Literature DB >> 9152189

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. A prospective, randomized, surgeon-blinded trial comparing sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-based oral lavage solutions.

L Oliveira1, S D Wexner, N Daniel, D DeMarta, E G Weiss, J J Nogueras, M Bernstein.   

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the cleansing ability, patient compliance, and safety of two oral solutions for elective colorectal surgery.
METHODS: All eligible patients were prospectively randomized to receive either 4 l of standard polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution or 90 ml of sodium phosphate (NaP) as mechanical bowel preparation for colorectal surgery. A detailed questionnaire was used to assess patient compliance. In addition, the surgeons, blinded to the preparation, intraoperatively evaluated its quality. Postoperative septic complications were also assessed. The calcium serum level was monitored before and after bowel preparation. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon's rank-sum test and Fisher's exact test.
RESULTS: Two hundred patients, well matched for age, gender, and diagnosis, were prospectively randomized to receive either PEG or NaP solutions for elective colorectal surgery. All patients completed all phases of the trial. There was a significant decrease in serum calcium levels after administration of both NaP (mean, 9.3-8.8 mg/dl) and PEG (9.2-8.9 mg/dl), respectively (P < 0.0001), with no clinical sequelae. However, patient tolerance to NaP was superior to PEG: less trouble drinking the preparation (17 vs. 32 percent; P < 0.0002), less abdominal pain (12 vs. 22 percent; P = 0.004), less bloating (7 vs. 28 percent), and less fatigue (8 vs. 17 percent), respectively. Additionally, 65 percent of patients who received the NaP preparation stated they would repeat this preparation again compared with only 25 percent for the PEG group (P < 0.0001). Ninety-five percent of patients who received the NaP solution tolerated 100 percent of the solution compared with only 37 percent of the PEG group (P < 0.0001). For quality of cleansing, surgeons scored NaP as "excellent" or "good" in 87 compared with 76 percent after PEG (P = not significant). Rates of septic and anastomotic complications were 1 percent and 1 percent for NaP and 4 percent and 1 percent for PEG, respectively (P = not significant).
CONCLUSION: Both oral solutions proved to be equally effective and safe. However, patient tolerance of the small volume of NaP demonstrated a clear advantage over the traditional PEG solution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9152189     DOI: 10.1007/bf02055384

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  21 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Bowel preparation: current status.

Authors:  James E Duncan; Christie M Quietmeyer
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2009-02

3.  Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation.

Authors:  Kai-Lin Hwang; William Tzu-Liang Chen; Koung-Hong Hsiao; Hong-Chang Chen; Ting-Ming Huang; Chien-Ming Chiu; Ger-Haur Hsu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  Oral colorectal cleansing preparations in adults.

Authors:  Sherief Shawki; Steven D Wexner
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 9.546

5.  Bowel preparation before vaginal prolapse surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Alicia C Ballard; Candace Y Parker-Autry; Alayne D Markland; R Edward Varner; Carrie Huisingh; Holly E Richter
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Preoperative evaluation and oncologic principles of colon cancer surgery.

Authors:  Matthew L Lynch; Marc I Brand
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2005-08

7.  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

8.  Investigation and diagnosis of diarrhea caused by sodium phosphate.

Authors:  K D Fine; F Ogunji; R Florio; J Porter; C S Ana
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 9.  Efficacy of mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol in prevention of postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qian D Zhu; Qi Y Zhang; Qi Q Zeng; Zheng P Yu; Chong L Tao; Wen J Yang
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-11-19       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 10.  Mechanical bowel preparation in intestinal surgery: a meta-analysis and review of the literature.

Authors:  Carlos E Pineda; Andrew A Shelton; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; John M Morton; Mark L Welton
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-07-12       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.