Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 13, 2026
E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
The Use of Mechanical Bowel Preparation in Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Amos O Adelowo1, Michele R Hacker, Anna M Modest
1From the *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston; †Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reliant Medical Group, Worcester; ‡Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston; §Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, MA.
Objective:
To compare mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) using oral magnesium citrate with sodium phosphate enema to sodium phosphate (NaP) enema alone during minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery.
Methods:
We conducted a single-blind, randomized controlled trial of MBP versus NaP in women undergoing minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery. The primary outcome was intraoperative quality of the surgical field. Secondary outcomes included surgeon assessment of bowel handling and patient-reported tolerability symptoms.
Results:
One hundred fifty-three participants were enrolled; 148 completed the study (71 MBP and 77 NaP). Patient demographics, clinical and intraoperative characteristics were similar. Completion of assigned bowel preparation was similar between MBP (97.2%) and NaP (97.4%). The MBP group found the preparation more difficult (P<0.01) and reported more overall discomfort and negative preoperative side effects (all P≤0.01). Quality of surgical field at initial port placement was excellent/good in 80.0% of the MBP group compared with 62.3% in the NaP group (P=0.02). This difference was not maintained by the conclusion of surgery (P=0.18). Similar results were seen in the intent-to-treat population. Surgeons accurately guessed preparation 65.7% of the time for MBP versus 41.6% for NaP (P=0.36). At 2 weeks postoperatively, both reported a median time for return of bowel function of 3.0 (2.0-4.0) days.
Conclusions:
Mechanical bowel preparation with oral magnesium citrate before minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery offered initial improvement in the quality of surgical field, but this benefit was not sustained. It was associated with an increase in patient discomfort preoperatively, but did not seem to impact postoperative return of bowel function.
Level Of Evidence:
I.
