Colon and rectal surgery for cancer without mechanical bowel preparation: one-center randomized prospective trial. Colon and rectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation: a randomized prospective trial. Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre randomised trial. Mechanical bowel preparation or not? Outcome of a multicenter, randomized trial in elective open colon surgery. Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis by a single surgeon: interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial. The effect of anorectal manometry on the outcome of treatment in severe childhood constipation: a randomized, controlled trial. Requirement for bowel preparation in colorectal surgery. Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? A prospective randomized study. Rectal cancer surgery with or without bowel preparation: The French GRECCAR III multicenter single-blinded randomized trial. Randomized clinical trial of bowel preparation with a single phosphate enema or polyethylene glycol before elective colorectal surgery. Randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before elective left-sided colorectal surgery. Elective colon and rectal surgery without nasogastric decompression. A prospective, randomized trial. [Mechanical preparation in elective colorectal surgery, a usual practice or a necessity?]. Neorectal reservoir is not the functional principle of the colonic J-pouch: the volume of a short colonic J-pouch does not differ from a straight coloanal anastomosis.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Approximately 50% of constipated children contract rather than relax the external sphincter complex during a defecation attempt. Although biofeedback training (BF) is able to change this defecation behavior, there is no additional effect of BF to conventional treatment (CT) on clinical outcome compared with CT alone. It has been postulated that the absence of a significant difference between these 2 treatment options might be because of a therapeutic, "demystifying" effect of performing anorectal manometry in conventionally treated children, necessary to obtain basal manometric data. The objective of this prospective, controlled, randomized study was to evaluate the effect of CT with 2 anorectal manometry sessions compared with CT alone (dietary advice, diary, toilet training, oral laxatives, and enemas) on clinical outcome.
                A total of 212 constipated children (143 boys) who were visiting a referral pediatric gastroenterologic practice were randomized prospectively to CT alone (115 patients) or to CT combined with 2 manometry sessions (CTM; 97 patients). Patients were included in the study when they fulfilled at least 2 of the 4 following criteria: stool frequency fewer than 3 per week, 2 or more soiling and/or encopresis episodes per week, periodic passage of very large amounts of stool every 7 to 30 days, or a palpable rectal or abdominal fecal mass. CT comprises dietary advice, a daily diary, toilet training, and oral laxative treatment preceded by rectal disimpaction with enemas on 3 consecutive days. During both manometries, the child and the parent could watch the tracing on the computer screen. No explanation was given to either the child or the parents during the procedure. When the procedure was finished, the tracings were clarified. Successful treatment was defined as a defecation frequency of 3 or more per week and fewer than 1 soiling/encopresis episode per 2 weeks and no use of laxatives.
                Only 4 and 2 children from the CT and CTM groups showed no soiling and/or encopresis, whereas 76% and 65%, respectively, reported the periodic passage of large stools. In 26% and 30% of the patients, a rectal scybalum was found on physical examination. The success rates at 6, 26, 52, and 104 weeks' follow-up were 4%, 24%, 32%, and 43% and 7%, 22%, 30%, and 35% in the CT and CTM group, respectively. No significant difference in success percentage was observed between the 2 groups at any time of follow-up with relative risks (CT/CTM) and 95% confidence intervals, respectively, of 0.55 (0.16-1.89), 1.13 (0.67-1.89), 1.07 (0.69-1.65), and 1.23 (0.81-1.85). A significant increase in defecation frequency was observed between the first (intake) and second visits, which was sustained at all subsequent visits and stages of follow-up in both groups (not significant). Also in relation to the first visit, a significant decrease in encopresis episodes was shown and a further slow but significant decrease at 52 weeks of follow-up in both groups. The manometric data obtained from the CTM group showed a low percentage of children with normal defecation dynamics, namely 28%, which (significantly) increased to 38% at the last manometry.
                Anorectal manometry combined with CT compared with CT alone did not result in higher success rates in chronically constipated children. Therefore, anorectal manometry has no additional demystifying or educational effect on clinical outcome in chronically constipated children. This observation together with the observation in the current and previous studies that no correlation was found between (achievement of) normal defecation dynamics and success and that no relation was observed between volume of urge or critical volume and success leaves no diagnostic or therapeutic role for anorectal manometry in chronic constipated children, except its use as a diagnostic test to exclude Hirschsprung's disease. A simple CT is successful in 30% of severely constipated children who are referred to a tertiary hospital, underscoring the importance of long-lasting and adequate laxative treatment. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Nasogastric (NG) decompression after colorectal surgery is practiced commonly. Our aim was to determine whether routine NG decompression benefitted patients undergoing this type of surgery. Five hundred thirty-five patients were randomized prospectively to either NG decompression or no decompression. Stratification was by type of operation and patient age. Excluded were patients who had emergency surgery with peritonitis, extensive fibrous adhesions, enterotomies, previous pelvic irradiation, intra-abdominal infection, pancreatitis, chronic obstruction. prolonged operating times, or difficult endotracheal intubation. Two hundred seventy-four patients received NG decompression (Salem sump, Argyle Co., Division of Sherwood Medical, St. Louis, MO) and two hundred sixty-one did not. There were 33 protocol violations included in the 535 patients. Patients who were not decompressed experienced significantly more abdominal distention, nausea, and vomiting than did those patients who were. Moreover, 13% required subsequent NG decompression as opposed to a reinsertion rate of 5% for patients routinely decompressed. The mean length of hospitalization for both groups was 11 days. There were no significant differences in nasopharyngeal or gastric bleeding, inability to cough effectively, respiratory infections, wound disruptions, reoperation, and wound infection rates (5%) between the two groups. We conclude that even though there is an increase in the rate of minor symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distention, routine nasgastric decompression is not warranted after elective colon and rectal surgery. 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. Low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis prevents a definitive stoma in patients with distal rectal cancer. However, imperative stool urge, stool fragmentation, prolonged stooling sessions, and minor problems of incontinence are frequently observed in the postoperative situation and negatively affect quality of life. Therefore, the colonic J-pouch was originally constructed to create a stool reservoir. In a randomized, prospective study, the short (5 cm) colonic J-pouch was tested for function and continence vs. straight coloanal anastomosis.
                Over a period of 30 months, 74 consecutive patients (55 males) with rectal cancer in the lower and middle third of the rectum were included and randomized into two groups. Anastomosis was performed either as a coloanal or a colon-pouch-anal anastomosis. The standardized surgical procedure included mobilization of the left hemicolon, central ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery and vein, preaortal lymph node dissection, autonomic nerve preservation, and total mesorectal excision. The anastomosis was performed at the upper anal canal or at the intersphincteric level. All patients were evaluated preoperatively and six months postoperatively for fecal continence, including sphincter manometry and defecation habits. In addition, quality of life was determined by use of a standardized questionnaire (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, EORTC-QLQ-C30).
                Thirty-seven patients were randomized into each group. In general, problems with continence for liquids or gas occurred less frequently in the colonic J-pouch group 6 months after surgery. The frequency of bowel movements was lower in the J-pouch group (2.5 per day) than in the coloanal group (4.7 per day). Importantly, in a manometric study at the same postoperative point, neorectal capacity was decreased to a similar degree in both groups compared with the preoperative rectal volume. Thus, the expected and postulated reservoir effect could not be achieved by forming a 5-cm colonic J-pouch.
                The colonic J-pouch was superior with regard to continence for gas and liquids compared with a straight coloanal anastomosis. Furthermore, stool frequency was significantly lower in the J-pouch group than in the coloanal reconstruction group. However, because neorectal capacity decreased equally in both groups, we speculate that the advantage of the colonic J-pouch is not in the creation of a larger neorectal reservoir but rather may be related to decreased motility.
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.