INTERVENTIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME: A REVIEW OF COCHRANE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a complex gastrointestinal disorder, whose understanding is relatively uncertain, and the treatment guidance decision still represents a challenge. OBJECTIVE: To identify and critically appraise systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) on the effects of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the treatment of IBS. METHODS: The search was conducted at the Cochrane Library in May 2020. The methodological quality of the SRs was evaluated by the AMSTAR-2 tool. RESULTS: Eight SRs with moderate to high quality were included, which addressed the treatments: (a) pharmacological: volume agents, antispasmodics, antidepressants and tegaserod; and (b) non-pharmacological: homeopathy, acupuncture, phytotherapy, biofeedback, psychological interventions and hypnotherapy. The results were favorable to antispasmodic drugs and antidepressants regarding the improvement of clinical symptoms. There was no difference between volume agents or tegaserod when compared to placebo. Acupuncture and homeopathy showed a little improvement in symptoms compared to placebo, but the certainty of this evidence was considered low to very low. Psychological interventions seem to improve the overall assessment of the patient and relief symptoms such as abdominal pain. However, there was no long-term follow-up of these patients. The results of the other treatments were considered uncertain due to the high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Considering the low quality of the studies included in the SRs, pharmacological treatment with antispasmodics and antidepressants seems to be beneficial for patients with IBS. Among non-pharmacological interventions, psychological interventions seem to be beneficial. However, further clinical trials are recommended with greater methodological rigor to prove these findings.

Intervenções para o tratamento da síndrome do intestino irritável: revisão de revisões sistemáticas Cochrane / Interventions for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a review of cochrane systematic reviews

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a complex gastrointestinal disorder, whose understanding is relatively uncertain, and the treatment guidance decision still represents a challenge. OBJECTIVE: To identify and critically appraise systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) on the effects of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the treatment of IBS. METHODS: The search was conducted at the Cochrane Library in May 2020. The methodological quality of the SRs was evaluated by the AMSTAR-2 tool. RESULTS: Eight SRs with moderate to high quality were included, which addressed the treatments: (a) pharmacological: volume agents, antispasmodics, antidepressants and tegaserod; and (b) non-pharmacological: homeopathy, acupuncture, phytotherapy, biofeedback, psychological interventions and hypnotherapy. The results were favorable to antispasmodic drugs and antidepressants regarding the improvement of clinical symptoms. There was no difference between volume agents or tegaserod when compared to placebo. Acupuncture and homeopathy showed a little improvement in symptoms compared to placebo, but the certainty of this evidence was considered low to very low. Psychological interventions seem to improve the overall assessment of the patient and relief symptoms such as abdominal pain. However, there was no long-term follow-up of these patients. The results of the other treatments were considered uncertain due to the high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Considering the low quality of the studies included in the SRs, pharmacological treatment with antispasmodics and antidepressants seems to be beneficial for patients with IBS. Among non-pharmacological interventions, psychological interventions seem to be beneficial. However, further clinical trials are recommended with greater methodological rigor to prove these findings.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: A síndrome do intestino irritável (SII) é um distúrbio gastrointestinal complexo, cujo entendimento é relativamente incerto e a decisão de orientação do tratamento ainda representa um desafio. OBJETIVO: Identificar e avaliar criticamente as revisões sistemáticas (RSs) publicadas na base de dados de RSs Cochrane (CDSR) sobre os efeitos das intervenções (farmacológicas e não farmacológicas) para o tratamento da SII. MÉTODOS: A busca foi realizada na Biblioteca Cochrane em maio de 2020. A qualidade metodológica das RSs foi avaliada pela ferramenta AMSTAR-2. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídas oito RSs com qualidade moderada a alta, as quais abordaram os tratamentos: (a) farmacológico - agentes de volume, antiespasmódicos, antidepressivos e o tegaserod; e (b) não farmacológico - homeopatia, acupuntura, fitoterapia, biofeedback, intervenções psicológicas e hipnoterapia. Os resultados foram favoráveis aos medicamentos antiespasmódicos e antidepressivos em relação à melhora dos sintomas clínicos. Não houve diferença entre os agentes de volume ou tegaserod quando comparados ao placebo. Acupuntura e homeopatia apresentaram pequena melhora dos sintomas em comparação ao placebo, porém a qualidade da evidência foi considerada baixa a muito baixa. As intervenções psicológicas parecem melhorar a avaliação global do paciente e alívio de sintomas como dor abdominal. Contudo, não houve acompanhamento desses pacientes a longo prazo. Os resultados dos demais tratamentos foram considerados incertos devido ao alto risco de viés. CONCLUSÃO: Considerando a baixa qualidade dos estudos incluídos nas RSs, o tratamento farmacológico com antiespasmódicos e antidepressivos parece ser benéfico para os pacientes com SII. Entre os não-farmacológicos, as intervenções psicológicas parecem obter benefícios. Entretanto, novos ensaios clínicos são recomendados com maior rigor metodológico para comprovar estes achados.

Evaluation of breathing exercise in hormonal and immunological responses in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of sustained deep inspiration in the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications, the hormonal and immunological responses in patients submitted to abdominal surgery. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial study included 75 patients submitted to abdominal surgery, of which 36 were randomly allocated in the experimental group and underwent sustained deep inspiration during five seconds, in three sets of ten repetitions per day. The others 39 patients were allocated in the control group and were not submitted to any breathing exercise. The following parameters were measured preoperatively, 24h and 48h postoperatively: chest x-ray, serum ACTH, cortisol, IL-4, IL-10, TNF-α, forced expiratory volume in first second (FEV1), forced expiratory flow 25-75% (FEF 25-75), forced vital capacity (FVC), paO2 and paCO2. RESULTS: Mean serum cortisol in patients of the experimental and control groups before surgery were 12.8 mcg/dl (4.6-50) and 10.48 mcg/dl (1-29.1), respectively (p=0.414). The experimental group had significantly increase in serum cortisol levels, 23.6 mcg/dl (9.3-45.8), especially 24h postoperatively (p=0.049). CONCLUSION: Sustained deep inspiration in patients submitted to abdominal surgery determined important changes in serum cortisol, however, without significantly influence the postoperative pulmonary complications and the endocrine and immune responses.

Evaluation of breathing exercise in hormonal and immunological responses in patients undergoing abdominal surgery

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of sustained deep inspiration in the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications, the hormonal and immunological responses in patients submitted to abdominal surgery. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial study included 75 patients submitted to abdominal surgery, of which 36 were randomly allocated in the experimental group and underwent sustained deep inspiration during five seconds, in three sets of ten repetitions per day. The others 39 patients were allocated in the control group and were not submitted to any breathing exercise. The following parameters were measured preoperatively, 24h and 48h postoperatively: chest x-ray, serum ACTH, cortisol, IL-4, IL-10, TNF-α, forced expiratory volume in first second (FEV1), forced expiratory flow 25-75% (FEF 25-75), forced vital capacity (FVC), paO2 and paCO2. RESULTS: Mean serum cortisol in patients of the experimental and control groups before surgery were 12.8 mcg/dl (4.6-50) and 10.48 mcg/dl (1-29.1), respectively (p=0.414). The experimental group had significantly increase in serum cortisol levels, 23.6 mcg/dl (9.3-45.8), especially 24h postoperatively (p=0.049). CONCLUSION: Sustained deep inspiration in patients submitted to abdominal surgery determined important changes in serum cortisol, however, without significantly influence the postoperative pulmonary complications and the endocrine and immune responses.

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: an update of systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis

The belief that mechanical bowel preparation is related to the reduction of complications in elective colorectal surgery is based on observational studies and expert opinion. This question led the authors to a systematic literature review, with the completion of meta-analysis, followed by three updates. METHOD: The sources of information were EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, IBECS, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and letters to the authors. The studies were included according to the randomization criteria. The studied variables were: anastomotic dehiscence, mortality and operatory wound infection. The analysis was divided into two comparisons: one group with mechanical preparation (Group A) compared with a group without preparation (Group B) (Comparison I) and a group submitted to rectal enema (Comparison II). RESULTS: We analyzed 5,805 patients in 20 clinical trials. In comparison I, anastomotic leak occurred in 4.4% (101/2,275 patients) in Group A and 4.5% (103/2,258 patients) in Group B. In comparison II, anastomotic leak occurred in 4.4% (27/601 patients) in Group A and 3.4% (21/609 patients) in Group B. CONCLUSION: Despite the inclusion of more studies, evidences found in studies did not show any benefit obtained from the use of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation or rectal cleansing enemas in elective colorectal surgery. (AU)

A crença de que o preparo mecânico do cólon está relacionado à diminuição de complicações na cirurgia colorretal eletiva é baseada em estudos observacionais e opinião de especialistas. Seu questionamento motivou os autores na busca sistemática da literatura, com a realização de meta-análise, seguida de três atualizações. MÉTODO: Fontes de informação foram EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, IBECS, Registros de Ensaios Clínicos Casualizados da Colaboração Cochrane e cartas para os autores. Os estudos foram incluídos de acordo com os critérios de casualização. Os desfechos clínicos estudados foram: deiscência anastomótica, mortalidade e infecção da ferida operatória. A análise dos grupos foi dividida em duas comparações: comparação I, grupo submetido a preparo mecânico do cólon (Grupo A) comparado ao grupo sem preparo (Grupo B); comparação II, Grupo A, submetido a preparo do cólon e Grupo B, realizado apenas enema retal. RESULTADOS: Foram analisados 5.805 doentes em 20 ensaios clínicos. Na comparação I, deiscência anastomótica ocorreu em 4,4% (101/2.275 doentes) no Grupo A e 4,5% (103/2.258 doentes) no Grupo B. Na comparação II, deiscência anastomótica ocorreu em 4,4% (27/601 doentes) no Grupo A e 3,4% (21/609 doentes) no Grupo B. CONCLUSÃO: Apesar da inclusão de mais estudos, as evidências encontradas não demonstraram benefício no uso do preparo mecânico pré-operatório do cólon, assim como de enemas de limpeza do reto em cirurgia colorretal eletiva. (AU)

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage, but the belief that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications is based on observational data and expert opinions only.An enema before the rectal surgery to clean the rectum and facilitate the manipulation for the mechanical anastomosis is used for many surgeons. This is analysed separately OBJECTIVES: To determine the security and effectiveness of MBP on morbidity and mortality in colorectal surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: Publications describing trials of MBP before elective colorectal surgery were sought through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IBECS and The Cochrane Library; by handsearching relevant medical journals and conference proceedings, and through personal communication with colleagues.Searches were performed December 1, 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants submitted for elective colorectal surgery. Eligible interventions included any type of MBP compared with no MBP. Primary outcomes included anastomosis leakage - both rectal and colonic - and combined figures. Secondary outcomes included mortality, peritonitis, reoperation, wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, and overall surgical site infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted and checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of randomisation, blinding, type of analysis, and number lost to follow up were recorded. For analysis, the Peto-Odds Ratio (OR) was used as the default (no statistical heterogeneity was observed). MAIN RESULTS: At this update six trials and a new comparison (Mechanical bowel preparation versus enema) were added. Altogether eighteen trials were analysed, with 5805 participants; 2906 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2899 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation Versus No Mechanical Bowel Preparation results were:1. Anastomotic leakage for low anterior resection: 8.8% (38/431) of Group A, compared with 10.3% (43/415) of Group B; Peto OR 0.88 [0.55, 1.40].2. Anastomotic leakage for colonic surgery: 3.0% (47/1559) of Group A, compared with 3.5% (56/1588) of Group B; Peto OR 0.85 [0.58, 1.26].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (101/2275) of Group A, compared with 4.5% (103/2258) of Group B; Peto OR 0.99 [0.74, 1.31].4. Wound infection: 9.6% (223/2305) of Group A, compared with 8.5% (196/2290) of Group B; Peto OR 1.16 [0.95, 1.42].Sensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation (A) Versus Rectal Enema (B) results were:1. Anastomotic leakage after rectal surgery: 7.4% (8/107) of Group A, compared with 7.9% (7/88) of Group B; Peto OR 0.93 [0.34, 2.52].2. Anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery: 4.0% (11/269) of Group A, compared with 2.0% (6/299) of Group B; Peto OR 2.15 [0.79, 5.84].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (27/601) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (21/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.32 [0.74, 2.36].4. Wound infection: 9.9% (60/601) of Group A, compared with 8.0% (49/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 [0.85, 1.88]. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Randomized clinical trial comparing spinal anesthesia with local anesthesia with sedation for loop colostomy closure.

CONTEXT: Recent studies have shown that local anesthesia for loop colostomy closure is as safe as spinal anesthesia for this procedure. OBJECTIVES: Randomized clinical trial to compare the results from these two techniques. METHODS: Fifty patients were randomized for loop colostomy closure using spinal anesthesia (n = 25) and using local anesthesia (n = 25). Preoperatively, the bowel was evaluated by means of colonoscopy, and bowel preparation was performed with 10% oral mannitol solution and physiological saline solution for lavage through the distal colostomy orifice. All patients were given prophylactic antibiotics (cefoxitin). Pain, analgesia, reestablishment of peristaltism or peristalsis, diet reintroduction, length of hospitalization and rehospitalization were analyzed postoperatively. RESULTS: Surgery duration and local complications were greater in the spinal anesthesia group. Conversion to general anesthesia occurred only with spinal anesthesia. There was no difference in intraoperative pain between the groups, but postoperative pain, reestablishment of peristaltism or peristalsis, diet reintroduction and length of hospitalization were lower with local anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Local anesthesia plus sedation offers a safer and more effective method than spinal anesthesia for loop colostomy closure.

Randomized clinical trial comparing spinal anesthesia with local anesthesia with sedation for loop colostomy closure / Ensaio clínico randomizado comparando raquianestesia com anestesia local, associadas à sedação para o fechamento de colostomia em alça

CONTEXT: Recent studies have shown that local anesthesia for loop colostomy closure is as safe as spinal anesthesia for this procedure. OBJECTIVES: Randomized clinical trial to compare the results from these two techniques. METHODS: Fifty patients were randomized for loop colostomy closure using spinal anesthesia (n = 25) and using local anesthesia (n = 25). Preoperatively, the bowel was evaluated by means of colonoscopy, and bowel preparation was performed with 10 percent oral mannitol solution and physiological saline solution for lavage through the distal colostomy orifice. All patients were given prophylactic antibiotics (cefoxitin). Pain, analgesia, reestablishment of peristaltism or peristalsis, diet reintroduction, length of hospitalization and rehospitalization were analyzed postoperatively. RESULTS: Surgery duration and local complications were greater in the spinal anesthesia group. Conversion to general anesthesia occurred only with spinal anesthesia. There was no difference in intraoperative pain between the groups, but postoperative pain, reestablishment of peristaltism or peristalsis, diet reintroduction and length of hospitalization were lower with local anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Local anesthesia plus sedation offers a safer and more effective method than spinal anesthesia for loop colostomy closure.

CONTEXTO: Estudos recentes têm demonstrado que a anestesia local para o fechamento de colostomia em alça é tão segura quanto a raquianestesia para estes procedimentos. OBJETIVOS: Comparar os resultados do fechamento de colostomia em alça usando essas duas técnicas. MÉTODOS: Cinquenta pacientes foram randomizados para o fechamento de colostomia em alça sob raquianestesia (n = 25) e anestesia local (n = 25). No pré-operatório, o cólon foi avaliado por colonoscopia e o preparo intestinal foi realizado com solução oral de manitol a 10 por cento e limpeza com solução salina fisiológica através do orifício distal da colostomia. Todos os pacientes receberam antibioticoprofilaxia com cefoxitina. Dor, analgesia, restabelecimento do peristaltismo, reintrodução da dieta, tempo de internação e de reinternação foram analisados no pós-operatório. RESULTADOS: Duração da cirurgia e complicações locais foram maiores no grupo da raquianestesia. A conversão para anestesia geral ocorreu somente no grupo da raquianestesia. Em relação á dor intraoperatória, não houve diferença entre os grupos, mas a dor pós-operatória, restabelecimento do peristaltismo, reintrodução da dieta e tempo de hospitalização foram menores no grupo com anestesia local. CONCLUSÃO: A anestesia local associada à sedação ofereceu um método mais seguro e efetivo que a raquianestesia para o fechamento de colostomia em alça.

Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure.

CONTEXT: Studies in the area of health economics are still poorly explored and it is known that the cost savings in this area is becoming more necessary, provided that strict criteria. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial with 50 patients undergoing loop colostomy closure either under spinal anesthesia (n = 25) or under local anesthesia plus sedation (n = 25). The duration of the operation, time spent in the post-anesthesia recovery room, pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, laboratory and imaging examinations and need for rehospitalization and reoperation were analyzed. The direct medical costs were analyzed. A decision tree model was constructed. The outcome measures were mean cost and cost per local and systemic postoperative complications avoided. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented. RESULTS: Duration of operation: 146 +/- 111.5 min. vs 105 +/- 23.6 min. (P = 0.012); mean time spent in post-anesthesia recovery room: 145 +/- 110.8 min. vs 36.8 +/- 34.6 min. (P<0.001). Immediate postoperative pain was lower with local anesthesia plus sedation (P<0.05). Local and systemic complications were fewer with local anesthesia plus sedation (P = 0.209). Hospitalization + rehospitalization: 4.5 +/- 4.1 days vs 2.9 +/- 2.2 days (P<0.0001); mean spending per patient: R$ 5,038.05 vs 2,665.57 (P<0.001). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: R$ -474.78, indicating that the strategy with local anesthesia plus sedation is cost saving. CONCLUSION: In the present investigation, loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia plus sedation was effective and appeared to be a dominant strategy, compared with the same surgical procedure under spinal anesthesia.

Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure / Análise de custo-efetividade da raquianestesia versus anestesia local associada à sedação para o fechamento de colostomia em alça

CONTEXT: Studies in the area of health economics are still poorly explored and it is known that the cost savings in this area is becoming more necessary, provided that strict criteria. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial with 50 patients undergoing loop colostomy closure either under spinal anesthesia (n = 25) or under local anesthesia plus sedation (n = 25). The duration of the operation, time spent in the post-anesthesia recovery room, pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, laboratory and imaging examinations and need for rehospitalization and reoperation were analyzed. The direct medical costs were analyzed. A decision tree model was constructed. The outcome measures were mean cost and cost per local and systemic postoperative complications avoided. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented. RESULTS: Duration of operation: 146 ± 111.5 min. vs 105 ± 23.6 min. (P = 0.012); mean time spent in post-anesthesia recovery room: 145 ± 110.8 min. vs 36.8 ± 34.6 min. (P<0.001). Immediate postoperative pain was lower with local anesthesia plus sedation (P<0.05). Local and systemic complications were fewer with local anesthesia plus sedation (P = 0.209). Hospitalization + rehospitalization: 4.5 ± 4.1 days vs 2.9 ± 2.2 days (P<0.0001); mean spending per patient: R$ 5,038.05 vs 2,665.57 (P<0.001). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: R$ -474.78, indicating that the strategy with local anesthesia plus sedation is cost saving. CONCLUSION: In the present investigation, loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia plus sedation was effective and appeared to be a dominant strategy, compared with the same surgical procedure under spinal anesthesia.

OBJETIVO: Análise de custo-efetividade entre fechamento de colostomia e m alça sob raquianestesia versus anestesia local associada à sedação. MÉTODOS: Ensaio clínico randomizado com 50 pacientes para fechamento de colostomia em alça, sob raquianestesia (n = 25) e sob anestesia local com sedação (n = 25). Avaliaram-se tempo operatório e de sala de recuperação pós-anestésica, dor, complicações pós-operatórias, tempo de internação, exames laboratoriais e de imagens, reoperações e reinternações. Foi feita análise de custos diretos médicos. A medida de desfecho foi: complicações pós-operatórias locais e sistêmicas. Aplicaram-se razão incremental e árvore de decisão. RESULTADOS: Tempo operatório (146 ± 111,5 min vs 105 ± 23,6 min; P = 0,012), tempo médio de sala de recuperação pós-anestésica (145 ± 110,8 min vs 36,8 ± 34,6 min, P<0,001). Dor no pós-operatório imediato em favor da anestesia local (P<0,05). Complicações pós-operatórias locais e sistêmicas (P = 0,209) em favor da anestesia local. Internação + reinternações (4,5 ± 4,1 dias vs 2,9 ± 2,2 dias; P<0,0001), valor médio gasto por paciente (R$ 5.038,05 vs R$ 2.665,57; P<0,001). Razão de custo-efetividade: -R$ 474,78, indicando que a estratégia é dominante. CONCLUSÃO: Na presente investigação o fechamento de colostomia em alça sob anestesia local associada à sedação foi eficaz e apresentou boa relação de custo-efetividade em relação ao mesmo procedimento cirúrgico sob raquianestesia.

Feasibility analysis of loop colostomy closure in patients under local anesthesia / Estudo da praticabilidade do fechamento de colostomias em alça em pacientes sob anestesia local

PURPOSE: To verify prospectively the practicability of performing loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia and sedation. METHODS: In this study, 21 patients underwent this operation. Lidocaine 2 percent and bupivacaine 0.5 percent were utilized. Pain was evaluated during the operation, on the first postoperative day and at hospital discharge. Intraoperative events, postoperative complications and the acceptability of this procedure were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean duration of the operation was 133 minutes (range: 85 to 290 minutes). The mean postoperative hospitalization was four days (range: one to twelve days). No patients died. Complications occurred in two patients (9.4 percent): abdominal wall hematoma and operative wound infection. With regard to pain severity, scores of less than or equal to three were indicated in the intraoperative evaluation by 80 percent of the patients (17/21) and on the first postoperative day by 85 percent (18/21). At hospital discharge, 95.2 percent of the patients (20/21) said they were in favor of the local anesthesia technique. CONCLUSION: Loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia and sedation is feasible, safe and acceptable to patients.

OBJETIVO: Verificar a praticabilidade de se efetuar o fechamento de colostomia em alça sob anestesia local e sedação. MÉTODOS: Neste estudo 21 doentes foram submetidos a esta intervenção cirúrgica. Utilizou-se Lidocaína a 2 por cento e Bupivacaína a 0,5 por cento. Avaliou-se a dor em três períodos: intra-operatório, 1° pós-operatório e alta hospitalar; analisando-se intercorrências intra-operatórias, complicações pós-operatórias e a aceitabilidade desse procedimento. RESULTADOS: O tempo médio operatório correspondeu a 133 minutos, oscilando entre 85 e 290 minutos. O tempo médio de internação pós-operatória teve média de quatro dias, variando de três a doze dias. Não houve letalidade. Em dois doentes (9,4 por cento) ocorreram complicações: hematoma de parede abdominal e infecção de ferida operatória. Quanto a intensidade de dor, escores iguais ou abaixo de três foram indicados na avaliação intra-operatória por 80 por cento (17/21) dos doentes; no 1° pós-operatório por 85 por cento (18/21). Na alta hospitalar 95,2 por cento (20/21) dos doentes mostraram-se favoráveis à técnica sob anestesia local. CONCLUSÃO: Fechamento de colostomia em alça sob anestesia local e sedação é praticável, com segurança e aceitabilidade dos doentes.

Feasibility analysis of loop colostomy closure in patients under local anesthesia.

PURPOSE: To verify prospectively the practicability of performing loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia and sedation. METHODS: In this study, 21 patients underwent this operation. Lidocaine 2% and bupivacaine 0.5% were utilized. Pain was evaluated during the operation, on the first postoperative day and at hospital discharge. Intraoperative events, postoperative complications and the acceptability of this procedure were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean duration of the operation was 133 minutes (range: 85 to 290 minutes). The mean postoperative hospitalization was four days (range: one to twelve days). No patients died. Complications occurred in two patients (9.4%): abdominal wall hematoma and operative wound infection. With regard to pain severity, scores of less than or equal to three were indicated in the intraoperative evaluation by 80% of the patients (17/21) and on the first postoperative day by 85% (18/21). At hospital discharge, 95.2% of the patients (20/21) said they were in favor of the local anesthesia technique. CONCLUSION: Loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia and sedation is feasible, safe and acceptable to patients.

Clinical value of preoperative mechanical bowel cleansing in elective colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to establish scientific evidence for and clinical results of preoperative mechanical bowel cleansing before elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: Systematic literature searches in electronic databases, conference proceedings, and hand searches of reference lists of previously retrieved literature without any language restrictions were used. Only randomized trials were included. A quality assessment of each retrieved trial was performed. Outcome measures were surgical infections, mortality, and anastomotic dehiscence. Meta-analyses of the selected trials were performed using the Peto odds ratio. RESULTS: The results of each outcome were as follows. 1). Overall anastomotic leakage-six studies: 5.5 percent with cleansing compared with 2.9 percent without cleansing; odds ratio 1.94, 95 percent confidence interval: 1.09 to 3.43 (P = 0.02). 2). Peritonitis-three studies: 5.1 percent with cleansing compared with 2.8 percent without cleansing; odds ratio 1.90, 95 percent confidence interval: 0.78 to 4.64 (not significant). 3). Wound infection-six studies: 7.4 percent with cleansing compared with 5.7 percent without cleansing; odds ratio 1.34, 95 percent confidence interval: 0.85 to 2.13 (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence in the literature for beneficial effects from the use of bowel cleansing before elective colorectal surgery. Cleansing seems to be associated with an increased risk of more anastomotic dehiscence. Further studies stratifying between rectal and colonic surgery are warranted.

Morphologic and morphometric analyses of acetic acid-induced colitis in rats after treatment with enemas from Myracrodruon urundeuva Fr. All. (Aroeira do Sertão).

The present work showed the effects of Myracrodruon urundeuva Fr. All., popularly known as 'aroeira' (AE), in the form of enemas prepared from the stem bark, on several morphologic and morphometric parameters after acetic acid-induced colitis in rats. Enemas from 5-ASA were used as standard while the vehicle, carboxymethylcellulose, was used as a control. The results of the morphological evaluation showed that on day 1 acetic acid produced significantly more necrosis in the groups treated with AE (10% and 20%) or 5-ASA than the controls. However, on day 60, there were more caliciform and absorptive cells in the treated groups compared with the controls. A significantly higher number of eosinophil and mononuclear cells and also collagen deposition in the controls compared with the treated groups were observed on day 60. However, a higher number of polymorphonuclear cells was detected on day 60 only in the AE treated group but not in the 5-ASA group. These data indicate that animals treated with AE or 5-ASA showed complete epithelial tissue regeneration, while in the controls chronic inflammatory exudate persisted and tissue regeneration occurred through fibrosis.