Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent a major source of postoperative complications adversely impacting morbidity and mortality indices in surgical care. The discovery of antibiotics in the mid-20th century, and their ensuing use for preoperative antimicrobial bowel preparation and prophylaxis, drastically reduced the occurrence of SSIs providing a major tool to surgeons of various specialties, including urology. Because, the appropriate use of these antimicrobials is critical for their continued safety and efficacy, an understanding of the recommendations guiding their application is essential for all surgeons. Here, we comprehensively review these recommendations with a focus on open and laparoscopic urologic surgeries.

Despite rapid advances in colorectal surgery, morbidity and mortality rates in elective gastrointestinal surgery play a significant role. For decades, there have been tempestuous discussions on preventative measures to minimize the risk of anastomotic dehiscence. When mechanical bowel preparation before an elective procedure, one of the key hypotheses, was introduced into practice, it was assumed that it would decrease the number of infectious complications and anastomotic dehiscence. The advancements in antibiotic treatment supported the concomitant administration of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation. In the prospective study conducted at our clinic, we performed left-side colorectal procedures without prior mechanical preparation. All patients enrolled in the study underwent the surgery and were observed in the 3rd Surgical Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia, from January 2019 to January 2020. As a control group, we used a similar group of patients with MBP. Our observed group included 87 patients with tumors in the left part of their large intestine (lineal flexure, descendent colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum). Dixon laparoscopic resection was performed in 26 patients. Sigmoid laparoscopic resection was performed in 27 patients. In 12 patients, the procedure was started laparoscopically but had to be converted due to adverse anatomical conditions. The conservative approaches mostly included Dixon resections (19 patients), sigmoid colon resections (5 patients), left-side hemicolectomies (6 patients), and Miles' tumor resections, with rectal amputation (4 patients). Our study highlighted the fact that MBP does not have an unequivocal benefit for patients with colorectal infection, which has an impact on the development of anastomotic dehiscence.

Preoperative bowel preparation, through iterations over time, has evolved with the goal of optimizing surgical outcomes after colon and rectal surgery. Although bowel preparation is commonplace in current practice, its precise mechanism of action, particularly its effect on the human gut microbiome, has yet to be fully elucidated. Absent intervention, the gut microbiota is largely stable, yet reacts to dietary influences, tissue injury, and microbiota-specific byproducts of metabolism. The routine use of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation prior to intestinal surgical procedures may have detrimental effects previously thought to be negligible. Recent evidence highlights the sensitivity of gut microbiota to antibiotics, bowel preparation, and surgery; however, there is a lack of knowledge regarding specific causal pathways that could lead to therapeutic interventions. As our understanding of the complex interactions between the human host and gut microbiota grows, we can explore the role of bowel preparation in specific microbiome alterations to refine perioperative care and improve outcomes. In this review, we outline the current fund of information regarding the impact of surgical bowel preparation and its components on the adult gut microbiome. We also emphasize key questions pertinent to future microbiome research and their implications for patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

To investigate the effect of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol on perioperative and post-operative outcomes in laparoscopic hysterectomies (LHs) performed for benign gynecological diseases.

This prospective study was conducted with randomized 100 participants who underwent LH between 1 January and 31 December, 2022. A standard care protocol was applied to 50 participants (Group 1, control) and the ERAS protocol to the other 50 (Group 2, study). Length of hospitalization was compared between the groups as the primary outcome, and the duration of the operation, the amount of bleeding, post-operative nausea-vomiting, gas discharge time, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and complications as the secondary outcomes.

No statistically significant difference was seen between the groups in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, operation indications, surgical procedures applied in addition to hysterectomy, operative time, pre-operative and post-operative hemoglobin levels, amount of bleeding, or drain use (p > 0.05). However, a statistically significant difference was observed in terms of nausea (60% vs. 26%, p = 0.001), vomiting (28% vs. 10%, p = 0.040), duration of gassing (17.74 ± 6.77 vs. 14.20 ± 7.05 h, p = 0.012), length of hospitalization (41.78 ± 12.17 vs. 34.12 ± 10.90 h, p = 0.001), analgesic requirements (4.62 ± 1.36 vs. 3.34 ± 1.27 h, p < 0.001), or VAS scores at the 1st (5.86 ± 1.21 vs. 4.58 ± 1.31, p < 0.001), 6th (5.16 ± 1.12 vs. 4.04 ± 1.08, p < 0.001), 12th (4.72 ± 1.12 vs. 3.48 ± 1.12, p < 0.001), 18th (4.48 ± 1.21 vs. 3.24 ± 1.34, p < 0.001), and 24th (4.08 ± 1.29 vs. 3.01 ± 1.30, p < 0.001) hours.

The findings of this study show that the ERAS protocol has a positive effect on peri- and post-operative outcomes in LH. Further prospective studies are now needed to confirm the validity of the results.

Crohn's disease, a chronic inflammatory process of the gastrointestinal tract defined by flares and periods of remission, is increasing in incidence. Despite advances in multimodal medical therapy, disease progression often necessitates multiple operations with high morbidity. The inability to treat Crohn's disease successfully is likely in part because the etiopathogenesis is not completely understood; however, recent research suggests the gut microbiome plays a critical role. How traditional perioperative management, including bowel preparation and preoperative antibiotics, further changes the microbiome and affects outcomes is not well described, especially in Crohn's patients, who are unique given their immunosuppression and baseline dysbiosis. This paper aims to outline current knowledge regarding perioperative management of Crohn's disease, the evolving role of gut dysbiosis, and how the microbiome can guide perioperative considerations with special attention to perioperative antibiotics as well as treatment of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis. In conclusion, dysbiosis is common in Crohn's patients and may be exacerbated by malnutrition, steroids, narcotic use, diarrhea, and perioperative antibiotics. Dysbiosis is also a major risk factor for anastomotic leak, and special consideration should be given to limiting factors that further perturb the gut microbiota in the perioperative period.

To analyze the risk and benefit of bowel preparations in elective colo-rectal surgery.

Mechanical bowel preparations (MBPs) have been popularized in colo-rectal surgery since studies in the 1970s, but recent data has called their use into question and examined complication rates between patients with and without bowel preparations.

A retrospective case-review was performed consisting of 1237 elective colo-rectal surgeries performed by two surgeons between 2008 and 2021. Patients received either a MBP, a mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (OAMBP), oral antibiotics alone (OA), or no bowel preparation; some patients across all categories received an enema.

Bowel preparations combined (MBP and OAMBP) totaled 436 patients and showed no statistically significant difference (P > .05) in primary outcomes of wound infection and anastomotic leak when compared to the 636 patients without a bowel preparation and 165 patients with OA. The analysis controlled for comorbidities and presence of enema. Of secondary outcomes, urinary tract infections (UTIs) were significantly more common in patients who received a bowel preparation (P = .047). All other outcomes showed no significant difference between groups, including complications on day of surgery; complications, readmission with and without surgery, and ileus formation within 30 days of surgery; sepsis; pneumonia; and length of stay (LOS). The presence of enemas did not have a statistically significant effect on outcomes.

This study's data does not support the routine use of MBPs in elective colo-rectal surgery and draws into further question whether MBPs should remain standard of care.

Oral antibiotics (OA) combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) significantly decrease the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs). However, the prophylactic effects in region-specific colorectal surgery have not been assessed.

A single-centre, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted from 2019 to 2022. Patients were eligible if they were diagnosed with nonmetastatic colorectal malignancy, and laparoscopic colorectal surgery was indicated. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the experimental (OA+MBP preparation) or control group (MBP preparation). The randomization was further stratified by resected region. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSIs. Patients were followed up for 1 month postoperatively, and all complications were recorded.

Between 2019 and 2022, 157 and 152 patients were assigned to the experimental and control groups, respectively, after 51 patients were excluded. The incidence of SSIs in the control group (27/152) was significantly higher than that in the experimental group (13/157; P =0.013), as was the incidence of superficial SSIs (5/157 vs. 14/152, P =0.027) and deep SSIs (7/157 vs. 16/152, P =0.042). After redistribution according to the resected region, the incidence of SSIs was significantly higher in the control group with left-sided colorectal resection (descending, sigmoid colon, and rectum) (9/115 vs. 20/111, P =0.022) but was similar between the groups with right-sided colon resection (ascending colon) (3/37 vs. 7/36, P =0.286). No differences were noted between the groups in terms of other perioperative complications.

OA+MBP before colorectal surgery significantly reduced the incidence of SSIs. Such a prophylactic effect was particularly significant for left-sided resection. This preparation mode should be routinely adopted before elective left-region colorectal surgeries.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols comprise a multimodal approach to optimize patient outcome and recovery. ERAS guidelines recommend minimally invasive surgery (MIS) when possible. Key components in MIS include preoperative patient education and optimization; multimodal and narcotic-sparing analgesia; prophylactic measures regarding nausea, infection, and venous thrombosis; maintenance of euvolemia; and promotion of the early activity. ERAS protocols in MIS improve outcome mainly in terms of reduced length of stay and subsequently reduced cost. In addition, ERAS protocols in MIS reduce postoperative pain and nausea, increase patient satisfaction, and might reduce the rate of postoperative complications. Robotic surgery supports ERAS through facilitating MIS in complex procedures where laparotomy is an alternative approach.

To assess whether full bowel preparation affects 30-day surgical outcomes in laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer.

A retrospective chart review of all elective laparoscopic right colectomies performed for colonic adenocarcinoma between Jan 2011 and Dec 2021. The cohort was divided into two groups-no bowel preparation (NP) group and patients who received full bowel preparation (FP), including oral and mechanical cathartic bowel preparation. All anastomoses were extracorporeal stapled side-to-side. The two groups were compared at baseline and then were matched using propensity score based on demographic and clinical parameters. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative complication rate, mainly anastomotic leak (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rate.

The original cohort included 238 patients with a median age of 68 (SD 13) and equal M:F ratio. Following propensity score matching, 93 matched patients were included in each group. Analysis of the matched cohort showed a significantly higher overall complication rate in the FP group (28 vs 11.8%, p = 0.005) which was mostly due to minor type II complications. There were no differences in major complication rates, SSI, ileus, or AL rate. Although operative time was significantly longer in the FP group (119 vs 100 min, p ≤ 0.001), length of stay was significantly shorter in the FP group (5 vs 6 days, p = 0.001).

Aside from a shorter hospital stay, full mechanical bowel preparation for laparoscopic right colectomy does not seem to have any benefit and may be associated with a higher overall complication rate.

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is largely used worldwide prior to colostomy closure in children, although its benefits are questioned by scientific evidence, and its use can cause adverse reactions. We hypothesized that colostomy closure procedures in children are not associated with increased complications (surgical site infection [SSI] and anastomotic leakage) when performed without MBP. Thus, we conducted a noninferiority trial to compare the safety and efficacy of colostomy takedown with and without MBP.

A randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at Hospital Infantil de Mexico in Mexico City from 2015 to 2019, in which the experimental group did not receive MBP prior to colostomy closure. A total of 79 patients were analyzed, and the primary outcomes were safety-related. Data were analyzed using the chi-squared test, Student's t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate.

The demographics in both groups were comparable. Statistical analysis revealed equivalence in safety outcomes (superficial SSI, 22.5% vs 15.3% p = 0.420; deep SSI, 7.5% vs 0% p = 0.081; reoperation, p = 0.320; intestinal occlusion, p = 0.986); no anastomotic leakage was observed in any group. Secondary outcomes such as fasting time and length of hospital stay after surgery were also similar between the groups. However, patients who received MBP were admitted 2 days before surgery.

Our findings indicate that withholding MBP prior to colostomy takedowns in children is not associated with increased complications. Omitting MBP also leads to less discomfort and shortens hospital length of stay, suggesting that it has safer and more effective procedures.

Randomized controlled clinical trial with adequate statistical power.

Anastomotic leak, defined by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer as "a communication between the intra- and extraluminal compartments owing to a defect of the integrity of the intestinal wall at the anastomosis," is one of the most devastating complications in colorectal surgery. Much work has been done to identify causes of leak; however, despite advances in surgical technique, the prevalence of anastomotic leak has remained at around 11%. The potential causative role of bacteria in the etiopathology of anastomotic leak was established in the 1950s. More recently, alterations in the colonic microbiome have been shown to affect rates of anastomotic leak. Multiple perioperative factors that alter the homeostasis of the gut microbiota community structure and function have been linked to anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery. Here, we discuss the role of diet, radiation, bowel preparation, medications including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, morphine, and antibiotics, and specific microbial pathways that have been implicated in anastomotic leak via their effects on the microbiome.

Despite advances in antisepsis techniques, surgical site infection remains the most common and most costly reason for hospital readmission after surgery. Wound infections are conventionally thought to be directly caused by wound contamination. However, despite strict adherence to surgical site infection prevention techniques and bundles, these infections continue to occur at high rates. The contaminant theory of surgical site infection fails to predict and explain most postoperative infections and still remains unproven. In this article we provide evidence that the process of surgical site infection development is far more complex than what can be explained by simple bacterial contamination and hosts' ability to clear the contaminating pathogen. We show a link between the intestinal microbiome and distant surgical site infections, even in the absence of intestinal barrier breach. We discuss the Trojan-horse mechanisms by which surgical wounds may become seeded by pathogens from within one's own body and the contingencies that need to be met for an infection to develop.

To acquire a comprehensive assessment of the current status of implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols across Europe.

The survey was launched by The European Network of Young Gynecologic Oncologists (ENYGO). A 45-item survey was disseminated online through the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) Network database.

A total of 116 ESGO centers participated in the survey between December 2020 and June 2021. Overall, 80 (70%) centers reported that ERAS was implemented at their institution: 63% reported a length of stay (LOS) for advanced ovarian cancer surgery between 5 and 7 days; 57 (81%) centers reported a LOS between 2 and 4 days in patients who underwent an early-stage gynecologic cancer surgery. The ERAS items with high reported compliance (>75% "normally-always") included deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis (89%), antibiotic prophylaxis (79%), prevention of hypothermia (55%), and early mobilization (55%). The ERAS items that were poorly adhered to (less than 50%) included early removal of urinary catheter (33%), and avoidance of drains (25%).

This survey shows broad implementation of ERAS protocols across Europe; however, a wide variation in adherence to the various ERAS protocol items was reported.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a global surgery quality improvement program associated with improved clinical outcomes across the spectrum of disciplines, including gynecologic oncology. The objective of this study was to re-survey the practice of ERAS Gynecologic Oncology guidelines across Canada, after the initial guidelines publication (2016), subsequent guidelines update (2019), and Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada (GOC) education events.

A survey was created and developed through the GOC Communities of Practice ERAS section and distributed to all members between March and November 2021. The results of this survey were compared with the survey performed in 2015 RESULTS: The initial GOC survey in 2015 included 77/92 active gynecologic oncologists (84%) representing all provinces in Canada. The current updated survey had responses from 59/118 active gynecologic oncologists (51%) also from every province. Compared with the original survey there was a statistically significant improvement in uptake of 10 ERAS recommendations: smoking/alcohol cessation, modern fasting guidelines (allowance of clear fluids and solid food pre-operatively), carbohydrate loading, pre-operative warming, early feeding, post-operative laxative use, avoidance of nasogastric tubes and abdominal drains, foley catheter removal at 6 hours, and active mobilization (all p<0.003). Only two fields (stopping oral contraceptive medications pre-operatively and foley catheter removal post-operative day 1) showed worsening uptake across the two surveys (p<0.01). The ERAS recommendations that did not change in the examined time frame included routine use of mechanical bowel preparation, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, pre-operative antibiotics, and additional antibiotic dosing for prolonged surgery.

This survey demonstrates increased uptake of 10 of the ERAS guideline recommendations among Canadian gynecologic oncology providers. These findings may translate to improvements in clinical outcomes and healthcare system-level benefits including increased hospital capacity and cost savings.

Gynaecological cancers account for 15% of newly diagnosed cancer cases in women worldwide. In recent years, increasing evidence demonstrates that traditional approaches in perioperative care practice may be unnecessary or even harmful. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme has therefore been gradually introduced to replace traditional approaches in perioperative care. There is an emerging body of evidence outside of gynaecological cancer which has identified that perioperative ERAS programmes decrease length of postoperative hospital stay and reduce medical expenditure without increasing complication rates, mortality, and readmission rates. However, evidence-based decisions on perioperative care practice for major surgery in gynaecological cancer are limited. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2015.

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes in gynaecological cancer care on length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, mortality, readmission, bowel functions, quality of life, participant satisfaction, and economic outcomes.

We searched the following electronic databases for the literature published from inception until October 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus, and four Chinese databases including the China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), WanFang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Weipu Database. We also searched four trial registration platforms and grey literature databases for ongoing and unpublished trials, and handsearched the reference lists of included trials and accessible reviews for relevant references.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ERAS programmes for perioperative care in women with gynaecological cancer to traditional care strategies.

Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted the data and assessed methodological quality for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB 2) for RCTs. Using Review Manager 5.4, we pooled the data and calculated the measures of treatment effect with the mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to reflect the summary estimates and uncertainty.

We included seven RCTs with 747 participants. All studies compared ERAS programmes with traditional care strategies for women with gynaecological cancer. We had substantial concerns regarding the methodological quality of the included studies since the included RCTs had moderate to high risk of bias in domains including randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, and measurement of outcomes. ERAS programmes may reduce length of postoperative hospital stay (MD -1.71 days, 95% CI -2.59 to -0.84; I2 = 86%; 6 studies, 638 participants; low-certainty evidence). ERAS programmes may result in no difference in overall complication rates (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05; I2 = 42%; 5 studies, 537 participants; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence was very low regarding the effect of ERAS programmes on all-cause mortality within 30 days of discharge (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.68; 1 study, 99 participants). ERAS programmes may reduce readmission rates within 30 days of operation (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.90; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 385 participants; low-certainty evidence). ERAS programmes may reduce the time to first flatus (MD -0.82 days, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.63; I2 = 35%; 4 studies, 432 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the time to first defaecation (MD -0.96 days, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.44; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report the effects of ERAS programmes on quality of life. The evidence on the effects of ERAS programmes on participant satisfaction was very uncertain due to the limited number of studies. The adoption of ERAS strategies may not increase medical expenditure, though the evidence was of very low certainty (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.25; I2 = 54%; 2 studies, 167 participants).

Low-certainty evidence suggests that ERAS programmes may shorten length of postoperative hospital stay, reduce readmissions, and facilitate postoperative bowel function recovery without compromising participant safety. Further well-conducted studies are required in order to validate the certainty of these findings.

Surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with post-operative morbidity and mortality. Multiple systematic reviews have reported on individual factors affecting short-term outcome following surgical resection. This umbrella review aims to synthesize the available evidence on host and other factors associated with short-term post-operative complications.

A comprehensive search identified systematic reviews reporting on short-term outcomes following colorectal cancer surgery using PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science from inception to 8th September 2020. All reported clinicopathological variables were extracted from published systematic reviews.

The present overview identified multiple validated factors affecting short-term outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection. In particular, factors consistently associated with post-operative outcome differed with the type of complication; infective, non-infective or mortality. A minimum dataset was identified for future studies and included pre-operative age, sex, diabetes status, body mass index, body composition (sarcopenia, visceral obesity) and functional status (ASA, frailty). A recommended dataset included antibiotic prophylaxis, iron therapy, blood transfusion, erythropoietin, steroid use, enhance recovery programme and finally potential dataset included measures of the systemic inflammatory response CONCLUSION: A minimum dataset of mandatory, recommended, and potential baseline variables to be included in studies of patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection is proposed. This will maximise the benefit of such study datasets.

Surgical wound infection is the most frequent postoperative complication in abdominal surgery, especially at the colorectal level. The aim of this study is analysing the results of mechanical colon preparation combined with oral antibiotic versus mechanical colon preparation without antibiotic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing elective surgery.

This retrospective cohort study had been developed from November 2017 to February 2020. We have included a total of 281 consecutive patients undergoing elective colon and rectal oncological surgeries by the same surgical group using laparoscopic and open approaches. Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) approaches were excluded. Exposed patients undergoing colon and rectal cancer surgery received mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics with three doses of neomycin 1 g and erythromycin 500 mg the day before surgery.

The primary outcome was reduction in surgical wound infection rates before and after starting the oral antibiotic therapy from 17 to 6% (p < 0.05). As a secondary analysis, we evaluated the anastomotic dehiscence rate, corresponding with a decrease from 12 to 3% (p < 0.05).

Mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotic therapy is still not unanimously carried out in all the medical hospitals. In this report, we show that mechanical bowel preparation in combination with oral antibiotic reduces the risk of surgical wound infection and anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing colon and rectal cancer surgery.

There are discrepancies in guidelines on preparation for colorectal surgery. While intravenous (IV) antibiotics are usually administered, the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), enemas, and/or oral antibiotics (OA) is controversial.

To summarize all data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met selection criteria using network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the ranking of different bowel preparation treatment strategies for their associations with postoperative outcomes.

Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases with no language constraints, including abstracts and articles published prior to 2021.

Randomized studies of adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery with appropriate aerobic and anaerobic antibiotic cover that reported on incisional surgical site infection (SSI) or anastomotic leak were selected for inclusion in the analysis. These were selected by multiple reviewers and adjudicated by a separate lead investigator. A total of 167 of 6833 screened studies met initial selection criteria.

NMA was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were extracted by multiple independent observers and pooled in a random-effects model.

Primary outcomes were incisional SSI and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included other infections, mortality, ileus, and adverse effects of preparation.

A total of 35 RCTs that included 8377 patients were identified. Treatments compared IV antibiotics (2762 patients [33%]), IV antibiotics with enema (222 patients [3%]), IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (628 patients [7%]), MBP with IV antibiotics (2712 patients [32%]), MBP with IV antibiotics with OA (with good IV antibiotic cover in 925 patients [11%] and with good overall antibiotic cover in 375 patients [4%]), MBP with OA (267 patients [3%]), and OA (486 patients [6%]). The likelihood of incisional SSI was significantly lower for those receiving IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (rank 1) and MBP with adequate IV antibiotics with OA (rank 2) compared with all other treatment options. The addition of OA to IV antibiotics, both with and without MBP, was associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. There were minimal differences between treatments in anastomotic leak and in any of the secondary outcomes.

This NMA demonstrated that the addition of OA to IV antibiotics were associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. The results support the addition of OA to IV antibiotics to reduce incisional SSI among patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

The role of oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) after colorectal surgery is still controversial. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of a bundle including both measures in a National Infection Surveillance Network in Catalonia.

Pragmatic cohort study to assess the effect of OAP and MBP in reducing SSI rate in 65 hospitals, comparing baseline phase (BP: 2007-2015) with implementation phase (IP: 2016-2019). To compare the results, a logistic regression model was established.

Out of 34,421 colorectal operations, 5180 had SSIs (15.05%). Overall SSI rate decreased from 18.81% to 11.10% in BP and IP, respectively (OR 0.539, CI95 0.507-0.573, p < 0.0001). Information about bundle implementation was complete in 61.7% of cases. In a univariate analysis, OAP and MBP were independent factors in decreasing overall SSI, with OR 0.555, CI95 0.483-0.638, and OR 0.686, CI95 0.589-0.798, respectively; and similarly, organ/space SSI (O/S-SSI) (OR 0.592, CI95 0.494-0.710, and OR 0.771, CI95 0.630-0.944, respectively). However, only OAP retained its protective effect at both levels at multivariate analyses.

oral antibiotic prophylaxis decreased the rates of SSI and O/S-SSI in a large series of elective colorectal surgery.

Surgical-site infection (SSI) and anastomotic leakage (AL) are major complications following surgical resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC). The beneficial effect of prophylactic oral antibiotics (OABs) on AL in particular is inconsistent. We investigated the impact of OABs on AL rates and on SSI.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of recent RCTs and cohort studies was performed including patients undergoing elective CRC surgery, receiving OABs with or without mechanical bowel preparation (MBP). Primary outcomes were rates of SSI and AL. Secondarily, rates of SSI and AL were compared in broad-spectrum OABs and selective OABs (selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD)) subgroups.

Eight studies (seven RCTs and one cohort study) with a total of 2497 patients were included. Oral antibiotics combined with MBP was associated with a significant reduction in SSI (RR = 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.69), I² = 1.03%) and AL rates (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91, I² = 0.00%), compared to MBP alone. A subgroup analysis demonstrated that SDD resulted in a significant reduction in AL rates compared to broad-spectrum OABs (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.91), I² = 0.00%).

OABs in addition to MBP reduces SSI and AL rates in patients undergoing elective CRC surgery and, more specifically, SDD appears to be more effective compared to broad-spectrum OABs in reducing AL.

Surgical site infections are disproportionately common after colorectal surgery and may be largely preventable. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the effect of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation on surgical site infections.

A retrospective study of a consecutive series of elective colonic and rectal resections following an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathway, which also included mechanical bowel preparation, from 1 September 2014 to 30 September 2017. The addition of oral antibiotics (neomycin and metronidazole) to the mechanical bowel preparation procedure was assessed. Development of surgical site infections within 30 days was the main outcome measured. The secondary outcome was assessment of possible surgical site infection predictors.

Seven-hundred thirty-two patients were included: 313 (43%) preintervention (mechanical bowel preparation only); and 419 (57%) postintervention (mechanical bowel preparation plus oral antibiotics). Surgical site infection rates preintervention and. postintervention were: overall, 20.8% vs 10.5%, P < 0.001; superficial, 10.9% vs 4.3%, P < 0.001; and organ space, 9.9% vs 6.2%, P = 0.03. Subgroup analysis of colonic resections revealed a significant reduction in overall (17.1% vs 6.8%), superficial (10.7% vs 4.3%) and organ space (6.4% vs. 2.6%) infections. Rectal resections had significant reduction in overall (26.2% vs 15.3%) and superficial (11.1% vs 4.4%) infection rates but not in organ space infections (15.1% vs 10.9%). Multivariate regression analysis revealed open vs minimally invasive surgery (P < 0.001) and omission of oral antibiotics (P = 0.004) as independent predictors of surgical site infections.

Administration of oral antibiotics resulted in significant reduction of superficial and organ space infections after colonic resection; after rectal resection, significant reduction only of superficial infections was found.

The intestinal microbiota consists of numerous microbial species that collectively interact with the host, playing a crucial role in health and disease. Colorectal cancer is well-known to be related to dysbiotic alterations in intestinal microbiota. It is evident that the microbiota is significantly affected by colorectal surgery in combination with the various perioperative interventions, mainly mechanical bowel preparation and antibiotic prophylaxis. The altered postoperative composition of intestinal microbiota could lead to an enhanced virulence, proliferation of pathogens, and diminishment of beneficial microorganisms resulting in severe complications including anastomotic leakage and surgical site infections. Moreover, the intestinal microbiota could be utilized as a possible biomarker in predicting long-term outcomes after surgical CRC treatment. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of these interactions will further support the establishment of genomic mapping of intestinal microbiota in the management of patients undergoing CRC surgery.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to considerably reduce complications, length of stay and costs after most of surgical procedures by standardised application of best evidence-based perioperative care. The aim was to elaborate dedicated recommendations for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) ± hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in a two-part series of guidelines based on expert consensus. The present part I of the guidelines highlights preoperative and intraoperative management.

The core group assembled a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts involved in peritoneal surface malignancy surgery representing the fields of general surgery (n = 12), gynaecological surgery (n = 6), and anaesthesia (n = 6). Experts systematically reviewed and summarized the available evidence on 72 identified perioperative care items, following the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, evaluation) system. Final consensus (defined as ≥50%, or ≥70% of weak/strong recommendations combined) was reached by a standardised 2-round Delphi process, regarding the strength of recommendations.

Response rates were 100% for both Delphi rounds. Quality of evidence was evaluated high, moderate low and very low, for 15 (21%), 26 (36%), 29 (40%) and 2 items, respectively. Consensus was reached for 71/72(98.6%) items. Strong recommendations were defined for 37 items, No consensus could be reached regarding the preemptive use of fresh frozen plasma.

The present ERAS recommendations for CRS±HIPEC are based on a standardised expert consensus process providing clinicians with valuable guidance. There is an urgent need to produce high quality studies for CRS±HIPEC and to prospectively evaluate recommendations in clinical practice.

Cohort studies have recently initiated a paradigm shift in the field of preoperative bowel preparation. Indeed, the adjunction of oral antibiotics (OAB) to mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is now the gold standard for the American guidelines. However, this strategy is highly controverted.

This review was an up-to-date analysis of literature on bowel preparation. We conducted a systematic review for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses published since 2009. A non-exhaustive overview of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) cohort studies and the international guidelines was also given, and future leads were discussed.

The methodology of the ACS NSQIP studies did not allow a strong conclusion in favor of the association MBP+OAB. Besides, guidelines were not univocal, with non-American guidelines promoting no preparation at all. RCTs favored OAB alone: indeed, MBP+OAB showed no benefits in terms of surgical site infection (SSI) except when compared to MBP alone, while OAB alone seemed superior to no preparation. Likewise, the meta-analyses also favored OAB alone in terms of overall SSI and organ space infection. Large RCTs are currently running and may change these conclusions. Finally, microbiota is a future lead for personalized OAB.

Literature on the use of bowel preparation in gynecologic surgery is scarce and limited to minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. The decision on the use of bowel preparation before benign or malignant hysterectomies is mostly driven by extrapolating data from the colorectal literature.

Bowel preparation is a controversial element within enhanced recovery protocols, and literature investigating its efficacy in gynecologic surgery is scarce. Our aim was to determine if mechanical bowel preparation alone, oral antibiotics alone, or a combination are associated with decreased rates of surgical site infections or anastomotic leaks compared to no bowel preparation following benign or malignant hysterectomy.

We identified women who underwent hysterectomy between January 2006 and July 2017 using OptumLabs, a large US commercial health plan database. Inverse propensity score weighting was used separately for benign and malignant groups to balance baseline characteristics. Primary outcomes of 30-day surgical site infection, anastomotic leaks, and major morbidity were assessed using multivariate logistic regression that adjusted for race, census region, household income, diabetes, and other unbalanced variables following propensity score weighting.

A total of 224,687 hysterectomies (benign, 186,148; malignant, 38,539) were identified. Median age was 45 years for the benign and 54 years for the malignant cohort. Surgical approach was as follows: benign: laparoscopic/robotic, 27.2%; laparotomy, 32.6%; vaginal, 40.2%; malignant: laparoscopic/robotic, 28.8%; laparotomy, 47.7%; vaginal, 23.5%. Bowel resection was performed in 0.4% of the benign and 2.8% of the malignant cohort. Type of bowel preparation was as follows: benign: none, 93.8%; mechanical bowel preparation only, 4.6%; oral antibiotics only, 1.1%; mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, 0.5%; malignant: none, 87.2%; mechanical bowel preparation only, 9.6%; oral antibiotics only, 1.8%; mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, 1.4%. Use of bowel preparation did not decrease rates of surgical site infections, anastomotic leaks, or major morbidity following benign or malignant hysterectomy. Among malignant abdominal hysterectomies, there was no difference in the rates of infectious morbidity between mechanical bowel preparation alone, oral antibiotics alone, or mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, compared to no preparation.

Bowel preparation does not protect against surgical site infections or major morbidity following benign or malignant hysterectomy, regardless of surgical approach, and may be safely omitted.

Despite 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating preoperative oral antibiotics (OA) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) rate following colon surgery, there has never been an RCT published comparing OA alone versus no preparation. Of the four possible regimens (OA alone, MBP alone, OA plus MBP and no preparation), randomised evidence is conflicting for studied groups. Furthermore, guidelines vary, with recommendations for OA alone, OA plus MBP or no preparation. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) has automated data collection for surgical patients. Similarly, the 'REthinking Clinical Trials' (REaCT) platform increases RCT enrolment by simplifying pragmatic trial design. In this novel RCT protocol, we combine REaCT and NSQIP to compare OA alone versus no preparation for SSI rate reduction in elective colon surgery. To our knowledge, this is the first published RCT protocol that leverages NSQIP for data collection. In our feasibility study, 67 of 74 eligible patients (90%) were enrolled and 63 of 67 (94%) were adherent to protocol. The 'REaCT-NSQIP' trial design has great potential to efficiently generate level I evidence for other perioperative interventions.

SSI rates following elective colorectal surgery after preoperative OA or no preparation will be compared. We predict 45% relative rate reduction of SSI, improvement in length of stay, reduced costs and increased quality of life, with similar antibiotic-related complications. Consent, using the 'integrated consent model', and randomisation on a mobile device are completed by the surgeon in a single clinical encounter. Data collection for the primary end point is automatic through NSQIP. Analysis of cost per weighted case, cost utility and quality-adjusted life years will be done.

This study is approved by The Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board. Results will be disseminated in surgical conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

NCT03663504; Pre-results, recruitment phase.

The benefit of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before open colon surgery has been debated over the last decade. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effect of MBP on the outcome of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colectomy.

Patients who were scheduled to undergo elective laparoscopic colon resection with primary anastomosis were randomly allocated to a preoperative MBP group (either two bottles of sodium phosphate or 2-L polyethylene glycol) or a no-MBP group. Anastomotic leakage and other complications such as surgical-site infection and extra-abdominal complications were recorded postoperatively.

In this study, 122 patients were recruited and randomly allocated to the MBP group (n = 62) or the no-MBP group (n = 60). Demographic and clinical characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. The rate of abdominal complications, including anastomotic leak and surgical-site infection, was 16.2% in the MBP group and 18.3% in the no-MBP group (P = 0.747). Anastomotic leakage occurred in four patients (6.5%) in the MBP group and in two patients (3.3%) in no-MBP group (P = 0.680). About 29% of patients in the MBP group still had either liquid or solid content in the bowel. No significant difference was found between the length of hospital stay in the MBP group and the no-MBP group (9.0 ± 2.9 vs 8.4 ± 1.9 days, P = 0.180).

Elective laparoscopic colectomy without MBP is safe and offers acceptable postoperative morbidity.

Mechanical bowel preparation used to be a standard procedure for a long time. Nowadays routine use of MBP seems to be debatable thus alternative approaches, e.g. avoiding any bowel preparation completely or using of MBP with oral antibiotics are considered. Data on performing different kinds of bowel preparation is reviewed in this article.

This is the first updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery.

A database search of publications using Embase and PubMed was performed. Studies on each item within the ERAS gynecologic/oncology protocol were selected with emphasis on meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohort studies. These studies were then reviewed and graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

All recommendations on ERAS protocol items are based on best available evidence. The level of evidence for each item is presented accordingly.

The updated evidence base and recommendation for items within the ERAS gynecologic/oncology perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this consensus review.

The goal of this paper is to review current literature on the gut microbiome within the context of host response to surgery and subsequent risk of developing complications, particularly anastomotic leak. We provide background on the relationship between host and gut microbiota with description of the role of the intestinal mucus layer as an important regulator of host health.

Despite improvements in surgical technique and adherence to the tenets of creating a tension-free anastomosis with adequate blood flow, the surgical community has been unable to decrease rates of anastomotic leak using the current paradigm. Rather than adhere to empirical strategies of decontamination, it is imperative to focus on the interaction between the human host and the gut microbiota that live within us. The gut microbiome has been found to play a potential role in development of post-operative complications, including but not limited to anastomotic leak. Evidence suggests that peri-operative interventions may have a role in instigating or mitigating the impact of the gut microbiota via disruption of the protective mucus layer, use of multiple medications, and activation of virulence factors. The microbiome plays a potential role in the development of surgical complications and can be modulated by peri-operative interventions. As such, further research into this relationship is urgently needed.

The role of oral antibiotic prophylaxis and mechanical bowel preparation in colorectal surgery remains controversial. The lack of efficacy of mechanical preparation to improve infection rates, its adverse effects, and multimodal rehabilitation programs have led to a decline in its use. This review aims to evaluate current evidence on antegrade colonic cleansing combined with oral antibiotics for the prevention of surgical site infections. In experimental studies, oral antibiotics decrease the bacterial inoculum, both in the bowel lumen and surgical field. Clinical studies have shown a reduction in infection rates when oral antibiotic prophylaxis is combined with mechanical preparation. Oral antibiotics alone seem to be effective in reducing infection in observational studies, but their effect is inferior to the combined preparation. In conclusion, the combination of oral antibiotics and mechanical preparation should be considered the gold standard for the prophylaxis of postoperative infections in colorectal surgery.

The following recommendations cover the perioperative management of ovarian, Fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancers. Five questions related to pre-habilitation and enhanced recovery after surgery were evaluated. The conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the level of evidence available in the literature. These recommendations are part of the overall recommendations for improving the management of ovarian, fallopian or primary peritoneal cancer, made with the support of INCa (Institut National du Cancer). The main preoperative measures are screening for nutritional deficiencies (Grade B) and for anaemia (GradeC) in patients with ovarian cancer. It is not possible to make recommendations on the correction of malnutrition and/or anemia or on the contribution of pre-operative immuno-nutrition due to the absence of data in ovarian cancer, tube cancer or primary peritoneum cancer. For the same reasons, no recommendation can be made on the value of preoperative digestive preparation in ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneum cancer. During surgery, goal-directed fluid therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer is recommended (Grade B). A single dose infusion of tranexamic acid is recommended for patients with ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (GradeC). For postoperative analgesia, epidural analgesia is recommended for patients undergoing cyto-reduction surgery by laparotomy (Grade B). In the absence of epidural analgesia, patient controlled analgesia with morphine without continuous infusion (Grade B) is recommended. No recommendation can be given regarding intravenous administration of lidocaine and/or ketamine during surgery, or, regarding peri-operatively prescription of gabapentin or pregabalin. In the absence of studies on the impact of different non-opiate analgesic combinations for ovarian cancer surgery, no recommendations can be made. Early oral feeding is recommended, including in cases of digestive resection (Grade B). The implementation of enhanced recovery programs, including early mobilization, is recommended (GradeC).

To evaluate whether the application of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery reduces the risk of developing infectious complications in children.

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify all articles comparing pediatric patients receiving MBP with pediatric patients not receiving MBP before colorectal surgery. Results are presented with weighted risk differences based on the number of events and sample size per study.

Six original studies were included comparing MBP (n = 810) and no MBP (n = 1167). The overall risk of developing infectious complications was 10.1% in patients with MBP, compared with 9.1% in patients without MBP, resulting in a nonsignificant risk difference of -0.03% (95% CI, -0.09% to 0.03%). Concerning the number of wound infections and anastomotic leaks, we found nonsignificant risk differences of -0.03% (95% CI, -0.08% to 0.02%) and 0.01% (95% CI, -0.01% to 0.02%), respectively.

Based on the current literature, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the use of MBP leads to a significant difference in the risk of developing infectious complications in pediatric colorectal surgery.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in partnership with the American College of Surgeons and the Armstrong Institute at Johns Hopkins, developed the Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery, which integrates principles of implementation science into adoption of enhanced recovery pathways and promotes evidence-based perioperative care.

The objective of this study is to review the enhanced recovery pathways literature in gynecologic surgery and provide the framework for an Improving Surgical Care and Recovery pathway for gynecologic surgery.

We searched PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1990 through October 2017. Studies were included in hierarchical and chronological order: meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and interventional and observational studies. Enhanced recovery pathways components relevant to gynecologic surgery were identified through review of existing pathways. A PubMed search for each component was performed in gynecologic surgery and expanded to include colorectal surgery as needed to have sufficient evidence to support or deter a process. This review focuses on surgical components; anesthesiology components are reported separately in a companion article in the anesthesiology literature.

Fifteen surgical components were identified: patient education, bowel preparation, elimination of nasogastric tubes, minimization of surgical drains, early postoperative mobilization, early postoperative feeding, early intravenous fluid discontinuation, early removal of urinary catheters, use of laxatives, chewing gum, peripheral mu antagonists, surgical site infection reduction bundle, glucose management, and preoperative and postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. In addition, 14 components previously identified in the colorectal Improving Surgical Care and Recovery pathway review were included in the final pathway.

Evidence and existing guidelines support 29 protocol elements for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery in gynecologic surgery.

This Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Guideline for perioperative care in cesarean delivery will provide best practice, evidenced-based, recommendations for preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases with, primarily, a maternal focus. The focused pathway process for scheduled and unscheduled cesarean delivery for this ERAS Cesarean Delivery Guideline will consider from the time from decision to operate (starting with the 30-60 minutes before skin incision) to hospital discharge. The literature search (1966-2017) used Embase and PubMed to search medical subject headings that included "Cesarean Section," "Cesarean Section," "Cesarean Section Delivery" and all pre- and intraoperative ERAS items. Study selection allowed titles and abstracts to be screened by individual reviewers to identify potentially relevant articles. Metaanalyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled studies, nonrandomized controlled studies, reviews, and case series were considered for each individual topic. Quality assessment and data analyses that evaluated the quality of evidence and recommendations were evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, as used and described in previous ERAS Guidelines. The ERAS Cesarean Delivery Guideline/Pathway has created a maternal focused pathway (for scheduled and unscheduled surgery starting from 30-60 minutes before skin incision to maternal discharge) with ERAS cesarean delivery consensus recommendations preoperative elements (anesthetic medications, fasting, carbohydrate supplementation, prophylactic antibiotics/skin preparation, ), intraoperative elements (anesthetic management, maternal hypothermia prevention, surgical technique, hysterotomy creation and closure, management of peritoneum, subcutaneous space, and skin closure), perioperative fluid management, and postoperative elements (chewing gum, management of nausea and vomiting, analgesia, timing of food intake, glucose management, antithrombotic prophylaxis, timing of ambulation, urinary management, and timing of maternal and neonate discharge). Limited topics for optimized care and for antenatal education and counselling and the immediate neonatal needs at delivery are discussed. Strong recommendations for element use were given for preoperative (antenatal education and counselling, use of antacids and histamine, H2 receptor antagonists, 2-hour fasting and small meal within 6 hours surgery, antimicrobial prophylaxis and skin preparation/chlorhexidine-alcohol), intraoperative (regional anesthesia, prevention of maternal hypothermia [forced warm air, warmed intravenous fluids, room temperature]), perioperative (fluid management for euvolemia and neonatal immediate care needs that include delayed cord clamping), and postoperative (fluid management to prevent nausea and vomiting, antiemetic use, analgesia with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs/paracetamol, regular diet within 2 hours, tight capillary glucose control, pneumatic compression stocking for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, immediate removal of urinary catheter). Recommendations against the element use were made for preoperative (maternal sedation, bowel preparation), intraoperative (neonatal oral suctioning or increased inspired oxygen), and postoperative (heparin should not be used routinely venous thromboembolism prophylaxis). Because these ERAS cesarean delivery pathway recommendations (elements/processes) are studied, implemented, audited, evaluated, and optimized by the maternity care teams, this will create an opportunity for the focused and optimized areas of care research with further enhanced care and recommendation.

There is significant variation in the use of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics prior to left-sided elective colorectal surgery. There has been no consensus internationally.

This was a retrospective analysis of the 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were divided into four groups: those who had mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation alone, oral antibiotics alone and no preparation. The main outcome measures included overall, superficial, deep and organ/space surgical site infections. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, ileus and rate of Clostridium difficile.

A total of 5729 patients were included for analysis. The overall surgical site infection rate (any superficial, deep or organ/space infection) was significantly lower in the mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics approach when compared to no preparation (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.59, P < 0.0001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics maintained a lower risk of overall surgical site infections. MBP and OAB also had a protective effect on anastomotic leak in both the laparoscopic and open cohorts (laparoscopic multivariable adjusted OR = 0.42 (0.19-0.94), P = 0.035; open multivariable adjusted OR = 0.3 (0.12-0.77), P = 0.012). Mechanical bowel preparation alone and oral antibiotics alone was not associated with a significant decrease in surgical site infections. There was no increase in C. difficile occurrences with the use of oral antibiotics.

Mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics significantly minimised surgical site infections and anastomotic leak following both laparoscopic and open left-sided restorative colorectal surgery. Mechanical bowel preparation alone did not reduce surgical site infections. There was a trend to reduction in surgical site infections with oral antibiotics alone.

There has been a resurgence of interest in the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotics (OAB) before elective colorectal surgery. Until now, clinical trials and meta-analyses have not compared all 4 approaches (MBP with OAB, OAB only, MBP only, or no preparation) simultaneously.

To perform a network meta-analysis to clarify which approach in colorectal surgery is associated with the lowest rate of surgical site infection (SSI).

Five electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club. and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness from database inception to November 27, 2017.

Only data from randomized clinical trials were included. Inclusion criteria were RCTs that reported on SSI rates or other complications based on MBP or OAB status. Quality of studies was appraised by the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.

The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Total, incisional, and organ/space SSI rates. Secondary outcomes included rates of anastomotic leak, mortality, readmissions/reoperations, urinary tract infection, and pulmonary complications.

Thirty-eight randomized clinical trials among 8458 patients (52.1% male) were included, providing 4 direct comparisons and 2 indirect comparisons for 8 outcome measures. On Bayesian analysis, MBP with OAB vs MBP only was associated with reduced SSI (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% equal-tail credible interval [CrI], 0.57-0.88). There was no significant difference between MBP with OAB vs OAB only (OR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.56-1.62). Oral antibiotics without MBP was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in SSI compared with any other group (except for a risk reduction in organ/space SSI when indirectly compared with no preparation) (OR, 0.13; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.55). There was no difference in SSI between MBP only vs no preparation (OR, 0.84; 95% CrI, 0.69-1.02).

In this network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, MBP with OAB was associated with the lowest risk of SSI. Oral antibiotics only was ranked as second best, but the data available on this approach were limited. There was no difference between MBP only vs no preparation. In addition, there was no difference in rates of anastomotic leak, readmissions, or reoperations between any groups.