Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery.
BACKGROUND
For over a century the presence of bowel content during surgery has been linked to anastomotic leakage. Mechanical bowel preparation has been considered an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications. This dogma is not based on solid evidence, but on observational data and expert's opinions.


OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mechanical bowel preparation for morbidity and mortality rates in elective colorectal surgery.


METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We also searched relevant medical journals, and conference proceedings from major gastroenterological congresses and contacted experts in the field. We used the search strategy described by the Colorectal Cancer Review Group, without limitations for date of publication and language. I SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, clinical trials that compared any strategy in mechanical bowel preparation with no mechanical bowel preparation.


METHODS
Data were independently extracted by the reviewers and cross-checked. The same reviewers assessed the methodological quality of each trial. Details of the randomisation (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done, and the number of patients lost to follow-up was recorded. For analysis the Peto odds ratio (OR) was used as defaults.


RESULTS
Of the 1592 patients (9 trials), 789 were allocated to mechanical bowel preparation (Group A) and 803 to no preparation (Group B) before elective colorectal surgery. For anastomotic leakage (main outcome) the results were: - Low anterior resection: 9.8% (11 of 112 patients in Group A) compared with 7.5% (9 of 119 patients in Group B); Peto OR 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57 to 3.67 (non-significant); - Colonic surgery: 2.9% (Group A) compared with 1.6% (Group B) ; Peto OR 1.80, 95% CI: 0.68 to 4.75 (non-significant); Overall anastomotic leakage: 6.2% (Group A) compared with 3.2% (Group B); Peto OR 2.03, 95% CI: 1.276 to 3.26 (p=0.003). For the secondary outcome of wound infection the result was: 7.4% (Group A) compared with 5.4% (Group B); Peto OR 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97 - to 2.18 (p=0.07); Sensitivity analyses excluding studies with dubious randomisation, studies published as abstracts only, and studies involving children did not change the overall conclusions


CONCLUSIONS
There is no convincing evidence that mechanical bowel preparation is associated with reduced rates of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery. On the contrary, there is evidence that this intervention may be associated with an increased rate of anastomotic leakage and wound complications. It is not possible to be conclusion on the latter issue because of the clinical heterogeneity of trial inclusion criteria, methodological inadequacies in trial (in particular, poor reporting of concealment and allocation), potential performance biases, and failure of intention-to-treat analyses. Nevertheless, the dogma that mechanical bowel preparation is necessary before elective colorectal surgery should be reconsidered.
Guenaga
K F
KF
Surgical Gastroenterology Department, Ferderal University of São Paulo, Marivaldo Fernandes, 152 apto. 13, Guarujá, São Paulo, Brazil, 11 440-050. kaci@uol.com.br
Matos
D
D
Castro
A A
AA
Atallah
A N
AN
Wille-Jørgensen
P
P
D003107:Colorectal Surgery; D013505:Digestive System Surgical Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects*; D017558:Elective Surgical Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects*; D005242:Fecal Incontinence / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control; D006801:Humans; D011300:Preoperative Care / Q000379:methods*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D013529:Surgical Wound Dehiscence / Q000517:prevention & control; D013530:Surgical Wound Infection / Q000517:prevention & control