Background: Colorectal cancer surgery has been associated with surgical site infections (SSIs), leading to an increase in postoperative morbidity, length of stay and total cost. The aim of the present randomized study was to investigate the relationship between the preoperative administration of oral antibiotic therapy and SSI rate, as well as other postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Material and Methods: Patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery in a university surgical department were included in the present study. Patients were randomized into two groups using the "block randomization" method. The intervention group received three doses of 400 mg rifaximin and one dose of 500 mg metronidazole per os, as well as mechanical bowel preparation the day before surgery. The control group underwent only mechanical bowel preparation the day before surgery. The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03563586). Results: Two hundred and five patients were finally included in the present study, 97 of whom received preoperative antibiotic therapy per os (intervention group). Patients of this group demonstrated a significantly lower SSI rate compared with patients who did not receive preoperative antibiotic therapy (7% vs. 16%, p = 0.049). However, preoperative antibiotic administration was not correlated with any other postoperative outcome (anastomotic leak, overall complications, readmissions, length of stay). Conclusions: Preoperative antibiotic therapy in combination with mechanical bowel preparation seemed to be correlated with a lower SSI rate after colorectal cancer surgery.

Although strong evidence exists for combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation before elective colorectal resection, the utility of preoperative bowel preparation for patients undergoing sigmoid resection after endoscopic decompression of sigmoid volvulus has not been previously examined. The goal of this study was to evaluate the association between bowel preparation and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing semielective, same-admission sigmoid resection for acute volvulus.

Patients from the 2012 to 2019 Colectomy-Targeted American College of Surgeons NSQIP dataset who underwent sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis after admission for sigmoid volvulus were included. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the risk-adjusted 30-day postoperative outcomes of patients who received combined preoperative bowel preparation with those of patients who received either partial (mechanical or oral antibiotic alone) or incomplete bowel preparation. Effort was made to exclude patients whose urgency of clinical condition at hospital admission precluded an attempt at preoperative decompression and subsequent bowel preparation.

Included were 2,429 patients, 322 (13.3%) of whom underwent complete bowel preparation and 2,107 (86.7%) of whom underwent partial or incomplete bowel preparation. Complete bowel preparation was protective against several postoperative complications (including anastomotic leak), mortality, and prolonged postoperative hospitalization.

This study demonstrates a significant benefit for complete bowel preparation before semielective, same-admission sigmoid resection in patients with acute sigmoid volvulus. However, only a small percentage of patients in this national sample underwent complete preoperative bowel preparation. Broader adoption of bowel preparation may reduce overall rates of complication in patients who require sigmoid colectomy due to volvulus.

To determine the relationship between bowel preparation and surgical-site infection (SSI) incidence following colorectal resection during gynecologic oncology surgery.

This post-hoc analysis used data from a randomized controlled trial of patients enrolled from 03/01/2016-08/20/2019 with presumed gynecologic malignancy investigating negative-pressure wound therapy among those requiring laparotomy. Patients were treated preoperatively without bowel preparation, oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP), or OABP plus mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) per surgeon preference. Univariate and multivariable analyses with stepwise model selection for SSI were performed for confirmed gynecologic malignancies requiring colorectal resection.

Of 161 cases, 15 (9%) had no preparation, 39 (24%) OABP only, and 107 (66%) OABP+MBP. The overall SSI rate was 19% (n = 31)-53% (n = 8/15) in the no preparation, 21% (n = 8/39) in the OABP alone, and 14% (n = 15/107) in the OABP+MBP groups (P = 0.003). The difference between OABP and OABP+MBP was non-significant (P = 0.44). The median length of stay was 9 (range, 6-12), 6 (range, 5-8), and 7 days (range, 6-10), respectively (P = 0.045). The overall complication rate (34%; n = 54) did not significantly vary by preparation type (P = 0.23). On univariate logistic regression analysis, OABP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06-0.80) and OABP+MBP (OR, 0.14; 95% CI: 0.04-0.45) were associated with decreased SSI risk compared to no preparation (P = 0.004). On multivariate analysis, both methods of preparation retained a significant impact on SSI rates (P = 0.004).

Bowel preparation is associated with reduced SSI incidence and is beneficial for patients undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery with anticipated colorectal resection. Further investigation is needed to determine whether OABP alone is sufficient.

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.

The safety of colorectal surgery for oncological disease is steadily improving, but anastomotic leakage is still the most feared and devastating complication from both a surgical and oncological point of view. Anastomotic leakage affects the outcome of the surgery, increases the times and costs of hospitalization, and worsens the prognosis in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. Anastomotic leakage has a wide range of clinical features ranging from radiological only finding to peritonitis and sepsis with multi-organ failure. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin have been identified as early predictors of anastomotic leakage starting from postoperative day 2-3, but abdominal-pelvic computed tomography scan is still the gold standard for the diagnosis. Several treatments can be adopted for anastomotic leakage. However, there is not a universally accepted flowchart for the management, which should be individualized based on patient's general condition, anastomotic defect size and location, indication for primary resection and presence of the proximal stoma. Non-operative management is usually preferred in patients who underwent proximal faecal diversion at the initial operation. Laparoscopy can be attempted after minimal invasive surgery and can reduce surgical stress in patients allowing a definitive treatment. Reoperation for sepsis control is rarely necessary in those patients who already have a diverting stoma at the time of the leak, especially in extraperitoneal anastomoses. In patients without a stoma who do not require abdominal reoperation for a contained pelvic leak, there are several treatment options, including laparoscopic diverting ileostomy combined with trans-anal anastomotic tube drainage, percutaneous drainage or recently developed endoscopic procedures, such as stent or clip placement or endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy. We describe the current approaches to treat this complication, as well as the clinical tests necessary to diagnose and provide an effective therapy.

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.

Maximal cytoreductive surgery is an important prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To achieve maximal cytoreductive surgery, en bloc pelvic resection with rectosigmoid colectomy can be an effective surgical strategy. This surgical methodology was first described in 1968 as "radical oophorectomy." Since then, it has been adopted by many medical institutions around the world, and its safety has been shown by many studies. However, research on the surgical method is still lacking due to the limited number of prospective comparative studies. We will review the journals on en bloc pelvic resection with rectosigmoid colectomy published to date and discuss its efficacy, complications, and surgical techniques of the procedures.

Our aim is to evaluate the value of limited bowel preparation (LBP) in radical cystectomy (RC) with ileal urinary diversion (IUD).

A systematic literature search was conducted on electronic database up to February 2020. All data were analyzed using RevMan5 (version 5.3). A subgroup analysis comparing the efficacy of CBP and no bowel preparation (NBP) was also performed.

Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 743 patients were finally enrolled for statistical analysis. According to the meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between LBP group and comprehensive bowel preparation (CBP) group, concerning operative time (p = 0.79), length of stay (p = 0.46), the time to first toleration of clear liquids (p = 0.95), and overall complications (p = 0.29). However, the time to first bowel activity (SMD: - 0.77, 95% CI - 1.47 to - 0.07, p = 0.03), risk of fever (RR: 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.85, p = 0.008), time to first flatus (SMD: - 1.06, 95% CI - 2.02 to - 0.10, p = 0.03), and risk of wound healing disorders (RR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.95, p = 0.03) were significantly lower in LBP group compared with CBP group. Subgroup analysis showed a significant lower risk of wound healing disorders in favor of NBP (RR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87, p = 0.01).

Current evidence indicated that LBP protocols might accelerate recovery of gastrointestinal function, promote wound healing, and reduce the risk of fever without increasing complications in patients undergoing RC with IUD. Besides, bowel preparation also did not hinder wound healing. Further, well-designed RCTs conducted by experienced surgeons are warranted before making the final clinical guidelines.

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.

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.

To analyse the effect of mechanical bowel preparation vs no mechanical bowel preparation on outcome in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing adult patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation with those receiving no mechanical bowel preparation, subdivided into those receiving a single rectal enema and those who received no preparation at all prior to elective colorectal surgery.

A total of 36 studies (23 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational studies) including 21568 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery were included. When all studies were considered, mechanical bowel preparation was not associated with any significant difference in anastomotic leak rates (OR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.74 to 1.10, P = 0.32), surgical site infection (OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.24, P = 0.96), intra-abdominal collection (OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.63 to 1.17, P = 0.34), mortality (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.57 to 1.27, P = 0.43), reoperation (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.75 to 1.12, P = 0.38) or hospital length of stay (overall mean difference 0.11 d, 95%CI: -0.51 to 0.73, P = 0.72), when compared with no mechanical bowel preparation, nor when evidence from just randomized controlled trials was analysed. A sub-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation vs absolutely no preparation or a single rectal enema similarly revealed no differences in clinical outcome measures.

In the most comprehensive meta-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery to date, this study has suggested that the use of mechanical bowel preparation does not affect the incidence of postoperative complications when compared with no preparation. Hence, mechanical bowel preparation should not be administered routinely prior to elective colorectal surgery.

Colorectal surgery is frequently complicated by surgical site infections (SSIs). The most important consequences of SSIs are prolonged hospitalization, an increased risk of surgical reintervention and an increase in mortality. Perioperative intravenously administered antibiotic prophylaxis is the standard of care to reduce the risk of SSIs. In the last few decades, preoperative orally administered antibiotics have been suggested as additional prophylaxis to further reduce the risk of infection, but are currently not part of routine practice in most hospitals. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a preoperative orally administered antibiotic prophylaxis (Pre-OP) in addition to intravenously administered perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce the incidence of deep SSIs and/or mortality after elective colorectal surgery.

The PreCaution trial is designed as a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that will be carried out in The Netherlands. Adult patients who are scheduled for elective colorectal surgery are eligible to participate. In total, 966 patients will be randomized to receive the study medication. This will either be Pre-OP, a solution that consists of tobramycin and colistin sulphate, or a placebo solution. The study medication will be administered four times daily during the 3 days prior to surgery. Perioperative intravenously administered antibiotic prophylaxis will be administered to all patients in accordance with national infection control guidelines. The primary endpoint of the study is the cumulative incidence of deep SSIs and/or mortality within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints include both infectious and non-infectious complications of colorectal surgery, and will be evaluated 30 days and/or 6 months after surgery.

To date, conclusive evidence on the added value of preoperative orally administered antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is lacking. The PreCaution trial should determine the effects of orally administered antibiotics in preventing infectious complications in elective colorectal surgery.

Netherlands Trial Register, ID: NTR6113 . Registered on 11 October 2016; EudraCT 2015-005736-17.

Over the past few decades, surgeons have made many attempts to reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI) after elective colorectal surgery. Routine faecal diversion is no longer practiced in elective colonic surgery and mechanical bowel preparation is on the verge of being eliminated altogether. Intravenous antibiotics have become the standard of care as prophylaxis against SSI for elective colorectal operations. However, the role of oral antibiotics is still being debated. We review the available data evaluating the role of oral antibiotics as prophylaxis for SSI in colorectal surgery.

Surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a challenging task. The aim of preoperative optimization (PO) is to decrease the risk of complications and reduce the length of postoperative stay. The aim of this study was to review and grade the available evidence, attain clear recommendations, and point out potential future research.

Studies were identified from electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and scanning reference lists in relevant papers. English-written studies examining PO in adult patients with IBD were included. Eight PO factors were investigated.

Management of IBD is a multidisciplinary task. Steroid withdrawal is recommended while steroid stress dose is not recommended. Thiopurines appear to be safe, but it may be prudent to plan the procedure remotely from the last dose of an anti-TNF agent. Nutritional risk screening is recommended to unveil and correct any malnutrition. Thrombosis prophylaxis prior to surgery is well supported by evidence while extended 4-week prophylaxis needs further research. Percutaneous ultrasound or CT-guided drainage for intra-abdominal abscesses is recommended, but it is unclear for how long supplementary antibiotics (ABs) should be used. Oral AB 24 h prior to open surgery might improve outcome if given as complementary to IV perioperative AB. Mechanical bowel preparation is not supported by evidence. Comorbidities must be treated accordingly prior to surgical intervention. Smoking cessation can be beneficial for wound healing.

Multimodel PO intervention in IBD patients is recommended.

Bowel preparation in elderly patients is associated with physiologic derangements that may result in postoperative complications. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of bowel preparation on postoperative outcomes in elderly patients.

Patients age 75 years and older who underwent elective colectomy were identified from the 2012-2014 American College of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP database). Patients were grouped into no bowel preparation, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), oral antibiotic preparation (OABP), or combined MBP + OABP. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to calculate risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes.

There were 4829 patients included in the analysis. Morbidity was 34.3% in no bowel prep, 32.4% in MBP, 24.8% in OABP, and 24.6% in MBP + OABP groups (p < 0.001). The MBP + OABP group compared with no bowel prep was associated with reduced rates of anastomotic leak, ileus, superficial surgical site infection (SSI), organ space SSI, respiratory compromise, and reduced length of stay. There was no difference in the rate of acute kidney injury between the groups.

MBP + OABP was associated with reduced morbidity compared with no bowel preparation in elderly patients undergoing elective colorectal resection. MBP alone was not associated with differences in outcomes compared with no bowel preparation. The use of MBP + OABP is safe and effective in elderly patients undergoing elective colectomy.

Enhanced recovery programs (ERP) are without any doubt a major innovation in the care of surgical patients. This multimodal approach encompasses elements of both medical and surgical care. The goal of this in-depth review is to analyze the surgical aspects of ERP, underlining the scientific rationale behind each element of ERP after surgery and in particular, the role of mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery, the place of minimal access surgery, the utility of nasogastric tube, abdominal drainage, bladder catheters and early re-feeding. Publication of factual data has allowed many dogmas to be discarded.

Mechanical bowel preparation continues to be a controversial subject for the pre-operative management of patients undergoing elective colon resection.

The English literature on bowel preparation was searched to identify pertinent publications.

The published literature over the past 80 y confirms that mechanical bowel preparation alone does not reduce surgical site infections. However, the use of appropriate oral antibiotics following mechanical bowel preparation with pre-operative systemic antibiotics reduces rates of surgical site infections and anastomotic leaks when compared with systemic antibiotics alone.

Mechanical bowel preparation with pre-operative oral antibiotics and pre-operative systemic antibiotics are the standard of care for elective colon surgery. Refinement in methods of bowel preparation needs additional clinical investigations to further enhance outcomes.

Over the last two decades, preoperative mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery has been criticized. Yet, many surgeons are still in favor of its use simply because of the belief that it achieves better clearance of the colonic fecal load. The objective of this study is to compare the outcome with regard to patient compliance and postoperative complications following elective colorectal surgery between two groups of patients, one with bowel prepared mechanically and the other by nonmechanical means. This open-label prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in a high-volume tertiary government referral hospital of Kolkata over a period of 3 years. It included 71 patients, divided into two groups, admitted for elective colorectal resection procedures in one surgical unit. Both methods of bowel preparation were equally well tolerated, and there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications or mortality between the two groups.

Adult literature supports the elimination of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgical procedures. Prospective data for the pediatric population regarding the utility of MBP are lacking. The primary aim of this study was to compare infectious complications, specifically anastomotic leak, intraabdominal abscess, and wound infection in patients who received MBP with those who did not.

A randomized pilot study comparing MBP with polyethylene glycol with no MBP was performed. Patients, 0 to 21 years old, undergoing elective colorectal surgery were eligible and randomized within 4 age strata. Statistical analyses were performed using χ or Fisher exact test for categorical data and t test or Wilcoxon 2-sample test for continuous data.

Forty-four patients were enrolled in the study from December 2010 to February 2013, of which 24 (55%) received MBP and 20 (45%) did not. Two patients (5%) had anastomotic leak, 4 (9%) had intraabdominal infection, and 7 (16%) had wound infections. The rate of anastomotic leak, intraabdominal abscess, and wound infection did not differ between the 2 groups.

MBP for elective colorectal surgery in children does not affect the incidence of infectious complications. A larger multiinstitutional study is necessary to validate the results of this single-institution pilot study.

Infections at the surgical site continue to occur in as many as 20% of elective colon resection cases. Methods to reduce these infections are inconsistently applied. Surgical site infection (SSI) is the result of multiple interactive variables including the inoculum of bacteria that contaminate the site, the virulence of the contaminating microbes, and the local environment at the surgical site. These variables that promote infection are potentially offset by the effectiveness of the host defense. Reduction in the inoculum of bacteria is achieved by appropriate surgical site preparation, systemic preventive antibiotics, and use of mechanical bowel preparation in conjunction with the oral antibiotic bowel preparation. Intraoperative reduction of hematoma, necrotic tissue, foreign bodies, and tissue dead space will reduce infections. Enhancement of the host may be achieved by perioperative supplemental oxygenation, maintenance of normothermia, and glycemic control. These methods require additional research to identify optimum application. Uniform application of currently understood methods and continued research into new methods to reduce microbial contamination and enhancement of host responsiveness can lead to better outcomes.

A prospective, multicenter, observational study was performed to investigate the risk factors of surgical site infection (SSI) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).

From 2009 to 2010, perioperative clinicopathological data were collected from patients who had undergone surgery for UC within the research period, for up to 6 consecutive months in 13 hospitals in Japan. The primary outcome was the development of SSI.

A total of 195 patients with UC who underwent colorectal surgery were enrolled. SSI was diagnosed in 38 (19.5 %) patients, in the form of incisional infection in 23 (11.8 %), organ/space infection in 16 (8.2 %), and both in 1 (0.5 %). There were no significant risk factors associated with an increased risk of development of incisional SSI. An American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of ≥ 3 was indicated as the only significant risk factor for organ/space SSI (P = 0.02) compared with other factors, such as a neutrophil count of >100 × 10(2)/mm(3), albumin level of <3.5 g/dl, perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion, fair or poor colonic cleanliness, and therapeutic use of antibiotics.

Poor general physical status was the significant independent risk factor for organ/space SSI in patients with UC in Japan.

It has been suggested that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) has no benefit in terms of anastomotic healing, infection rate, or improvement in the postoperative course in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, and that it should be abandoned. However, the effect of MBP on postoperative gastrointestinal motility has been assessed subjectively. In this randomized trial, we objectively assessed the effect of MBP on postoperative gastrointestinal motility and mobility in elective colonic resection.

In total, 79 patients scheduled to undergo elective colonic resection for cancer were randomized to MBP or no-MBP groups prior to surgery. All patients ingested radiopaque markers before surgery to evaluate postoperative gastrointestinal motility, objectively evaluated by the transition of the markers at postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, 5 and 7. The groups were then further subdivided into open and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) groups and evaluated in terms of gastrointestinal motility and postoperative mobility.

There was no significant difference between the no-MBP and MBP groups in terms of perioperative and postoperative course. In the LAC subgroup, there was no significant difference between the no-MBP and MBP groups in terms of marker transition. However, in the open subgroup, there was a significant difference between the groups in terms of the residual ratio of markers in the small intestine at POD 3 (no-MBP 35.3% vs. MBP 69.2%; p=0.041), excretion rate of markers at POD 5 (no-MBP 49.7% vs. MBP 8.8%; p=0.005), and residual ratio in the small intestine at POD 7 (no-MBP 3.1% vs. MBP 28.8%; p=0.028). Additionally, the excretion rate in the no-MBP group was significantly higher than in the MBP group at POD 7 (74.1% vs. 33.8%; p=0.007).

Our data provide additional evidence to support the abandonment of MBP in elective open colonic surgery.

Surgical site infection is a major cause of morbidity after colorectal resections. Despite evidence that preoperative oral antibiotics with mechanical bowel preparation reduce surgical site infection rates, the use of oral antibiotics is decreasing. Currently, the administration of oral antibiotics is controversial and considered ineffective without mechanical bowel preparation.

The aim of this study is to examine the use of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics and their relationship to surgical site infection rates in a colorectal Surgical Care Improvement Project cohort.

This retrospective study used Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program preoperative risk and surgical site infection outcome data linked to Veterans Affairs Surgical Care Improvement Project and Pharmacy Benefits Management data. Univariate and multivariable models were performed to identify factors associated with surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery.

This study was conducted in 112 Veterans Affairs hospitals.

Included were 9940 patients who underwent elective colorectal resections from 2005 to 2009.

The primary outcome measured was the incidence of surgical site infection.

Patients receiving oral antibiotics had significantly lower surgical site infection rates. Those receiving no bowel preparation had similar surgical site infection rates to those who had mechanical bowel preparation only (18.1% vs 20%). Those receiving oral antibiotics alone had an surgical site infection rate of 8.3%, and those receiving oral antibiotics plus mechanical bowel preparation had a rate of 9.2%. In adjusted analysis, the use of oral antibiotics alone was associated with a 67% decrease in surgical site infection occurrence (OR=0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.50). Oral antibiotics plus mechanical bowel preparation was associated with a 57% decrease in surgical site infection occurrence (OR=0.43, 95% CI 0.34-0.55). Timely administration of parenteral antibiotics (Surgical Care Improvement Project-1) had a modest protective effect, with no effect observed for other Surgical Care Improvement Project measures. Hospitals with higher rates of oral antibiotics use had lower surgical site infection rates (R = 0.274, p < 0.0001).

Determination of the use of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation is based on retrospective prescription data, and timing of actual administration cannot be determined.

Use and type of preoperative bowel preparation varied widely. These results strongly suggest that preoperative oral antibiotics should be administered for elective colorectal resections. The role of oral antibiotics independent of mechanical bowel preparation should be examined in a prospective randomized trial.

Recent studies have assessed interventions and bundles of interventions to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). We reviewed numerous studies to identify those with the strongest evidence supporting interventions for preventing SSIs.

Bundles that included more than one intervention to decrease the risk of Staphylococcus aureus wound contamination, such as chlorhexidine bathing and nasal application of mupirocin, had the strongest supporting evidence. However, bundles should be tested to ensure that their components are not antagonistic. Vancomycin prophylaxis and extended antimicrobial prophylaxis should not be used routinely, but should be reserved for high-risk populations such as patients who carry methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Novel interventions to prevent SSIs (e.g., topical or oral antimicrobial agents, skin sealant, and antimicrobial sutures) need further evaluation before surgeons implement them routinely.

There is some evidence that bundled interventions can reduce SSIs. However, more research should be done evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. Future studies of bundles should use robust methodologies, such as randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized trials, or quasi-experimental studies analyzed by time series analysis.

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgery has been practiced as a clinical routine for many decades. However, earlier randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses suggest that MBP should be abandoned before colorectal surgery because of the futility in reducing postoperative complications and motility. The new published results from three RCTs comparing MBP with no MBP in colorectal surgery in 2010 make the updating of systemic review and meta-analysis necessary. The aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of MBP in prevention of postoperative complications for elective colorectal surgery.

A literature search was performed mainly in electronic database including Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing MBP with no MBP before colorectal surgery. Septic complications, reoperation, and death were recorded as primary and secondary outcomes. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the QUOROM statement.

Fourteen RCTs were included in our analysis with a total number of 5,373 patients: 2,682 with MBP and 2,691 without. Comparing with no MBP for elective colorectal surgery, our study showed that MBP had not reduce any postoperative complications when concerning anastomotic leak [odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08 (0.82-1.43); P = 0.56]; overall SSI [OR 95% CI, 1.26 (0.94-1.68); P = 0.12]; extra-abdominal septic complications [OR 95% CI, 0.98 (0.81-1.18); P = 0.81]; wound infections [OR 95% CI, 1.21 (1.00-1.46); P = 0.05]; reoperation or second intervention rate [OR 95% CI, 1.11 (0.86-1.45); P = 0.42]; and death [OR 95% CI, 0.97(0.63-1.48); P = 0.88].

No evidence was noted supporting the use of MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. MBP should be omitted in routine clinical practice.

Incisional hernia remains among the most common complications after midline incision of the abdominal wall. The role of the suture material used for abdominal wall closure remains controversial. To decrease bacterial adherence to surgical sutures, braided suture materials with antibacterial activity (Vicryl plus, Ethicon, Inc) were developed. This is the first study to analyze long-term results using an antibacterial-braided suture material for abdominal wall closure in a large clinical trial.

To analyze the effects of Triclosan-coated suture material (Vicryl plus) on the development of incisional hernia, we performed a 36-month follow-up of 1,018 patients who had a primary midline incision for elective abdominal surgery. In the first time period, a PDS II loop suture was used. In the second observation period, we used Vicryl plus. All variables were recorded prospectively in a database. The primary outcome was the number of incisional hernias. Risk factors for the development of incisional hernias were collected prospectively to compare the 2 groups.

The overall incisional hernia rate in the 36-month follow-up period was 14.6%. Analyzing the influence of the suture material used on the development of incisional hernia, we did not find differences between the 2 groups (PDS II, 14%; Vicryl plus, 15.2%). In the multivariate analysis of possible factors in the study population, only body mass index (BMI) showed a significant influence on the development of incisional hernias. Despite the incidence of wound infections being less in the Vicryl plus group (6.1% vs 11.9%; P < .05), there were no difference in incidence of incisional hernia between the 2 groups.

Fast absorbable sutures with antibacterial coating (Tricosan) do not increase the hernia rate after midline abdominal incision compared with slowly absorbable sutures, when wound infection rates are decreased by coating the fast absorbable suture with Triclosan. The development of incisional hernia is significantly increasing in patients with a BMI >30 kg/m(2).

Recent meta-analyses and randomized clinical trials have concluded that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before elective colorectal surgery is not associated with a reduction of surgical site infection (SSI). The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the impact of preoperative MBP for colon and rectal cancer surgery in comparison with a single glycerine enema.

Patients scheduled for radical colorectal resection for malignancy with primary anastomosis were randomized to preoperative MBP (4 l of polyethylene glycol) (group 1, 114 patients) plus a glycerine 5% enema (2 l) or a single glycerine 5% enema (2 l) (group 2, 115 patients). The postoperative incidence of SSI was recorded prospectively. Patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopy or robotic) accounted for 55 and 51 in groups 1 and 2 respectively.

In all, 229 patients were included in the study, 114 in group 1 and 115 in group 2. At least one SSI was reported in 16 (14.0%) group 1 and in 20 (17.8%) group 2 patients (P=0.475). Perioperative mortality was nil. The incidence of SSI was comparable also in the 73 patients who had a low anterior resection (seven of 33 vs eight of 40, P=1.000), and for the 106 patients who underwent a minimally invasive procedure (nine of 55 vs four of 51, P=0.241).

A single large-volume glycerine enema is effective bowel preparation before colorectal resection whether performed by an open or minimally invasive technique.

The laparoscopic approach is increasingly applied in colorectal surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer has been proved to be safe and feasible with equivalent long-term oncological outcome compared to open surgery, safety and long-term oncological outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remain controversial. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery might be efficacious, but indications and limitations are not clearly defined. Therefore, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed this clinical practice guideline.

An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. The expert panel constituted for a consensus development conference in May 2010. Thereafter, the recommendations were presented at the annual congress of the EAES in Geneva in June 2010 in a plenary session. A second consensus process (Delphi process) of the recommendations with the explanatory text was necessary due to the changes after the consensus conference.

Laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal (mid- and low-) rectal cancer is feasible and widely accepted. The laparoscopic approach must offer the same quality of surgical specimen as in open surgery. Short-term outcomes such as bowel function, surgical-site infections, pain and hospital stay are slightly improved with the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is not inferior to the open in terms of disease-free survival, overall survival or local recurrence. Laparoscopic pelvic dissection may impair genitourinary and sexual function after rectal resection, like in open surgery.

Laparoscopic surgery for mid- and low-rectal cancer can be recommended under optimal conditions. Still, most level 1 evidence is for colon cancer surgery rather than rectal cancer. Upcoming results from large randomised trials are awaited to strengthen the evidence for improved short-term results and equal long-term results in comparison with the open approach.

In recent years, vessel sealing has become a well-established method in surgical practice for sealing and transecting vessels. Since this technology depends on the fusion of collagen fibers abundantly present in the intestinal wall, it should also be possible to create intestinal anastomoses by thermofusion. Bipolar radiofrequency-induced thermofusion of intestinal tissue may replace traditionally used staples or sutures in the future. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of fusing intestinal tissue ex vivo by bipolar radiofrequency-induced thermofusion.

An experimental setup for temperature-controlled bipolar radiofrequency-induced thermofusion of porcine (n = 30) and rat (n = 18) intestinal tissue was developed. Colon samples were harvested and then anastomosed, altering compressive pressure to examine its influence on anastomotic bursting pressure during radiofrequency-induced anastomotic fusion. For comparison, mechanical stapler anastomoses of porcine colonic samples and conventional suturing of rat colonic samples identical to those used for fusion experiments were prepared, and burst pressure was measured.

All thermofused colonic anastomoses were primarily tight and leakage proof. For porcine colonic samples, an optimal interval of compressive pressure (1,125 mN/mm(2)) with respect to a high amount of burst pressure (41 mmHg) was detected. The mean bursting pressure for mechanical stapler anastomosis was 60.7 mmHg and did not differ from the thermofusion (p = 0.15). Furthermore, the mean bursting pressure for thermofusion of rat colonic samples was up to 69.5 mmHg for a compressive pressure of 140 mN/mm(2).

These results confirm the feasibility to create experimental intestinal anastomoses using bipolar radiofrequency-induced thermofusion. The stability of the induced thermofusion showed no differences when compared to that of conventional anastomoses. Bipolar radiofrequency-induced thermofusion of intestinal tissue represents an innovative approach for achieving gastrointestinal anastomoses.

The numbers of unanswered questions are many. Can intraoperative application, such as topical antimicrobial use in pulsed lavage, reduce the microbial burden on the wound interface before closure? Can closed suction drains within the closed surgical incision reduce infection rates, especially in patients with a large body mass index? What is the role of delayed primary closure or secondary closure in the wound where obvious contamination has occurred, or in the circumstance of emergent colonic resection where considerable contamination is encountered from preexistent perforation? Should immediate negative-pressure wound dressings be applied in the open contaminated wound? These and many other questions still confront the surgeon in the challenge of the surgical wound in major colorectal surgery.

New developments in colorectal surgery have been driven primarily by technical innovations, which in turn are responsible for changes in practice. This review examines recent publications that describe and have contributed to these changes.

We identified and reviewed recent publications in the areas of fecal incontinence, constipation, single incision and robotic surgical techniques, complex anal fistulas, diverticulitis, local excision techniques for rectal neoplasms, surgical care improvement, use of mechanical bowel preparation, and magnetic resonance imaging after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

New technologies and practice innovations will enhance patient outcomes and quality of life. Multiinstitutional studies, randomized when practical, will be necessary to further define the safety and efficacy of these new surgical techniques and to further define best practices in colon and rectal surgery.