Bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction and hypothesis
The objective was to determine if a bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MIS) influences post-operative constipation symptoms. We hypothesized that women who underwent a bowel preparation would have an improvement in post-operative defecatory function.Methods
In this randomized controlled trial, women undergoing MIS received a pre-operative bowel preparation or no bowel preparation. Our primary outcome was post-operative constipation measured by the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) 2 weeks post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included surgeon's perception of case difficulty. Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol analyses (PPA) were performed. Analyses were carried out using t test, Fisher's exact test, the Wilcoxon test and the Chi-squared test.Results
Of 105 enrolled women, 95 completed follow-up (43 preparation and 52 no preparation). Baseline characteristics and rates of complications were similar. No differences were noted on ITT. The post-operative abdominal PAC-SYM subscale was closer to baseline for women who received a bowel preparation on PPA (change in score 0.74 vs 1.08, p = 0.045). Women who underwent a preparation were less likely to report strain (6.0% vs 26.7%, p = 0.009) or type 1 Bristol stool on their first post-operative bowel movement (4.3% vs 17.5%, p = 0.047). Surgeons were more likely to rate the complexity of the case as "more difficult than average" (54.4% vs 40.1%, p = 0.027) in those without a bowel preparation.Conclusions
Although there was no difference in ITT analysis, women who underwent a bowel preparation prior to MIS demonstrated benefit to post-operative defecatory function with a corresponding improvement in surgeon's perception of case complexity.
SUBMITTER: Sassani JC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7247935 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The primary aim of this study was to report anatomic, symptom, and quality of life outcomes in women with symptomatic stage 2 or greater prolapse 1 year after randomization to robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.This is a planned ancillary analysis of the Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies trial, a randomized comparative effectiveness trial comparing costs and outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy at 2 academic medical centers. At baseline and 1 year after surgery, women underwent standardized assessment including validated subjective pelvic floor outcomes and physical examination with prolapse assessment.Sixty six (85%) of 78 randomized participants completed 1-year follow-up: 33 (87%) of 38 in the laparoscopic arm and 33 (83%) of 40 in the robotic arm (P = 0.59). Ninety-seven percent (32/33) in the laparoscopic group and 100% (33/33) in the robotic arm considered that their prolapse symptoms improved (P = 0.999). The cohort had significant improvement in all pelvic floor symptom and quality of life measures, which did not differ by treatment arm. Of women who were sexually active at 1 year, sexual function improved in both cohorts. No new serious adverse events, including mesh exposure or reoperation for prolapse, were identified between 6 months and 1 year after surgery. No women had a sacrocolpopexy mesh complication or reoperation for mesh exposure.Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy is associated with significant improvement in pelvic floor symptoms, anatomy, and sexual function. In addition, mesh exposure rates with lightweight polypropylene mesh seem to be lower than those reported with multifilament and heavier polypropylene mesh.
| S-EPMC5070533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare surgeons' intraoperative surgeon acceptability or assessment of the operative field regarding bowel contents and patients' satisfaction with or without a mechanical bowel preparation before reconstructive vaginal prolapse surgery.MethodsIn this single-blind, randomized trial, women scheduled to undergo vaginal prolapse surgery with a planned apical suspension and posterior colporrhaphy were allocated using block randomization to an intervention or control group. Surgeons were blinded to patient allocation. One day before surgery, mechanical bowel preparation instructions consisted of a clear liquid diet and two self-administered saline enemas; the participants in the control group sustained a regular diet and nothing by mouth after midnight. The primary outcome was surgeons' intraoperative assessment of the surgical field regarding bowel content as measured on a 4-point Likert scale (1, excellent; 4, poor). Secondary outcomes included participant satisfaction and bowel symptoms. The primary outcome was determined by intention-to-treat analysis and other analyses were per protocol.ResultsOf the 150 women randomized (75 women to intervention and control group), 145 completed the study. No differences existed in the demographic, clinical, and intraoperative characteristics between groups (P>.05). Surgeons' intraoperative assessment rating was 85% "excellent or good" with bowel preparation compared with 90% for participants in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-1.61; P=.30). The bowel preparation group was less likely to report "complete" satisfaction compared with the participants in the control group (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.35; P<.001). Abdominal fullness and cramping, fatigue, anal irritation, and hunger pains were greater in the bowel preparation group (all P<.01).ConclusionBefore reconstructive vaginal surgery, mechanical bowel preparation conferred no benefit regarding surgeons' intraoperative assessment of the operative field, reflected decreased patient satisfaction, and had increased abdominal symptoms.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01431040.Level of evidenceI.
| S-EPMC3909883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting.LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs.The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting.Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188 . Registered on 9 April 2015.
| S-EPMC5385082 | biostudies-other
Project description:Laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy are widely used for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) treatment. Evidence comparing outcomes and costs is lacking. We compared costs and clinically relevant outcomes in women randomized to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy.Participants with symptomatic stage POP II or greater, including significant apical support loss, were randomized to either laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy. We compared surgical costs (including costs for robot, initial hospitalization) and rehospitalization within 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, POP quantification, symptom severity and quality of life, and adverse events.We randomized 78 women (mean age 59 years): laparoscopic (n=38) and robotic (n=40). The robotic sacrocolpopexy group had higher initial hospital costs ($19,616 compared with $11,573, P<.001) and over 6 weeks, hospital costs remained higher for robotic sacrocolpopexy ($20,898 compared with $12,170, P<.001). When we excluded costs of robot purchase and maintenance, we did not detect a statistical difference in initial day of surgery costs of robotic compared with laparoscopic ($12,586 compared with $11,573; P=.160) or hospital costs over 6 weeks ($13,867 compared with $12,170; P=.060). The robotic group had longer operating room times (202.8 minutes compared with 178.4 minutes, P=.030) and higher pain scores 1 week after surgery (3.5±2.1 compared with 2.6±2.2; P=.044). There were no group differences in symptom bother by Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, POP stage, or rate of adverse events.Costs of robotic sacrocolpopexy are higher than laparoscopic, whereas short-term outcomes and complications are similar. Primary cost differences resulted from robot maintenance and purchase costs.Clinicaltrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01124916.I.
| S-EPMC4266590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFor patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station.ConclusionThis is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.
| S-EPMC8474742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to rectal surgery is widely used. Based on retrospective data many guidelines recommend mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) to reduce postoperative complications and specifically surgical site infections (SSIs). The primary aim of this study is to examine whether MOABP reduces complications of rectal surgery.Methods and analysisThe MOBILE2 (Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics vs Mechanical Bowel Preparation Only Prior Rectal Surgery) trial is a multicentre, double-blinded, parallel group, superiority, randomised controlled trial comparing MOABP to MBP among patients scheduled for rectal surgery with colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. The patients randomised to the MOABP group receive 1 g neomycin and 1 g metronidazole two times on a day prior to surgery and patients randomised to the MBP group receive identical placebo. Based on power calculations, 604 patients will be enrolled in the study. The primary outcome is Comprehensive Complication Index within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes are SSIs within 30 days after surgery, the number and classification of anastomosis dehiscences, the length of hospital stay, mortality within 90 days after surgery and the number of patients who received adjuvant treatment if needed. Tertiary outcomes are overall survival, disease-specific survival, recurrence-free survival and difference in quality-of-life before and 1 year after surgery. In addition, the microbiota differences in colon mucosa are analysed.Ethics and disseminationThe Ethics Committee of Helsinki University Hospital approved the study. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals.Trial registration numberNCT04281667.
| S-EPMC8273484 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdequate bowel preparation is essential for the visualization of the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy. However, the rate of inadequate bowel preparation is still high, ranging from 18% to 35%; this may lead to a higher risk of missing clinically relevant lesions, procedural difficulties, prolonged procedural time, an increased number of interval colorectal carcinomas, and additional health care costs.ObjectiveThe aims of this study are to compare bowel preparation instructions provided via a personalized smartphone app (Prepit, Ferring B V) with regular written instructions for bowel preparation to improve bowel preparation quality and to evaluate patient satisfaction with the bowel preparation procedure.MethodsEligible patients scheduled for an outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to a smartphone app group or a control group. Both the groups received identical face-to-face education from a research physician, including instructions about the colonoscopy procedure, diet restrictions, and laxative intake. In addition, the control group received written information, whereas the smartphone app group was instructed to use the smartphone app instead of the written information for the actual steps of the bowel preparation schedule. All patients used bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate as laxatives. The quality of bowel preparation was scored using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by blinded endoscopists. Patient satisfaction was measured using the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18.ResultsA total of 87 patients were included in the smartphone app group and 86 in the control group. The mean total BBPS score was significantly higher in the smartphone app group (mean 8.3, SD 0.9) than in the control group (mean 7.9, SD 1.2; P=.03). The right colon showed a significantly higher bowel preparation score in the smartphone app group (mean 2.7, SD 0.5 vs mean 2.5, SD 0.6; P=.04). No significant differences were observed in segment scores for the mean transverse colon (mean 2.8, SD 0.4 vs mean 2.8, SD 0.4; P=.34) and left colon (mean 2.8, SD 0.4 vs mean 2.6, SD 0.5; P=.07). General patient satisfaction was high for the smartphone app group (mean 4.4, SD 0.7) but showed no significant difference when compared with the control group (mean 4.3, SD 0.8; P=.32).ConclusionsOur personalized smartphone app significantly improved bowel preparation quality compared with regular written instructions for bowel preparation. In particular, in the right colon, the BBPS score improved, which is of clinical relevance because the right colon is considered more difficult to clean and the polyp detection rate in the right colon improves with improvement of bowel cleansing of the right colon. No further improvement in patient satisfaction was observed compared with patients receiving regular written instructions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03677050; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03677050.
| S-EPMC8414298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsSimethicone (SIM), as an antifoaming agent, has been shown to improve bowel preparation during colonoscopy. However, the optimal timing of SIM addition remained undetermined. We aimed to investigate the optimal timing of SIM addition to polyethylene glycol (PEG) to improve bowel preparation.MethodsEligible patients were randomly assigned to two groups: the SIM evening group (SIM addition to PEG in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy) and the SIM morning group (SIM addition to PEG in the morning of colonoscopy). The primary outcome was Bubble Scale (BS). The secondary outcomes were Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and adenoma detection rate (ADR).ResultsA total of 419 patients were enrolled in this study. The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. No significant differences were observed in terms of BS (8.76 ± 0.90 vs. 8.65 ± 1.16, P = 0.81), ADR (34.1% vs. 30.8%, P = 0.47), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (8.59 ± 0.94 vs. 8.45 ± 1.00, P = 0.15), and withdrawal time (8.22 ± 2.04 vs. 8.01 ± 2.51, P = 0.094) between the two groups. Moreover, safety and compliance were similar in both groups. However, the SIM evening group was associated with shorter cecal intubation time (3.80 ± 1.81 vs. 4.42 ± 2.03, P < 0.001), higher BS (2.95 ± 0.26 vs. 2.88 ± 0.38, P = 0.04) in the right colon, and diminutive ADR (62.5% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.022) in the right colon, when compared to the SIM evening group.ConclusionsThe SIM addition to PEG in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy can shorten cecal intubation time and improve BS scores and diminutive ADR of the right colon compared with the SIM addition to PEG in the morning of colonoscopy in bowel preparation.
| S-EPMC8566047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) using oral magnesium citrate with sodium phosphate enema to sodium phosphate (NaP) enema alone during minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery.We conducted a single-blind, randomized controlled trial of MBP versus NaP in women undergoing minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery. The primary outcome was intraoperative quality of the surgical field. Secondary outcomes included surgeon assessment of bowel handling and patient-reported tolerability symptoms.One hundred fifty-three participants were enrolled; 148 completed the study (71 MBP and 77 NaP). Patient demographics, clinical and intraoperative characteristics were similar. Completion of assigned bowel preparation was similar between MBP (97.2%) and NaP (97.4%). The MBP group found the preparation more difficult (P<0.01) and reported more overall discomfort and negative preoperative side effects (all P?0.01). Quality of surgical field at initial port placement was excellent/good in 80.0% of the MBP group compared with 62.3% in the NaP group (P=0.02). This difference was not maintained by the conclusion of surgery (P=0.18). Similar results were seen in the intent-to-treat population. Surgeons accurately guessed preparation 65.7% of the time for MBP versus 41.6% for NaP (P=0.36). At 2 weeks postoperatively, both reported a median time for return of bowel function of 3.0 (2.0-4.0) days.Mechanical bowel preparation with oral magnesium citrate before minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery offered initial improvement in the quality of surgical field, but this benefit was not sustained. It was associated with an increase in patient discomfort preoperatively, but did not seem to impact postoperative return of bowel function.I.
| S-EPMC5161559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe presence of small air bubbles and foam are an impediment to a successful colonoscopy. They impair an endoscopist's view and diminish the diagnostic accuracy of the study. This has been particularly noted to be of concern with the switch to lower volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and bisacodyl combination preparation.AimTo evaluate the effect of oral simethicone addition to bowel preparation on intraluminal bubbles reduction during colonoscopy.MethodsDescribed is a prospective, randomized, multi-center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the use of premixed simethicone formulation with split-regimen, low-volume PEG-bisacodyl combination bowel preparation for 168 outpatients undergoing screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopies. Primary outcome includes evaluation of bubbles during colonoscopy graded using the Intraluminal Bubbles Scale. Secondary outcomes include evaluation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), total number of polyps, polyp size differentiation, polyp laterality, adenoma detection, mass detection, cecal insertion time, withdrawal time, and patient-reported adverse events.ResultsHigher Intraluminal Bubbles grades III and IV (less than 75% of the mucosa cleared of bubbles/foam requiring intervention with simethicone infused wash) were detected in the placebo group [Simethicone n = 4/84 vs Placebo n = 20/84 (P = 0.007)]. BBPS total score was 7.42 [standard deviation (SD) = ± 1.51] in the simethicone group and 7.28 (SD = ± 1.44) in the placebo group (P = 0.542) from a total of 9. Significantly higher number of adenomas were detected in the simethicone group (P = 0.001).ConclusionThe addition of simethicone to bowel preparation is well advised for its anti-foaming properties. The results of this study suggest that addition of oral simethicone can improve bowel wall visibility.
| S-EPMC6580307 | biostudies-literature