Search

PURPOSE: Mechanical bowel preparation is common practice in elective colon surgery. In recent literature the value of this procedure is under discussion. To verify the value of mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery, a randomized clinical trial was conducted. METHODS: During a prospective, multicenter, randomized study, 250 patients undergoing elective open colon surgery were randomized between receiving mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG group, 125 patients) and having a normal meal preoperatively (normal meal preoperatively group, 125 patients). Outcome parameters were wound infection with bacterial results of intraoperative swabs and anastomotic leak. RESULTS: In the polyethylene glycol group there were a total of nine wound infections (7.2 percent) and seven anastomotic leaks (5.6 percent) compared with seven wound infections (5.6 percent) (P = 0.61) and six anastomotic leaks (4.8 percent) (P = 0.78) in the normal meal preoperatively group. Bacterial results showed 52 percent sterile subcutis swabs in the PEG group and 63 percent sterile subcutis swabs in the normal meal preoperatively group (P = 0.11). CONCLUSION: In the present study we could not detect a difference in outcome parameters between patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery and patients without preoperative treatment of the bowel. The present study, although underpowered, did not show a difference in the primary outcome of bacterial wound cultures between patients receiving preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and patients receiving no preoperative bowel treatment. We conclude that there may be no need to continue the use of mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery.

Serum vascular endothelial growth factor has been associated with stage of disease in colorectal cancer patients. We investigated whether preoperative serum vascular endothelial growth factor can provide any relevant clinical prognostic information during long-term follow-up of colorectal cancer patients.Preoperative serum samples of 79 colorectal cancer patients and serum of 28 healthy controls were stored at -80 degrees C until later vascular endothelial growth factor analysis by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay technique and carcinoembryogenic antigen concentration measurement were performed. There were three patient groups for comparison: 21 patients with overt liver metastases, 18 patients who developed recurrent disease after initial curative surgery, and 40 patients who remained disease-free for at least five years.We could not demonstrate any significant difference in serum vascular endothelial growth factor values between the patient groups and controls, nor between the three patient groups (Mann-Whitney U test). There was no relevant correlation between serum vascular endothelial growth factor and carcinoembryogenic antigen concentrations (Pearson r = 0.2; P = 0.07).Although vascular endothelial growth factor has been shown in previous studies to be a potent inducer of angiogenesis and metastases formation, the present data demonstrate that preoperative serum vascular endothelial growth factor concentration does not provide any relevant individual prognostic information in patients with colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the possible deleterious effect of the lateral intersecting margins (so-called dog ears) on anastomotic disruption after experimentally performed double-stapled anastomoses. METHODS: Two groups of double-stapled side-to-end anastomoses were performed using pig small intestines. Group A consisted of 35 circular anastomoses and Group B of 32 double-stapled anastomoses with a bilateral dog ear. In both groups bursting pressures were tested using a water-filled, pressure-controlled automatic pumping system (Hamou Endomat®), and special attention was paid to the location(s) in the anastomoses were the disruption(s) occurred. RESULTS: In Group A bursting pressures were significantly higher than in Group B (median pressure, 90vs. 60 mmHg;P