Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Rectal enema is an alternative to full mechanical bowel preparation for primary rectal cancer surgery


Pittet, O; Nocito, A; Balke, H; Duvoisin, C; Clavien, P A; Demartines, N; Hahnloser, D (2015). Rectal enema is an alternative to full mechanical bowel preparation for primary rectal cancer surgery. Colorectal Disease, 17(11):1007-1010.

Abstract

AIM: According to the French GRECCAR III randomized trial, full mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for rectal surgery decreases the rate of postoperative morbidity, in particular postoperative infectious complications, but MBP is not well tolerated by the patient. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a preoperative rectal enema (RE) might be an alternative to MBP.
METHODS: An analysis was performed of 96 matched cohort patients undergoing rectal resection with primary anastomosis and protective ileostomy at two different university teaching hospitals, whose rectal cancer management was comparable except for the choice of preoperative bowel preparation (MBP or RE). Prospective databases were retrospectively analysed.
RESULTS: Patients were well matched for age, gender, body mass index and Charlson index. The surgical approach and cancer characteristics (level above anal verge, stage and use of neoadjuvant therapy) were comparable between the two groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 10% of patients having MBP and in 8% having RE (P = 1.00). Pelvic abscess formation (6% vs 2%, P = 0.63) and wound infection (8% vs 15%, P = 0.55) were also comparable. Extra-abdominal infection (13% vs 13%, P = 1.00) and non-infectious abdominal complications such as ileus and bleeding (27% and 31%, P = 0.83) were not significantly different. Overall morbidity was comparable in the two groups (50% vs 54%, P = 0.83).
CONCLUSION: A simple RE before rectal surgery seems not to be associated with more postoperative infectious complications nor a higher overall morbidity than MBP.

Abstract

AIM: According to the French GRECCAR III randomized trial, full mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for rectal surgery decreases the rate of postoperative morbidity, in particular postoperative infectious complications, but MBP is not well tolerated by the patient. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a preoperative rectal enema (RE) might be an alternative to MBP.
METHODS: An analysis was performed of 96 matched cohort patients undergoing rectal resection with primary anastomosis and protective ileostomy at two different university teaching hospitals, whose rectal cancer management was comparable except for the choice of preoperative bowel preparation (MBP or RE). Prospective databases were retrospectively analysed.
RESULTS: Patients were well matched for age, gender, body mass index and Charlson index. The surgical approach and cancer characteristics (level above anal verge, stage and use of neoadjuvant therapy) were comparable between the two groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 10% of patients having MBP and in 8% having RE (P = 1.00). Pelvic abscess formation (6% vs 2%, P = 0.63) and wound infection (8% vs 15%, P = 0.55) were also comparable. Extra-abdominal infection (13% vs 13%, P = 1.00) and non-infectious abdominal complications such as ileus and bleeding (27% and 31%, P = 0.83) were not significantly different. Overall morbidity was comparable in the two groups (50% vs 54%, P = 0.83).
CONCLUSION: A simple RE before rectal surgery seems not to be associated with more postoperative infectious complications nor a higher overall morbidity than MBP.

Statistics

Citations

5 citations in Web of Science®
6 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Visceral and Transplantation Surgery
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:November 2015
Deposited On:26 Jan 2016 11:11
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 19:54
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:1462-8910
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12974
PubMed ID:25880356

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher