Establishment of a risk prediction model for bowel preparation failure prior to colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the factors that contribute to the failure of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy and to develop a risk prediction model. METHODS: A total of 1115 outpatients were included. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: the modeling group (669 patients) and the validation group (446 patients). In the modeling group, patients were further divided into two groups based on their success and failure in bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. A logistic regression analysis model was used to determine the risk factors of bowel preparation failure, which was subsequently visualized using an alignment diagram. RESULTS: After controlling for relevant confounders, multifactorial logistic regression results showed that age ≥ 60 years (OR = 2.246), male (OR = 2.449), body mass index ≥ 24 (OR = 2.311), smoking (OR = 2.467), chronic constipation (OR = 5.199), diabetes mellitus (OR = 5.396) and history of colorectal surgery (OR = 5.170) were influencing factors of bowel preparation failure. The area under the ROC curve was 0.732 in the modeling group and 0.713 in the validation group. According to the calibration plot, the predictive effect of the model and the actual results were in good agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Age ≥ 60 years, male, body mass index ≥ 24, smoking, chronic constipation, diabetes mellitus, and history of colorectal surgery are independent risk factors for bowel preparation failure. The established prediction model has a good predictive efficacy and can be used as a simple and effective tool for screening patients at high risk for bowel preparation failure.

Patient Compliance With Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Studies show that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics (OAs) is associated with decreased rates of postoperative complications after elective colorectal surgery. However, there is a lack of literature regarding patient compliance with bowel preparation (BP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing elective colorectal surgeryfrom April 2020 to March 2022 at a tertiary care academic hospital (TCAH) and safety net hospital (SNH) were administered a BP compliance survey. Patients were compared on the basis of hospital setting and completeness of BP using student's t-tests and Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: 105 patients were included as follows: 55 from the TCAH and 50 from the SNH. The median age was 59. 45.7% were female. TCAH had a higher proportion of White patients (36.4% versus 0%), while the SNH had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients (78% versus 10.9%). Most patients at the TCAH reported English as their primary language (80% versus 28%), while most patients at the SNH spoke primarily Spanish (60% versus 7.3%). In total, 88.6% (n = 93) of patients completed the MBP- 87.3% at the TCAH and 90% at the SNH (P = 0.764). 86.7% took all three doses of OA. Compared to the SNH patients, a smaller percentage of TCAH patients took all doses of OA (78.2% versus 96%, P = 0.009). Overall, 45.7% of patients reported adverse symptoms with BP. The only patient factor associated with a complete bowel preparation was SNH setting (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, almost 90% of patients were compliant with both MBP and OA. Compliance with OA among patients at the TCAH was significantly lower compared to patients at the SNH. An SNH setting was associated with completing a BP. Individual compliance is likely impacted by both institutional practices and patient factors.

Bowel preparation with linaclotide and 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid prior to colonoscopy in chronic constipated patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Information on effective bowel preparation (BP) methods for patients with constipation is limited. We recently reported the efficacy of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) combined with senna for BP; however, this regimen was insufficient in patients with constipation. We hypothesized that the addition of linaclotide, which is approved for the treatment of chronic constipation, to 1 L PEG-Asc would yield results superior to those of senna in patients with constipation. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center study that included outpatients with constipation who underwent BP prior to colonoscopy between March and December 2019 (receiving 1 L PEG-Asc with 24 mg senna) and between January and October 2020 (receiving 1 L PEG-Asc with 500 mg linaclotide). RESULTS: A total of 543 patients with constipation were included, of whom 269 received linaclotide and 274 received senna. The rate of inadequate BP was significantly lower (11% vs 20%, p < 0.01) and the adenoma detection rate was significantly higher (54% vs 45%, p = 0.04) in the linaclotide group than in the senna group. Multivariate analysis revealed that the linaclotide regimen significantly reduced the risk of inadequate BP (odds ratio = 0.36, 95% confidence interval = 0.21-0.60, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The linaclotide regimen significantly increased BP efficacy and the adenoma detection rate compared with the senna regimen without reducing tolerability and is therefore a promising new option for BP in patients with constipation.

Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of elobixibat plus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate and split-dose 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation before outpatient colonoscopy: a study protocol for the multicentre, randomised, controlled E-PLUS trial.

BACKGROUND: Sodium picosulfate (SP)/magnesium citrate (MC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid are recommended by Western guidelines as laxative solutions for bowel preparation. Clinically, SP/MC has a slower post-dose defaecation response than PEG and is perceived as less cleansing; therefore, it is not currently used for major bowel cancer screening preparation. The standard formulation for bowel preparation is PEG; however, a large dose is required, and it has a distinctive flavour that is considered unpleasant. SP/MC requires a small dose and ensures fluid intake because it is administered in another beverage. Therefore, clinical trials have shown that SP/MC is superior to PEG in terms of acceptability. We aim to compare the novel bowel cleansing method (test group) comprising SP/MC with elobixibat hydrate and the standard bowel cleansing method comprising PEG plus ascorbic acid (standard group) for patients preparing for outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: This phase III, multicentre, single-blind, noninferiority, randomised, controlled, trial has not yet been completed. Patients aged 40-69 years will be included as participants. Patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery, constipation, inflammatory bowel disease, or severe organ dysfunction will be excluded. The target number of research participants is 540 (standard group, 270 cases; test group, 270 cases). The primary endpoint is the degree of bowel cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score ≥ 6). The secondary endpoints are patient acceptability, adverse events, polyp/adenoma detection rate, number of polyps/adenomas detected, degree of bowel cleansing according to the BBPS (BBPS score ≥ 8), degree of bowel cleansing according to the Aronchik scale, and bowel cleansing time. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to develop a "patient-first" colon cleansing regimen without the risk of inadequate bowel preparation by using both elobixibat hydrate and SP/MC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT; no. s041210067; 9 September 2021; https://jrct.niph.go.jp/ ), protocol version 1.5 (May 1, 2023).

Prospective, randomized study comparing two different regimens of split-dose polyethylene glycol and their effect on endoscopic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Different split regimens of polyethylene glycol are routinely used and no guidelines are available to select an optimal protocol of ingestion. This study aims to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of two different regimens of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation solution: PEG (3 + 1) vs. PEG (2 + 2). METHODS: 240 patients above the age of 18 years were included in the study between June 1st and November 31st, 2023. Patients were randomly assigned either to Group A, consisting of 115 patients receiving a 3 L of PEG the night before the colonoscopy, and 1 L the same morning of the procedure. Or to group B, where 125 patients ingested 2 L the night before the procedure, and the remaining 2 L the same morning. The cleansing efficacy was evaluated by the attending endoscopist using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, through a score assigned for each segment of the colon (0-3). Side effects, tolerability, and willingness to retake the same preparation were listed by an independent investigator using a questionnaire administered before the procedure. RESULTS: A higher percentage of patients had gastric fullness with the 3 + 1 vs. 2 + 2 preparation (58.3% vs. 31.2%; p <.001). A higher Boston bowel preparation score was seen in patients who took the 2 + 2 vs. 3 + 1 preparation (7.87 vs. 7.23). Using the 2 + 2 preparation was significantly associated with higher Boston bowel preparation scores vs. the 3 + 1 preparation (OR = 1.37, p =.001, 95% CI 1.14, 1.64). After adjustment over other variables (age, gender, comorbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, presence of adenoma, and time between last dose and colonoscopy), results remained the same (aOR = 1.34, p =.003, 95% CI 1.10, 1.62). CONCLUSION: While both (2 + 2) and (3 + 1) regimens of polyethylene glycol are a good choice for a successful colonoscopy, we recommend the use of (2 + 2) regimen for its superior efficacy in bowel cleansing.

Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The ideal bowel cleansing program still needs to be explored. The aim was to compare the bowel cleansing effect and patient tolerance of low-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with different doses of linaclotide in fractionated bowel preparation. METHODS: The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group. The primary outcome was to use the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) to evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the detection rate of adenomas and polyps, adverse reactions, tolerance, and defecation dynamics; subsets of patients with chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 753 patients were randomly assigned. In ITT analysis, the success of preparation of the 2LPEG + 2L group was better than that of the 2LPEG + L group or the 3LPEG group (92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.002). Compared with the 3LPEG group, the 2LPEG + L group showed similar but non-inferior results (82.3% vs. 82.1%, P > 0.05). The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group. In a subgroup analysis of chronic constipation, the 2LPEG + 2L group had the best cleansing effect on the right colon and mid colon, while in the subgroup analysis of irritable bowel syndrome, the tolerance was better in the 2LPEG + 2L group and the 2LPEG + L group than the 3LPEG group. CONCLUSIONS: 2LPEG + 2L is a feasible bowel preparation regimen.

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. METHODS: A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

Effectiveness and safety of polyethylene-glycol-4000 versus sodium picosulphate plus magnesium oxide and citric acid for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy in children: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Colonoscopy is performed for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The quality of colonoscopy depends on adequate bowel cleansing. However, there is no standardized protocol for bowel preparation in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability profile of polyethylene glycol (PEG) compared with those of sodium picosulfate (SPMC) in children. The primary sources of the reviewed studies were Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. The databases were systematically searched for RCTs comparing PEG 4000 to SPMC as a bowel cleansing solution. Six studies were included. The analysis showed that both PEG and SPMC are effective for bowel cleansing, while a split-dose regimen may be preferable to a day-before one. There were no differences between the two groups regarding adverse events such as abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating, and anal discomfort. Additionally, preparation with SPMC was preferred in terms of acceptability and compliance. Still, the need to place a nasogastric tube was significantly lower in the SPMC group compared to the PEG group and in the split dose regimen compared to the day before. In conclusion, PEG and SPMC are equally effective in obtaining an adequate bowel cleansing with a comparable adverse event rate; moreover, split-dose administration may be preferable to day-before one in terms of effective bowel cleansing. However, SPMC preparation is more acceptable seems to result in higher compliance, and to reduce the use of a nasogastric tube, that we encounter daily in clinical practice, is perceived as a stressful experience for children and their families.

Application of linaclotide in bowel preparation for colonoscopy in patients with constipation: A prospective randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Colonoscopy plays a crucial role in the early diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for clear visualization of the colonic mucosa and lesion detection. However, inadequate bowel preparation is common in patients with constipation, and there is no standardized preparation protocol for these patients. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness and tolerability of a pre-colonoscopy combination regimen of linaclotide and polyethylene glycol (PEG). METHODS: In this prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial, 322 participants were divided into two groups: a 3-L PEG + 870-µg linaclotide group (administered as a single dose for 3 days) and a 4-L PEG group. The primary endpoints were the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score and the rate of adequate and excellent bowel preparation. Secondary endpoints were the rates of detection of colonic adenomas and polyps, cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy time, adverse reactions, patient satisfaction, and physician satisfaction. RESULTS: The study included 319 patients. The 3-L PEG + linaclotide group showed significantly higher rates of adequate and excellent bowel preparation than the 4-L PEG group (89.4% vs 73.6% and 37.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < 0.05). The mean BBPS score for the right colon in the 3-L PEG + linaclotide group was significantly higher than that in the 4-L PEG group. There were no significant between-group differences regarding the detection rates of colonic polyps and adenomas (44.4% vs 37.7% and 23.1% vs 20.1%, respectively; P > 0.05). There were no significant between-group differences regarding cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy operation, and withdrawal times. However, patient tolerance and sleep quality were better in the 3-L PEG + linaclotide group. CONCLUSION: The combination of 3-L PEG and 870-µg linaclotide, because of its lower volume of intake, can be considered as an alternative bowel preparation regimen for constipated patients undergoing colonoscopy, especially for the elderly.

A novel strategy for improving bowel preparation based on social software-enhanced education: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The compliance and timeliness of oral laxatives have always been the key factors restricting bowel preparation (BP). We have constructed a novel enhanced-educational content and process based on social software (SS) for BP to optimize these issues. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted at 13 hospitals in China from December 2019 to December 2020. A total of 1774 enrollees received standard instructions for BP and were randomly assigned (1:1) to the SS group (SSG) that received a smartphone-based enhanced-education strategy starting 4 h before colonoscopy or the control group (CG). RESULTS: A total of 3034 consecutive outpatient colonoscopy patients were assessed for eligibility, and 1774 were enrolled and randomly assigned. Ultimately, data from 1747 (SSG vs CG: 875 vs 872) enrollees were collected. The BP adequacy rate was 92.22% (95% CI: 90.46-93.98) in the SSG vs 88.05% (95% CI: 85.91-90.18) in the CG (P = 0.005), and the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores (6.89 ± 1.15 vs 6.67 ± 1.15, P < 0.001) of those in the SSG were significantly higher than those in the CG. The average number of polyps detected in the SSG was considerably higher than that in the CG (0.84 ± 2.00 vs 0.53 ± 1.19, P = 0.037), and the average diameter of the polyps was significantly lower than that of the control group (4.0 ± 2.5 vs 4.9 ± 3.7, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This SS-enhanced education strategy can improve the BP adequacy rate and increase the average number of polyps detected, especially those of small diameter.

One-day versus three-day low-residue diet bowel preparation regimens before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although studies have shown that the quality of bowel preparation with low-residue diet (LRD) is as effective as that of clear fluid diet (CLD), there is currently no consensus on how long an LRD should last. The aim of this study was to compare a 1-day versus 3-day LRD on bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic review search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane database from inception to April 2023. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared 1-day with 3-day LRD bowel cleansing regiments for patients undergoing colonoscopy. The rate of adequate bowel preparation, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, willingness to repeat preparation, and adverse events were estimated using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We also performed meta-analysis to identify risk factors and predictors of inadequate preparation. RESULTS: Four studies published between 2019 and 2023 with 1927 participants were included. The present meta-analysis suggested that 1-day LRD was comparable with 3-day LRD for adequate bowel preparation (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.21; P = 0.45; I2 = 0%; P = 0.52). The polyp detection rate (OR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P = 0.52; I2 = 23%; P = 0.27) and adenoma detection rate (OR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.08; P = 0.21; I2 = 0%; P = 0.52) were similar between the groups. There were significantly higher odds of tolerability in patients consuming 1-day LRD compared with 3-day LRD (OR 1.64; 95% CI, 1.13-2.39; P < 0.01; I2 = 47%; P = 0.15). In addition, constipation was identified as the independent predictor of inadequate preparation (OR 1.98; 95% CI, 1.27-3.11; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%; P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that a 1-day LRD was as effective as a 3-day CLD in the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy and significantly improved tolerability of patients. In addition, constipation is an independent risk factor of poor bowel preparation, and the duration of LRD in patients with constipation still needs further clinical trials.

Is mechanical bowel preparation necessary to reduce surgical site infection following colon surgery? Protocol for a multicentre Canadian randomized controlled trial.

AIM: There is significant practice variation with respect to the use of bowel preparation to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) following colon surgery. Although intravenous antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation + oral antibiotics (IVA + MBP + OA) has been shown to be superior to IVA + MBP and IVA, there are insufficient high-quality data from randomized controlled trails (RCTs) that directly compare these options. This is an important question, because if IVA + OA has similar effectiveness to IVA + MBP + OA, mechanical bowel preparation can be safely omitted, and the associated side effects avoided. The aim of this work is to compare rates of SSI following IVA + OA + MBP (MBP) versus IVA + OA (OA) for elective colon surgery. METHOD: This is a multicentre, parallel, two-arm, noninferiority RCT comparing IVA + OA + MBP versus IVA + OA. The primary outcome is the overall rate of SSI 30 days following surgery. Secondary outcomes are length of stay and 30-day emergency room visit and readmission rates. The planned sample size is 1062 subjects with four participating high-volume centres. Overall SSI rates 30 days following surgery between the treatment groups will be compared using a general linear model. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with linear regression for continuous outcomes, logistic regression for binary outcomes and modified Poisson regression for count data. CONCLUSION: It is expected that IVA + OA will work similarly to IVA + MBP + OA and that this work will provide definitive evidence showing that MBP is not necessary to reduce SSI. This is highly relevant to both patients and physicians as it will have the potential to significantly change practice and outcomes following colon surgery in Canada and beyond.

Bowel preparation for elective colectomy in Crohn's disease: results from a global cohort study using the NSQIP database.

AIM: The role of bowel preparation before colectomy in Crohn's disease patients remains controversial. This retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation in patients diagnosed with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy. METHOD: Data were collected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participant user files from 2016 to 2021. A total of 6244 patients with Crohn's disease who underwent elective colectomy were included. The patients were categorized into two groups: those who received combined colon preparation (mechanical and antibiotic) and those who did not receive any form of bowel preparation. The primary outcomes assessed were the rate of anastomotic leak and the occurrence of deep organ infection. Secondary outcomes included all-cause short-term mortality, clinical-related morbidity, ostomy creation, unplanned reoperation, operative time, hospital length of stay and ileus. RESULTS: Combined colon preparation was associated with significantly reduced risks of anastomotic leak (relative risk 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.95, P = 0.021) and deep organ infection (relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83, P < 0.001). Additionally, patients who underwent colon preparation had lower rates of ostomy creation, shorter hospital stays and a decreased incidence of ileus. However, there was no significant difference in all-cause short-term mortality or the need for unplanned reoperation between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation may have clinical benefits for patients with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy.

Prospective study on the effects of mechanical bowel preparation under the enhanced recovery after surgery concept on electrolyte disturbances and functional recovery after robotic surgery for urologic tumors in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) involves the cleansing of bowel excreta and secretions using methods such as preoperative oral laxatives, retrograde enemas, and dietary adjustments. When combined with oral antibiotics, preoperative MBP can effectively lower the risk of anastomotic leakage, minimize the occurrence of postoperative infections, and reduce the likelihood of other complications. To study the effects of MBP under the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) concept on postoperative electrolyte disorders and functional recovery in older people with urological tumors undergoing robot-assisted surgery. METHODS: Older people with urological tumors undergoing robot-assisted surgery were randomly divided into two groups. The experimental group (n = 76) underwent preoperative MBP, while the control group (n = 72) did not. The differences in electrolyte levels and functional recovery between the two groups after radical surgery for urological tumors were observed. RESULTS: The incidence of postoperative electrolyte disorders was significantly higher in the experimental group compared to the control group, with incidence rates of 42.1% and 19.4%, respectively (P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the electrolyte disorder was age-related (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications, gastrointestinal function recovery, laboratory indicators of infection, body temperature, and length of hospital stay (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Under the accelerated recovery background, preoperative MBP increases the risk of postoperative electrolyte disorders in older people with urological tumors and does not reduce the incidence of postoperative complications or promote postoperative functional recovery.

Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence demonstrates minimal impact of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on reducing postoperative complications following elective colectomy. This study investigated the necessity of MBP prior to elective colonic resection. METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing the effects of MBP with no preparation before elective colectomy, up until May 26, 2023. Surgical-related outcomes were compiled and subsequently analyzed. The primary outcomes included the incidence of anastomosis leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI), analyzed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3). RESULTS: The analysis included 14 studies, comprising seven RCTs with 5146 participants. Demographic information was consistent across groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of AL ((P = 0.43, OR = 1.16, 95% CI (0.80, 1.68), I2 = 0%) or SSI (P = 0.47, OR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.73, 1.96), I2 = 0%), nor were there significant differences in other outcomes. Subgroup analysis on oral antibiotic use showed no significant changes in results. However, in cases of right colectomy, the group without preparation showed a significantly lower incidence of SSI (P = 0.01, OR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.86), I2 = 1%). No significant differences were found in other subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: The current evidence robustly indicates that MBP before elective colectomy does not confer significant benefits in reducing postoperative complications. Therefore, it is justified to forego MBP prior to elective colectomy, irrespective of tumor location.

Effectiveness of Mechanical Bowel Preparation before Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgery: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the effect of bowel preparation using only oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) solution versus oral PEG solution combined with mechanical sodium phosphate (NaP) enema on the surgical field visualization in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic procedures. METHODS: Participants were randomized to either a single oral PEG solution or an oral PEG solution combined by mechanical NaP enema. The intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, the ease of manipulation of the bowels, and overall difficulty level of the surgery were evaluated by the surgeon using a self-administered questionnaire. After the surgery, the patients completed a survey assessing postoperative gastrointestinal discomfort. RESULTS: A total of 114 women were enrolled and randomized to oral PEG solution-only group (n = 48), and oral PEG plus mechanical NaP enema group (n = 66). Forty-two women in oral PEG-only group and 59 oral PEG plus NaP enema group completed the study. There was no difference in intraoperative visualization or overall difficulty of the operation between the two groups, and bowel manipulation was easier in the oral PEG-only group. Also, there was no difference in operating time between the groups. The patients' level of gastrointestinal discomfort after the surgery was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Routine use of mechanical NaP enema before robot-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic surgery is not recommended, because it has no additional benefit regarding intraoperative visualization or the surgical level of difficulty over oral bowel preparation methods.

Effect of bowel preparation completion time on bowel cleansing efficacy: Prospective randomized controlled trial of different bowel preparation completion times precolonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: The elapse time between the completion of bowel cleansing and colonoscopy is one of the important factors for proper bowel cleansing. Although several studies have reported that a short time interval resulted in a favorable bowel cleansing, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been conducted to determine the effect of the elapse time. Consequently, we performed an RCT to investigate the efficacy of bowel preparation of participants who underwent colonoscopy according to the different time intervals between the completion of bowel preparation and colonoscopy. METHODS: In this single-center RCT, study participants were randomized to complete bowel preparation either 2-4 h or 4-8 h before colonoscopy. The primary end-point was successful bowel preparation, rated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). RESULTS: A total of 504 individuals were included (2-4 h, 255; 4-8 h, 249). The rate of successful bowel preparation in the 2-4 h group showed noninferiority compared with that of the 4-8 h group (97.6% vs. 95.2%; rate difference, 2.5% [-0.8% to 5.7%]; Pfor noninferiority < 0.001, Pfor superiority = 0.136). The rate for perfect cleansing (a BBPS score of 9) was higher in the 2-4 h group (56.5% vs. 39.8%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: When bowel cleansing was finished 2-4 h before the start of colonoscopy, the overall bowel cleansing was noninferior, and perfect cleansing was superior, compared to that when cleansing was finished 4-8 h before colonoscopy.

Smartphone application for artificial intelligence-based evaluation of stool state during bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Colonoscopy (CS) is an important screening method for the early detection and removal of precancerous lesions. The stool state during bowel preparation (BP) should be properly evaluated to perform CS with sufficient quality. This study aimed to develop a smartphone application (app) with an artificial intelligence (AI) model for stool state evaluation during BP and to investigate whether the use of the app could maintain an adequate quality of CS. METHODS: First, stool images were collected in our hospital to develop the AI model and were categorized into grade 1 (solid or muddy stools), grade 2 (cloudy watery stools), and grade 3 (clear watery stools). The AI model for stool state evaluation (grades 1-3) was constructed and internally verified using the cross-validation method. Second, a prospective study was conducted on the quality of CS using the app in our hospital. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients who achieved Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) ≥6 among those who successfully used the app. RESULTS: The AI model showed mean accuracy rates of 90.2%, 65.0%, and 89.3 for grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The prospective study enrolled 106 patients and revealed that 99.0% (95% confidence interval 95.3-99.9%) of patients achieved a BBPS ≥6. CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients with BBPS ≥6 during CS using the developed app exceeded the set expected value. This app could contribute to the performance of high-quality CS in clinical practice.

Optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

There is robust evidence to indicate a strong correlation between the bowel preparation status and adenoma detection rate (ADR), which directly impacts the incidence and mortality rate of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Therefore, improving bowel preparation has been of increasing interest. In Japan, commercially available bowel preparation agents include polyethylene glycol, oral sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate, magnesium citrate, and oral sodium phosphate; each has its own strengths and limitations. The timing of administration can also influence the efficacy of bowel preparation and patient tolerability. Furthermore, meta-analyses have suggested predictive factors for inadequate bowel preparation. A detailed understanding of these factors could contribute to reducing the need for repeat colonoscopy within 1 year, as recommended for patients with inadequate bowel preparation. Recent advancements, such as oral sulfate tablets, present promising alternatives with higher patient satisfaction and ADRs than traditional methods. Achieving optimal bowel preparation requires enhanced instructions, individualized regimens, and a comprehensive understanding of patient backgrounds and the characteristics of various bowel preparation agents. This article provides a concise overview of the current status and advancements in bowel preparation for enhancing the quality and safety of colonoscopy.