Mechanical bowel preparation and antibiotics in elective colorectal surgery: network meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: The use of intravenous antibiotics at anaesthetic induction in colorectal surgery is the standard of care. However, the role of mechanical bowel preparation, enemas, and oral antibiotics in surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and other perioperative outcomes remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal preoperative bowel preparation strategy in elective colorectal surgery.

Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs was performed with searches from PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2022. Primary outcomes included surgical site infection and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality rate, ileus, length of stay, return to theatre, other infections, and side effects of antibiotic therapy or bowel preparation.

Results: Sixty RCTs involving 16 314 patients were included in the final analysis: 3465 (21.2 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics alone, 5268 (32.3 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation, 1710 (10.5 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics, 4183 (25.6 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation, 262 (1.6 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + enemas, and 1426 (8.7 per cent) had oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation. With intravenous antibiotics as a baseline comparator, network meta-analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in total surgical site infection risk with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics (OR 0.47 (95 per cent c.i. 0.32 to 0.68)) and intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation (OR 0.55 (95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.76)), whereas oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation resulted in a higher surgical site infection rate compared with intravenous antibiotics alone (OR 1.84 (95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 2.81)). Anastomotic leak rates were lower with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics (OR 0.63 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.90)) and intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation (OR 0.62 (95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.94)) compared with intravenous antibiotics alone. There was no significant difference in outcomes with mechanical bowel preparation in the absence of intravenous antibiotics and oral antibiotics in the main analysis.

Conclusion: A bowel preparation strategy with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics, with or without mechanical bowel preparation, should represent the standard of care for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Fig. 1

PRISMA flow diagram outlining the systematic search

Fig. 2

Network plots (n = number of studies) and forest plots for total surgical site infection and anastomotic leak a Network plot for total surgical site infection. b Forest plot for total surgical site infection. c Network plot for anastomotic leak. d Forest plot for anastomotic leak. Forest plots compare different bowel preparation methods against intravenous antibiotics. IAB, intravenous antibiotics; EN, enemas; MBP, mechanical bowel preparation; OAB, oral antibiotics.

Fig. 3

Network plots (n = number of studies) and forest plots for superficial surgical site infection, deep incisional surgical site infection, and intra-abdominal abscess/organ space infection a Network plot and forest plot for superficial surgical site infection. b Network plot and forest plot for deep incisional surgical site infection. c Network plot and forest plot for intra-abdominal abscess/organ space infection. Forest plots compare different bowel preparation methods against intravenous antibiotics. SSI, surgical site infection; IAB, intravenous antibiotics; EN, enemas; MBP, mechanical bowel preparation; OAB, oral antibiotics; IAA, intra-abdominal abscess.