Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 20, 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 Role of Bowel Preparation in Colorectal Surgery: Results of the 2012-2015 ACS-NSQIP Data
Aaron L Klinger1, Heather Green1, Dominique J Monlezun2
1Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, LA and Ochsner Clinic School, University of Queensland School of Medicine, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Objective:
To analyze potential benefits with regards to infectious complications with combined use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and ABP in elective colorectal resections.
Background:
Despite recent literature suggesting that MBP does not reduce infection rate, it still is commonly used. The use of oral antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) has been practiced for decades but its use is also controversial.
Methods:
Patients undergoing elective colorectal resection in the 2012 to 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program cohorts were selected. Doubly robust propensity score-adjusted multivariable regression was conducted for infectious and other postoperative complications.
Results:
A total of 27,804 subjects were analyzed; 5471 (23.46%) received no preparation, 7617 (32.67%) received MBP only, 1374 (5.89%) received ABP only, and 8855 (37.98%) received both preparations. Compared to patients receiving no preparation, those receiving dual preparation had less surgical site infection (SSI) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.39, P < 0.001], organ space infection (OR = 0.56, P ≤ 0.001), wound dehiscence (OR = 0.43, P = 0.001), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P < 0.001). ABP alone compared to no prep resulted in significantly lower rates of surgical site infection (OR = 0.63, P = 0.001), organ space infection (OR = 0.59, P = 0.005), anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P = 0.002). MBP showed no significant benefit to infectious complications when used as monotherapy.
Conclusions:
Combined MBP/ABP results in significantly lower rates of SSI, organ space infection, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leak than no preparation and a lower rate of SSI than ABP alone. Combined bowel preparation significantly reduces the rates of infectious complications in colon and rectal procedures without increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection. For patients undergoing elective colon or rectal resection we recommend bowel preparation with both mechanical agents and oral antibiotics whenever feasible.
Insights
Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation significantly reduces infectious complications in colorectal surgery. This dual approach is recommended for elective procedures to lower risks of surgical site infections and anastomotic leaks.
Area of Science:
- Colorectal surgery
- Surgical infection prevention
- Gastrointestinal surgery
Background:
- Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) are used for colorectal resections, but their efficacy is debated.
- Recent literature questions the benefit of MBP alone in reducing infection rates.
- The use of ABP has a long history but remains controversial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the infectious complication rates associated with combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus other preparation methods.
- To determine the benefits of dual bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 27,804 patients from the 2012-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program cohorts.
- Utilized doubly robust propensity score-adjusted multivariable regression to assess complications.
- Compared outcomes across four groups: no preparation, MBP only, ABP only, and combined MBP/ABP.
Main Results:
- Combined MBP/ABP was associated with significantly lower rates of surgical site infection (SSI), organ space infection, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leak compared to no preparation.
- Dual preparation showed a lower SSI rate than ABP alone.
- MBP monotherapy did not demonstrate significant benefits for infectious complications.
Conclusions:
- Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation significantly reduces infectious complications, including SSI, organ space infection, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leak.
- This dual preparation strategy lowers infectious complication rates without increasing the risk of Clostridium difficile infection.
- The study recommends combined MBP/ABP for elective colon and rectal resections when feasible.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
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...
Endoscopic Procedures II: Colonoscopy
Inflammatory Bowel Disease V: Surgical Management
Here are some common surgical interventions for IBD:
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...

