Suppr超能文献

肠道手术中的机械性肠道准备:一项荟萃分析及文献综述

Mechanical bowel preparation in intestinal surgery: a meta-analysis and review of the literature.

作者信息

Pineda Carlos E, Shelton Andrew A, Hernandez-Boussard Tina, Morton John M, Welton Mark L

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, H3680, Stanford, CA 94305-5655, USA.

出版信息

J Gastrointest Surg. 2008 Nov;12(11):2037-44. doi: 10.1007/s11605-008-0594-8. Epub 2008 Jul 12.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Despite several meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials showing no benefit to patients, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) remains the standard of practice for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature of trials that prospectively compared MBP with no MBP for patients undergoing elective colorectal resection. We searched MEDLINE, LILACS, and SCISEARCH, abstracts of pertinent scientific meetings and reference lists for each article found. Experts in the field were queried as to knowledge of additional reports. Outcomes abstracted were anastomotic leaks and wound infections. Meta-analysis was performed using Peto Odds ratio.

RESULTS

Of 4,601 patients (13 trials), 2,304 received MBP (Group 1) and 2,297 did not (Group 2). Anastomotic leaks occurred in 97(4.2%) patients in Group 1 and in 81(3.5%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.214, CI 95%:0.899-1.64, P = 0.206). Wound infections occurred in 227(9.9%) patients in Group 1 and in 201(8.8%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.156, CI 95%:0.946-1.413, P = 0.155).

DISCUSSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that MBP provides no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, thus, supporting elimination of routine MBP in elective colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, MBP is of no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal resection and need not be recommended to meet "standard of care."

摘要

引言

尽管多项荟萃分析和随机对照试验表明对患者并无益处,但机械性肠道准备(MBP)仍是择期结直肠手术患者的标准操作。

方法

我们对前瞻性比较MBP与未进行MBP的择期结直肠切除术患者的试验文献进行了系统回顾。我们检索了MEDLINE、LILACS和SCISEARCH、相关科学会议的摘要以及所发现每篇文章的参考文献列表。就其他报告的情况向该领域专家进行了咨询。提取的结果为吻合口漏和伤口感染。使用Peto比值比进行荟萃分析。

结果

在4601例患者(13项试验)中,2304例接受了MBP(第1组),2297例未接受(第2组)。第1组有97例(4.2%)患者发生吻合口漏,第2组有81例(3.5%)患者发生吻合口漏(Peto比值比 = 1.214,95%置信区间:0.899 - 1.64,P = 0.206)。第1组有227例(9.9%)患者发生伤口感染,第2组有201例(8.8%)患者发生伤口感染(Peto比值比 = 1.156,95%置信区间:0.946 - 1.413,P = 0.155)。

讨论

这项荟萃分析表明,MBP对择期结直肠手术患者并无益处,因此,支持在择期结直肠手术中取消常规MBP。

结论

总之,MBP对择期结直肠切除术患者并无益处,无需推荐以达到“护理标准”。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验