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

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY Turkish Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2023-09-27 eCollection Date: 2023-09-01 DOI:10.47717/turkjsurg.2023.6059
Sami Benli, Deniz Tikici, Caner Baysan, Mehmet Özgür Türkmenoğlu, Tahsin Çolak
{"title":"Does mechanical bowel preparation really prevent complications after colorectal surgery depending on the lesion localization? A myth or fact?","authors":"Sami Benli, Deniz Tikici, Caner Baysan, Mehmet Özgür Türkmenoğlu, Tahsin Çolak","doi":"10.47717/turkjsurg.2023.6059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23374,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10696451/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47717/turkjsurg.2023.6059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机械肠道准备真的能根据病变定位预防结直肠手术后并发症吗?神话还是事实?
目的:尽管在大多数外科诊所中,机械肠道准备(MBP)在择期结肠手术前常规使用,但仍存在争议。本研究旨在探讨右、左或直肠乙状结肠切除术无MBP的术后并发症和结果。材料和方法:2011年1月至2021年12月期间接受无机械肠道准备和口服抗生素的择期结直肠手术的患者纳入研究。根据切除部位对患者进行分类,并比较这些亚组的吻合口漏、手术部位感染(SSI)和使用Clavien-Dindo并发症分级测量的总体发病率。结果:对422例患者资料进行分析。全部吻合口漏14例(3.3%),SSI 46例(10.9%),吻合口收集14例(3.3%),死亡18例(4.3%),再手术17例(%4)。右结肠切除术组6例(3.9%),左结肠切除术组2例(1.9%),直肠乙状结肠切除术组6例(3.7%)。两组间差异无统计学意义(p= 0.630)。此外,在收集和再次手术方面,组间差异无统计学意义(p值分别为p= 0.31和p= 0.251)。结论:研究结果显示吻合口漏、手术部位感染、腹腔内收集、再手术、死亡率与目前机械肠道准备研究的文献相似。此外,根据切除部位不同,这些结果也相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK. Musinous cystic neoplasia mimicking hydatid cyst in the liver: Two rare cases Comments on ‘Percutaneous gas decompression can ease endoscopic derotation in sigmoid volvulus’ Pathological complete response and associated factors in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A retrospective study Effect of silver colloid dressing over conventional dressings in diabetic foot ulcer: A prospective study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1