Annals of Coloproctology

Display

Sort by :

Original Article

Complications

Effect of oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus no preparation on surgical site infections in elective colorectal surgery: a randomized trial: Kavyashree Mallesh, Rajendran Theakarajan, Balasubramanian G, Prashant Penumadu, Raja Kalayarasan, Rajkumar Nagarajan; Ann Coloproctol. 2025;41(5):393-399. Published online October 20, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2025.00633.0090

1,473 View
52 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Citations

Purpose
Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent a significant cause of morbidity following colorectal surgery. While mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics is known to reduce SSIs, the independent effect of oral antibiotics alone remains unclear. This study compared the efficacy of oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) versus no bowel preparation (NBP) in reducing SSIs among patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.
Methods
A prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial was performed at a tertiary care center in India. Eighty-six patients scheduled for elective colorectal surgery were randomized to receive either OABP (oral ciprofloxacin and metronidazole) or placebo, in addition to standard intravenous antibiotics. The primary outcome was the rate of SSIs. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, length of hospital stay, overall morbidity, and readmission rates.
Results
Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The incidence of SSI was significantly lower in the OABP group compared to the NBP group (14.0% vs. 41.9%, P<0.01). The severity of infections and postoperative complications was also reduced in the OABP group (P<0.01). Although rates of anastomotic leak, readmission, and reoperation were higher in the NBP group, these differences were not statistically significant. The mean duration of hospital stay was shorter for patients in the OABP group (8.09 days vs. 11.28 days, P<0.01). No adverse effects related to oral antibiotics were observed.
Conclusion
OABP without mechanical cleansing significantly reduces SSIs, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay in elective colorectal surgery. This approach is safe and effective, offering a strategy to improve surgical outcomes.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Oral antibiotics alone for bowel preparation in colorectal surgery: time to rethink tradition?
Soo Young Lee
Annals of Coloproctology.2025; 41(5): 367. CrossRef

Review

Benign GI diease,Epidemiology & etiology

A Review of Bowel Preparation Before Colorectal Surgery: Yeon Uk Ju, Byung Wook Min; Ann Coloproctol. 2021;37(2):75-84. Published online May 15, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2020.04.01

12,151 View
301 Download
14 Web of Science
12 Citations

Abstract PDF

Infectious complications are the biggest problem during bowel surgery, and one of the approaches to minimize them is the bowel cleaning method. It was expected that bowel cleaning could facilitate bowel manipulation as well as prevent infectious complications and further reduce anastomotic leakage. In the past, with the development of antibiotics, bowel cleaning and oral antibiotics (OA) were used together. However, with the success of emergency surgery and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery, bowel cleaning was not routinely performed. Consequently, bowel cleaning using OA was gradually no longer used. Recently, there have been reports that only bowel cleaning is not helpful in reducing infectious complications such as surgical site infection (SSI) compared to OA and bowel cleaning. Accordingly, in order to reduce SSI, guidelines are changing the trend of only intestinal cleaning. However, a consistent regimen has not yet been established, and there is still controversy depending on the location of the lesion and the surgical method. Moreover, complications such as Clostridium difficile infection have not been clearly analyzed. In the present review, we considered the overall bowel preparation trends and identified the areas that require further research.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

General Principles of Preoperative Risk Mitigation
Sarah Atoui, A. Sender Liberman
Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Advanced Protocols for Preoperative Colon Preparation: Enhancing Outcomes in Colorectal Surgery
Marian Cerny, Ľudovít Danihel, Milan Schnorrer, Stefan Durdik
Polish Journal of Surgery.2025; 97(5): 1. CrossRef
Feasibility of the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) Protocol in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgeries in a Tertiary Care Hospital—A Prospective Interventional Study
Surya Theja, Seema Mishra, Sandeep Bhoriwal, Rakesh Garg, Sachidanand Jee Bharati, Vinod Kumar, Nishkarsh Gupta, Saurabh Vig, Sunil Kumar, S. V. S. Deo, Sushma Bhatnagar
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology.2024; 15(2): 304. CrossRef
Influence of additional prophylactic oral antibiotics during mechanical bowel preparation on surgical site infection in patients receiving colorectal surgery
Hayoung Lee, Jong Lyul Lee, Ji Sung Lee, Chan Wook Kim, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Seok‐Byung Lim
World Journal of Surgery.2024; 48(6): 1534. CrossRef
The Impact of Surgical Bowel Preparation on the Microbiome in Colon and Rectal Surgery
Lauren Weaver, Alexander Troester, Cyrus Jahansouz
Antibiotics.2024; 13(7): 580. CrossRef
Pre-Operative Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect the Impact of Anastomosis Leakage in Left-Side Colorectal Surgery—A Single Center Observational Study
Ludovít Danihel, Marian Cerny, Ivor Dropco, Petra Zrnikova, Milan Schnorrer, Marek Smolar, Miloslav Misanik, Stefan Durdik
Life.2024; 14(9): 1092. CrossRef
Bowel cleansing, dysbiosis, and postoperative infection: the dots are starting to connect
John C Alverdy
British Journal of Surgery.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
A prospective, randomized assessment of a novel, local antibiotic releasing platform for the prevention of superficial and deep surgical site infections
O. Zmora, Y. Stark, O. Belotserkovsky, M. Reichert, G. A. Kozloski, N. Wasserberg, H. Tulchinsky, L. Segev, A. J. Senagore, N. Emanuel
Techniques in Coloproctology.2023; 27(3): 209. CrossRef
Bacterial Decontamination: Bowel Preparation and Chlorhexidine Bathing
Yadin Bornstein, Elizabeth C. Wick
Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2023; 36(03): 201. CrossRef
Effect of non-mechanical bowel preparation on postoperative gastrointestinal recovery following surgery on malignant gynecological tumors: A randomized controlled trial
Shan-shan Wang, Hong-yan Xu, Xing-xia Li, Su-wen Feng
European Journal of Oncology Nursing.2023; 64: 102320. CrossRef
The Latest Results and Future Directions of Research for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in the Field of Colorectal Surgery
Min Ki Kim
The Ewha Medical Journal.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
The Impact of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol on Colorectal Surgery in a Portuguese Tertiary Hospital
Catarina Lopes, Mariana Vaz Gomes, Manuel Rosete, Ana Almeida, Luisa Isabel Silva, José Guilherme Tralhão
Acta Médica Portuguesa.2022; 36(4): 254. CrossRef

Original Article

Correlation Between Bowel Preparation and the Adenoma Detection Rate in Screening Colonoscopy: Jung Hun Park, Sang Jin Kim, Jong Hee Hyun, Kyung Su Han, Byung Chang Kim, Chang Won Hong, Sang-Jeon Lee, Dae Kyung Sohn; Ann Coloproctol. 2017;33(3):93-98. Published online June 30, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2017.33.3.93

12,826 View
108 Download
25 Web of Science
28 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

The adenoma detection rate is commonly used as a measure of the quality of colonoscopy. This study assessed both the association between the adenoma detection rate and the quality of bowel preparation and the risk factors associated with the adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy.

Methods

This retrospective analysis involved 1,079 individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy at the National Cancer Center between December 2012 and April 2014. Bowel preparation was classified by using the Aronchick scale. Individuals with inadequate bowel preparations (n = 47, 4.4%) were excluded because additional bowel preparation was needed. The results of 1,032 colonoscopies were included in the analysis.

Results

The subjects' mean age was 53.1 years, and 657 subjects (63.7%) were men. The mean cecal intubation time was 6.7 minutes, and the mean withdrawal time was 8.7 minutes. The adenoma and polyp detection rates were 28.1% and 41.8%, respectively. The polyp, adenoma, and advanced adenoma detection rates did not correlate with the quality of bowel preparation. The multivariate analysis showed age ≥ 60 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.97; P = 0.040), body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m² (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.17–2.08; P = 0.002) and current smoking (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.01–2.06; P = 0.014) to be independent risk factors for adenoma detection.

Conclusion

The adenoma detection rate was unrelated to the quality of bowel preparation for screening colonoscopy. Older age, obesity, and smoking were independent risk factors for adenoma detection.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Age and Sex Adenoma Detection Rates in Colonoscopy and Optimization of Screening Age: A Retrospective Analysis
Burak Sakar, Osman Zekai Oner, Ali Celik, Omer Celik, Turan Can Yıldız, Ugur Dogan, Onur Ilkay Dincer
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques.2025; 35(8): 596. CrossRef
Efficacy and Safety of L-Menthol During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials
Dorottya Gergő, Andrea Tóth-Mészáros, Alexander Schulze Wenning, Péter Fehérvári, Uyen Nguyen Do To, Péter Hegyi, Bálint Erőss, Attila Ványolós, Dezső Csupor
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(12): 4296. CrossRef
Assessment of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing Bowel Preparation With Mannitol for Colonoscopy: The SATISFACTION Study
Gian Eugenio Tontini, Cristiano Spada, Peter Uebel, Renato Cannizzaro, Giorgio Ciprandi, Maurizio Vecchi
JGH Open.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical outcomes of bowel preparation education strategies in colonoscopy: An evidence map of systematic reviews
Ningning Li, Mengdan Ye, Qihan Wu, Bingru Li, Yingying Wang, Wen Li
Medicine.2025; 104(39): e44644. CrossRef
Evaluating the Efficacy of Resect-and-Discard and Resect-and-Retrieve Strategies for Diminutive Colonic Polyps
Andrei Lucian Groza, Bogdan Miutescu, Cristian Tefas, Alexandru Popa, Iulia Ratiu, Roxana Sirli, Alina Popescu, Alexandru Catalin Motofelea, Marcel Tantau
Life.2024; 14(4): 532. CrossRef
Split doses versus whole dose bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A multicentric prospective Lebanese randomized trial between 2021 and 2023
Blaybel Sara, Hammoud Ghinwa, Mourda Layla, Hallal Mahmoud, Khalil Ali, Mckey Remy
Health Science Reports.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Overall Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate Measure for Screening Efficacy Independent of Histopathology: Evidence from National Endoscopy Database
Mark Aloysius, Hemant Goyal, Tejas Nikumbh, Niraj Shah, Ganesh Aswath, Savio John, Amol Bapaye, Sushovan Guha, Nirav Thosani
Life.2024; 14(6): 654. CrossRef
Application of linaclotide in bowel preparation for colonoscopy in patients with constipation: A prospective randomized controlled study
Haoxin Xu, Zhu He, Yulin Liu, Hong Xu, Pengfei Liu
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2024; 39(12): 2752. CrossRef
Assessment of the Impact of Bowel Preparation Quality on Adenoma Detection Rate in Screening Colonoscopy: A Multicenter Study
Altaf Ahmad, Muhammad Ishaq, Shafaq Farooq, Hafeez Ullah, Muhammad Adil Raza, Asma Abdul Razzak, Syed Kumail Abbas Razvi
Indus Journal of Bioscience Research.2024; 3(2): 478. CrossRef
Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Association Between Time of Day and Colonoscopy Quality
Zihua Lu, Lihui Zhang, Liwen Yao, Dexin Gong, Lianlian Wu, Meiqing Xia, Jun Zhang, Wei Zhou, Xu Huang, Chunping He, Huiling Wu, Chenxia Zhang, Xun Li, Honggang Yu
JAMA Network Open.2023; 6(1): e2253840. CrossRef
Correlation between prescribing doctor attributes and intestinal cleanliness in colonoscopy: a study of 22522 patients
Haibin Zhou, Hayat Khizar, Xiaofeng Zhang, Jianfeng Yang
Annals of Medicine.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Enhancing the Quality of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Current Indicators and Future Trends
Caesar Ferrari, Micheal Tadros
Gastroenterology Insights.2023; 15(1): 1. CrossRef
Reinforced education by short message service improves the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Peng Li, Xueqian He, Jie Dong, Youwei Chen, Qin Zhou
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2022; 37(4): 815. CrossRef
Supplementary education can improve the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials
Shicheng Peng, Sixu Liu, Jiaming Lei, Wensen Ren, Lijun Xiao, Xiaolan Liu, Muhan Lü, Kai Zhou, Antonio Z. Gimeno-Garcia
PLOS ONE.2022; 17(4): e0266780. CrossRef
Adenoma Detection Rate in Colonoscopic Screening with Ketamine-based Sedation: A Prospective Observational Study
Mirza KOVACEVIC, Nermina RIZVANOVIC, Adisa SABANOVIC ADILOVIC, Nedim BARUCIJA, Anida ABAZOVIC
Medeniyet Medical Journal.2022; 37(1): 79. CrossRef
Colonic bowel prep and body mass index: does one size fit all? A multi-centre review
Brodie D. Laurie, Mary M. K. Teoh, Alfredo Noches-Garcia, Munyaradzi G. Nyandoro
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2022; 37(12): 2451. CrossRef
Multimedia based education on bowel preparation improves adenoma detection rate: Systematic review & meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Saurabh Chandan, Sumant Arora, Babu P. Mohan, Shahab R. Khan, Ojasvini C. Chandan, Lena L. Kassab, Arvind R. Murali
Digestive Endoscopy.2021; 33(5): 730. CrossRef
Role of Bowel Preparation in Adenoma Detection Rate and Follow-up Recommendations in African American Dominant Patient Population
Hamid-Reza Moein, Eskara Pervez, Salina Faidhalla, Heba Habbal, Hajra Khan, Anshu Wadehra, Mahvish Khalid, Diana Kakos, Paul Naylor, Bashar Mohamad
Cureus.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
The unmet needs for identifying the ideal bowel preparation
Gian E Tontini, Alberto Prada, Sandro Sferrazza, Giorgio Ciprandi, Maurizio Vecchi
JGH Open.2021; 5(10): 1135. CrossRef
When should we perform colonoscopy to increase the adenoma detection rate?
Sang Hoon Kim, Jae Hak Kim
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2021; 13(12): 619. CrossRef
Quality of Preoperative Colonoscopy Affects Missed Postoperative Adenoma Detection in Colorectal Cancer Patients
Jae Ho Park, Hee Seok Moon, In Sun Kwon, Ju Seok Kim, Sun Hyung Kang, Eaum Seok Lee, Seok Hyun Kim, Jae Kyu Sung, Byung Seok Lee, Hyun Yong Jeong
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2020; 65(7): 2063. CrossRef
Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in 2020: A Look at the Past, Present, and Future
Valentine Ongeri Millien, Nabil M. Mansour
Current Gastroenterology Reports.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
Effect of Sending Educational Video Clips via Smartphone Mobile Messenger on Bowel Preparation before Colonoscopy
Sung Chan Jeon, Jae Hyun Kim, Sun Jung Kim, Hye Jung Kwon, Youn Jung Choi, Kyoungwon Jung, Sung Eun Kim, Won Moon, Moo In Park, Seun Ja Park
Clinical Endoscopy.2019; 52(1): 53. CrossRef
Efficacy of 1.2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparations
Hiroyuki Tamaki, Teruyo Noda, Masahiro Morita, Akina Omura, Atsushi Kubo, Chikara Ogawa, Toshihiro Matsunaka, Mitsushige Shibatoge
World Journal of Clinical Cases.2019; 7(4): 452. CrossRef
Microbiome and morbid obesity increase pathogenic stimulus diversity
Björn L.D.M. Brücher, Ijaz S. Jamall, Obul R. Bandapalli
4open.2019; 2: 10. CrossRef
Difference in Physician- and Patient-Dependent Factors Contributing to Adenoma Detection Rate and Serrated Polyp Detection Rate
Maryan Cavicchi, Gaëlle Tharsis, Pascal Burtin, Philippe Cattan, Franck Venezia, Gilles Tordjman, Agnès Gillet, Joëlle Samama, Karine Nahon-Uzan, David Karsenti
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2019; 64(12): 3579. CrossRef
Impact of diet restriction on bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Seung-Joo Nam, Young Jin Kim, Bora Keum, Jae Min Lee, Seung Han Kim, Hyuk Soon Choi, Eun Sun Kim, Yeon Seok Seo, Yoon Tae Jeen, Hong Sik Lee, Hoon Jai Chun, Soon Ho Um, Chang Duck Kim
Medicine.2018; 97(41): e12645. CrossRef
Limitation and Value of Using the Adenoma Detection Rate for Colonoscopy Quality Assurance
Jun Hur, Moo-Jun Baek
Annals of Coloproctology.2017; 33(3): 81. CrossRef

Case Report

Acute Hyponatremia With Seizure and Mental Change After Oral Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate Bowel Preparation: Young Sun Cho, Kyung Min Nam, Jang Ho Park, Sang Hwan Byun, Jin Suck Ryu, Hyun Ju Kim; Ann Coloproctol. 2014;30(6):290-293. Published online December 31, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2014.30.6.290

7,103 View
67 Download
14 Web of Science
13 Citations

Abstract PDF

Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (Picolight Powder), which is used as a bowel preparation for the colon and the rectum, can cause a severe electrolyte imbalance like hyponatremia. When hyponatremia gets severe or occurs rapidly, it can lead to death due to associated complications. We have experienced a case of hyponatremia associated with seizure and loss of consciousness in a 76-year-old woman, who took sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy. She was taking thiazide and synthroid for the treatment of hypertension and hypothyroidism, respectively, and she had other underlying medical conditions such as a history of seizure and dementia. Following the diagnosis of hyponatremia, we used an intravenous injection of 3% NaCl to normalize the sodium level in her serum, and her associated symptoms soon disappeared.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Using the Cardiac–Electrophysiological Balance Index to Predict Arrhythmia Risk After Colonoscopy
Seyit Ali Volkan Polatkan, Seyda Gunay-Polatkan, Ozgen Isik, Deniz Sigirli
Medicina.2024; 61(1): 13. CrossRef
Hyponatremia‐induced generalized seizure after taking polyethylene glycol for colon preparation—A case report and brief review of the literature
Shiva Seyrafian, Vahid Sebghatollahi, Bahar Bastani
Clinical Case Reports.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Hyponatremic Seizure after Ingestion of an Oral Sulfate Tablet for Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy
Sung Hyun Hong, Dong Seok Lee, Ji Won Kim, Kook Lae Lee, Hyoun Woo Kang, Su Hwan Kim
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2022; 80(3): 154. CrossRef
Seizure from water intoxication following bowel preparation: a case report
Ting-Hsuan Chiang, Jui-Hsiang Tan, Chun-Chao Chang, Kuan-Chieh Fang
BMC Nephrology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Severe symptomatic hyponatraemia secondary to bowel preparation
Krishan Pratap, Manasi Jiwrajka, Liam Weber, Alan Richardson
BMJ Case Reports.2019; 12(10): e230385. CrossRef
Preparation for colonoscopy: Recommendations by an expert panel in Italy
Cristiano Spada, Renato Cannizzaro, Maria Antonietta Bianco, Rita Conigliaro, Emilio Di Giulio, Cesare Hassan, Riccardo Marmo, Pietro Occhipinti, Franco Radaelli, Alessandro Repici, Enrico Ricci, Guido Costamagna
Digestive and Liver Disease.2018; 50(11): 1124. CrossRef
Severe hyponatremia secondary to preparation for colonoscopy with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate
Olatz Azcune Echeverria
Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas.2018;[Epub] CrossRef
“Bowel prep hyponatremia“ – a state of acute water intoxication facilitated by low dietary solute intake: case report and literature review
Martin Windpessl, Christoph Schwarz, Manfred Wallner
BMC Nephrology.2017;[Epub] CrossRef
Severe Hyponatremia with Mental Change after Ingestion of Picosulfate Sodium/Magnesium Citrate for Bowel Preparation
Woojung Kim, Sang Young Park, Mi Jeoung Kim, Hyang Mo Koo
The Korean Journal of Medicine.2016; 91(2): 206. CrossRef
Upper airway obstruction resulting from acute mucosal injury induced by direct ingestion of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate powder
Gyeong Bo Kim, Sung Yeon Hwang, Tae Gun Shin, Tae Rim Lee, Won Chul Cha, Min Seob Sim, Ik Joon Jo, Keun Jeong Song, Joong Eui Rhee, Yeon Kwon Jeong
Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine.2016; 3(2): 109. CrossRef
Combination could be another tool for bowel preparation?
Jae Seung Soh, Kyung-Jo Kim
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 22(10): 2915. CrossRef
A randomized trial to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate solution vs. 4 L polyethylene glycol solution as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Miguel Muñoz-Navas, José Luis Calleja, Guillermo Payeras, Antonio José Hervás, Luis Esteban Abreu, Víctor Orive, Pedro L. Menchén, José María Bordas, José Ramón Armengol, Cristina Carretero, Vicente Pons Beltrán, Inmaculada Alonso-Abreu, Román Manteca, Ad
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2015; 30(10): 1407. CrossRef
Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate/ hydrochlorothiazide

Reactions Weekly.2015; 1549(1): 223. CrossRef

Original Articles

Effectiveness of Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (PICO) for Colonoscopy Preparation: Ki Hwan Song, Wu Seok Suh, Jin Sik Jeong, Dong Sik Kim, Sang Woo Kim, Dong Min Kwak, Jong Seong Hwang, Hyun Jin Kim, Man Woo Park, Min Chul Shim, Ja-Il Koo, Jae Hwang Kim, Dae Ho Shon; Ann Coloproctol. 2014;30(5):222-227. Published online October 28, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2014.30.5.222

8,353 View
52 Download
10 Web of Science
8 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

Bowel preparation with sodium phosphate was recently prohibited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is safe and effective; however, it is difficult to drink. To identify an easy bowel preparation method for colonoscopy, we evaluated three different bowel preparation regimens regarding their efficacy and patient satisfaction.

Methods

In this randomized, comparative study, 892 patients who visited a secondary referral hospital for a colonoscopy between November 2012 and February 2013 were enrolled. Three regimens were evaluated: three packets of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (PICO, group A), two packets of PICO with 1 L of PEG (PICO + PEG 1 L, group B), and two packets of PICO with 2 L of PEG (PICO + PEG 2 L, group C). A questionnaire survey regarding the patients' preference for the bowel preparation regimen and satisfaction was conducted before the colonoscopies. The quality of bowel cleansing was scored by the colonoscopists who used the Aronchick scoring scale and the Ottawa scale.

Results

The patients' satisfaction rate regarding the regimens were 72% in group A, 64% in group B, and 45.9% in group C. Nausea and abdominal bloating caused by the regimens were more frequent in group C than in group A or group B (P < 0.01). Group C showed the lowest preference rate compared to the other groups (P < 0.01). Group C showed better right colon cleansing efficacy than group A or group B.

Conclusion

Group A exhibited a better result than group B or group C in patient satisfaction and preference. In the cleansing quality, no difference was noted between groups A and C.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Rehabilitation for Chronic Constipation: Integrative Approaches to Diagnosis and Treatment
Luana Alexandrescu, Ionut Eduard Iordache, Alina Mihaela Stanigut, Laura Maria Condur, Doina Ecaterina Tofolean, Razvan Catalin Popescu, Andreea Nelson Twakor, Eugen Dumitru, Andrei Dumitru, Cristina Tocia, Alexandra Herlo, Ionut Tiberiu Tofolean
Gastrointestinal Disorders.2025; 7(1): 11. CrossRef
Acidifying agents impact erlotinib and gefitinib pharmacokinetic parameters and elevate liver enzymes in Wistar rats
Amsha S. Alsegiani, Aliyah Almomen, Maria Arafah, Nourah Z. Alzoman, Abdullah K.Alshememry
Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
White Diet with split‐dose Picosalax is preferred, better tolerated, and non‐inferior to day‐before clear fluids with polyethylene glycol plus sodium picosulfate‐magnesium citrate for morning colonoscopy: A randomized, non‐inferiority trial
Jeremy P Dwyer, Jonathan Y C Tan, Eldho Paul, Catherine Bunn, Dileep Mangira, Robyn Secomb, Peter R Gibson, Gregor Brown
JGH Open.2017; 1(1): 38. CrossRef
Randomized clinical trial comparing fixed-time split dosing and split dosing of oral Picosulfate regimen for bowel preparation
Jae Hyuck Jun, Koon Hee Han, Jong Kyu Park, Hyun Il Seo, Young Don Kim, Sang Jin Lee, Baek Gyu Jun, Min Sik Hwang, Yoon Kyoo Park, Myeong Jong Kim, Gab Jin Cheon
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2017; 23(32): 5986. CrossRef
Upper airway obstruction resulting from acute mucosal injury induced by direct ingestion of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate powder
Gyeong Bo Kim, Sung Yeon Hwang, Tae Gun Shin, Tae Rim Lee, Won Chul Cha, Min Seob Sim, Ik Joon Jo, Keun Jeong Song, Joong Eui Rhee, Yeon Kwon Jeong
Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine.2016; 3(2): 109. CrossRef
Combination could be another tool for bowel preparation?
Jae Seung Soh, Kyung-Jo Kim
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 22(10): 2915. CrossRef
Phase II Randomized Controlled Trial of Combined Oral laxatives Medication for BOwel PREParation (COMBO-PREP study)
Min Jung Kim, Chang Won Hong, Byung Chang Kim, Sung Chan Park, Kyung Su Han, Jungnam Joo, Jae Hwan Oh, Dae Kyung Sohn
Medicine.2016; 95(7): e2824. CrossRef
Frustration Still Exists
Hyun Shig Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2014; 30(5): 207. CrossRef

Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Prophylactic Antibiotic Administration in Colorectal Surgery: A Survey of the Current Status in Korea: Byung Mo Kang, Kil Yeon Lee, Sun Jin Park, Suk-Hwan Lee; Ann Coloproctol. 2013;29(4):160-166. Published online August 29, 2013; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2013.29.4.160

6,560 View
50 Download
19 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

The usefulness of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colon surgery was recently challenged by many multicenter clinical trials and meta-analyses. The objectives of this study were to investigate current national opinions about MBP and prophylactic antibiotics (PA) and to provide preliminary data for developing future Korean guidelines for MBP and PA administration in colorectal surgery.

Methods

A questionnaire was mailed to 129 colorectal specialists. The questionnaires addressed the characteristics of the hospital, the MBP methods, and the uses of oral and intravenous antibiotics.

Results

A total of 73 questionnaires (56.6%) were returned. First, in regard to MBP methods, most surgeons (97.3%) used MBP for a mean of 1.36 days. Most surgeons (98.6%) implemented whole bowel irrigation and used polyethylene glycol (83.3%). Oral antibiotic use was indicated in over half (52.1%) of the responses, the average number of preoperative doses was three, and the mean time of administration was 24.2 hours prior to the operation. Finally, the majority of responders stated that they used intravenous antibiotics (95.9%). The responses demonstrated that second-generation cephalosporin-based regimens were most commonly prescribed, and 75% of the surgeons administered these regimens until three days after the operation.

Conclusion

The results indicate that most surgeons used MBP and intravenous antibiotics and that half of them administered oral PA in colorectal surgery preparations. The study recommends that the current Korean guidelines should be adapted to adequately reflect the medical status in Korea, to consider the medical environment of the various hospitals, and to establish more accurate and relevant guidelines.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

RETRACTED: A meta‐analysis of the risk factors for surgical site infection in patients with colorectal cancer
Yani Chen, Hua Guo, Tian Gao, Jiale Yu, Yujia Wang, Haiquan Yu
International Wound Journal.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Surgical Site Infections in Colorectal Cancer Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Surgical Approach and Associated Risk Factors
Valentin Calu, Catalin Piriianu, Adrian Miron, Valentin Titus Grigorean
Life.2024; 14(7): 850. CrossRef
Uncovering the Function of MBP and Antibiotics in Preventing Surgical Site Infections during Colorectal Procedures
Agnes Sara Shibu, Rojin G. Raj, Rohit Singh Deo
Journal of Coloproctology.2024; 44(03): e209. CrossRef
Single-Dose Versus Multiple-Dose Prophylactic Antibiotics in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis
Ga Yoon Ku, Beom-jin Kim, Ji Won Park, Min Jung Kim, Seung-Bum Ryoo, Seung-Yong Jeong, Kyu Joo Park
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation using conventional versus hyperosmolar polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (TLUMP test): a phase III, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiori
Tadashi Yoshida, Shigenori Homma, Nobuki Ichikawa, Yosuke Ohno, Yoichi Miyaoka, Hiroki Matsui, Ken Imaizumi, Hiroyuki Ishizu, Tohru Funakoshi, Masahiko Koike, Hirofumi Kon, Yo Kamiizumi, Yasuhiro Tani, Yoichi Minagawa Ito, Kazufumi Okada, Akinobu Taketomi
Journal of Gastroenterology.2023; 58(9): 883. CrossRef
The risk of surgical site infection of oral sulfate tablet versus sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation in colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial
Sung Sil Park, Sung Chan Park, Dong-Eun Lee, Dong Woon Lee, Kiho Yu, Hyoung-Chul Park, Chang Won Hong, Dae Kyung Sohn, Kyung Su Han, Bun Kim, Byung Chang Kim, Jae Hwan Oh
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2022; 103(2): 96. CrossRef
Preoperative Elemental Diet before Laparoscopic Anterior Resection in Patients with Advanced Stenotic Rectal Cancer
Tadashi Yoshida, Shigenori Homma, Nobuki Ichikawa, Hiroaki Iijima, Akinobu Taketomi
Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon.2021; 5(4): 395. CrossRef
Orale Antibiotikaprophylaxe zur Darmdekontamination vor elektiver kolorektaler Chirurgie
S. Flemming, C.-T. Germer
Der Chirurg.2020; 91(2): 128. CrossRef
Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery
Ik Yong Kim
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2020; 75(2): 79. CrossRef
Update on risk factors of surgical site infection in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Zhaohui Xu, Hui Qu, George Kanani, Zhong Guo, Yanying Ren, Xin Chen
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2020; 35(12): 2147. CrossRef
Does Mechanical Bowel Preparation Ameliorate Surgical Performance in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion?
Chang-Hoon Jeon, Han-Dong Lee, Nam-Su Chung
Global Spine Journal.2019; 9(7): 692. CrossRef
Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect Clinical Severity of Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Cancer Surgery
Woong Bae Ji, Koo Yong Hahn, Jung Myun Kwak, Dong Woo Kang, Se Jin Baek, Jin Kim, Seon Hahn Kim
World Journal of Surgery.2017; 41(5): 1366. CrossRef
Comparing Mechanical Bowel Preparation With Both Oral and Systemic Antibiotics Versus Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Systemic Antibiotics Alone for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection After Elective Colorectal Surgery
Min Chen, Xue Song, Liang-zhou Chen, Zhi-dong Lin, Xue-li Zhang
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2016; 59(1): 70. CrossRef
Early Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Neoplasms According to Clinical Indications
Eui-Gon Youk, Dae Kyng Sohn, Chang Won Hong, Seong Dae Lee, Kyung Su Han, Byung Chang Kim, Hee Jin Chang, Mi-Jung Kim
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2016; 59(5): 403. CrossRef
Benefit of mechanical bowel preparation prior to elective colorectal surgery: current insights
A. C. A. Murray, R. P. Kiran
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2016; 401(5): 573. CrossRef
Is mechanical bowel preparation still necessary for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery? A meta‐analysis
Huaping Huang, Haiyan Wang, Mei He
Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery.2015; 8(2): 171. CrossRef
Nationwide Analysis of Outcomes of Bowel Preparation in Colon Surgery
Zhobin Moghadamyeghaneh, Mark H. Hanna, Joseph C. Carmichael, Steven D. Mills, Alessio Pigazzi, Ninh T. Nguyen, Michael J. Stamos
Journal of the American College of Surgeons.2015; 220(5): 912. CrossRef
Influence of Shorter Duration of Prophylactic Antibiotic Use on the Incidence of Surgical Site Infection Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery
Youn Young Park, Chang Woo Kim, Sun Jin Park, Kil Yeon Lee, Jung Joo Lee, Hye Ok Lee, Suk-Hwan Lee
Annals of Coloproctology.2015; 31(6): 235. CrossRef
Mechanical Bowel Preparation: Keep It or Abandon It?
Hungdai Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2013; 29(4): 136. CrossRef

The Impact of Bowel Preparation on Anastomotic Complications after Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: A Prospective Comparative Study between Oral Polyethylene Glycol and Phosphate Enema.: Baek, Se Jin , Choi, Dong Jin , Kim, Jin , Woo, Si Uk , Min, Byung Wook , Kim, Seon Hahn , Moon, Hong Young; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2009;25(5):294-299.; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2009.25.5.294

1,911 View
7 Download

Abstract PDF: PURPOSE
Although most randomized trials demonstrated no advantage of mechanical bowel preparation for colorectal resection, an oral solution is still widely used. The aims of this study were to evaluate whether a single phosphate enema is as effective as oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in preventing anastomotic complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery and to examine the clinical courses of anastomotic complications.
METHODS
Between September 2006 and December 2007, 309 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection with primary anastomosis. The bowel preparation used was PEG solution during initial period (PEG group), but since February 2007, a single phosphate enema (enema group) was utilized. Postoperative data were prospectively recorded. In patients with anastomotic complications, the clinical course was compared between the two groups.
RESULTS
There were 150 patients in the PEG group and 159 patients in the enema group. Demographics did not differ between the two groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 3.3 percent of the patients in the PEG group and 5.7 percent of the patients in the enema group (P=0.326). The rates of anastomotic bleeding were 2.0 and 2.5 percent, respectively (P=0.761). The hospital stays for patients with anastomotic complication were not different between the two groups (P=0.137), but patients in the PEG group (80%) needed reoperation more frequently than those in the enema group (11.1%) (P=0.023).
CONCLUSION
These results suggest that laparoscopic colorectal surgery may be safely performed with a single phosphate enema instead of oral polyethylene glycol.

Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Polyethylene Glycol and Sodium Phosphate Oral Lavage Solutions.: Yun, Seong Hyeon , Kang, Jung Gu; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2004;20(1):27-31.

1,111 View
5 Download

Abstract PDF: PURPOSE
This study was undertaken to determine whether a mechanical bowel preparation with 90 ml of sodium phosphate (NaP) solution (Group II) increased the acceptability of bowel preparation and reduced discomfort compared with 2 liters of polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with a bisacodyl 20 mg (Group I).
METHODS
We conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. Forty-four patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery in the National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital from March 2002 to November 2002 were included in this study. We assessed the patients' tolerance and cleansing ability, as well as the surgeon's satisfaction, by using a structured questionnaire. Postoperative complications were also evaluated.
RESULTS
Patient tolerance to NaP was higher than it was to PEG (P=0.034). The cleansing ability and the surgeon's satisfaction were not different between the two groups (P=0.217, P=0.349). There is no significant postoperative complication except for 1 case of wound infection in both group.
CONCLUSIONS
Both oral solutions proved to be equally effective and safe. However, patient tolerance to the small volume of NaP demonstrated a clear advantage over the traditional PEG solution.

Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Two Liters and Four Liters of Polyethylene Glycol-Based Oral Lavage Solutions.: Cho, Shin Il , Yun, Seong Hyun , Park, Jae Kun , Kim, Nam Kyu , Sohn, Seung Kook , Min, Jin Sik; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2000;16(6):383-387.

1,268 View
15 Download

Abstract PDF: PURPOSE
This study was undertaken to determine whether a mechanical bowel preparation with 2 liters polyethylene glycol solution combined with a Bisacodyl 20 mg (Group II) increases the acceptability of bowel preparation and reduces discomfort compared with 4 liters of polyethylene glycol solution (Group I).
METHODS
We conducted a prospective randomized single-blinded study. Eighty patients undergoing an elective colorectal surgery in Severance hospital from April 1999 to September 1999 were included in this study. The patients' tolerance, cleansing ability and surgeon's satisfaction were assessed by a structured questionnaire. Postoperative complications were also evaluated.
RESULTS
The patients' tolerance of the group II (2 liters polyethylene glycol solution combined with a Bisacodyl 20 mg) was better than that of the groups I (4 liters of polyethylene glycol solution). The cleaning ability and surgeon's satisfaction were not different between two groups (p=0.225, p=0.322). The incidence of postoperative complications was 2.3 percent in Group I and 2.7 percent in Group II.
CONCLUSIONS
The mechanical bowel preparation with two liters of polyethylene glycol solution with a Bisacodyl 20 mg was more comfortable to patients and equally efficient compared with the mechanical bowel preparation with the 4 liters of polyethylene glycol solution regimen before elective colorectal surgery.

Randomized Controlled Trial

A Comparison of Oral Sodium Phosphate and Polyethylene Glycol Solution for.: Cho, Hang Jun , Kang, Yoon Sik , Kim, Tae Soo , Jung, Seung Yong , Kim, Do Sun; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 1997;13(2):223-228.

1,580 View
13 Download

Abstract PDF: BACKGROUND
Polyethylene glycol(PEG) has been the most widely used colonic lavage solution. But large volume and salty taste of PEG solution is a problem which can lead to the noncompliance and the poor bowel cleansing. Recent reports have suggested that sodium phosphate solution of much smaller volume is more effective in colon cleansing ability and more easier to complete. Therefore, this study was designed to compare two solutions for colonoscopy and to determine the differences in either patient compliance or cleansing ability.
METHOD
Eighty-two patients were randomized to take either oral sodium phosphate solution or 2 liter of PEG solution. Patient's discomfort and tolerance during ingestion was asessed by questionnaire and one colonoscopist who did not know the type of solution, assessed colonic preparation status.
RESULTS
Among 25 patients experiencing two separate colonoscopies with PEG solution and sodium phosphate solution respectively, 19(76%) patients preferred sodium phosphate solution. Sodium phosphate solution was found to be easier to take. Sodium phosphate caused thirst more frequently(p=0.013) than PEG solution. Particulate stool and water retention status were similar in two groups. Gas bubble formation that disturbs luminal observation was more frequently found in sodium phosphate preparation group(P=0.00). Sodium phosphate was more effective in right colon cleansing ability than PEG preparation(P=0.04). The Colonoscopist assessed sodium phosphate as "good" in 47.2% vs 58.6% after PEG preparation as a whole, but there was no statistical difference. CONSLUSION: Sodium Phosphate solution is better tolerated and more easier to take than PEG solution. Gas bubble formation is a correctable problem, but right colonic cleansing effect is not. Our results showed that sodium phosphate is likely to be more effective in colonic cleansing effect comparing to polyethylene glycol solution.

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search