Online Educational Module Improves Knowledge of Nurses on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

The effectiveness of colonoscopy is limited by the adequacy of bowel preparation. Nurses are essential in providing bowel cleansing agents and instructions for hospitalized patients before colonoscopy. This study aims to assess and improve the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy. Participants were asked to complete the survey before and after completing an educational module. The module and survey questions were placed in the NetLearning environment of the hospital intranet. A minimum post-test score of 80% was required to pass the course. A total of 1,107 nurses participated in the survey. Overall, the average score improved from 87% to 93% after the module (p < .0495). Knowledge of the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents improved from 54.3% to 83.6% (p = .0001). Only 56.2% of nurses knew how to carry out a split-dose bowel preparation regimen, which increased to 80.1% after the educational module (p = .0001). Nurses' knowledge about the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents before colonoscopy and the split-dose regimen is inadequate. A simple online educational module significantly improved the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Sennoside A+B Is as Effective as Polyethylene Glycol in Preparation for Small Intestine Capsule Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS:  We aimed to compare the effectiveness of the polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sennoside A+B regimens after clear fluid diet and fasting in bowel preperation of capsule endoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS:  In this retrospective single-center study, patients who were consecutively examined with small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) between May 2010 and March 2023 were evaluated. Patients who underwent PEG 4 L and sennoside A+B calcium 250 mL for small bowel preparation were assigned. The quality of the small bowel cleaning and the diagnostic yield in detecting of small bowel lesions were compared. RESULTS:  Two hundred forty-two patients who underwent SBCE for various indications (PEG 74.4%, sennoside A+B 25.6%) were included in the study. The mean proximal small bowel cleaning scores was 1.97 ± 0.77 for PEG and 1.98 ± 0.04 (P = .83) for sennoside A+B; the mid small bowel cleaning scores was 1.76 ± 0.84 for PEG and 1.59 ± 0.05 (P = .108) for sennoside A+B; the mean distal small bowel cleaning scores was 1.27 ± 0.08 for PEG and 1.3 ± 0.54 (P = .805) for sennoside A+B; and the total small bowel cleaning scores was 1.66 ± 0.06 and 1.62 ± 0.04 (P = .622) for PEG and sennoside A+B, respectively. There were no significant differences regarding small bowel cleaning scores both segmentally and totally. At the same time, the diagnostic value of SBCE was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION:  The effectiveness of sennoside A+B in SBCE preparation is similar to that of PEG and can be used in intestinal cleansing.

Oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Databases for randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing OSS with PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The last search was performed on 22 August 2023. The primary outcome was the quality of bowel preparation. The outcomes were compared by meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs with 4526 patients were included. OSS was comparable with PEG regarding adequate bowel preparation [P = 0.16, odds ratio (OR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.93, 1.51], I2 = 0%]. However, OSS showed obvious priority in excellent bowel preparation (P < 0.001, OR = 1.62, 95% CI [1.27, 2.05], I2 = 0%) and total Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) [P = 0.02, weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.27, 95% CI [0.05, 0.50], I2 = 84%]. Additionally, the detection rate of polyps (P = 0.001, OR = 1.44, 95% CI [1.15, 1.80], I2 = 0%) and adenoma (P = 0.007, OR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.06, 1.42], I2 = 0%) was significantly higher in the OSS group. The two groups showed comparable incidence of adverse events except for a higher incidence of dizziness (P = 0.02, OR = 1.74, 95% CI [1.08, 2.83], I2 = 11%) was indicated in the OSS group. Moreover, OSS was associated with a higher satisfaction score (P = 0.02, WMD = 0.62, 95% CI [0.09, 1.15], I2 = 70%). In the TSA, the cumulative Z-curve crossed both the conventional boundary and trial sequential monitoring boundary and the required information size has been reached for excellent bowel preparation and total BBPS. CONCLUSION: The current data demonstrated that OSS was associated with better quality of bowel preparation. More clinical trials are still needed to confirm other outcomes.

Efficacy of linaclotide in combination with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in Chinese patients undergoing colonoscopy polypectomy: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy and polypectomy procedures. However, a significant proportion of patients still exhibit suboptimal bowel preparation, ranging from 18% to 35%. The effectiveness of bowel preparation agents can be hampered by volume and taste, adversely affecting patient compliance and tolerance. Therefore, exploring strategies to minimise laxative volume and improve patient tolerance and adherence is imperative to ensure optimal bowel preparation quality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a two-arm, single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled trial designed to compare the efficacy of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with linaclotide with 4 L PEG in bowel cleansing. A total of 422 participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention group (2 L PEG combined with 580 µg linaclotide) or the control group (4 L PEG). The primary outcome measure is bowel cleansing efficacy, which is assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes include evaluating the tolerability and safety of the bowel preparation regimens, bowel diary assessments, postpolypectomy complications (such as bleeding and perforation) and the size and number of removed polyps. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. The findings of this trial will serve as a valuable resource for clinicians and patients undergoing colonoscopy polypectomy by guiding the selection of appropriate bowel preparation regimens. Study findings will be disseminated to participants, presented at professional society meetings, and published in peer-reviewed journals. This trial was registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with registration number ChiCTR2300075410.

The Efficacy of Chemical Bowel Preparation Against Incisional Surgical Site Infection in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Propensity Score Matching Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: In colorectal cancer surgery, the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) is relatively high. The development of SSI is related to longer and costlier hospitalization and reduced quality of life; therefore, perioperative prevention of SSI is important. Chemical bowel preparation (CBP) combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) may be more effective in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) compared to MBP alone. Since May 2021, we have been administering oral kanamycin and metronidazole as CBP, in addition to MBP, as a preoperative treatment for colorectal cancer surgery on the day before surgery. In this study, we investigated the clinical value of CBP in addition to MBP in colorectal cancer surgery using propensity score matching (PSM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2017 to December 2021, 136 consecutive patients underwent radical surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer at the Osaka Metropolitan University Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: CBP and N-CBP. In the N-CBP group, we performed only preoperative MBP, whereas in the CBP group, we performed preoperative CBP in addition to MBP. We retrospectively analyzed this relationship with PSM. RESULTS: Overall, 46 patients underwent preoperative CBP and MBP, 90 patients underwent preoperative MBP only. PSM was performed between the CBP and N-CBP groups based on the following ten factors: age, sex, diabetes mellitus, preoperative therapy, Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), operative time, blood loss, stoma, and pathological stage. After PSM, univariate and multivariate analyses of the relationship between SSI and clinicopathological factors were performed. Univariate analysis showed that age and CBP were correlated with the rate of SSI (p=0.039 and p=0.017, respectively), whereas sex was relatively correlated with the rate of SSI (p=0.066). The multivariate analysis of significant factors identified age of 75 or more and non-CBP as an independent risk factor for incisional SSI (HR=9.5; p=0.049 and HR=5.4×e-8; p=0.020). CONCLUSION: Preoperative CBP in addition to MBP was effective in preventing incisional SSI during colorectal cancer surgery.

Improving Inpatient Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation: A Successful Quality Improvement Project.

Inadequate inpatient bowel preparation can lead to repeat procedures, prolonged hospital stays, and increased financial burden. In this quality improvement project, the authors developed an electronic medical record (EMR)-based order set with precise instructions and anticipatory guidance for inpatient bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The current study is a nonrandomized intervention study. The authors compared 2 groups: an intervention group using a newly developed, consensus-based, standardized EMR bowel preparation order set and a control group using previously existing EMR bowel preparation orders. Bowel preparation outcomes were followed over the course of 16 months. The aim was to improve inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation, as evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, procedure delays, and length of hospital stay. We additionally evaluated the groups' demographics and patient-level factors. A total of 459 inpatient colonoscopies were evaluated over a 16-month period. The intervention group consisted of 227 inpatient colonoscopies, while the control group consisted of 232. The intervention group showed superior Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score and decreased length of hospital stay. The number of adequate bowel preparations increased in the intervention group when compared to the control group from 77% to 86%. The creation of an EMR-based order set is a low-cost and sustainable action that can be easily implemented throughout a hospital system.

Shortening Oral Simethicone-to-Colonoscopy Interval Increases Bowel Preparation Quality.

BACKGROUND Simethicone can improve bowel preparation quality, but the optimal timing of oral simethicone before colonoscopy has not been determined. This study aimed to explore the effect of the time interval between oral simethicone and the start of colonoscopy (S-C) on bowel preparation quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 364 patients undergoing colonoscopy at our department from August 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 were included in the training cohort, and 420 consecutive patients from December 15, 2021 to January 31, 2022 comprised the validation cohort. They were classified into short and long S-C groups according to the median S-C. Bowel preparation quality evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was compared between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the correlation between S-C and bowel preparation quality, and we explored the effect of run-way time and time of starting colonoscopy on bowel preparation quality. RESULTS In the training cohort, 182 and 182 patients were classified into the short and long S-C groups, respectively; in the validation cohort, 210 and 210 patients were classified into the 2 groups, respectively. In the 2 cohorts, the short S-C group had a significantly higher rate of adequate/excellent bowel preparation than the long S-C group. Logistic regression analyses showed that shorter S-C, shorter run-way time, and colonoscopy in the morning were all correlated with adequate/excellent bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS Bowel preparation quality may be affected by S-C, run-way time, and time of starting colonoscopy. S-C shortening should be given equal importance as run-way time shortening.

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).

[Bowel preparation before colorectal surgery].

High quality bowel preparation is a necessary part of preoperative preparation for colorectal surgery and one of the keys to the success of surgery, which directly affects the quality of intraoperative procedures and postoperative recovery of patients. Conventional intestinal preparation mainly includes three aspects: preoperative dietary control, intestinal cleansing and prophylactic use of antibiotics. With the development of evidence-based medicine, the concepts and methods of bowel preparation have also changed. Long fasting is no longer advocated before surgery, and the traditional mechanical bowel preparation are also challenged. This article summarizes the application and research progress of different intestinal preparation methods before colorectal surgery, aiming to provide reference for clinical work of colorectal surgeons.

Strategies to Improve Colonoscopy Preparation in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy has a vital role in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), as well as in the estimation of disease severity, monitoring response to therapy, and surveillance for neoplasia. We performed a systematic review of randomised trials of various bowel preparations for colonoscopy in IBD. METHODS: We searched various electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL) for studies reporting about the use of various strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in IBD. We included only randomized clinical trials (RCTs). A network meta-analysis was done using a frequentist approach to compare the effectiveness of various bowel preparations. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. Other outcome parameters like compliance, tolerance, acceptance, and adverse effects were assessed qualitatively. RESULTS: Seven RCTs reporting about 960 patients were included. On comparison with 4 liter (L) of poliethylen glycol (PEG), oral sulfate solution (OR=1.1, 95%CI: 0.65-1.86); PEG2L/Ascorbate (OR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.65-1.48); PEG1L (OR=1, 95%CI: 0.55-1.81); PEG2L plus bisacodyl (OR=1.08, 95%CI: 0.71-1.65); PEG4L plus simethicone (OR=1, 95%CI: 0.67-1.50); PEG/ sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate (SPMC) 1.5L (OR=0.99, 95%CI: 0.55-1.78); SPMC 2L (OR=1.09, 95%CI: 0.61-1.97) had similar effectiveness. Three RCTs reported compliance, five RCTs reported tolerance, two studies reported patient acceptance and five RCTs reported data on the willingness of patients to repeat the procedure in the future. Low-volume preparations had better compliance, tolerance, acceptance, and willingness to repeat. No difference in additional outcomes like change in disease activity after colonoscopy, procedure-related outcomes after colonoscopy like cecal intubation rate, and change in electrolyte levels were found. CONCLUSION: Various bowel preparations had similar effectiveness in respect to colonoscopy preparation in IBD patients. Low-volume preparations have better compliance, tolerance, and acceptance. The systematic review was limited by a small number of included RCTs.

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.

Probiotics for managing patients after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: an interventional, double-arm, open, randomized, multi-center, and national study (COLONSTUDY).

BACKGROUND: Bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy induces significant changes in gut microbiota, causing dysbiosis that, in turn, elicits intestinal symptoms. Consequently, probiotics may counterbalance the disturbed microbiota after BP. So, probiotics may restore microbiota homeostasis. METHODS: The current study evaluated the efficacy and safety of Abincol®, an oral nutraceutical containing a probiotic mixture with Lactobacillus plantarum LP01 (1 billion living cells), Lactobacillus lactis subspecies cremoris LLC02 (800 millions living cells), and Lactobacillus delbrueckii LDD01 (200 millions living cells), Patients were randomized in two groups (2:1). Group A took one stick/daily for four weeks after colonoscopy. Group B was considered as control. Patients were evaluated at baseline (T0) and after one (T1), two (T2), and four (T3) weeks. The severity of symptoms was measured by patients using a Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Abincol® significantly diminished the presence and the severity of intestinal symptoms at T2 and even more at T3. All patients well tolerated the probiotic mixture. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that Abincol® may be considered an effective and safe therapeutic option in managing patients undergoing BP. The course should last one month.

Efficacy of Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Powder Combined With Linaclotide for Colon Cleansing in Patients With Chronic Constipation Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Multicenter, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Constipation is an independent risk factor for poor bowel preparation. This study aimed to evaluate the bowel cleansing efficacy and safety of polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with linaclotide (lin) for colonoscopy in patients with chronic constipation (CC). METHODS: This single-blinded, randomized, controlled, and multicenter study was conducted from July 2021 to December 2022 at 7 hospitals. Patients with CC who underwent colonoscopies were enrolled and randomly assigned to 4 groups with split-PEG regimens: 4L-PEG group, 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group, 3L-PEG+1d-Lin group, and 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group. The primary outcome was rates of adequate bowel preparation, defined as a total BBPS score ≥6 and a score ≥2 for each segment. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, sleep quality, willingness to repeat the colonoscopy, adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate. RESULTS: Five hundred two patients were enrolled. The rates of adequate bowel preparation (80.0% vs 60.3%, P < 0.001; 84.4% vs 60.3%, P < 0.001) and the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores (6.90 ± 1.28 vs 6.00 ± 1.61, P < 0.001; 7.03 ± 1.24 vs 6.00 ± 1.61, P < 0.01) in the 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group and the 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group were superior to that in the 4L-PEG group. Compared with the 4L-PEG group, the 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group (66.7% vs 81.7%, P = 0.008) and the 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group (75.0% vs 81.7%, P = 0.224) had a lower percentage of mild adverse events. No statistically significant difference in willingness to repeat the colonoscopy, sleep quality, polyp detection rate, or adenoma detection rate was observed among groups. DISCUSSION: PEG combined with linaclotide might be an effective method for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in patients with CC.

Transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation versus transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation and water contrast for diagnosing Recto-Sigmoid endometriosis. A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

Transvaginal ultrasound is effective in diagnosing endometriosis involving the rectosigmoid bowel. Some authors suggest enhanced detection of rectosigmoid involvement with bowel preparation. Conversely, conflicting views argue that bowel preparation may not improve diagnostic precision, yielding similar results to rectal water contrast. No existing meta-analysis compares these approaches. Our study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation, with and without rectal water contrast. Studies published between 2000 and 2023 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science. From 561 citations, we selected nine studies to include in this meta-analysis. The study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2). The mean prevalence of endometriosis rectosigmoid was 43.6% (range 17,56-76,66%) in the group with bowel preparation and 64,80% (50,0-83,60%) for the group with bowel preparation and rectal water contrast. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 93% and 94% for bowel preparation and 92% and 95% and for bowel preparation with water contrast. We conclude that, there was no significant difference between performing transvaginal ultrasound with intestinal preparation with and without water contrast. In clinical practice, the absence of a significant difference between these methods should be taken into account when making recommendations.

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively explore the risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation (IBP). METHODS: We searched the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases up to August 24, 2023, to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined risk factors for IBP. A random effects model was used to pool the adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 125 studies (91 observational studies, 34 RCTs) were included. Meta-analyses of observational studies revealed that three preparation-related factors, namely, characteristics of last stool (solid or brown liquid), incomplete preparation intake, and incorrect diet restriction, were strong predictors of IBP. The other factors were moderately correlated with IBP incidence, including demographic variables (age, body mass index, male sex, Medicaid insurance, and current smoking), comorbidities (diabetes, liver cirrhosis, psychiatric disease, Parkinson's disease, previous IBP, poor mobility, inpatient, and Bristol stool form 1/2), medications (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, antidepressants, narcotics, antipsychotics, and calcium channel blockers), and preparation-related factors (preparation-to-colonoscopy interval not within 3 to 5/6 h, nonsplit preparation, and preparation instructions not followed). No colonoscopy indications were found to be related to IBP. Meta-analyses of RCTs showed that education, constipation, stroke/dementia, and discomfort during preparation were also moderately associated with IBP. Most of the other findings were consistent with the pooled results of observational studies. However, primarily due to imprecision and inconsistency, the certainty of evidence for most factors was very low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: We summarized five categories of risk factors for IBP. Compared to demographic variables, comorbidities, medications, and colonoscopy indications, preparation-related elements were more strongly associated with IBP. These findings may help clinicians identify high-risk individuals and provide guidance for IBP prevention.

Influence of additional prophylactic oral antibiotics during mechanical bowel preparation on surgical site infection in patients receiving colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic antibiotics (PAs) are standard for preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) post-colorectal surgery. This study aims to compare the effect of additional empiric oral antibiotics (OAs) alongside routine PAs to identify SSI risk factors. METHODS: A retrospective observatory analysis was conducted from January 2019 to December 2022 at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The cohort was divided into two groups: PA given 1 h before surgery and discontinued within 24 h, and OA administered empiric OAs during mechanical bowel preparation in addition to PA. RESULTS: From a total of 6736 patients, 3482 were in the PA group and 3254 in the OA group. SSI incidence showed no significant intergroup difference (p = 0.374) even after propensity score matching (p = 0.338). The multivariable analysis revealed male sex [odds ratio (OR): 2.153, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.626-2.852, and p = 0.001], open surgery (OR: 3.335, 95% CI: 2.456-4.528, and p = 0.001), dirty wound (OR: 2.171, 95% CI: 1.256-3.754, and p = 0.006), and an operation time of more than 145 min (OR: 2.110, 95% CI: 1.324-3.365, and p = 0.002) as SSI risk factors. In rectal surgery subgroup, OA demonstrated a protective effect against SSI (OR: 0.613, 95% CI: 0.408-0.922, and p = 0.019) and in laparoscopic approach (OR: 0.626, 95% CI: 0.412-0.952, and p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: OA did not affect SSI incidence in colorectal surgeries. Male sex, open surgery, dirty wounds, and longer operation time were risk factors for SSI. However, for rectal and laparoscopic surgery, OA was a protective factor for SSI.

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.

Mid-infrared spectroscopic identification of the right-baked rhubarb for ulcerative colitis therapy.

Clinical and experimental evidences have confirmed the significant therapeutic effects of rhubarb on ulcerative colitis (UC), but the strong purgative function of rhubarb also aggravates UC symptoms such as bloody diarrhea. Stir-baking to scorch is a traditional Chinese medicinal processing method that can eliminate the adverse purgative function while keep or even enhance the UC therapeutic function of rhubarb. However, the under-baked rhubarb still have the undesirable purgative function, but the over-baked rhubarb may lose the required medicinal functions. Therefore, the determination of the right endpoint is the primary quality concern about the baking process of rhubarb. In this research, typical anthraquinone compounds and mid-infrared (MIR) spectra were recruited to determine the best baking degree of rhubarb for UC therapy. Raw rhubarb slices were baked at 180 °C with rotation to prepare the rhubarbs with different baking degrees. The right-baked rhubarb was defined according to the UC therapeutic responses as well as the traditional color criterion. Referring to the typical anthraquinone compounds in rhubarb slices and extracts, the baking degree of rhubarb may be assessed by the conversion ratio of anthraquinone glycosides to anthraquinone aglycones. MIR spectra showed the gradual decompositions of organic compounds including anthraquinone glycosides and tannins during the baking process. Rhubarbs with different baking degrees can be distinguished clearly by MIR-based principal component analysis. In conclusion, the ratio of anthraquinone glycosides to anthraquinone aglycones may be a reasonable chemical indicator of the right-baked rhubarb. Meanwhile, MIR spectroscopy can identify the right-baked rhubarb simply and rapidly.