• J Nippon Med Sch · Jan 2012

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Objective assessment of postoperative gastrointestinal motility in elective colonic resection using a radiopaque marker provides an evidence for the abandonment of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.

    • Junpei Sasaki, Satoshi Matsumoto, Hayato Kan, Takeshi Yamada, Michihiro Koizumi, Yoshiaki Mizuguchi, and Eiji Uchida.
    • Surgery for Organ Function and Biological Regulation, Graduated Medicine, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan. j-ssk@nms.ac.jp
    • J Nippon Med Sch. 2012 Jan 1; 79 (4): 259-66.

    BackgroundIt 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.MethodIn 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.ResultsThere 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).ConclusionsOur data provide additional evidence to support the abandonment of MBP in elective open colonic surgery.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.