Suppr超能文献

择期结直肠手术的机械性肠道准备:更新的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of General Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100053, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012 Jun;27(6):803-10. doi: 10.1007/s00384-011-1361-y. Epub 2011 Nov 23.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgery has been practiced as a clinical routine for many decades. However, earlier randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses suggest that MBP should be abandoned before colorectal surgery because of the futility in reducing postoperative complications and motility. The new published results from three RCTs comparing MBP with no MBP in colorectal surgery in 2010 make the updating of systemic review and meta-analysis necessary. The aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of MBP in prevention of postoperative complications for elective colorectal surgery.

METHOD

A literature search was performed mainly in electronic database including Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing MBP with no MBP before colorectal surgery. Septic complications, reoperation, and death were recorded as primary and secondary outcomes. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the QUOROM statement.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs were included in our analysis with a total number of 5,373 patients: 2,682 with MBP and 2,691 without. Comparing with no MBP for elective colorectal surgery, our study showed that MBP had not reduce any postoperative complications when concerning anastomotic leak [odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08 (0.82-1.43); P = 0.56]; overall SSI [OR 95% CI, 1.26 (0.94-1.68); P = 0.12]; extra-abdominal septic complications [OR 95% CI, 0.98 (0.81-1.18); P = 0.81]; wound infections [OR 95% CI, 1.21 (1.00-1.46); P = 0.05]; reoperation or second intervention rate [OR 95% CI, 1.11 (0.86-1.45); P = 0.42]; and death [OR 95% CI, 0.97(0.63-1.48); P = 0.88].

CONCLUSION

No evidence was noted supporting the use of MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. MBP should be omitted in routine clinical practice.

摘要

目的

机械肠道准备(MBP)已在择期结直肠手术中作为临床常规应用了几十年。然而,早期的随机临床试验(RCT)和荟萃分析表明,MBP 应该在结直肠手术前被摒弃,因为它在减少术后并发症和活动能力方面没有效果。2010 年,三项比较 MBP 与结直肠手术中无 MBP 的 RCT 的新发表结果使得系统评价和荟萃分析的更新成为必要。本研究旨在评估择期结直肠手术中 MBP 预防术后并发症的疗效。

方法

主要在电子数据库中进行文献检索,包括 Cochrane 图书馆、EMBASE 和 MEDLINE。纳入标准是比较 MBP 与结直肠手术前无 MBP 的 RCT。将感染性并发症、再次手术和死亡作为主要和次要结局进行记录。根据 QUOROM 声明进行荟萃分析。

结果

我们的分析纳入了 14 项 RCT,共有 5373 名患者:2682 名接受 MBP,2691 名未接受 MBP。与择期结直肠手术中不使用 MBP 相比,我们的研究表明,MBP 并不能降低任何术后并发症,包括吻合口漏[比值比(OR)95%置信区间(CI),1.08(0.82-1.43);P=0.56];总体手术部位感染(SSI)[OR 95% CI,1.26(0.94-1.68);P=0.12];腹外感染性并发症[OR 95% CI,0.98(0.81-1.18);P=0.81];伤口感染[OR 95% CI,1.21(1.00-1.46);P=0.05];再次手术或二次干预率[OR 95% CI,1.11(0.86-1.45);P=0.42];以及死亡[OR 95% CI,0.97(0.63-1.48);P=0.88]。

结论

没有证据支持在择期结直肠手术中使用 MBP。MBP 应在常规临床实践中被摒弃。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验