๐”– Bobbio Scriptorium
โœฆ   LIBER   โœฆ

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of colorectal surgery with or without mechanical bowel preparation

โœ Scribed by K. Slim; E. Vicaut; Y. Panis; J. Chipponi


Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
2004
Tongue
English
Weight
122 KB
Volume
91
Category
Article
ISSN
0007-1323

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

โœฆ Synopsis


Abstract

Background

Mechanical bowel preparation is used routinely before colorectal surgery, but some randomized clinical trials have suggested that it is of no benefit. This study assesses whether such bowel preparation may safely be omitted before elective colorectal surgery.

Methods

A search of the literature was performed; the inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing bowel preparation with no preparation in colorectal surgery. The methodological quality of included trials was assessed. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage; secondary outcomes were other septic complications. The meta-analysis was conducted using the Peto one-step method.

Results

Eleven trials were retrieved, of which seven, containing 1454 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. There was no heterogeneity between the trials. Significantly more anastomotic leakage was found after mechanical bowel preparation (5ยท6 versus 3ยท2 per cent; odds ratio 1ยท75 (95 per cent confidence interval 1ยท05 to 2ยท90); P = 0ยท032). All other endpoints (wound infection, other septic complications and non-septic complications) also favoured the no-preparation regimen, but the differences were not statistically significant. Sensitivity analysis showed that these results were similar when trials of poor quality were excluded. Subgroup analysis showed that anastomotic leakage was significantly greater after bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) compared with no preparation, but not after other types of preparation.

Conclusion

There is good evidence to suggest that mechanical bowel preparation using PEG should be omitted before elective colorectal surgery. Other bowel preparations should be evaluated by further large randomized trials.


๐Ÿ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES


Meta-analysis of randomized clinical tri
โœ R. M. H. Roumen ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2005 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 54 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 1 views

## Abstract The Editors welcome topical correspondence from readers relating to articles published in the Journal. Responses can be sent electronically via the BJS website (www.bjs.co.uk) or by post. All letters will be reviewed and, if approved, appear on the website. A selection of these will be

Randomized clinical trial of bowel prepa
โœ C. Platell; N. Barwood; G. Makin ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2006 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 111 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 1 views

## Abstract ## Background A recent meta-analysis has questioned the value of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colorectal resection. The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate whether a single phosphate enema was as effective as oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in preventing anas