The Effect of Mechanical Bowel Preparation on the Surgical Field in Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of Investigative Surgery Pub Date : 2022-05-30 DOI:10.1080/08941939.2022.2081389
U. K. Ozturk, S. Acar, S. Akış, E. Keleş, C. Alınca, M. Api
{"title":"The Effect of Mechanical Bowel Preparation on the Surgical Field in Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"U. K. Ozturk, S. Acar, S. Akış, E. Keleş, C. Alınca, M. Api","doi":"10.1080/08941939.2022.2081389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose To evaluate the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries. Methods The patients randomized to a MBP group and a no preparation (NMBP) group. The senior surgeon remained blinded to the bowel regimen used by the patient. Intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery were evaluated using a numeric rating scale (NRS). Results We enrolled 120 patients, of whom 109 completed the study, with 51 and 58 patients in the MBP and NMBP groups, respectively. The intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, intestinal load, and NRS scores for overall ease of surgery were better in the NMBP group (p = .03, p = .048, and p = .022, respectively). The results of the assessments also revealed no significant differences in surgical field visualization, ease of bowel handling, overall ease of surgery, or the time that patients experienced passage of flatus between obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) and non-obese (BMI ≤ 30 kg/m2) patients in the two groups. Conclusions The current study revealed that MBP did not improve the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field or the overall ease of surgery. Moreover, MBP had no benefit when operating on patients who had a high BMI. Therefore, we do not recommend routine MBP before laparoscopic gynecological surgeries.","PeriodicalId":16200,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2022.2081389","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries. Methods The patients randomized to a MBP group and a no preparation (NMBP) group. The senior surgeon remained blinded to the bowel regimen used by the patient. Intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery were evaluated using a numeric rating scale (NRS). Results We enrolled 120 patients, of whom 109 completed the study, with 51 and 58 patients in the MBP and NMBP groups, respectively. The intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, intestinal load, and NRS scores for overall ease of surgery were better in the NMBP group (p = .03, p = .048, and p = .022, respectively). The results of the assessments also revealed no significant differences in surgical field visualization, ease of bowel handling, overall ease of surgery, or the time that patients experienced passage of flatus between obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) and non-obese (BMI ≤ 30 kg/m2) patients in the two groups. Conclusions The current study revealed that MBP did not improve the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field or the overall ease of surgery. Moreover, MBP had no benefit when operating on patients who had a high BMI. Therefore, we do not recommend routine MBP before laparoscopic gynecological surgeries.
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
腹腔镜妇科手术中机械肠道准备对手术区域的影响:一项前瞻性随机对照试验
摘要目的评估机械肠道准备(MBP)对选择性腹腔镜妇科手术患者术中手术视野、肠道处理、肠道负荷和整体手术简易性的影响。方法将患者随机分为MBP组和非制剂组。这位资深外科医生对病人使用的肠道疗法仍然一无所知。使用数字评分量表(NRS)评估手术视野、肠道处理、肠道负荷和手术总体易程度的术中可视化。结果我们招募了120名患者,其中109人完成了研究,MBP组和NMBP组分别有51名和58名患者。NMBP组的手术视野、肠道负荷和NRS评分的术中可视化效果较好(p = .03,p = .048和p = .022)。评估结果还显示,肥胖患者(BMI>30 kg/m2)和非肥胖(BMI≤30 kg/m2)患者。结论目前的研究表明,MBP并没有改善手术视野的术中可视化或手术的整体简易性。此外,MBP在对高BMI患者进行手术时没有任何益处。因此,我们不建议在腹腔镜妇科手术前进行常规MBP。
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
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Investigative Surgery publishes peer-reviewed scientific articles for the advancement of surgery, to the ultimate benefit of patient care and rehabilitation. It is the only journal that encompasses the individual and collaborative efforts of scientists in human and veterinary medicine, dentistry, basic and applied sciences, engineering, and law and ethics. The journal is dedicated to the publication of outstanding articles of interest to the surgical research community.
期刊最新文献
Anterior, Posterior and Anterior-Posterior Approaches for the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. The HIF-1α/PKM2 Feedback Loop in Relation to EGFR Mutational Status in Lung Adenocarcinoma. Posttranscriptional Regulation of Intestinal Mucosal Growth and Adaptation by Noncoding RNAs in Critical Surgical Disorders. Statement of Retraction: Liver X Receptors Activation Attenuates Ischemia Reperfusion Injury of Liver Graft in Rats. Correlation Between Basal Metabolic Rate and Clinical Outcomes in Gastric Cancer Patients: A Retrospective 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