Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “CATHARTICS”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 847 records · Page 47Linked to original sources
PubMed1983

A physiological appraisal of polyethylene glycol and a balanced electrolyte solution as bowel preparation.

Seventy-seven patients undergoing bowel preparation with either sennosides and rectal washout (S + RWO; n = 26) or polyethylene glycol and a balanced electrolyte solution (PEG + E) given orally (n = 25) or by nasogastric infusion (n = 26) have been studied. PEG + E was not associated with significant physiological change in electrolytes or blood gases. Patients tolerated PEG + E well and it provided a moderate to good bowel preparation in over 80 per cent of cases. PEG + E was not associated with a change in colonic microflora and was not associated with explosive mixtures of colonic gas due to hydrogen. It is therefore a safe, quick and efficient bowel preparation and provides a safer alternative to mannitol. The solution (PEG + E) man be used orally or by nasogastric infusion and does not require an accompanying intravenous infusion.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Whole gut irrigation and Prepacol laxative preparation for colonoscopy: a comparison.

Two techniques for preparation of the colon for colonoscopy were compared in a controlled trial. Fifty patients given a low residue diet and the laxative Prepacol were compared with 50 patients given whole gut irrigation. Significantly more patients suffered from vomiting (P = 0.0005), shivering (P = 0.0062) and nausea (P = 0.031) following irrigation; in two cases the procedure had to be abandoned because of profuse vomiting. Irrigation was less well tolerated by the patients (P = 0.00002) than preparation with Prepacol. On the other hand, the quality of bowel preparation was found to be better (P = 0.0005) after irrigation. On two occasions colonoscopy was not possible following Prepacol preparation because of faecal residue. Patients with a previous colorectal resection showed a similar quality of cleansing to those patients prepared with irrigation. We conclude that Prepacol is as efficient as irrigation for patients who have had a previous colorectal resection because the quality of bowel preparation is as good and the associated patient discomfort is small.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

Requirement for bowel preparation in colorectal surgery.

To determine whether mechanical bowel preparation influences the incidence of anastomotic dehiscence following colorectal surgery, 186 patients undergoing elective left colonic or rectal resection were randomized before surgery to bowel preparation (n = 89) or no bowel preparation (n = 97). Surgical technique was standardized and no patient had a defunctioning colostomy. Seventeen patients were excluded (seven with preparation, ten without). Indications for surgery in the remaining 169 patients were carcinoma (133 patients), diverticular disease (26), inflammatory bowel disease (six) and miscellaneous conditions (four). Operations performed were left colonic resection or reversal of Hartmann's procedure (26 with preparation, 28 without) and anterior resection (56 versus 59). The overall morbidity rate (18 per cent) was similar in the two groups. All seven clinical anastomotic leaks occurred after low anterior resection, in three of the 39 patients who had undergone bowel preparation and four of the 36 who had not (P > 0.9). Two deaths occurred, both of patients who had received bowel preparation, one being secondary to anastomotic leakage. Bowel preparation does not influence outcome after elective colorectal surgery.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Functional and physiological outcome following transanal repair of rectocele.

BACKGROUND: Rectoceles are traditionally repaired transvaginally and sexual dysfunction can be a significant complication. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional and physiological outcome following transanal repair of rectoceles. METHODS: Forty-five patients of mean age 57.1 (range 34-78) years with a symptomatic anterior rectocele, selected by contrast retention greater than 15 per cent on isotope defaecography, underwent transanal repair of rectocele. Preoperative and postoperative symptoms were assessed by means of a questionnaire. A proportion of patients underwent anorectal physiology and isotope defaecography before and after surgery. RESULTS: Median(range) follow-up was 24 (2-50) months. One patient developed a wound infection after surgery. Thirty-five patients reported an excellent, good or fair result, with seven reporting a moderate and three a poor result. There was a reduction in incomplete evacuation (P < 0.001) confirmed by isotope defaecography (mean(s.d.) rectal emptying before surgery 57(14) per cent versus 76(9) per cent after surgery; P = 0.020), and a reduction in vaginal (P < 0.001) and perineal (P = 0.004) digitation. Symptomatic feeling of prolapse (vaginal bulging) was significantly improved (P < 0.001). There was no increase in incontinence (P = 0.688). Resting and squeeze anal canal pressures were unchanged after operation. Surgery did not result in sexual dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Transanal repair of rectocele is a safe alternative to posterior colporrhaphy. It provides improvement in symptoms, reflected by anatomical improvement with minimal complications and no increase in dyspareunia.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Randomized clinical trial of bowel preparation with a single phosphate enema or polyethylene glycol before elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: A recent meta-analysis has questioned the value of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colorectal resection. The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate whether a single phosphate enema was as effective as oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in preventing anastomotic leakage. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either a single phosphate enema or 3 litres of oral PEG solution before surgery. Patients were followed for a minimum of 6 weeks to detect anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: There were 147 patients in each group and the groups were evenly matched for putative risk factors at baseline. Patients in the enema group had more anastomotic leaks requiring reoperation than those in the PEG group (4.1 versus 0 per cent, P = 0.013; relative risk 2.04 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1.82 to 2.30)). The mortality rate was higher in the PEG group (2.7 versus 0.7 per cent, P = 0.176; odds ratio 1.62 (95 per cent c.i. 0.45 to 36.98)). CONCLUSION: Bowel preparation with a phosphate enema was associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage requiring reoperation compared with oral PEG. These results do not support the routine use of a phosphate enema in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Administration, Oral↗