PubMed · 15395131
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R TURELL. 1949. Rectosigmoidal electrode.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15395131/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: For over a century the presence of bowel content during surgery has been linked to anastomotic leakage. Mechanical bowel preparation has been considered an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications. This dogma is not based on solid evidence, but on observational data and expert's opinions. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mechanical bowel preparation for morbidity and mortality rates in elective colorectal surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We also searched relevant medical journals, and conference proceedings from major gastroenterological congresses and contacted experts in the field. We used the search strategy described by the Colorectal Cancer Review Group, without limitations for date of publication and language. I SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, clinical trials that compared any strategy in mechanical bowel preparation with no mechanical bowel preparation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted by the reviewers and cross-checked. The same reviewers assessed the methodological quality of each trial. Details of the randomisation (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done, and the number of patients lost to follow-up was recorded. For analysis the Peto odds ratio (OR) was used as defaults. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 1592 patients (9 trials), 789 were allocated to mechanical bowel preparation (Group A) and 803 to no preparation (Group B) before elective colorectal surgery. For anastomotic leakage (main outcome) the results were: - Low anterior resection: 9.8% (11 of 112 patients in Group A) compared with 7.5% (9 of 119 patients in Group B); Peto OR 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57 to 3.67 (non-significant); - Colonic surgery: 2.9% (Group A) compared with 1.6% (Group B) ; Peto OR 1.80, 95% CI: 0.68 to 4.75 (non-significant); Overall anastomotic leakage: 6.2% (Group A) compared with 3.2% (Group B); Peto OR 2.03, 95% CI: 1.276 to 3.26 (p=0.003). For the secondary outcome of wound infection the result was: 7.4% (Group A) compared with 5.4% (Group B); Peto OR 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97 - to 2.18 (p=0.07); Sensitivity analyses excluding studies with dubious randomisation, studies published as abstracts only, and studies involving children did not change the overall conclusions AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no convincing evidence that mechanical bowel preparation is associated with reduced rates of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery. On the contrary, there is evidence that this intervention may be associated with an increased rate of anastomotic leakage and wound complications. It is not possible to be conclusion on the latter issue because of the clinical heterogeneity of trial inclusion criteria, methodological inadequacies in trial (in particular, poor reporting of concealment and allocation), potential performance biases, and failure of intention-to-treat analyses. Nevertheless, the dogma that mechanical bowel preparation is necessary before elective colorectal surgery should be reconsidered.
The whole infrastructure of rectal cancer treatment in Sweden has changed dramatically due to the awareness of the local recurrence rate, good surgical technique, and selective use of radiotherapy. Surgeons have been trained in a proper way, and it has been proven that the outcome has improved enormously in our country [14]. Due to repeated reports from the SRCR to each unit, it is possible for every surgeon to follow the process. It has been shown that the outcome for not only colon cancer but also rectal cancer has improved dramatically during the last 40 years, and there is a marked improvement in survival from approximately 40% in the early 1960s to almost 60% in the late 1990s [15]. An interesting phenomenon is that the relative 5-year survival rate has, during the 5-year cohort, been better for patients with colon cancer compared to those with rectal cancer. For the last two 5-year cohorts in Sweden, 1990-1995 and 1996-2000, the results for rectal cancer patients have improved, and in the most recent cohort, rectal cancer patients are actually doing better than colon cancer patients in terms of relative survival [16]. This increase has been interpreted to be a result of much better surgery, a more selective use of radiotherapy, but most of all an awareness of the results and focus on good auditing. This quality assurance and quality control of rectal cancer surgery is important and will be mandatory in the future for all units to not only know the results but also be able to present them in a way that patients can understand. We are facing a new generation of young patients who are familiar with the Internet and find all types of information before having surgery. It is obvious that only the best units will survive in such a competition, and the only way to be able to compete is to show good results within a good and validated population-based quality registration, as is the situation for many different diseases in Sweden today. A tremendous change has been seen in our country over the last two decades, and it is in part a result of registration and quality auditing, where the results are displayed to the surgeons.