Skip to main content

Preoperative mechanical preparation of the colon: the patient's experience

Abstract

Background

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation can be questioned as standard procedure in colon surgery, based on the result from several randomised trials.

Methods

As part of a large multicenter trial, 105 patients planned for elective colon surgery for cancer, adenoma, or diverticulitis in three hospitals were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding perceived health including experience with bowel preparation. There were 39 questions, each having 3 – 10 answer alternatives, dealing with food intake, pain, discomfort, nausea/vomiting, gas distension, anxiety, tiredness, need of assistance with bowel preparation, and willingness to undergo the procedure again if necessary.

Results

60 patients received mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and 45 patients did not (No-MBP). In the MBP group 52% needed assistance with bowel preparation and 30% would consider undergoing the same preoperative procedure again. In the No-MBP group 65 % of the patients were positive to no bowel preparation. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to postoperative pain and nausea. On Day 4 (but not on Days 1 and 7 postoperatively) patients in the No-MBP group perceived more discomfort than patients in the MBP group, p = 0.02. Time to intake of fluid and solid food did not differ between the two groups. Bowel emptying occurred significantly earlier in the No-MBP group than in the MBP group, p = 0.03.

Conclusion

Mechanical bowel preparation is distressing for the patient and associated with a prolonged time to first bowel emptying.

Peer Review reports

Background

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) has until recently been thought to be one of the most important factors to decrease infectious complications and prevent anastomotic dehiscence after elective colorectal surgery, but its value has been questioned [1, 2]. Several randomised studies [39] and meta-analyses [1012] since the beginning of the 1990's have shown that omission of MBP does not increase the risk for anastomotic dehiscence or septic complications in colon surgery. In the largest, randomised multicenter trial performed we found that MBP did not lower the risk for cardiovascular, general infectious or surgical site complications [13].

The aim of this study was to compare the patients' experience and acceptance of preoperative MBP versus no preoperative MBP in elective colon surgery.

Methods

The study population was recruited from patients participating in the Swedish Mechanical Bowel Preparation Study comparing the outcome after elective open colon surgery with or without mechanical bowel preparation [13]. The study used central randomization with facsimile transmission to the randomisation centre. The allocation result was returned the same day. Stratification was made for each participating unit and the patients were randomised in blocs of permutation of four using computer generated random numbers. The participating surgeons did not know the size of the blocs. The inclusion criteria were: elective surgery for cancer, adenoma or diverticular disease, age 18–85 years, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) Classification I-III, and life expectancy 6 months or longer.

At three units participating in the trial, patients were asked to complete a questionnaire having 39 questions, each with 3–10 answer alternatives. The questionnaire was designed using parameters previously validated to describe preoperative and postoperative experience.

Patients completed questionnaires preoperatively and on Days 1, 4 and 7. The questions and answer alternatives are described in Table 1 (preoperative) and Table 2 (postoperative). Comparisons were made between patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation (MBP group) and patients without mechanical bowel preparation (No-MBP group) prior to surgery. The planned number to be included in the study was 100 patients. Data were recorded in a protocol and stored in an electronic database at the study centre in Motala, Sweden.

Table 1 The Patient's experience preoperatively.
Table 2 The Patient's experience postoperatively. Description of questionnaire

The Local Ethics Committee approved the study.

Statistical analysis

The chi square test was used to test differences between categorical variables and the t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test for independent groups to test differences between continuous variables. Two tailed P-values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

One hundred and five patients were included in the study between February 2000 and March 2002. Sixty patients received MBP and 45 had no MBP. The groups were balanced regarding age, gender, BMI and diagnosis as shown in Table 3. MBP was accomplished with sodium phosphate in 28 patients, polyethylene glycol in 31 patients, and enema in one case.

Table 3 Demographic data and diagnosis

Tolerability to bowel preparation

Four patients in the MBP group could not complete the intended MBP (two of these patients received sodium phosphate, and two polyethylene glycol). All four patients stated that the reason for not completing MBP was inability to drink the required amount of fluid. In addition, two patients mentioned nausea to be a problem.

Assistance with MBP (hospital staff or relative) was required by 30/58 (52%) of the patients in the MBP group. Sixteen per cent of patients in the MBP group reported more than 10 defecations the day before surgery.

Questionnaire results

Only three statistically significant differences were noted between the two groups (Table 1, 2): willingness to consider the same preoperative procedure again time to first bowel movement (p = 0.04) and degree of discomfort on day 4 postoperatively (p = 0.02). The response rate in the No-MBP group to the question about the willingness to consider the same preoperative procedure again was low (58%) compared to the response rate in the MBP group (95%) (P < 0.001), see Table 4. Patients in the No-MBP group had their first bowel movement earlier than patients in the MBP group, see Table 5. Patients in the No-MBP group experienced a higher degree of discomfort (but not pain or nausea) on the fourth postoperative day compared to patients in the MBP group. For details see Figures 1 2 3.

Table 4 Could you consider the same preoperative preparation again?
Table 5 Time to first bowel movement

Discussion

In this study we have shown that patients prefer not to have MBP, that the time to first postoperative bowel movement is shorter without MBP, and that patients not receiving MBP experienced more discomfort on the fourth postoperative day.

The response rate to the question concerning willingness to consider the same preoperative procedure again was significantly lower in the No-MBP group compared to the MBP group, 58 Vs 95%. This most likely reflects the fact that many patients without MBP thought (correctly) that they did not receive any "preoperative procedure". However, for patients answering this question those in the MBP group were less inclined to consider the same preoperative procedure again (30% vs. 65%).

Different methods for MBP exist, of which whole bowel irrigation with oral polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate solutions are most commonly used according to recent studies [3, 4, 8, 14]. It has been shown that the patient acceptance is greater for sodium phosphate than for polyethylene glycol [15]. However, sodium phosphate is contraindicated in patients with renal or congestive heart failure due to its influence on electrolyte- and water balance which limits its use in many elderly patients.

Patients in the No-MBP group experienced a higher degree of abdominal discomfort on the fourth postoperative day than patients in the MBP group, but without any corresponding difference in perceived pain. One possible explanation for the inter-group difference is an earlier onset of bowel motility in the No-MBP group. The majority of patients in the No-MBP group had their first bowel movement on the third or fourth postoperative day compared to more than four days in the MBP group. Early bowel movement is compatible with accelerated rehabilitation and is thus an advantage [16].

The questionnaire used was designed for this study and was not validated prior to this study. The questions addressed to the patients were however chosen based on previous research [1721].

Besides safety and patient preference there are economic issues to be addressed when deciding whether or not to change routines in preoperative bowel preparation. Our study showed that 52% of patients receiving MBP needed help from hospital staff or a relative. For many patients this requires admission to the surgical ward early the day before surgery, thereby increasing the workload on the personnel and the cost to society.

Conclusion

It has previously been shown that mechanical bowel preparation does not reduce the rate of complications in colon surgery. This report demonstrates that mechanical bowel preparation is considered unpleasant by many patients and that it delays the return of normal bowel movements. Both these findings increase the incentive to omit mechanical bowel preparation in elective colon surgery.

Figure 1
figure1

Height of boxes represents median of experienced discomfort on Days 1, 4 and 7 postoperatively, measured as value on a ten point Numerical Rating Scale. Vertical bars represent inter-quartile range. P < 0.05 considered significant (t-test).

Figure 2
figure2

Height of boxes represents median of experienced nausea on Days 1, 4 and 7 postoperatively measured as value on a ten point Numerical Rating Scale. Vertical bars represent inter quartile-range. P < 0.05 considered significant (t-test).

Figure 3
figure3

Height of boxes represents median of experienced pain on Days 1, 4 and 7 postoperatively measured as value on a ten point Numerical Rating Scale. Vertical bars represent inter-quartile range. P < 0.05 considered significant (t-test).

References

  1. 1.

    Arabi Y, Dimock F, Burdon DW, Alexander-Williams J, Keighley MR: Influence of bowel preparation and antimicrobials on colonic microflora. Br J Surg. 1978, 65 (8): 555-558. 10.1002/bjs.1800650809.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Irving AD, Scrimgeour D: Mechanical bowel preparation for colonic resection and anastomosis. Br J Surg. 1987, 74 (7): 580-581. 10.1002/bjs.1800740711.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bucher P, Gervaz P, Soravia C, Mermillod B, Erne M, Morel P: Randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before elective left-sided colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2005, 92 (4): 409-414. 10.1002/bjs.4900.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Miettinen RP, Laitinen ST, Makela JT, Paakkonen ME: Bowel preparation with oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution vs. no preparation in elective open colorectal surgery: prospective, randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000, 43 (5): 669-75; discussion 675-7. 10.1007/BF02235585.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Santos JC, Batista J, Sirimarco MT, Guimaraes AS, Levy CE: Prospective randomized trial of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 1994, 81 (11): 1673-1676. 10.1002/bjs.1800811139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Zmora O, Mahajna A, Bar-Zakai B, Rosin D, Hershko D, Shabtai M, Krausz MM, Ayalon A: Colon and rectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation: a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg. 2003, 237 (3): 363-367. 10.1097/00000658-200303000-00010.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Burke P, Mealy K, Gillen P, Joyce W, Traynor O, Hyland J: Requirement for bowel preparation in colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 1994, 81 (6): 907-910. 10.1002/bjs.1800810639.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Fa-Si-Oen Patrick, Roumen Rudi, Buitenweg John, van de Velde Cornelis, van Geldere Dick, Putter Hein, Verwaest Charles, Verhoef Loes, de Waard Jan-Willem, Swank Dingeman, D'Hoore Andre, Croiset van Uchelen Fred: Mechanical Bowel Preparation or Not? Outcome of a Multicenter, Randomized Trial in Elective Open Colon Surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005, 48 (8): 1509-1516. 10.1007/s10350-005-0068-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ram E, Sherman Y, Weil R, Vishne T, Kravarusic D, Dreznik Z: Is Mechanical Bowel Preparation Mandatory for Elective Colon Surgery?: A Prospective Randomized Study. Arch Surg. 2005, 140 (3): 285-8. 10.1001/archsurg.140.3.278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Guenaga KF, Matos D, Castro AA, Atallah AN, Wille-Jorgensen P: Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003, CD001544-

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bucher P, Mermillod B, Gervaz P, Morel P: Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2004, 139 (12): 1359-1364. 10.1001/archsurg.139.12.1359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Platell C, Hall J: What is the role of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery?. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998, 41 (7): 875-82; discussion 882-3. 10.1007/BF02235369.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Jung B, Påhlman L, Nyström PO, Nilsson E, the Mechanical Bowel Preparation Study Group: Multicentre randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colonic resection. British Journal of Surgery. 2007, 94 (6): 689-95. 10.1002/bjs.5816.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Guenaga KF: Preoperative Bowel Cleansing. Seminars in Colon & Rectal Surgery. 2002, 13 (1): 53-61. 10.1053/scrs.2002.31441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Oliveira L, Wexner SD, Daniel N, DeMarta D, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Bernstein M: Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. A prospective, randomized, surgeon-blinded trial comparing sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-based oral lavage solutions. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997, 40 (5): 585-591. 10.1007/BF02055384.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Basse L, Thorbol JE, Lossl K, Kehlet H: Colonic Surgery With Accelerated Rehabilitation or Conventional Care. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004, 47 (3): 271-278. 10.1007/s10350-003-0055-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Christensen T, Kehlet H: Postoperative fatigue. World J Surg. 1993, 17 (2): 220-225. 10.1007/BF01658930.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Price DD, Bush FM, Long S, Harkins SW: A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales. Pain. 1994, 56 (2): 217-226. 10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Cotanch PH: Measuring nausea and vomiting in clinical nursing research. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1984, 11 (3): 92-94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S: The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986, 27 (1): 117-126. 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gaston-Johansson F, Fall-Dickson JM, Bakos AB, Kennedy M: Fatigue, Pain, and Depression in Pre-Autotransplant Breast Cancer&nbsp;Patients. Cancer Practice. 1999, 7 (5): 240-247. 10.1046/j.1523-5394.1999.75008.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Pre-publication history

  1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2482/7/5/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Health Research Council of South-East of Sweden (FORSS) for funding this project, Peter Cox for valuable aid and Hans Stenlund for help with statistical analysis.

The work is attributed to the Institution of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, University of Umeå, Sweden

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbel Jung.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

BJ participated in the design of the study, carried out the data collection and coordination of the study and drafted the manuscript. OL and LP participated in the design of the study and collection of data. MA designed the questionnaire. MU supervised the design of the questionnaire and participated in the design of the study. EN participated in the design of the study. All authors participated in the revision of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Authors’ original file for figure 2

Authors’ original file for figure 3

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jung, B., Lannerstad, O., Påhlman, L. et al. Preoperative mechanical preparation of the colon: the patient's experience. BMC Surg 7, 5 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-7-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bowel Movement
  • Bowel Preparation
  • Polyethylene Glycol
  • Mechanical Bowel Preparation
  • Anastomotic Dehiscence