Morey Allen F, Evans L Andrew, McDonough R Clayton, Park Alyssa M, Sexton Wade J, Basler Joseph W, Santucci Richard A, Amling Christopher L, O'Reilly Keith J
Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234, USA.
Can J Urol. 2006 Oct;13(5):3250-4.
We performed the first prospective, randomized, multi-center comparison of overall quality and patient tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium phosphate (NaP) solution for mechanical bowel preparation prior to urinary diversion surgery.
Between 2001 and 2003, 36 patients at six institutions underwent major urological reconstructive surgery incorporating small intestine (35 radical cystectomy with urinary diversion and 1 bladder augmentation). Patients were prospectively randomized to receive either oral polyethylene glycol (group 1, n = 16) or sodium phosphate (group 2, n = 20) for mechanical bowel preparation prior to surgery, according to our multi-institutional IRB-approved protocol. All patients completed a questionnaire the morning of surgery to assess the tolerability and side effects of each agent. Quality of the bowel preparation was recorded based on intraoperative findings of the attending surgeon, who was blinded to the preparation method.
Both bowel cleansing regimens were safe and well tolerated. Patient-reported ease of use and subjective incidence of side effects were statistically similar in the two groups, and a statistically non-significant trend to more bloating in the PEG group was also noted (p = 0.085). Surgeon-scored overall quality of preparation adequacy revealed no significant differences between oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol solutions (p = 0.555). Postoperative complications were rare for each bowel preparation agent.
Performance characteristics of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol bowel preparations appear to be similar. Each method is safe, efficacious, and well-tolerated when used prior to urinary diversion surgery. The cost for the NaP preparation was $1.40 versus $19.70 for the PEG bowel preparation. Sodium phosphate may have a slight advantage because of its convenience and economic advantage.
我们首次对聚乙二醇(PEG)和磷酸钠(NaP)溶液用于尿流改道手术前机械性肠道准备的总体质量和患者耐受性进行了前瞻性、随机、多中心比较。
2001年至2003年期间,六个机构的36例患者接受了包含小肠的大型泌尿外科重建手术(35例根治性膀胱切除术伴尿流改道和1例膀胱扩大术)。根据我们多机构IRB批准的方案,患者在手术前被前瞻性随机分配接受口服聚乙二醇(第1组,n = 16)或磷酸钠(第2组,n = 20)进行机械性肠道准备。所有患者在手术当天上午完成一份问卷,以评估每种制剂的耐受性和副作用。根据主刀医生术中所见记录肠道准备质量,主刀医生对准备方法不知情。
两种肠道清洁方案均安全且耐受性良好。两组患者报告的易用性和副作用主观发生率在统计学上相似,并且还注意到PEG组腹胀有统计学上无显著意义的增加趋势(p = 0.085)。主刀医生评分的准备充分性总体质量显示口服磷酸钠和聚乙二醇溶液之间无显著差异(p = 0.555)。每种肠道准备制剂术后并发症均少见。
口服磷酸钠和聚乙二醇肠道准备的性能特征似乎相似。在尿流改道手术前使用时,每种方法都是安全、有效且耐受性良好的。NaP制剂的成本为1.40美元,而PEG肠道准备的成本为19.70美元。磷酸钠可能因其便利性和经济优势而具有轻微优势。