Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jul-Aug;22(5):737-52.
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.04.003. Epub 2015 Apr 13.

Preoperative Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Abdominal, Laparoscopic, and Vaginal Surgery: A Systematic Review

Affiliations

Preoperative Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Abdominal, Laparoscopic, and Vaginal Surgery: A Systematic Review

Amy Arnold et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

Study objective: Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to be widely used in gynecologic surgery, with the aim of reducing postoperative complications and improving the viewing and handling conditions in the surgical field. It is reported that MBP is an unpleasant patient experience and may be associated with adverse effects such as dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. This review evaluates the use of preoperative MBP compared with no MBP in adult patients undergoing open abdominal, laparoscopic, or vaginal surgery. Although the focus is on the use of MBP for gynecologic procedures, data from other surgical areas are covered when relevant.

Design: A comprehensive search of the databases Medline (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1947), PubMed, Cochrane Library Central (Register of Controlled Trials), and Google Scholar was performed to identify any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or retrospective cohort studies comparing preoperative MBP to no MBP.

Results: Forty-three studies were identified in various surgical specialties, of which there were 5 RCTs in gynecology. The gynecologic studies reported no benefit for MBP in operative time or improved surgical field of view but did report a more unpleasant patient experience when MBP is used. RCTs from colorectal and urologic surgery were powered for infectious morbidity and anastomotic leak and did not demonstrate improved patient outcomes when MBP was used.

Conclusion: Evidence from high-quality trials reports no or few benefits from MBP or rectal enema across surgical specialties. In the field of gynecologic surgery, high-quality evidence supports the view that MBP may be safely abandoned.

Keywords: Bowel preparation; Gynaecology; Laparoscopy; Surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources