Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 3840734

Computerized data retrieval system for colon surgery.

Abstract

Good clinical practice is based on a continuous reevaluation of one's own work as compared with published standards. That which limits particularly the private practitioner from examining and publishing his data, is not the lack of desire, but the scarcity of opportunities and resources to do so. Computers as tools for data retrieval and analysis for research purposes and patient management have been available for some time. They have been of limited utility for most surgeons because of an inhibiting size and/or training period, and illogical design. The authors discuss the limitations of much of the available computer "tools," and present a system, METABASE, specifically designed for colon and rectal surgeons to use in their private practices for data retrieval and analysis.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H Stern, T Stafford, E Myers, C Librach. 1985. Computerized data retrieval system for colon surgery.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02554300

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Toxic megacolon.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Colon

What is the role of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery?

BACKGROUND: Most surgeons use mechanical bowel preparation before performing operations on the colon and rectum. The aim of this study is to determine if there is any published literature that supports this practice. METHODS: We undertook a review of the literature on the benefits of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing surgery on the colon and rectum. A meta-analysis was conducted on all available clinical trials addressing this issue. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of three clinical trials revealed a significantly greater incidence of wound infection in patients who received a mechanical bowel preparation (10.8 vs. 7.4 percent; P < 0.002; 95 percent confidence interval of the difference, -1.6-8.4 percent). Patients who received mechanical bowel preparation had an incidence of anastomotic leakage that was twice that of control patients; however, this difference was not significant (8.1 vs. 4 percent; P < 0. 1 14; 95 percent confidence interval of the difference, -0.4-8.4 percent). CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence in the literature to support the use of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Hence, there is a need for clinical trials comparing the more traditional, aggressive forms of bowel preparation (e.g., polyethylene glycol solutions, sodium phosphate) with either no preparation or simpler techniques, such as a single phosphate enema.

Colon