed patient assignment correctly 59% of the time (42 of 71 patients) with mechanical bowel preparation and 55% of the time (41 of 75 patients) with no mechanical bowel preparation. CONCLUSION:Mechanical bowel preparation is well-tolerated but does not influence surgical field visualization for laparoscopic hysterectomy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinialTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01576965.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of mechanical bowel preparation on surgical field visualization during laparoscopic hysterectomy. METHODS: The study's primary outcome was the percentage of operations rated "good" or "excellent" in terms of surgical field visualization at the outset of the case by the primary surgeon. Additional measures included assessment of visualization during the case and patient perioperative comfort. The study was powered to detect a 20% absolute difference in the proportion of cases rated as "good" or "excellent." RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were assigned to mechanical bowel preparation and 73 to no mechanical bowel preparation. The groups were comparable regarding patient and surgery characteristics. No differences were found for this rating between groups (mechanical bowel preparation, 64 of 73 patients [87.7%], compared with no mechanical bowel preparation, 60 of 73 patients [82.2%], P=.36). Surgeons guessed patient assignment correctly 59% of the time (42 of 71 patients) with mechanical bowel preparation and 55% of the time (41 of 75 patients) with no mechanical bowel preparation. CONCLUSION:Mechanical bowel preparation is well-tolerated but does not influence surgical field visualization for laparoscopic hysterectomy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinialTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01576965.
Authors: Mèlanie N van IJsselmuiden; Manon H Kerkhof; René P Schellart; Marlies Y Bongers; Wilbert A Spaans; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jessica C Sassani; Kelly Kantartzis; Liwen Wu; Anthony Fabio; Halina M Zyczynski Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Alicia Ballard; Candace Parker-Autry; Chee Paul Lin; Alayne D Markland; David R Ellington; Holly E Richter Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 2.894