umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Mechanical bowel preparation does not affect the intramucosal bacterial colony count
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences.
Show others and affiliations
2010 (English)In: International Journal of Colorectal Disease, ISSN 0179-1958, E-ISSN 1432-1262, Vol. 25, no 4, 439-442 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine if mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) influences the intramucosal bacterial colony count in the colon.

Materials and methods Macroscopically normal colon mucosa was collected from 37 patients (20 with and 17 without MBP) who were undergoing elective colorectal surgery at three hospitals. The biopsies were processed and cultured in the same laboratory. Colony counts of the common pathogens Escherichia coli and Bacteroides as well as of total bacteria were conducted. The study groups were comparable with regard to age, gender, antibiotics use, diagnosis and type of resection.

Results MBP did not influence the median colony count of E. coli, Bacteroides or total bacteria in our study.

Conclusions MBP did not affect the intramucosal bacterial count in this study. Further studies are suggested to confirm these findings.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010. Vol. 25, no 4, 439-442 p.
Keyword [en]
colorectal surgery, bacteria, colon mucosa, bowel preparation
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-3135DOI: 10.1007/s00384-009-0863-3ISI: 000275104700004OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-3135DiVA: diva2:141616
Note

Ingår i avhandling under titel: Does mechanical bowel preparation affect the intramucosal bacterial colony count?

Available from: 2008-05-02 Created: 2008-05-02 Last updated: 2015-09-01Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. On effectiveness in colorectal surgery: mechanical bowel preparation or not in elective colonic surgery and treatment options for elderly patients with rectal cancer
Open this publication in new window or tab >>On effectiveness in colorectal surgery: mechanical bowel preparation or not in elective colonic surgery and treatment options for elderly patients with rectal cancer
2008 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The management of patients undergoing colorectal surgery has changed in recent decades. Efforts have been made to show that perioperative physiological stress to the patient can be minimised with standardised care programmes and thus improve short term outcome after colorectal surgery. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), for instance, has been questioned as part of standard management. There are studies highlighting the effect of cancer treatment and its side effects in the elderly, showing that geriatric patients benefit from oncological therapy in much the same way as younger patients. The impact of this information on surgical and oncological practice in Sweden today is not known. To assess the effectiveness of colorectal surgery we need both randomised controlled trials and population-based cohort studies. We have performed a trial on colonic surgery with and without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation, as well as a nation-wide register study comparing treatment and outcome of rectal cancer in two age groups. In a randomised controlled trial 1505 patients from 21 hospitals were randomised to MBP or no-MBP prior to open elective colonic resection. There were no differences in overall complication rates between the groups: cardiovascular 5.1% with MBP vs. 4.6% without MBP; general infection 7.9% vs. 6.8%; and surgical site complications 15.1% vs. 16.1%. The proportion of patients reaching at least one primary endpoint was 24.5% vs. 23.7% respectively. The patients experience of and postoperative recovery after MBP or no-MBP was evaluated in 105 of the patients in the bowel preparation trial at three of the participating hospitals. Sixty-five patients received MBP and 40 patients did not. In the MBP group 52% needed assistance with bowel preparation. Day 4 postoperatively patients in the no-MBP group perceived more discomfort than patients in the MBP group, p<0.05. Bowel emptying occurred significantly earlier in the no-MBP group than in the MBP group, p<0.05.

In an experimental study the effect of MBP on intramucosal bacterial count was evaluated. Macroscopically normal colon mucosa was collected from 37 patients (20 MBP and 17 No-MBP) undergoing elective colorectal surgery at three hospitals. MBP did not influence the median colony count of E. coli, Bacteroides, or total median colony count, information that was previously unknown. These three studies imply that MBP can be omitted before elective colonic resection. In a population-based register study, treatment for rectal cancer in patients ≥ 75 years and those < 75 years was evaluated using data from the Swedish Rectal Cancer Register 1995-2004 (N=15104). This study revealed that preoperative radiotherapy was used less in patients > 75 years. There was also a higher threshold for surgery in this group, and they more often received a permanent stoma compared to younger patients. Outcome in terms of 5-year local recurrence rate and 5-year cancer-specific survival differed very little between the older and younger patient groups who underwent abdominal tumour resection with curative intent. We suggest future studies focusing on ways of reducing surgical and perioperative stress and on quality of life when assessing suitable treatment modalities for rectal cancer.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Umeå: Kirurgisk och perioperativ vetenskap, 2008. 74 p.
Series
Umeå University medical dissertations, ISSN 0346-6612 ; 1176
Keyword
colorectal surgery, bowel preparation, postoperative outcome, quality of life, cancer survival
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-1633 (URN)978-91-7264-561-5 (ISBN)
Public defence
2008-05-16, Sal B, 1D, Norrlands universitetssjukhus, Umeå, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2008-05-02 Created: 2008-05-02 Last updated: 2015-09-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Jung, BärbelNilsson, Erik

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jung, BärbelNilsson, Erik
By organisation
Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences
In the same journal
International Journal of Colorectal Disease
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 56 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf