Pre-Operative Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect the Impact of Anastomosis Leakage in Left-Side Colorectal Surgery-A Single Center Observational Study.

Despite rapid advances in colorectal surgery, morbidity and mortality rates in elective gastrointestinal surgery play a significant role. For decades, there have been tempestuous discussions on preventative measures to minimize the risk of anastomotic dehiscence. When mechanical bowel preparation before an elective procedure, one of the key hypotheses, was introduced into practice, it was assumed that it would decrease the number of infectious complications and anastomotic dehiscence. The advancements in antibiotic treatment supported the concomitant administration of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation. In the prospective study conducted at our clinic, we performed left-side colorectal procedures without prior mechanical preparation. All patients enrolled in the study underwent the surgery and were observed in the 3rd Surgical Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia, from January 2019 to January 2020. As a control group, we used a similar group of patients with MBP. Our observed group included 87 patients with tumors in the left part of their large intestine (lineal flexure, descendent colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum). Dixon laparoscopic resection was performed in 26 patients. Sigmoid laparoscopic resection was performed in 27 patients. In 12 patients, the procedure was started laparoscopically but had to be converted due to adverse anatomical conditions. The conservative approaches mostly included Dixon resections (19 patients), sigmoid colon resections (5 patients), left-side hemicolectomies (6 patients), and Miles' tumor resections, with rectal amputation (4 patients). Our study highlighted the fact that MBP does not have an unequivocal benefit for patients with colorectal infection, which has an impact on the development of anastomotic dehiscence.

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.

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.

Evaluating bacterial contamination and surgical site infection risks in intracorporeal anastomosis: Role of bowel preparation.

We recently read the study by Kayano et al on intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) for colon cancer, which assessed bacterial contamination and medium-term oncological outcomes and affirmed that IA is analogous to extracorporeal anastomosis in reducing intraperitoneal bacterial risk and achieving similar oncological results. Our commentary addresses gaps, particularly concerning bowel preparation and surgical site infections (SSIs), and highlights the need for comprehensive details on the bowel preparation methods that are currently employed, including mechanical bowel preparation, oral antibiotics (OA), their combination, and specific OA types. We emphasize the necessity for further analyses that investigate these methods and their correlation with SSI rates, to enhance clinical protocol guidance and optimize surgical outcomes. Such meticulous analyses are essential for refining strategies to effectively mitigate SSI risk in colorectal surgeries.

The Impact of Surgical Bowel Preparation on the Microbiome in Colon and Rectal Surgery.

Preoperative bowel preparation, through iterations over time, has evolved with the goal of optimizing surgical outcomes after colon and rectal surgery. Although bowel preparation is commonplace in current practice, its precise mechanism of action, particularly its effect on the human gut microbiome, has yet to be fully elucidated. Absent intervention, the gut microbiota is largely stable, yet reacts to dietary influences, tissue injury, and microbiota-specific byproducts of metabolism. The routine use of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation prior to intestinal surgical procedures may have detrimental effects previously thought to be negligible. Recent evidence highlights the sensitivity of gut microbiota to antibiotics, bowel preparation, and surgery; however, there is a lack of knowledge regarding specific causal pathways that could lead to therapeutic interventions. As our understanding of the complex interactions between the human host and gut microbiota grows, we can explore the role of bowel preparation in specific microbiome alterations to refine perioperative care and improve outcomes. In this review, we outline the current fund of information regarding the impact of surgical bowel preparation and its components on the adult gut microbiome. We also emphasize key questions pertinent to future microbiome research and their implications for patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation and prophylactic oral antibiotics for pediatric patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery: a protocol for a randomized controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Infections after elective colorectal surgery remain a significant burden for patients and the healthcare system. Adult studies suggest that the combination of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation is effective at reducing infections after colorectal surgery. In children, there is limited evidence for either of these practices and the utility of combining oral antibiotics with mechanical bowel preparation remains uncertain. METHODS: This study aims to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of oral antibiotics, with or without mechanical bowel preparation, in reducing the rates of post-operative infection in pediatric colorectal surgery. Participants aged 3 months to 18 years undergoing elective colorectal surgery will be randomized pre-operatively to one of three trial arms: (1) oral antibiotics; (2) oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation; or (3) standard care. Twelve patients will be included in each trial arm. Feasibility outcomes of interest include the rate of participant recruitment, post-randomization exclusions, protocol deviations, adverse events, and missed follow-up appointments. Secondary outcomes include the rate of post-operative surgical site infections, length of hospital stay, time to full enteral feeds, reoperation, readmission, and complications. DISCUSSION: If the results of this trial prove feasible, a multi-center trial will be completed with sufficient power to evaluate the optimal pre-operative bowel preperation for pediatric patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03593252.

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.

The effect of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound related complications: A meta-analysis.

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), a routine nursing procedure before paediatric bowel surgery, is widely should in clinical practice, but its necessity remains controversial. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the effect of preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound-related complications in order to analyse the clinical application value of MBP in paediatric bowel surgery. As of November 2023, we searched four online databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. Two investigators screened the collected studies against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and ROBINS-I was used to evaluate the quality of studies. Using RevMan5.3, a meta-analysis of the collected data was performed, and a fixed-effect model or a random-effect model was used to analyse OR, 95% CI, SMD, and MD. A total of 11 studies with 2556 patients were included. Most of studies had moderate-to-severe quality bias. The results of meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications related to postoperative infections in children with MBP before bowel surgery versus those with No MBP, wound infection (OR 1.11, 95% CI:0.76 ~ 1.61, p = 0.59, I2 = 5%), intra-abdominal infection (OR 1.26, 95% CI:0.58 ~ 2.77, p = 0.56, I2 = 9%). There was no significant difference in the risk of postoperative bowel anastomotic leak (OR 1.07, 95% CI:0.68 ~ 1.68, p = 0.78, I2 = 12%), and anastomotic dehiscence (OR 1.67, 95% CI:0.13 ~ 22.20, p = 0.70, I2 = 73%). Patients' intestinal obstruction did not show an advantage of undergoing MBP preoperatively, with an incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR 1.95, 95% CI:0.55 ~ 6.93, p = 0.30, I2 = 0%). Based on existing evidence that preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery did not reduce the risk of postoperative wound complications, we cautiously assume that MBP before surgery is unnecessary for children undergoing elective bowel surgery. However, due to the limited number of study participants selected for this study and the overall low quality of evidence, the results need to be interpreted with caution. It is suggested that more high quality, large-sample, multicenter clinical trials are required to validate our findings.

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.

Oral Antibiotics Alone versus Oral Antibiotics Combined with Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matching Re-Analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 Prospective Cohorts.

The evidence regarding the role of oral antibiotics alone (oA) or combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MoABP) for elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. A prospective database of 8359 colorectal resections gathered over a 32-month period from 78 Italian surgical units (the iCral 2 and 3 studies), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables together with 60-day adverse events, was re-analyzed to identify a subgroup of 1013 cases (12.1%) that received either oA or MoABP. This dataset was analyzed using a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 243 patients each were obtained: group A (oA) and group B (MoABP). The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher AL risk [14 (5.8%) vs. 6 (2.5%) events; OR: 3.77; 95%CI: 1.22-11.67; p = 0.021], while no significant difference was recorded between the two groups regarding SSIs. These results strongly support the use of MoABP for elective colorectal resections.

Mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Italian colorectal anastomotic leakage (iCral) study group prospective cohorts.

Retrospective evaluation of the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on data derived from two prospective open-label observational multicenter studies in Italy regarding elective colorectal surgery. MBP for elective colorectal surgery remains a controversial issue with contrasting recommendations in current guidelines. The Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group, therefore, decided to estimate the effects of no MBP (treatment variable) versus MBP for elective colorectal surgery. A total of 8359 patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis were enrolled in two consecutive prospective studies in 78 surgical centers in Italy from January 2019 to September 2021. A retrospective PSMA was performed on 5455 (65.3%) cases after the application of explicit exclusion criteria to eliminate confounders. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infections (SSI) rates; the secondary endpoints included SSI subgroups, overall and major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. Overall length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was also considered. Two well-balanced groups of 1125 patients each were generated: group A (No MBP, true population of interest), and group B (MBP, control population), performing a PSMA considering 21 covariates. Group A vs. group B resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of AL [42 (3.5%) vs. 73 (6.0%) events; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.84; p = 0.005]. No difference was recorded between the two groups for SSI [73 (6.0%) vs. 85 (7.0%) events; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63-1.22; p = 0.441]. Regarding the secondary endpoints, no MBP resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of reoperation and LOS > 6 days. This study confirms that no MBP before elective colorectal surgery is significantly associated with a lower risk of AL, reoperation rate, and LOS < 6 days when compared with MBP.

Efficacy of a 1 day Rifaximin and Metronidazole Regimen and Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Preventing Surgical Site Infection in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: A combination of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation is recommended for patients scheduled to undergo elective colorectal surgery on the basis of recent large trials that have reported the superiority of this approach in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs). However, there are no standard recommendations for this approach. Therefore, in this study, we evaluated the efficacy of rifaximin and metronidazole and mechanical bowel preparation for preventing SSIs in cases of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer. METHODS: This single-arm prospective observational study included 256 individuals. The primary end point was the rate of SSI. Rifaximin 400 mg and metronidazole 500 mg were administered twice daily (10 am and 10 pm), and mechanical bowel preparation was administered the day before the operation. RESULTS: After excluding 15 patients, 241 were enrolled. No adverse event occurred following the administration of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation; there was 100% compliance. The total SSI rate was 2.9%; the rates of incisional and organ/space SSIs were 1.2% and 1.7%, respectively. All patients were treated conservatively. Univariate analyses revealed preoperative anemia, hypoalbuminemia, and transfusion and postoperative transfusion were significantly associated with SSIs. DISCUSSION: A 1 day rifaximin and metronidazole regimen with mechanical bowel preparation for elective minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer was associated with a favorable SSI rate of 2.9%, safety, and high compliance. This approach is appropriate for inclusion in the current guidelines for perioperative management of patients scheduled to undergo minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer.

Does mechanical bowel preparation really prevent complications after colorectal surgery depending on the lesion localization? A myth or fact?

Objectives: Despite being routinely used before elective colorectal surgery in most surgical clinics, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate postoperative complications and outcomes of right, left, or rectosigmoid resection without MBP. Material and Methods: Patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics between January 2011 and December 2021 were included in the study. Patients were categorized according to the side of resection, and these subgroups were compared for anastomotic leakage, surgical site infections (SSI), and overall morbidity measured using the Clavien-Dindo complication grade. Results: Data of 422 patients were analyzed. Overall anastomotic leakage was found in 14 patients (3.3%), SSI in 46 (10.9%), collection in 14 (3.3%), mortality in 18 (4.3%), and reoperation in 17 (%4) patients. Anastomotic leakage was observed in six (3.9%) in right colectomy, two (1.9%) in left colectomy, and in six (3.7%) patients in the rectosigmoid resection group when the groups were evaluated separately. There was no statistical difference between the groups (p= 0.630). Furthermore, there was no statistical difference between the groups regarding collection and reoperation (p values were p= 0.31, and p= 0.251, respectively). Conclusion: Study results showed that anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal collection, reoperation, and mortality rates were similar to the current literature obtained from the studies with mechanical bowel preparation. In addition, these results were found to be similar according to the resection site.

Mechanical bowel preparations not supported in elective colo-rectal surgeries with anastomosis: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the risk and benefit of bowel preparations in elective colo-rectal surgery. BACKGROUND: Mechanical bowel preparations (MBPs) have been popularized in colo-rectal surgery since studies in the 1970s, but recent data has called their use into question and examined complication rates between patients with and without bowel preparations. METHODS: A retrospective case-review was performed consisting of 1237 elective colo-rectal surgeries performed by two surgeons between 2008 and 2021. Patients received either a MBP, a mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (OAMBP), oral antibiotics alone (OA), or no bowel preparation; some patients across all categories received an enema. RESULTS: Bowel preparations combined (MBP and OAMBP) totaled 436 patients and showed no statistically significant difference (P > .05) in primary outcomes of wound infection and anastomotic leak when compared to the 636 patients without a bowel preparation and 165 patients with OA. The analysis controlled for comorbidities and presence of enema. Of secondary outcomes, urinary tract infections (UTIs) were significantly more common in patients who received a bowel preparation (P = .047). All other outcomes showed no significant difference between groups, including complications on day of surgery; complications, readmission with and without surgery, and ileus formation within 30 days of surgery; sepsis; pneumonia; and length of stay (LOS). The presence of enemas did not have a statistically significant effect on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study's data does not support the routine use of MBPs in elective colo-rectal surgery and draws into further question whether MBPs should remain standard of care.

Feasibility of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in Pediatric Colostomy Reversal.

Aim: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are multimodal perioperative pathways that have shown improved outcomes. ERAS after colostomy reversal has shown promising results in adults and few pediatric studies. We report our experience using ERAS for a colostomy reversal. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of children in whom ERAS was used during colostomy reversal between May 2016 and 2019 was carried out. ERAS protocol in our study included avoiding mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), oral liquid diet upto 3 h preoperatively, usage of regional anesthesia, minimal handling of bowel intraoperatively, using nonopioid analgesics for pain relief, early initiation of feeding on the first postoperative day, early discharge once full feeds are established. Outcomes analyzed are the duration of hospital stay and complications, including readmissions. Requirement for opioids and anti-emetics are noted. The outcomes are compared with traditional care pathways (TCP), which use MBP, overnight fasting, opioid analgesia, and delayed feeding. A total of 48 are included in the study, with 13 cases using ERAS and TCP in 35 cases. Statistical Analysis Used: Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test was used. Results: In the ERAS group, the mean length of hospital stay (LOS) postoperatively was 3.7 days (2-5 days) as opposed to 7.2 days (5-11 days) in TCP. There was only one child with complications in the ERAS group, while 9 cases in TCP had complications, though none of them required operative intervention. There was the requirement of anti-emetic in only one child in the ERAS group. Conclusion: ERAS for colostomy reversal is feasible in the pediatric population. For successful implementation, all personnel involved in the care of the child need to be educated about the protocol. It reduces LOS and complications.

Retrospective Analysis of the Outcome of Stoma Closure in Children without Preoperative Mechanical Bowel Preparation.

Introduction: Stoma closure is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures by pediatric surgeons worldwide. In this study, we studied the outcome of children undergoing stoma closures without mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in our department. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of children <18 years undergoing stoma closure from 2017 to 2021. The primary endpoints were surgical site infection (SSI), incisional hernia, anastomotic leak, and mortalities. The categorical data are expressed in percentages and the continuous data are in medians and interquartile ranges. The postoperative complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Results: A total of 89 patients underwent stoma closure without bowel preparation during the study. The anastomosis leak and incisional hernia were seen in one patient each. The SSIs occurred in 23 patients (25.9%), which were superficial in 21 and deep in 2 patients. The Clavien-Dindo Grade III complications occurred in 2 (2.2%) patients. The median duration to start feeds and pass first stools was significantly longer in patients with ileostomy closure (P = 0.04 and 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: The outcome of stoma closures without MBP was favorable in our study and hence it can be suggested that the use of MBP in colostomy closures can be safely avoided in children.

Preoperative Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Gynecologic Surgeries: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before benign laparoscopic or vaginal gynecologic surgeries. DATA SOURCES: Database searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Sciences and citations and reference lists published up to December 2021. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials in any language comparing MBP with no preparation were included. Two reviewers independently screened 925 records and extracted data from 12 selected articles and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials tool. A random-effects model was used for the analysis. Surgeon findings (surgical field view, quality of bowel handling and bowel preparation), operative outcomes (blood loss, operative time, length of stay, surgical site infection), and patient's preoperative symptoms and satisfaction were collected. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Thirteen studies (1715 patients) assessing oral and rectal preparations before laparoscopic and vaginal gynecologic surgeries were included. No significant differences were observed with or without MBP on surgical field view (primary outcome, risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.05, p = .66, I2 = 0%), bowel handling (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95-1.08, p = .78, I2 = 67%), or bowel preparation. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in perioperative findings. MBP was associated with increased pain (mean difference [MD] 11.62[2.80-20.44], I2 = 76, p = .01), weakness (MD 10.73[0.60-20.87], I2 = 94, p = .04), hunger (MD 17.52 [8.04-27.00], I2 = 83, p = .0003), insomnia (MD 10.13[0.57-19.68], I2 = 82, p = .04), and lower satisfaction (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.87, I2 = 76%, p = .002) compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: MBP has not been associated with improved surgical field view, bowel handling, or operative outcome. However, in view of the adverse effects induced, its routine use before benign gynecologic surgeries should be abandoned.

The role of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics in prevention of anastomotic leakage following restorative resection for primary rectal cancer - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leakage after colorectal cancer resection is a feared postoperative complication seen among up till 10-20% of patients, with a higher risk following rectal resection than colon resection. Recent studies suggest that the combined use of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics may have a preventive effect on anastomotic leakage. This systematic review aims to explore the association between preoperative mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics and the risk of anastomotic leakage following restorative resection for primary rectal cancer. METHODS: Three databases were systematically searched in February 2022. Studies reporting anastomotic leakage rate in patients, who received mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics before elective restorative resection for primary rectal cancer, were included. A meta-analysis was conducted based on the risk ratios of anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: Among 839 studies, 5 studies met the eligibility criteria. The median number of patients were 6111 (80-29,739). The combination of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics was associated with a decreased risk of anastomotic leakage (risk ratio = 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.39-0.69), p-value < 0.001). Limitations included a low number of studies, small sample sizes and the studies being rather heterogenous. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the use of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics is associated with a decreased risk of anastomotic leakage among patients undergoing restorative resection for primary rectal cancer. The limitations of the review should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

Effect of non-mechanical bowel preparation on postoperative gastrointestinal recovery following surgery on malignant gynecological tumors: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of non-mechanical bowel preparation (non-MBP) in patients undergoing surgery for malignant gynecological tumors. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for a gynecological malignancy (n = 105) were randomized to receive mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) or non-MBP. Parameters indicating postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes included the number of postoperative complaints, the plasma levels of D-lactate and diamine oxidase (DAO), ease of visualization of the surgical field, involuntary defecation during surgery, operation time, wound healing, surgical site infection, length of hospital stay, and tolerance to MBP. RESULTS: The participants in the non-MBP group exhibited shorter time intervals until the first postoperative bowel movement (27.87 vs. 29.48 h), first passage of flatus (50.96 vs. 55.08 h), and first passage of stool (75.94 vs. 98.50 h) compared with the MBP group, while they also exhibited fewer postoperative gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea (18.9% vs. 38.5%), vomiting (26.4% vs. 51.9%), abdominal pain (34.0% vs. 78.9%), and bloating (3.8% vs.26.9%). The plasma D-lactate and DAO levels were significantly increased following bowel preparation compared with the baseline levels in the MBP group (2.93 vs. 5.68 nmol/mL and 20.46 vs. 54.49 ng/mL, respectively), but no such differences were observed in the non-MBP group. Compared with the MBP group, surgical field visualization was superior (92.45% vs. 78.85%), and the operation time was shorter (173.58 vs. 203.88 min) in the non-MBP group. The patients undergoing MBP complained of bloating (182.35%), an unpleasant taste (78.43%), sleep disturbance (70.59%), nausea (68.63%), abdominal pain (64.71%), vomiting (45.10%), polydipsia (33.33%), dizziness (25.49%), and headache (7.84%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of non-MBP in patients undergoing surgery for gynecological malignancies is more conducive to the postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function.