Mechanical bowel preparation or not? Outcome of a multicenter, randomized trial in elective open colon surgery. Requirement for bowel preparation in colorectal surgery. Rectal cancer surgery with or without bowel preparation: The French GRECCAR III multicenter single-blinded randomized trial. Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre randomised trial. The influence of mechanical bowel preparation in elective lower colorectal surgery. [Mechanical preparation in elective colorectal surgery, a usual practice or a necessity?]. Randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before elective left-sided colorectal surgery. Randomized clinical trial of bowel preparation with a single phosphate enema or polyethylene glycol before elective colorectal surgery. Colon and rectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation: a randomized prospective trial. Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? A prospective randomized study. Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis by a single surgeon: interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial. Bowel preparation with oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution vs. no preparation in elective open colorectal surgery: prospective, randomized study. Colon and rectal surgery for cancer without mechanical bowel preparation: one-center randomized prospective trial. Multicentre randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colonic resection.
Mechanical bowel preparation is common practice in elective colon surgery. In recent literature the value of this procedure is under discussion. To verify the value of mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery, a randomized clinical trial was conducted.
                During a prospective, multicenter, randomized study, 250 patients undergoing elective open colon surgery were randomized between receiving mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG group, 125 patients) and having a normal meal preoperatively (normal meal preoperatively group, 125 patients). Outcome parameters were wound infection with bacterial results of intraoperative swabs and anastomotic leak.
                In the polyethylene glycol group there were a total of nine wound infections (7.2 percent) and seven anastomotic leaks (5.6 percent) compared with seven wound infections (5.6 percent) (P = 0.61) and six anastomotic leaks (4.8 percent) (P = 0.78) in the normal meal preoperatively group. Bacterial results showed 52 percent sterile subcutis swabs in the PEG group and 63 percent sterile subcutis swabs in the normal meal preoperatively group (P = 0.11).
                In the present study we could not detect a difference in outcome parameters between patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery and patients without preoperative treatment of the bowel. The present study, although underpowered, did not show a difference in the primary outcome of bacterial wound cultures between patients receiving preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and patients receiving no preoperative bowel treatment. We conclude that there may be no need to continue the use of mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery. To determine whether mechanical bowel preparation influences the incidence of anastomotic dehiscence following colorectal surgery, 186 patients undergoing elective left colonic or rectal resection were randomized before surgery to bowel preparation (n = 89) or no bowel preparation (n = 97). Surgical technique was standardized and no patient had a defunctioning colostomy. Seventeen patients were excluded (seven with preparation, ten without). Indications for surgery in the remaining 169 patients were carcinoma (133 patients), diverticular disease (26), inflammatory bowel disease (six) and miscellaneous conditions (four). Operations performed were left colonic resection or reversal of Hartmann's procedure (26 with preparation, 28 without) and anterior resection (56 versus 59). The overall morbidity rate (18 per cent) was similar in the two groups. All seven clinical anastomotic leaks occurred after low anterior resection, in three of the 39 patients who had undergone bowel preparation and four of the 36 who had not (P > 0.9). Two deaths occurred, both of patients who had received bowel preparation, one being secondary to anastomotic leakage. Bowel preparation does not influence outcome after elective colorectal surgery. To assess with a single-blinded, multicenter, randomized trial, the postoperative results in patients undergoing sphincter-saving rectal resection for cancer without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP).
                The collective evidence from literature strongly suggests that MBP, before elective colonic surgery, is of no benefit in terms of postoperative morbidity. Very few data and no randomized study are available for rectal surgery and preliminary results conclude toward the safety of rectal resection without MBP.
                From October 2007 to January 2009, patients scheduled for elective rectal cancer sphincter-saving resection were randomized to receive preoperative MBP (ie, retrograde enema and oral laxatives) or not. Primary endpoint was the overall 30-day morbidity rate. Secondary endpoints included mortality rate, anastomotic leakage rate, major morbidity rate (Dindo III or more), degree of discomfort for the patient, and hospital stay.
                A total of 178 patients (103 men), including 89 in both groups (no-MBP and MBP groups), were included in the study. The overall and infectious morbidity rates were significantly higher in no-MBP versus MBP group, 44% versus 27%, P = 0.018, and 34% versus 16%, P = 0.005, respectively. Regarding both anastomotic leakage and major morbidity rates, there was no significant difference between no-MBP and MBP group: 19% versus 10% (P = 0.09) and 18% versus 11% (P = 0.69), respectively. Moderate or severe discomfort was reported by 40% of prepared patients. Mortality rate (1.1% vs 3.4%) and mean hospital stay (16 vs 14 days) did not differ significantly between both groups.
                This first randomized trial demonstrated that rectal cancer surgery without MBP was associated with higher risk of overall and infectious morbidity rates without any significant increase of anastomotic leakage rate. Thus, it suggests continuing to perform MBP before elective rectal resection for cancer. Mechanical bowel preparation is a common practice before elective colorectal surgery. We aimed to compare the rate of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal resections and primary anastomoses between patients who did or did not have mechanical bowel preparation.
                We did a multicentre randomised non-inferiority study at 13 hospitals. We randomly assigned 1431 patients who were going to have elective colorectal surgery to either receive mechanical bowel preparation or not. Patients who did not have mechanical bowel preparation had a normal meal on the day before the operation. Those who did were given a fluid diet, and mechanical bowel preparation with either polyethylene glycol or sodium phosphate. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage, and the study was designed to test the hypothesis that patients who are given mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery do not have a lower risk of anastomotic leakage than those who are not. The median follow-up was 24 days (IQR 17-34). We analysed patients who were treated as per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00288496.
                77 patients were excluded: 46 who did not have a bowel resection; 21 because of missing outcome data; and 10 who withdrew, cancelled, or were excluded for other reasons. The rate of anastomotic leakage did not differ between both groups: 32/670 (4.8%) patients who had mechanical bowel preparation and 37/684 (5.4%) in those who did not (difference 0.6%, 95% CI -1.7% to 2.9%, p=0.69). Patients who had mechanical bowel preparation had fewer abscesses after anastomotic leakage than those who did not (2/670 [0.3%] vs 17/684 [2.5%], p=0.001). Other septic complications, fascia dehiscence, and mortality did not differ between groups.
                We advise that mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery can safely be abandoned. This study evaluates the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on anastomosis below the peritoneal verge and questions the influence of MBP on anastomotic leakage in combination with a diverting ileostomy in lower colorectal surgery.
                In a previous large multicenter randomized controlled trial MBP has shown to have no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in overall colorectal surgery. The role of MBP in lower colorectal surgery with or without a diverting ileostomy remains unclear.
                This study is a subgroup analysis of a prior multicenter (13 hospitals) randomized trial comparing clinical outcome of MBP versus no MBP. Primary end point was the occurrence of anastomotic leakage and secondary endpoints were septic complications and mortality.
                Total of 449 Patients underwent a low anterior resection with a primary anastomosis below the peritoneal verge. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was 7.6% for patients who received MBP and 6.6% for patients who did not. Significant risk factors for anastomotic leakage were the American Society of Anesthesiologists-classification (P = 0.005) and male gender (P = 0.007). Of total, 48 patients received a diverting ileostomy during initial surgery; 27 patients received MBP and 21 patients did not. There were no significant differences regarding septic complications and mortality between both groups.
                MBP has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in low colorectal surgery. Furthermore, omitting MBP in combination with a diverting ileostomy has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage, septic complications, and mortality rate. Pre-operative preparation of the colon is carried out with oral and/or intravenous administration of antibiotics and through the mechanical preparation of the colon using various substances to decrease the intraluminal bacterial concentration and remove the larger quantity of fecal material as possible, thus decreasing the risk of anastomosis dehiscence due to an increase in the intraluminal pressure. The role of antibiotics has been completely established while that of mechanical preparation is still questioned. The objective of this study is to assess the actual impact of mechanical preparation on colorectal surgery.
                Forty seven patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery were prospectively evaluated, out of which only 24 had mechanical preparation. We compared variables such as age, sex, preoperative hemoglobin, albumin and leukocyte values, surgery characteristics and type of anastomosis, as well as complications in both groups. Results: We found a higher incidence of fistulas, dehiscences and general complications in the group undergoing mechanical preparation of the colon.
                The results show that mechanical preparation of the colon does not provide any benefit and may result in a higher incidence of complications in colorectal surgery. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is performed routinely before colorectal surgery to reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the outcome of patients who underwent elective left-sided colorectal surgery with or without MBP.
                Patients scheduled for elective left-sided colorectal resection with primary anastomosis were randomized to preoperative MBP (3 litres of polyethylene glycol) (group 1) or surgery without MBP (group 2). Postoperative abdominal infectious complications and extra-abdominal morbidity were recorded prospectively.
                One hundred and fifty-three patients were included in the study, 78 in group 1 and 75 in group 2. Demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The overall rate of abdominal infectious complications (anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal abscess, peritonitis and wound infection) was 22 per cent in group 1 and 8 per cent in group 2 (P = 0.028). Anastomotic leak occurred in five patients (6 per cent) in group 1 and one (1 per cent) in group 2 (P = 0.210) [corrected] Extra-abdominal morbidity rates were 24 and 11 per cent respectively (P = 0.034). Hospital stay was longer for patients who had MBP (mean(s.d.) 14.9(13.1) versus 9.9(3.8) days; P = 0.024).
                Elective left-sided colorectal surgery without MBP is safe and is associated with reduced postoperative morbidity. A recent meta-analysis has questioned the value of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colorectal resection. The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate whether a single phosphate enema was as effective as oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in preventing anastomotic leakage.
                Patients were randomized to receive either a single phosphate enema or 3 litres of oral PEG solution before surgery. Patients were followed for a minimum of 6 weeks to detect anastomotic leakage.
                There were 147 patients in each group and the groups were evenly matched for putative risk factors at baseline. Patients in the enema group had more anastomotic leaks requiring reoperation than those in the PEG group (4.1 versus 0 per cent, P = 0.013; relative risk 2.04 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1.82 to 2.30)). The mortality rate was higher in the PEG group (2.7 versus 0.7 per cent, P = 0.176; odds ratio 1.62 (95 per cent c.i. 0.45 to 36.98)).
                Bowel preparation with a phosphate enema was associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage requiring reoperation compared with oral PEG. These results do not support the routine use of a phosphate enema in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. To assess whether elective colon and rectal surgery can be safely performed without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.
                Mechanical bowel preparation is routinely done before colon and rectal surgery, aimed at reducing the risk of postoperative infectious complications. However, in cases of penetrating colon trauma, primary colonic anastomosis has proven to be safe even though the bowel is not prepared.
                Patients undergoing elective colon and rectal resections with primary anastomosis were prospectively randomized into two groups. Group A had mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol before surgery, and group B had their surgery without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. Patients were followed up for 30 days for wound, anastomotic, and intra-abdominal infectious complications.
                Three hundred eighty patients were included in the study, 187 in group A and 193 in group B. Demographic characteristics, indications for surgery, and type of surgical procedure did not significantly differ between the two groups. Colo-colonic or colorectal anastomosis was performed in 63% of the patients in group A and 66% in group B. There was no difference in the rate of surgical infectious complications between the two groups. The overall infectious complications rate was 10.2% in group A and 8.8% in group B. Wound infection, anastomotic leak, and intra-abdominal abscess occurred in 6.4%, 3.7%, and 1.1% versus 5.7%, 2.1%, and 1%, respectively.
                These results suggest that elective colon and rectal surgery may be safely performed without mechanical preparation. Bowel preparation prior to colonic surgery usually includes antibiotic therapy together with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP). Mechanical bowel preparation may cause discomfort to the patient, prolonged hospitalization, and water and electrolyte imbalance. It was assumed that with the improvement in surgical technique together with the use of more effective prophylactic antibiotics, it was possible that MBP would no longer be necessary.
                There is no statistical difference in the postoperative results of patients who undergo elective colon resection with MBP as compared with those who have no MBP. Design and
                The study includes all patients who had elective large bowel resection at Campus Golda between April 1, 1999, and March 31, 2002. Emergency operations were not included. The patients were randomly assigned to the 2 study groups (with or without MBP) according to identification numbers. All patients were treated with intravenous and oral antibiotics prior to surgery. The patients in the MBP group received Soffodex for bowel preparation.
                A total of 329 patients participated in the study, 165 without MBP and 164 with MBP. The 2 groups were similar in age, sex, and type of surgical procedure. Two hundred sixty-eight patients (81.5%) underwent surgery owing to colorectal cancer and 61 patients (18.5%) owing to benign disease. The hospitalization period was longer in the bowel-prepared group (mean +/- SD, 8.2 +/- 5.1 days) as compared with the nonprepared group (mean +/- SD, 8.0 +/- 2.7 days). However, this difference was not statistically significant. The time until the first bowel movement was similar between the 2 groups: a mean +/- SD of 4.2 +/- 1.3 days in the nonprepared group as compared with a mean +/- SD of 4.3 +/- 1.1 days in the prepared group (P = NS). Four patients (1.2%) died in the postoperative course owing to acute myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism. Sixty-two patients (37.6%) of the non-MBP group suffered from postoperative complications as compared with 77 patients (46.9%) of the MBP group.
                Our results suggest that no advantage is gained by preoperative MBP in elective colorectal surgery. We report an interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial designed to investigate whether preoperative mechanical bowel preparation influences the rate of surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure after elective colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis performed by a single surgeon. Patients scheduled to undergo an elective colorectal procedure with a primary intraperitoneal anastomosis were randomized to receive either oral polyethylene glycol lavage solution and enemas (group A) or no preparation (group B). Surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure were investigated. Of 97 patients included, 48 were assigned to group A and 49 to group B. Twelve (12.4%) developed wound infections, six in each group (12.5 vs. 12.2%; NS). Intra-abdominal sepsis was only seen in group A (n = 3, 6.3%). Anastomotic failure occurred in four patients in group A (8.3%) vs. two patients in group B (4.1%) (NS). The overall complication rate in group A was 27.1%, vs. 16.3% in group B. The number needed to harm was 9.3. Our interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial suggests that a surgeon may have the same or even worse outcomes when mechanical bowel preparation is routinely used for colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis. Efficient mechanical bowel preparation has been regarded as essential in preventing postoperative complications of colorectal surgery, but the necessity of bowel cleansing has been disputed recently. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of elective colorectal surgery in patients with or without bowel preparation.
                Altogether, 267 consecutive adult patients admitted for elective open colorectal surgery were randomly assigned either to the bowel preparation group with oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (138 patients) or no preparation group (129 patients). Patients who were unable to drink polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution, those who had had bowel preparation within the previous week, and patients not needing opening of the bowel were excluded. Routine colorectal surgery was undertaken, and infectious and other complications were registered daily. Late complications were checked up one to two months after surgery.
                No deaths were recorded, and 76 percent of the patients in the polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution group and 81 percent in the unprepared group recovered without complication. Anastomotic leaks occurred in 4 percent of the polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution patients and in 2 percent of the other cases, and other surgical site infections occurred in 6 and 5 percent, respectively. None of the differences was statistically significant. There was no difference in restoration of bowel function. The median postoperative stay was eight days in both groups.
                Preoperative bowel preparation seems to offer no benefit in elective open colorectal surgery. Mechanical bowel preparation is routinely done before colon and rectal surgery, aimed at reducing the risk of postoperative infectious complications. The aim of the study was to assess whether elective colon and rectal surgery can be safely performed without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.
                Patients undergoing elective colon and rectal resections with primary anastomosis were prospectively randomized into two groups. Group A had mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol before surgery, and group B had their surgery without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. Patients were followed up for 30 days for wound, anastomotic, and intra-abdominal infectious complications.
                Two hundred forty four patients were included in the study, 120 in group A and 124 in group B. Demographic characteristics, type of surgical procedure and type of anastomosis did not significantly differ between the two groups. There was no difference in the rate of surgical infectious complications between the two groups but the overall infectious complications rate was 20.0% in group A and 11.3% in group B (p .05). Wound infection (p = 0.18), anastomotic leak (p = 0.52), and intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.36) occurred in 9.2%, 5.8%, and 5.0% versus 4.8%, 4.0%, and 2.4%, respectively. No mechanical bowel preparation seems to be safe also in rectal surgery.
                These results suggest that elective colon and rectal surgery may be safely performed without mechanical preparation. Recent studies have suggested that MBP does not lower the risk of postoperative septic complications after elective colorectal surgery. This randomized clinical trial assessed whether preoperative MBP is beneficial in elective colonic surgery.
                A total of 1505 patients, aged 18-85 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists grades I-III, were randomized to MBP or no MBP before open elective surgery for cancer, adenoma or diverticular disease of the colon. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular, general infectious and surgical-site complications within 30 days, and secondary endpoints were death and reoperations within 30 days.
                A total of 1343 patients were evaluated, 686 randomized to MBP and 657 to no MBP. There were no significant differences in overall complications between the two groups: cardiovascular complications occurred in 5.1 and 4.6 per cent respectively, general infectious complications in 7.9 and 6.8 per cent, and surgical-site complications in 15.1 and 16.1 per cent. At least one complication was recorded in 24.5 per cent of patients who had MBP and 23.7 per cent who did not.
                MBP does not lower the complication rate and can be omitted before elective colonic resection. Registration number: ISRCTN28535118 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).
                (c) 2007 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd.
Despite the inclusion of more studies with a total of 5805 participants, there is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation, nor the use of rectal enemas. In colonic surgery the bowel cleansing can be safely omitted and induces no lower complication rate. The few studies focused in rectal surgery suggested that mechanical bowel preparation could be used selectively, even though no significant effect was found. Further research on patients submitted for elective rectal surgery, below the peritoneal verge, in whom bowel continuity is restored, and studies with patients submitted to laparoscopic surgeries are still warranted.