Search

Background: There has been much debate as to the importance of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic agents (OAB) prior to elective colorectal surgery over the past two decades. Th...

Background: Surgical site infections (SSI) are a major cause of morbidity after surgery and are associated with increased hospital length of stay, readmissions, costs, and mortality. Surgical site infections are disproportionally high in colorectal surgery and are estimated to affect between 15% and 30% of patients. Surgical site infections (SSIs) increase the cost of care and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality and it is the third most common nosocomial infection. Objective: To clarify oral antibiotics (OAs) use together with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) patients outcome following elective colorectal surgery. Patients and methods: The current study was conducted at Al-Hussein University Hospital and Kafr Elsheikh General Hospital. We selected forty patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery. All the studied patients were divided into two equal groups: Group I received mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, and Group II received mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics. Results: We found that there was no significant difference between two groups of patients as regards mean age and sex distribution. Anterior resection was the most frequent surgical procedure done for the two studied groups of patients. The least frequent procedures done for group I patients were radical sigmoidectomy. Total colectomy and sigmoidectomy, the least frequent procedures done for group II patients, were total colectomy and extended right hemicolectomy. However, the difference between the two groups of patient as regards type of surgery and time of closure did not reach the significant value. All studied patients had ileostomy as a type of stoma. As regards complications after surgery, the most frequent complications among patients of group I were pneumonia and ileus. On the other hand, the most frequent complications among patients of Group II were ileus, leakage and intra-abdominal collection. The mean values of hospital stay in days significantly decreased among patients of group 1. Conclusion: Current study suggested a potentially significant role for prophylactic preoperative oral antibiotic in addition to mechanical bowel preparation, in the prevention of postoperative complications during elective colorectal surgery.

Repeat preoperative endoscopy is common for patients with colorectal neoplasms. This can result in treatment delays, patient discomfort, and risks of colonoscopy-related complications. Repeat preoperative endoscopy has been attributed to poor communication between endoscopists and surgeons. In January 2019, mandatory electronic synoptic reporting for endoscopy was implemented to include elements consistent with quality indicators proposed in national guidelines. The aim of the present study is to assess whether the repeat preoperative endoscopy rate for colorectal lesions changed following synoptic report implementation. A retrospective review was performed of 1690 consecutive patients who underwent elective surgical resection for colorectal neoplasms from January 2007 to June 2020 at a tertiary hospital in Canada. Patients who had an index endoscopy documented via synoptic report were compared to those reported via narrative report. Primary outcomes were rates of repeat preoperative endoscopy and inclusion of colonoscopy quality indicators: photo-documentation, tattoo placement, and bowel preparation score. In total, 1429 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection for colorectal cancers or polyps between January 2007 and June 2020 were included. 115 had index endoscopies recorded via synoptic report and 1314 by narrative report. The repeat preoperative endoscopy rate after endoscopies documented by narrative report was 29.07% (95% CI 26.63–31.61) and 25.22% (95% CI 17.58–34.17%) for synoptic report. Patients whose index endoscopies where performed by a practitioner other than their operating surgeon had a re-endoscopy rate of 36.03% (95% CI 32.82–39.33%) after narrative report and 38.81% (95% CI 27.14–51.50%) for synoptic report. Rates of tattoo placement, photo-documentation, and reporting of bowel preparation quality were all significantly increased with synoptic reports (p ≤ 0.003). Endoscopy synoptic reports based on current guidelines were not associated with a decrease in rates of repeat pre-operative endoscopy at a high-volume colorectal cancer centre. Future study should examine guideline deficiencies for this purpose and make necessary modifications.

AIM Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common after colonic surgery. SSIs can cause relevant morbidity and increase costs of care. Preoperative oral antibiotics can reduce the incidence of SSIs after resection of the colon, but the role of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is debated. This study aims to assess the impact of a combined regimen of oral antibiotics and MBP on SSIs after colonic surgery. METHODS An international, multicentre, pragmatic, adaptive, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial will be conducted across Europe. Adult patients scheduled to undergo elective colonic resection will be assessed for inclusion. Patients will be randomized into one of two treatment arms: (1) preoperative oral antibiotics without MBP (control); (2) preoperative oral antibiotics with MBP (experimental). All patients will receive intravenous antibiotics at anaesthetic induction. The primary aim will be 30-day SSI, assessed by a blinded nurse. Additional end-points include safety, morbidity and mortality, satisfaction with the preparation, time to return of bowel function, time to complete recovery and time to discharge, long-term results. Analyses will be performed with a modified intention-to-treat approach. Interim analyses are planned. DISCUSSION This will be the first randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of preoperative oral antibiotics plus MBP versus preoperative oral antibiotics only, before colonic surgery. The knowledge obtained could help to establish the ideal preparation for patients scheduled to undergo resection of the colon. Full protocol NCT04161599.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical bowel preparation with antibiotics is associated with decreased surgical site infections (SSI) after colorectal surgery. However, antibiotics have side effects, such as vomiting. It is unknown how patient willingness to take antibiotics is affected by side effect severity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center study of 86 patients (37 undergoing colorectal surgery) using a modified standard gamble technique. We presented patients with four hypothetical scenarios, holding SSI reduction constant and varying antibiotic side effect severity. Patients reported willingness to take antibiotics using a scale from 0 to 100. Patients also reported the maximum level of side effects they would accept. We examined the association between side effect severity and willingness to take antibiotics with a multivariable mixedeffects regression model and investigated differences in surgical and nonsurgical patients. RESULTS: After adjusting for age, sex, and patient type, willingness scores decreased with increasing side effect severity. No side effects: 92 (CI 86,99), mild: 83 (CI 76,90), moderate: 76 (CI 69,83), and severe: 46 (CI 38,52), P < 0.001. Surgical patients were more willing to take antibiotics at all severity levels compared with nonsurgical patients, P < 0.001. Surgical (57%) and nonsurgical (58%) patients reported that they would accept moderate side effects. Patients with prior SSI (n = 5) would take antibiotics regardless of side effect severity. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing antibiotic side effect severity is associated with decreased willingness to take antibiotics during bowel preparation, despite a reduction in SSI. Adherence may be improved with strategies that increase patient education and decrease side effects during bowel preparation.

Infectious complications are the biggest problem during bowel surgery, and one of the approaches to minimize them is the bowel cleaning method. It was expected that bowel cleaning could facilitate bowel manipulation as well as prevent infectious complications and further reduce anastomotic leakage. In the past, with the development of antibiotics, bowel cleaning and oral antibiotics (OA) were used together. However, with the success of emergency surgery and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery, bowel cleaning was not routinely performed. Consequently, bowel cleaning using OA was gradually no longer used. Recently, there have been reports that only bowel cleaning is not helpful in reducing infectious complications such as surgical site infection (SSI) compared to OA and bowel cleaning. Accordingly, in order to reduce SSI, guidelines are changing the trend of only intestinal cleaning. However, a consistent regimen has not yet been established, and there is still controversy depending on the location of the lesion and the surgical method. Moreover, complications such as Clostridium difficile infection have not been clearly analyzed. In the present review, we considered the overall bowel preparation trends and identified the areas that require further research.

Aim To examine the influence of mechanical bowel preparation on surgical field visualization and patients' quality of life during benign gynecologic laparoscopic procedures. Methods A single blind, randomized, controlled trial was undertaken with laparoscopic gynecologic surgical patients to one of the following three groups: liquid diet on the preoperative day; mechanical bowel preparation with oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution; minimal residue diet for 3 days. Primary outcomes included assessment of the condition of small and large bowel and the overall quality of the surgical field. Additional measures included assessment of patients' preoperative symptoms, tolerance of the preparation method and compliance to the protocol, postoperative symptoms and bowel function. Results One hundred forty-four patients were randomized as follows: 49 to liquid diet, 47 to mechanical bowel preparation, and 48 to minimal residue diet. Most characteristics were similar across groups. The intraoperative surgical view and the condition of large and small bowel were equal or inferior at the patients who received mechanical bowel preparation compared with the other groups. The 4-point Likert scale scoring for small bowel (2.51 vs. 2.72 vs. 2.81, p = 0.04), large bowel (2.26 vs. 2.38 vs. 2.48, p = 0.32) and overall operative field quality (2.34 vs. 2.67 vs. 2.67, p = 0.03) demonstrated no advantage from the use of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation over liquid diet and minimal residue diet, respectively. Preoperative discomfort was significantly greater in the mechanical bowel preparation group. Conclusion Mechanical bowel preparation before gynecologic laparoscopic operations for benign pathology could be safely abandoned. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN registry, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN59502124 (No 59502124).

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG) in single- or split-dose regimens for colonoscopy bowel preparation. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, endoscopist blinded, single-center study, that included adult patients who underwent colonoscopy during the period from December 2017 to October 2018. Two groups were enrolled in the same period: One group used 4 L of PEG (Nulytely) in a single-dose preparation, administered a day before the procedure, and the other group received a split-dose regimen of 2 L PEG (Nulytely), given a day before the procedure and 2 L on the day of the procedure in the early morning. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used for bowel preparation adequacy; scales 0 and 1 were considered inadequate, and scales 2 and 3 were considered adequate preparation. Results: Two hundred and forty patients were enrolled, 120 (50%) using the split-dose regimen and 120 (50%) using the single-dose regimen, for bowel preparation. Males constituted 51.6% of the study cohort. In the single-dose group, 62.5% achieved adequate bowel preparation compared to 89.2% in the split-dose group (p< 0.001). In addition, polyp detection in the split-dose group was 23.3% in comparison to 10.8% in the single-dose group (P = 0.016). We also found hypertension and diabetes as significant predictors of bowel preparation inadequacy, while sex and age were not related to bowel preparation adequacy. Conclusions: Split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy with PEG (Nulytely) is better than routine single-dose, in terms of adequate bowel preparation and polyp detection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Whether bowel preparation utilization rates or effectiveness varies based on tumor location is unknown. METHODS The 2012-2016 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Colectomy Targeted participant user file was queried for patients undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer. Bowel preparation was classified as combined, mechanical bowel preparation alone, oral antibiotic alone, or none. Cochran-Armitage tests were used for trend analysis. Multivariable analyses stratified by tumor location were performed for the outcome of anastomotic leak. An additional multivariable model including all tumor locations assessed for interaction between bowel preparation and tumor location on an anastomotic leak. RESULTS A total of 29,739 operations were included and the anastomotic leak rate was 1.9% with combined preparation versus 4.0% without preparation. Combined bowel preparation utilization increased over time as tumor location became more distal (both p

The purpose of this review is to assess the impact of mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation on surgical performance and to investigate their role before gynecologic surgical procedures regarding the infection rates. We also aim to study the updated evidence regarding the use of these different types of bowel preparation, as well as the current preoperative practice applied. An extensive search of the literature was conducted with Medline/PubMed, and the Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews being used for our primary search. To date, due to the conflicting guidelines by the scientific societies, surgeons do not use a specific pattern of bowel preparation regimen. There are no strong evidence supporting mechanical bowel preparation, but instead, in many cases, patients’ adverse effects, both physiological and psychological have been noted. On the other hand, the combined use of oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel preparation has been proven beneficial in colorectal surgery in reducing postoperative morbidities. Based on current literature, in gynecologic surgeries with minimal probability of intraluminal entry, a regimen without any bowel preparation should be applied. The combined administration of both mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation, or even the use of the oral antibiotics alone, should be preserved for cases of increased complexity, where bowel involvement is highly anticipated, such as in gynecologic oncology, as stated in the ERAS protocols. Nonetheless, further research specific to gynecologic surgery is required.

Purpose In most cases, traditional techniques to perform an anastomosis following gastrointestinal resections lead to successful healing. However, despite focused research in the field, in certain high-risk situations leakage rates remain almost unchanged. Here, additional techniques may help the surgeon to protect the anastomosis and prevent leakage. We give an overview of some of the latest developments on experimental and clinical techniques for induction of anastomotic healing. Methods We performed a review of the current literature on approaches to improve anastomotic healing. Results Many promising approaches with a high clinical potential are in the developmental pipeline. Highly experimental approaches like inhibition of matrix metalloproteinases, stem cell therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, induction of the hypoxic adaptive response, and the administration of growth factors are still in the preclinical phase. Other more clinical developments aim to strengthen the anastomotic suture line mechanically while shielding it from the influence of the microbiome. Among them are gluing, seaming the staple line, attachment of laminar biomaterials, and temporary intraluminal tubes. In addition, individualized bowel preparation, selectively reducing certain detrimental microbial populations could become the next stage of bowel preparation. Compression anastomoses are evolving as an equivalent technique additional to established hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses. Fluorescence angiography and flexible endoscopy could complement intraoperative quality control additionally to the air leak tests. Virtual ileostomy is a concept to prepare the bowel for the easy formation of a stoma in case of leakage. Conclusion A variety of promising diagnostic and prophylactic measures that may support the surgeon in identifying high-risk anastomoses and support them according to their potential deficits is currently in development.

Polyethylene glycol electrolyte solutions (PEG, NuLYTELY®) are widely used to prepare the GI tract before colonoscopy or barium enema examinations. Although PEG appears as a clear liquid, the optimal interval for sedation or general anesthesia after the last administration of these solutions is unclear and controversial in the anesthetic literature. We present a 3-year-old patient with intermittent bloody stools who required anesthetic care for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. Given the controversial nil per os time with the use of PEG-containing solutions, point-of-care gastric ultrasound was performed to evaluate gastric contents and gastric volume before the induction of anesthesia.

Purpose No consensus exists regarding the use of preoperative bowel preparation for patients undergoing a low anterior resection (LAR). Several comparative studies show similar outcomes when a single time enema (STE) is compared with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP). It is hypothesized that STE is comparable with MBP due to a decrease in intestinal motility distal of a newly constructed diverting ileostomy (DI). Methods In this prospective single-centre cohort study, patients undergoing a LAR with primary anastomosis and DI construction were given a STE 2 h pre-operatively. Radio-opaque markers were inserted in the efferent loop of the DI during surgery, and plain abdominal X-rays were made during the first, third, fifth and seventh postoperative day to visualize intestinal motility. Results Thirty-nine patients were included. Radio-opaque markers were situated in the ileum or right colon in 100%, 100% and 97.1% of the patients during respectively the first, third and fifth postoperative day. One patient had its most distal marker situated in the left colon during day five. In none of the patients, the markers were seen distal of the anastomosis. Conclusion Intestinal motility distally of the DI is decreased in patients who undergo a LAR resection with the construction of an anastomosis and DI, while preoperatively receiving a STE.

Background: Pre-operative administration of combined oral antibiotic agents and mechanical bowel preparation has been demonstrated to improve post-operative outcomes after elective colectomy, however, many patients do not receive combined preparation. Patient and procedural determinants of combined preparation receipt remain understudied. Patients and Methods: All patients undergoing elective colectomy within the 2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Participant Use File and Targeted Colectomy datasets were included. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with receipt of combined preparation. Results: A total of 21,889 patients were included, of whom 13,848 (63.2%) received combined preparation pre-operatively. Patients who received combined preparation tended to be younger, male, of white race, and of non-Hispanic ethnicity (all p

IMPORTANCE: There are discrepancies in guidelines on preparation for colorectal surgery. While intravenous (IV) antibiotics are usually administered, the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), enemas, and/or oral antibiotics (OA) is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To summarize all data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met selection criteria using network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the ranking of different bowel preparation treatment strategies for their associations with postoperative outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases with no language constraints, including abstracts and articles published prior to 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized studies of adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery with appropriate aerobic and anaerobic antibiotic cover that reported on incisional surgical site infection (SSI) or anastomotic leak were selected for inclusion in the analysis. These were selected by multiple reviewers and adjudicated by a separate lead investigator. A total of 167 of 6833 screened studies met initial selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: NMA was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were extracted by multiple independent observers and pooled in a random-effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were incisional SSI and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included other infections, mortality, ileus, and adverse effects of preparation. RESULTS: A total of 35 RCTs that included 8377 patients were identified. Treatments compared IV antibiotics (2762 patients [33%]), IV antibiotics with enema (222 patients [3%]), IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (628 patients [7%]), MBP with IV antibiotics (2712 patients [32%]), MBP with IV antibiotics with OA (with good IV antibiotic cover in 925 patients [11%] and with good overall antibiotic cover in 375 patients [4%]), MBP with OA (267 patients [3%]), and OA (486 patients [6%]). The likelihood of incisional SSI was significantly lower for those receiving IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (rank 1) and MBP with adequate IV antibiotics with OA (rank 2) compared with all other treatment options. The addition of OA to IV antibiotics, both with and without MBP, was associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. There were minimal differences between treatments in anastomotic leak and in any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This NMA demonstrated that the addition of OA to IV antibiotics were associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. The results support the addition of OA to IV antibiotics to reduce incisional SSI among patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Aims To prospectively evaluate the clinical efficacy of oral antibiotics as an adjunct to intravenous antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in patients undergoing left sided colorectal surgery. Methods All participants aged 18 years or older and of any gender undergoing an elective open or laparoscopic left sided colorectal resection for benign or malignant colorectal pathologies were considered. The intervention of interest was oral neomycin 1g every 4 hours combined with oral metronidazole 400mg every 8 hours from 24 hours before the proposed surgery. Surgical site infections (SSIs), anastomotic leak, paralytic ileus, need for intervention, and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters. Results Forty-two consecutive patients received oral antibiotics as an adjunct to intravenous antibiotics and MBP before left sided colorectal surgery. The mean age was 58.8 ± 11.5. There were 23 males (54.8%) and 19 females (45.2%). Use of oral antibiotics was associated with SSI infection rate of 2.4% (1 patient). The rates of clinically significant and non-significant anastomotic leak were 0% and 2.9%, respectively. Moreover, postoperative ileus happened in 11.9% of patients. Furthermore, there was no mortality or need for re-intervention. Conclusions Use of oral antibiotics as an adjunct to intravenous antibiotics and MBP in patients undergoing left-sided colorectal surgery was associated with a surprisingly low rate of SSIs and no significant anastomotic leak. It is time to trust the best available evidence and incorporate the use of oral antibiotics as an adjunct to intravenous antibiotics and MBP in colorectal surgery protocols in the UK hospitals.

Aims Pre-operative oral antibiotics (OAB) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) may reduce rates of post-operative infectious complications following colorectal surgery but their effects on post-operative ileus (POI) are not well-established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address this question. Methods Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials and cohort studies comparing pre-operative MBP or OAB to control in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection and reporting the rate of POI as an outcome. Risk ratios were pooled using a random-effects model to generate a summary risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. Results Five randomised trials and three cohort studies were included which reported the effect of pre-operative MBP on POI. Some 29056 patients received MBP compared to 13077 who did not. The rates of POI were 10.0% vs 12.0% respectively. Meta-analysis gave a risk ratio of 0.85 (0.80-0.91, p Conclusions Pre-operative MBP or OAB may reduce POI following colorectal resection but this has not been confirmed in randomised trials.

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is the cleansing technique used clean up the large gut using oral cathartic agents like polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate, sodium Pico sulfate, and magnesium citrate. Objectives: To compare the frequency of infectious complications between mechanical bowel preparation and no preparation in elective colonic surgery. Study Design: Randomized control trial. Setting: OPD or Indoor Surgical unit 5, DHQ Hospital, Faisalabad. Period: 1st January 2017 to 31st Dec 2018. Material & Methods: Patients diagnosed of malignant tumors of colon, appendix or cecum were included in study. Group A: mechanical bowel preparation done according to standard protocols, group B no mechanical bowel preparation was done. All patients were followed regularly for 2 weeks for presence or absence of surgical site infections and anastomotic leakage. Results: In this study, surgical site infection in both groups was compared, it shows that 18.59% (n=37) in Experimental group and 9.55% (n=19) in Control group had SSI while 81.41% (n=162) in Experimental group and 90.45% (n=180) in Control group bad no SSI, p - value was calculated as 0.009 showing a significant difference. Comparison of surgical anastomotic leakage in both groups was done, it shows that 2.51% (n=5) in Experimental group and 1.51% (n=3) in Control group had anastomotic leakage, p - value was calculated as 0.47 showing insignificant difference. Conclusion: We concluded that no mechanical bowel preparation is significantly better than mechanical bowel preparation in elective colonic surgery in terms of post-operative surgical site infection.

The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to surgical site infections (SSI), anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative complications theologically. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgery aims to reduce fecal materials and bacterial count with the objective to decrease SSI rate, including AL. Based on many observational data, meta-analysis and multicenter randomized control trials (RTC), non-MBP did not increase AL rates or SSI and other complications in colon and even rectal surgery. In 2011 Cochrane review, there is no significant benefit MBP compared with non-MBP in colon surgery and also no better benefit MBP compared with rectal enemas in rectal surgery. However, in surgeon's perspectives, MBP is still in widespread surgical practice, despite the discomfort caused in patients, and general targeting of the colon microflora with antibiotics continues to gain popularity despite the lack of understanding of the role of the microbiome in anastomotic healing. Recently, there are many evidence suggesting that MBP+oral antibiotics (OA) should be the growing gold standard for colorectal surgery. However, there are rare RCT studies and still no solid evidences in OA preparation, so further studies need results in both MBP and OA and only OA for colorectal surgery. Also, MBP studies in patients with having minimally invasive surgery (MIS; laparoscopic or robotics) colorectal surgery are still warranted. Further RCT on patients having elective left side colon and rectal surgery with primary anastomosis in whom sphincter saving surgery without MBP in these MIS and microbiome era.

Background: The effect of an oral antibiotic preparation prior to colorectal surgery was first examined and exalted in the 1973 paper by Nichols et al. Since this commencement, enthusiasm for the oral antibiotic regimen has waxed and waned reflecting the literature focused on this topic over the past 40 years. Polling colorectal surgeons of define current practices has been performed at intervals throughout the years and has demonstrated a trend to decline in the practice. The most recent publication surveying U.S. practices was in 2010, which reported a minority, 36%, use of oral antibiotics prior to elective colorectal surgery; a marked downtrend from the 88% use described in 1990. Since this last survey, the colorectal surgery community has performed considerable research examining the benefit of oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel preparation. This manuscript evaluates the current use of oral antibiotics in colorectal surgery in the U.S. and how practice trends have developed in response to current recommendations in the literature. Methods: An electronic survey was created and distributed to U.S. colorectal surgeons to evaluate current opinions and practice trends. A total of 359 American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members responded. A review of the recent literature pertaining to pre-operative bowel practices and outcomes was performed to compare with current practices. Results: A significant majority (83.2%) of respondents use pre-operative oral antibiotics routinely, and 98.6% routinely use mechanical bowel preparation. The use of a combination of parenteral antibiotics, oral antibiotics, and mechanical bowel preparation is reported by 79.3%. The most commonly employed oral antibiotic regimen is neomycin and metronidazole. The most common mechanical bowel preparation is polyethylene glycol (PEG). The most common parenteral antibiotics are cefazolin and metronidazole. There was no statistically significant difference in this practice by geographic region, Board-certified status, or practice setting. Conclusion: The majority of colorectal surgeons employ a combination of oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation, and parenteral antibiotics prior to colorectal surgery. This is consistent across geographic regions, despite Board certification status or practice setting, and is reflective of the recommendations based on recent literature.

Background Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a major postoperative complication after colorectal surgery. Current study aims to evaluate prophylactic function of oral antibiotic (OA) intake in combination with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) relative to MBP alone with respect to postoperative SSI incidence. Methods A retrospective analysis of eligible patients was conducted using the databases of the Gastrointestinal Surgery Centre, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from 2011 to 2017. Data pertaining to postoperative hospital stay length, expenses, SSI incidence, anastomotic fistula incidence, and rates of other complications were extracted and compared. A propensity analysis was conducted to minimize bias associated with demographic characteristics. Subgroup analyses were performed to further explore protective effects of OA in different surgical sites. Results The combination of OAs and MBP was related to a significant decrease in the incidence of overall SSIs, superficial SSI, and hospitalization expenses. The MBP + OA modality was particularly beneficial for patients undergoing left-side colon or rectum resections, with clear prophylactic efficacy. The combination of MPB + OA did not exhibit significant prophylactic efficacy in patients undergoing right hemi-colon resection. Age, surgical duration, and application of OA were all independent factors associated with the occurrence of SSIs. Conclusion These results suggest that the combination of OA + MBP should be recommended for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, particularly for operations on the left side of the colon or rectum. Trial registration NCT04258098. Retrospectively registered

Die Darmvorbereitung vor elektiven Kolonresektionen wird unterschiedlich durchgefuhrt. Ziel dieser Studie war es, den Einfluss verschiedener Darmvorbereitungen auf Wundinfektionen, Anastomoseninsuffizienzen und die postoperative Darmatonie in der elektiven Kolonchirurgie zu untersuchen. Wir fuhrten eine retrospektive Untersuchung von Patienten der eigenen Klinik mit elektiver Kolonresektion im Zeitraum 2013 bis 2019 durch. Die Patienten erhielten unterschiedliche Darmvorbereitungen und wurden in drei Gruppen eingeteilt: keine Darmspulung („MBP−“), orthograde Darmspulung ohne orale Antibiotikaprophylaxe („MBP+/OABP−“) und mit oraler Antibiotikaprophylaxe („MBP+/OABP+“). Die Gruppen wurden hinsichtlich folgender Parameter verglichen: Wundinfektionen, Anastomoseninsuffizienzen und Dauer bis zum ersten postoperativen Stuhlgang. Insgesamt 260 konsekutive Patienten („MBP−“: n = 48; „MBP+/OABP−“: n = 145; „MBP+/OABP+“: n = 67) gingen in die Analyse ein. Durch die kombinierte Darmvorbereitung konnte die Rate an SSI erheblich reduziert werden („MBP−“ vs. „MBP+/OABP+“: 16,7 % vs. 4,5 %, p = 0,05). In der multivariaten Analyse war die Darmvorbereitung der einzige Einflussfaktor auf Wundinfektionen. Dagegen hatte diese weder uni- noch multivariat Auswirkung auf die Rate an Anastomoseninsuffizienzen und die Dauer der postoperativen Darmatonie. Vor elektiven Kolonresektionen erweist sich das Vorbereitungsschema „MBP+/OABP+“ als vorteilhaft aufgrund deutlich geringerer Raten an Wundinfektionen.

Background Adequate bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy is important to achieve clearer view of the bowel and ease diagnosis. Objective This study was performed to compare colon cleansing prior to colonoscopy using one-day and two-day regimens. Method This study is a randomized controlled clinical trial, the patients were randomly allotted in one-day or two-day colon cleansing groups Polyethylene glycol was used as a laxative agent and colonoscopy was performed either on one-day following the bowel cleansing or non-next day (two-day) after the bowel cleansing. Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS software (version 22). Results Overall, the two groups had 52 patients and were not significantly different in terms of age and gender. The mean duration of colonoscopy in the one-day group was 9.44 min and in the two-day diet group was 10.5 min, which was also not significantly different, P = 0.098. Total colon cleansing in one-day was acceptable in 94.2% and unacceptable in 5.8% patients. The two-day clearance rate was 80.8% and unacceptable clearance 19.2% patients, which was statistically significant, p = 0.038. Conclusion The total colon cleansing was better in one-day regime group. The two groups did not different in terms of side effects and these effects were not associated with age and the gender of the patients.

Introduction: Very few randomized controlled trials are available globally to support routine use of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol after radical cystectomy (RC), and none so far has been conducted in the Indian subcontinent. The aim of the present study was to evaluate hospital stay and 30-day perioperative outcomes following RC with the implementation of the ERAS protocol. Materials and Methods: Fifty-four patients undergoing open RC were randomized to ERAS versus conventional surgical care (CSC) at our center from April 2017 to May 2018. Key interventions included avoidance of mechanical bowel preparation, early nasogastric tube removal, early enteral feeding, and early obligatory ambulation. Follow-up was done till 30-day postoperatively or till discharge, whichever longer. Results: Twenty-seven patients in each group were analyzed. The demographic profile of the groups was similar. Length of stay in each group (8 days [5–57] ERAS vs. 9 days [5–31] CSC group, P = 0.390) was similar, with time to recovery of bowel function being significantly less in ERAS group (12 h [12–108] vs. 36 h [12–60] for bowel sounds [P = 0.001], 48 h [12–108] vs. 72 h [36–156] for passage of flatus [P = 0.001], and 84 h [36–180] vs. 96 [60–156] for passage of stools [P = 0.013]). Perioperative complication rate (12 patients (44.4%) vs. 14 (51.9%), P = 0.786) was similar. Conclusions: ERAS protocol leads to faster bowel recovery compared to conventional care in patients undergoing open RC but fails to demonstrate a shorter length of stay and lower complication rate.

An analysis of the results and conclusions from the most recent RCTs of the role of mechanical bowel preparation before colonic surgery is presented. The results indicate a wide disparity in the methods, results and conclusion of these studies, and the lack of microbial culture confirmation to advance understanding of how to move the field forward. Controversy on bowel preparation in colorectal surgery.

Background Preoperative oral antibiotics in addition to intravenous antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) may influence the gut microbiome and reduce both the postoperative systemic inflammatory response to surgery and postoperative infective complications following colorectal resection. This propensity score‐matched study compared outcomes of patients undergoing left‐sided colonic or rectal resection with or without a combination of oral antibiotics and MBP. Methods The addition of oral antibiotics and MBP to prophylactic intravenous antibiotics in left‐sided colonic and rectal resections was introduced in 2015–2016 at a single institution. Propensity score matching was undertaken to compare the effects of oral antibiotics plus MBP versus neither oral antibiotics nor MBP on the postoperative systemic inflammatory response and short‐term outcomes in patients undergoing left‐sided colonic or rectal resection between 2013 and 2018. Results Of 396 patients who had propensity score matching for host, anaesthetic and operative factors, 204 matched patients were identified. The addition of oral antibiotics and MBP was associated with a significantly reduced postoperative inflammatory response (reduced postoperative Glasgow Prognostic Score) on day 3 (odds ratio (OR) 0·66, 95 per cent c.i. 0·44 to 0·99; P = 0·013) and day 4 (OR 0·46, 0·30 to 0·71; P = 0·001). Significantly reduced overall complications (OR 0·31, 0·17 to 0·56; P, This single‐centre propensity‐matched cohort study compared postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing left‐sided colonic or rectal resection with or without preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation. In 204 matched patients, the addition of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative systemic inflammatory response, overall complications, infective complications, surgical‐site infection and length of hospital stay. Evidence of benefit

The objective was to determine if a bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MIS) influences post-operative constipation symptoms. We hypothesized that women who underwent a bowel preparation would have an improvement in post-operative defecatory function. In this randomized controlled trial, women undergoing MIS received a pre-operative bowel preparation or no bowel preparation. Our primary outcome was post-operative constipation measured by the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) 2 weeks post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included surgeon’s perception of case difficulty. Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol analyses (PPA) were performed. Analyses were carried out using t test, Fisher’s exact test, the Wilcoxon test and the Chi-squared test. Of 105 enrolled women, 95 completed follow-up (43 preparation and 52 no preparation). Baseline characteristics and rates of complications were similar. No differences were noted on ITT. The post-operative abdominal PAC-SYM subscale was closer to baseline for women who received a bowel preparation on PPA (change in score 0.74 vs 1.08, p = 0.045). Women who underwent a preparation were less likely to report strain (6.0% vs 26.7%, p = 0.009) or type 1 Bristol stool on their first post-operative bowel movement (4.3% vs 17.5%, p = 0.047). Surgeons were more likely to rate the complexity of the case as “more difficult than average” (54.4% vs 40.1%, p = 0.027) in those without a bowel preparation. Although there was no difference in ITT analysis, women who underwent a bowel preparation prior to MIS demonstrated benefit to post-operative defecatory function with a corresponding improvement in surgeon’s perception of case complexity.

Objectives Previous meta-analyses in adults comparing a full single dose vs. split doses of polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution demonstrated that the split-dose group had a higher rate of successful bowel preparation. To date, no similar study in children has been conducted. Therefore, we compared the efficacy of bowel preparation between the two regimens of polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution in pediatric colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were tolerability, acceptability, and compliance. Methods An investigator-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted to enroll children aged 2-18 years who underwent an elective colonoscopy at a teaching hospital between March 2018 and February 2019. Patients were randomly assigned to receive polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution as a full single dose or two split doses. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used for the efficacy (i.e. successful bowel preparation if score ≥ 6). Secondary outcomes were evaluated by using a standardized questionnaire. Results A total of 45 colonoscopies (22 in the full single-dose and 23 in the split-dose group) were performed. Mean age was 9.2 years old (SD 4.4). We noted a higher rate of successful bowel preparation in the split-dose group (95% vs. 72%, P = 0.047). Significant higher rate of willingness to repeat the same protocol (83% vs. 36%, P = 0.002) and a trend of lower rate of nausea/vomiting (39% vs. 68%, P = 0.051) in the split-dose group were found. Conclusion The split-dose regimen of polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution for bowel preparation suggests superior efficacy, potential tolerability, and acceptability as compared to the traditional full single-dose regimen.

Anastomotic leak (AL) constitutes a significant issue in colorectal surgery, and its incidence has remained stable over the last years. The use of intra-abdominal drain or the use of mechanical bowel preparation alone have been proven to be useless in preventing AL and should be abandoned. The role or oral antibiotics preparation regimens should be clarified and compared to other routes of administration, such as the intravenous route or enema. In parallel, preoperative antibiotherapy should aim at targeting collagenase-inducing pathogens, as identified by the microbiome analysis. AL can be further reduced by fluorescence angiography, which leads to significant intraoperative changes in surgical strategies. Implementation of fluorescence angiography should be encouraged. Progress made in AL comprehension and prevention might probably allow reducing the rate of diverting stoma and conduct to a revision of its indications.

BACKGROUND There are no clear guidelines for the use of mechanical bowel preparation and postoperative antibiotics in children undergoing elective colorectal pull-through surgery. The objective of this study was to determine whether preoperative bowel preparation administration or duration of postoperative antibiotics impacted the rate of complications after elective pediatric pull-through surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients aged

Pediatric bowel preparation protocols used before colostomy reversal vary. The aim of this study is to determine institutional practices at our institution and evaluate the impact of bowel preparations on postoperative outcomes and hospital length of stay in children.This was a retrospective review of children ≤18 years old undergoing colostomy reversal at Texas Children's Hospital (TCH) between 12/2013 and 8/2017. Preoperative bowel regimens and outcomes were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum and Fishers Exact tests. Continuous variables are presented as median [IQR].Sixty-one children underwent colostomy reversal. Thirty-eight (62%) did not receive a preoperative bowel preparation. The two cohorts were similar in age, gender, and race. The most common indication for colostomy was anorectal malformation for thirty-seven (61%). Time from admission to surgery (19 h [17, 23] vs 3 [2, 3]; p 0.01) and HLOS (6 days [5, 8] vs 5 [4, 6]; p = 0.02) were both longer in the bowel preparation cohort. Complications (3 [13%] vs 5 [22%]; p = 0.12) and 90-day readmissions (3 [13%] vs 6 [16%]; p = 0.64) were similar in both cohorts.Foregoing bowel preparation may have the potential to improve cost and reduce morbidity in children undergoing colostomy closure.III.Treatment study.

BACKGROUND Controversy exists regarding the impact of preoperative bowel preparation on patients undergoing colorectal surgery. This is due to previous research studies, which fail to demonstrate protective effects of mechanical bowel preparation against postoperative complications. However, in recent studies, combination therapy with oral antibiotics (OAB) and mechanical bowel preparation seems to be beneficial for patients undergoing an elective colorectal operation. AIM To determine the association between preoperative bowel preparation and postoperative anastomotic leak management (surgical vs non-surgical). METHODS Patients with anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery were identified from the 2013 and 2014 Colectomy Targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database and were employed for analysis. Every patient was assigned to one of three following groups based on the type of preoperative bowel preparation: first group-mechanical bowel preparation in combination with OAB, second group-mechanical bowel preparation alone, and third group-no preparation. RESULTS A total of 652 patients had anastomotic leak after a colectomy from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014. Baseline characteristics were assessed and found that there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups in terms of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and other preoperative characteristics. A χ2 test of homogeneity was conducted and there was no statistically/clinically significant difference between the three categories of bowel preparation in terms of reoperation. CONCLUSION The implementation of mechanical bowel preparation and antibiotic use in patients who are going to undergo a colon resection does not influence the treatment of any possible anastomotic leakage.