ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2016
Laparoscopic colorectal resections with and without routine mechanical bowel preparation: A comparative study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Is There a Role for Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation for Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Pooled it
- Enhanced recovery after surgery in gastric cancer surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative indwelling drainage tube use.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Surgical complications in colorectal cancer patients.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2020Review
- [Impact of bowel preparation on surgical site infections and anastomotic leakage after elective colon resection: results of a retrospective study with 260 patients].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020Article
- Current practice patterns of preoperative bowel preparation in colorectal surgery: a nation-wide survey by the Chinese Society of Colorectal Cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections remains a question. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of omitting MBP on patients undergoing laparoscopic bowel resections.
methodsThe outcomes of patients who underwent elective colorectal resections for cancer of colon and upper rectum without MBP were compared to a retrospective cohort who had MBP.
resultsThere were 97 patients in the No-MBP group and 159 patients in the MBP group. Their mean age, operative risk, tumor size and stage of disease were similar. There were no significant differences in operative time and estimated blood loss. The anastomotic leakage rate was 1.0% in the No-MBP group and 0.6% in the MBP group, (p = 1.00). Wound infection rate were 4.1% and 3.8% in the No-MBP group and the MBP group respectively (p = 1.00). Overall surgical morbidity rate was 11.3% in the No-MBP group and 8.2% in the MBP group (p = 0.40). Conversion rates were 5.2% in the No-MBP group and 6.9% in the MBP group, (p = 0.57).
conclusionThe omission of mechanical bowel preparation does not increase surgical morbidities in patients undergoing laparoscopic bowel resections. It also has no effect on operating time and conversion rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.