EAES, SAGES, and ESCP rapid guideline: bowel preparation for minimally invasive colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. METHODS: This is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej . CONCLUSION: This guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders. Guideline registration number PREPARE-2023CN045.

Update Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Evidence on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-A EHS, ESCP and EAES Collaborative Project.

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach.

EHS Rapid Guideline: Evidence-Informed European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-With ESCP and EAES Participation.

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity.