Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Preoperative mechanical preparation of the colon: the patient's experience
Show others and affiliations
2007 (English)In: BMC Surgery, ISSN 1471-2482, Vol. 7, 5- p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation can be questioned as standard procedure in colon surgery, based on the result from several randomised trials.

Methods As part of a large multicenter trial, 105 patients planned for elective colon surgery for cancer, adenoma, or diverticulitis in three hospitals were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding perceived health including experience with bowel preparation. There were 39 questions, each having 3 – 10 answer alternatives, dealing with food intake, pain, discomfort, nausea/vomiting, gas distension, anxiety, tiredness, need of assistance with bowel preparation, and willingness to undergo the procedure again if necessary.

Results 60 patients received mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and 45 patients did not (No-MBP). In the MBP group 52% needed assistance with bowel preparation and 30% would consider undergoing the same preoperative procedure again. In the No-MBP group 65 % of the patients were positive to no bowel preparation. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to postoperative pain and nausea. On Day 4 (but not on Days 1 and 7 postoperatively) patients in the No-MBP group perceived more discomfort than patients in the MBP group, p = 0.02. Time to intake of fluid and solid food did not differ between the two groups. Bowel emptying occurred significantly earlier in the No-MBP group than in the MBP group, p = 0.03.

Conclusion Mechanical bowel preparation is distressing for the patient and associated with a prolonged time to first bowel emptying.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central, 2007. Vol. 7, 5- p.
Keyword [en]
Adenoma/*surgery, Aged, Colonic Neoplasms/*surgery, Defecation, Diverticulitis; Colonic/*diagnosis/*surgery, Enema, Female, Humans, Irrigation, Male, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Satisfaction, Preoperative Care, Recovery of Function, Surgical Procedures; Elective
National Category
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-10616DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-7-5PubMedID: 17480223OAI: diva2:150287
Available from: 2008-10-07 Created: 2008-10-07 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.
Umeå University medical dissertations, ISSN 0346-6612 ; 1176
colorectal surgery, bowel preparation, postoperative outcome, quality of life, cancer survival
National Category
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)
Available from: 2008-05-02 Created: 2008-05-02 Last updated: 2015-09-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(520 kB)44 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 520 kBChecksum SHA-512
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jung, BärbelNilsson, Erik
By organisation
In the same journal
BMC Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 44 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 58 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link