The Effect of Mechanical Bowel Preparation on the Surgical Field in Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q2 SURGERY

Journal of Investigative Surgery Pub Date : 2022-05-30 DOI:10.1080/08941939.2022.2081389

U. K. Ozturk, S. Acar, S. Akış, E. Keleş, C. Alınca, M. Api

{"title":"The Effect of Mechanical Bowel Preparation on the Surgical Field in Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"U. K. Ozturk, S. Acar, S. Akış, E. Keleş, C. Alınca, M. Api","doi":"10.1080/08941939.2022.2081389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose To evaluate the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries. Methods The patients randomized to a MBP group and a no preparation (NMBP) group. The senior surgeon remained blinded to the bowel regimen used by the patient. Intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery were evaluated using a numeric rating scale (NRS). Results We enrolled 120 patients, of whom 109 completed the study, with 51 and 58 patients in the MBP and NMBP groups, respectively. The intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, intestinal load, and NRS scores for overall ease of surgery were better in the NMBP group (p = .03, p = .048, and p = .022, respectively). The results of the assessments also revealed no significant differences in surgical field visualization, ease of bowel handling, overall ease of surgery, or the time that patients experienced passage of flatus between obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) and non-obese (BMI ≤ 30 kg/m2) patients in the two groups. Conclusions The current study revealed that MBP did not improve the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field or the overall ease of surgery. Moreover, MBP had no benefit when operating on patients who had a high BMI. Therefore, we do not recommend routine MBP before laparoscopic gynecological surgeries.","PeriodicalId":16200,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","volume":"35 1","pages":"1604 - 1608"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2022.2081389","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries. Methods The patients randomized to a MBP group and a no preparation (NMBP) group. The senior surgeon remained blinded to the bowel regimen used by the patient. Intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, intestinal load, and overall ease of surgery were evaluated using a numeric rating scale (NRS). Results We enrolled 120 patients, of whom 109 completed the study, with 51 and 58 patients in the MBP and NMBP groups, respectively. The intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, intestinal load, and NRS scores for overall ease of surgery were better in the NMBP group (p = .03, p = .048, and p = .022, respectively). The results of the assessments also revealed no significant differences in surgical field visualization, ease of bowel handling, overall ease of surgery, or the time that patients experienced passage of flatus between obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) and non-obese (BMI ≤ 30 kg/m2) patients in the two groups. Conclusions The current study revealed that MBP did not improve the intraoperative visualization of the surgical field or the overall ease of surgery. Moreover, MBP had no benefit when operating on patients who had a high BMI. Therefore, we do not recommend routine MBP before laparoscopic gynecological surgeries.

查看原文本刊更多论文

腹腔镜妇科手术中机械肠道准备对手术区域的影响：一项前瞻性随机对照试验

摘要目的评估机械肠道准备（MBP）对选择性腹腔镜妇科手术患者术中手术视野、肠道处理、肠道负荷和整体手术简易性的影响。方法将患者随机分为MBP组和非制剂组。这位资深外科医生对病人使用的肠道疗法仍然一无所知。使用数字评分量表（NRS）评估手术视野、肠道处理、肠道负荷和手术总体易程度的术中可视化。结果我们招募了120名患者，其中109人完成了研究，MBP组和NMBP组分别有51名和58名患者。NMBP组的手术视野、肠道负荷和NRS评分的术中可视化效果较好（p = .03，p = .048和p = .022）。评估结果还显示，肥胖患者（BMI>30 kg/m2）和非肥胖（BMI≤30 kg/m2）患者。结论目前的研究表明，MBP并没有改善手术视野的术中可视化或手术的整体简易性。此外，MBP在对高BMI患者进行手术时没有任何益处。因此，我们不建议在腹腔镜妇科手术前进行常规MBP。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Investigative Surgery 医学-外科

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

114

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Journal of Investigative Surgery publishes peer-reviewed scientific articles for the advancement of surgery, to the ultimate benefit of patient care and rehabilitation. It is the only journal that encompasses the individual and collaborative efforts of scientists in human and veterinary medicine, dentistry, basic and applied sciences, engineering, and law and ethics. The journal is dedicated to the publication of outstanding articles of interest to the surgical research community.