Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 25, 2026

Murine Ileocolic Bowel Resection with Primary Anastomosis
Published on: October 29, 2014
Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery
K F Guenaga1, D Matos, A A Castro
1Surgical Gastroenterology Department, Ferderal University of São Paulo, Marivaldo Fernandes, 152 apto. 13, Guarujá, São Paulo, Brazil. kaci@uol.com.br
Background:
For more than a century the presence of bowel content during surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage. Mechanical bowel preparation has been considered an efficient agent against leakage and infections complications. This dogma is not based on solid evidence, but more on observational data and expert's opinions.
Objectives:
To determine the security and effectiveness of prophylactic mechanical bowel preparation for morbidity and mortality rates in colorectal surgery. The following hypothesis was tested: "The use of mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery reduces the incidence of postoperative complications".
Search Strategy:
All publications describing mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery was sought through computerized searches of EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library; by hand-searching in relevant medical journals, from major gastroenterological congresses, without limitation for date and language, using the search strategy described by the Colorectal Cancer Review Group. In addition, randomised clinical trials will be searched through personal communication with colleagues and from conference proceedings
Studies:
All randomised, clinical trials, that were performed in order to answer the hypothesis.
Participants:
Patients submitted elective colorectal surgery.
Interventions:
Any strategy in mechanical bowel preparation compared with no mechanical bowel preparation.
Primary Outcome Measures:
1. Anastomosis leakage- stratified for rectum and colon 2. Overall anastomotic leakage
Secondary Outcome Measures:
3. Mortality 4. Peritonitis 5. Re operation 6. Wound Infection 7 Infectious extra-abdominal complication 8. Non-infection extra-abdominal 9. Overall surgical site infections
Data Collection And Analysis:
Data was independently extracted by two reviewers and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same two reviewers. Details of the randomisation (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done, and the number of patients lost to follow-up was recorded. The results of each RCT was summarised in 2 x 2 tables for each outcome. For analysis the Peto-Odds ratio was used as defaults (no statistical heterogeneity was observed)
Main Results:
Of the 1159 patients with anastomosis (6 RCTs), 576 were allocated for mechanical bowel preparation (groups 1) and 583 for no preparation (groups 2) before elective colorectal surgery. Of 1204 patients totally enrolled 595 were in groups 1 and 609 in groups 2.
Primary Outcomes:
1) Anastomotic leakage - stratified:A) Low anterior resection: 12.5% (6 of 48 patients in 1) compared with 12% (6 of 50 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.17, 95% CI: 0.35 - 3.96 (non-significant) B) Colonic surgery: 1.16% (2 of 172 patients in 1) compared with 0.6% (1 of 166 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.75, 95% CI: 0.18 - 17.02 2) Overall anastomotic leakage: 5.5% (32 of 576 patients in 1) compared with 2.9% (17 of 583 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.94, 95% CI: 1.09 - 3.43 (P=0.02) SECONDARY OUTCOMES: 3) Mortality: 0.6% (2 of 329 patients in 1) compared with 0% (0 of 326 patients in 2); Peto OR 7.95, 95% CI: 0.49 - 128.34 (non-significant) 4) Peritonitis: 5.1% ( 13 of 254 patients in 1) compared with 2.8% (7 of 252 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.90, 95% CI: 0.78 -4.64) (non significant) 5) Reoperation: 3.3% ( 11 of 329 patients) compared with 2.5% (8 of 326 patients); Peto OR 1.40, 95% CI: 0.56 - 3.49) (non-significant) 6) Wound infection: 7.4% (44 of 595 patients in 1) compared with 5.7% (35 of 609 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.34, 95% CI: 0.85 - 2.13 (non-significant) 7) Infectious extra-abdominal complication: 8.3% ( 14 of 168 patients in 1) compared with 9.4% (15 of 159 patients in 2); Peto OR, 95%: 0.87 (0.41 - 1.87) 8) Non-infection extra-abdominal complication: 8.0% ( 20 of 250 patients in 1) compared with 7.0% (17 of 246 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.61 - 2.32 (non-significant) - 9) Surgical site infection: 9.8% (31 of 325 patients in 1) compared with 8.3% (27 of 322 patients in 2); Peto OR 1.20, 95% CI: 0.70 - 2.05 (non-significant) -
Reviewer'S Conclusions:
The results failed to support the hypothesis that bowel preparation reduces anastomotic leak rates and other complications. There was no a priori hypothesis that bowel preparation may increase anastomotic leak rates, so this was not stated. Thus, the routine use of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery is questioned.
Insights
Mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery does not reduce anastomotic leak rates or other complications. This systematic review questions the routine use of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.
Area of Science:
- Colorectal Surgery
- Surgical Outcomes
- Evidence-Based Medicine
Background:
- The long-held belief that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prevents anastomotic leakage and infection after colorectal surgery lacks robust scientific evidence.
- Current practices are largely based on observational data and expert opinions rather than randomized controlled trials.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of prophylactic mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in reducing morbidity and mortality rates in elective colorectal surgery.
- To test the hypothesis that MBP decreases postoperative complications.
Main Methods:
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing MBP with no MBP in elective colorectal surgery.
- Searches were conducted across major databases (EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library) and conference proceedings.
- Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers, with Peto's Odds Ratio used for analysis.
Main Results:
- Analysis of 6 RCTs involving 1159 patients showed that MBP did not significantly reduce overall anastomotic leakage (5.5% vs 2.9%, P=0.02).
- MBP was not associated with significant reductions in mortality, peritonitis, reoperation rates, or wound infections.
- While overall anastomotic leakage was not reduced, a statistically significant increase was observed in the MBP group (P=0.02).
Conclusions:
- The findings do not support the hypothesis that mechanical bowel preparation reduces anastomotic leak rates or other postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery.
- The routine use of mechanical bowel preparation in this patient population is therefore questionable.
- Further research may be needed to clarify the role, if any, of MBP in specific colorectal surgical contexts.
Related Concept Videos
Inflammatory Bowel Disease V: Surgical Management
Here are some common surgical interventions for IBD:
Endoscopic Procedures IV: Sigmoidoscopy and Laproscopy
Sigmoidoscopy
Sigmoidoscopy is a diagnostic procedure that uses a flexible sigmoidoscope equipped with a light source and camera to examine the rectum and sigmoid colon. The procedure involves inserting the tube through the anus...
Lower GI Series: Barium Enema
Procedure Details
The examination begins by inserting a lubricated rectal tube into the patient's rectum to administer a radiopaque barium solution. The barium flow is carefully...
Endoscopic Procedures II: Colonoscopy
Imaging Studies III: Gastrointestinal Motility Studies and Virtual Colonoscopy
Radionuclide Testing
Radionuclide testing is a sophisticated medical technique for assessing gastrointestinal motility. It focuses on gastric emptying and colonic transit time. Radioactive markers track the movement of food through the digestive system, providing insights into gastrointestinal disorders.
In gastric emptying studies, a meal's liquid and solid...
Assessment of the Rectum and Anus
Rectal Inspection
Begin by inspecting the perianal and anal areas for color, texture, rashes,...

