Department of Surgery, Division of Visceral Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Bern, Bern, CH-3010, Switzerland.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011 Jan;396(1):107-13. doi: 10.1007/s00423-010-0718-y. Epub 2010 Oct 24.
The aim of this study was to assess the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and antimicrobial prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery in Switzerland.
Ninety-eight heads of surgical departments in Switzerland and 42 visceral surgeons in private practice were asked to answer an 18-item questionnaire in October 2008 about arguments in favor of or against MBP. The participants also indicated whether they use MBP and antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery, and if so, what agents were used. Of the participants, 117/140 (83%) responded. Additional data were collected pertaining to the respondents' experience and work situation.
MBP was used significantly more often for rectal surgery than for left colonic resections (83% vs. 53%; p < 0.001) and more often for left than for right colonic resections (53% vs. 43%; p = 0.001), regardless of the open or laparoscopic approach. Younger surgeons and surgeons with a higher case load in colorectal surgery used MBP significantly less frequently in open right colonic resections. For MBP, cathartics were used in 90% of patients, and enemas were used in 10% of patients. Of the respondents, 37% considered MBP to be useful, even very useful. Based on the literature, because of introduction of fast-track protocols or for considerations of patient comfort, 86% of the respondents had changed the bowel preparation regime during the last 10 years in terms of a reduction of the quantity of cathartics or restricted the indications for MBP. Antimicrobial prophylaxis was used by 100% of the respondents, 88% used a single prophylactic dose only, while 70% administered the antibiotics 30-59 min before the incision. Most of the surgeons used second-generation cephalosporins in combination with metronidazole, and 24% changed the antibiotic agent or reduced the duration of administration of antibiotics during the last 10 years.
MBP is often used in open and laparoscopic rectal surgery, but not in right colonic resections. Scientific evidence regarding MBP has yielded a rethinking about rigorous bowel preparation regimes. As of now, surgeons in Switzerland are not yet unanimously ready to abandon MBP in elective colorectal surgery. In Switzerland, surgeons are influenced by the benefit of antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery.
本研究旨在评估机械性肠道准备(MBP)和抗菌预防在瑞士择期结直肠手术中的应用。
2008 年 10 月,我们向瑞士 98 位外科主任和 42 位私人执业内脏外科医生发放了一份包含 18 个问题的问卷,以评估支持或反对 MBP 的观点。参与者还表明他们是否在结直肠手术中使用 MBP 和抗菌预防,如果使用,使用何种药物。其中 140 位参与者中的 117 位(83%)进行了回复。我们还收集了与受访者经验和工作情况相关的附加数据。
直肠手术中 MBP 的使用率明显高于左半结肠切除术(83%比 53%;p<0.001),也高于右半结肠切除术(53%比 43%;p=0.001),而与开放或腹腔镜手术无关。年轻的外科医生和在结直肠手术中工作量较大的外科医生在开放的右半结肠切除术中较少使用 MBP。90%的患者使用泻药进行 MBP,10%的患者使用灌肠剂。37%的受访者认为 MBP 有用,甚至非常有用。基于文献,由于快速通道方案的引入或出于患者舒适度的考虑,86%的受访者在过去 10 年中改变了肠道准备方案,减少了泻药的用量或限制了 MBP 的适应证。100%的受访者使用抗菌预防,88%仅使用单次预防性剂量,而 70%的受访者在切口前 30-59 分钟给予抗生素。大多数外科医生使用第二代头孢菌素联合甲硝唑,24%在过去 10 年中改变了抗生素药物或减少了抗生素的使用时间。
MBP 常用于开放和腹腔镜直肠手术,但不适用于右半结肠切除术。MBP 的科学证据促使人们重新思考严格的肠道准备方案。目前,瑞士的外科医生还没有准备好放弃择期结直肠手术中的 MBP。在瑞士,外科医生受到结直肠手术中抗菌预防益处的影响。