Optimum Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Laparoscopic Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Magnesium Citrate (MGC) and Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Solution (PEG)

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the controllability of bowel distension, which makes the operation harder, using two oral solutions for laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: All eligible patients were prospectively randomized to receive either 180ml of magnesium citrate (MGC) or 2l of polyeth...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nippon Daicho Komonbyo Gakkai Zasshi 2011, Vol.64(2), pp.62-66
Hauptverfasser: Yamaguchi, Takaya, Inatsugi, Naoki, Yoshikawa, Shusaku, Masuda, Tsutomu, Uchida, Hideki, Kuge, Hiroyuki, Yokotani, Tomoyo, Yamaoka, Kentaro, Shimobayashi, Takayoshi, Inagaki, Mizumi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the controllability of bowel distension, which makes the operation harder, using two oral solutions for laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: All eligible patients were prospectively randomized to receive either 180ml of magnesium citrate (MGC) or 2l of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG) as mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for laparoscopic surgery. During the operations, the surgeons evaluated the distension of intestines and marked the each part of them. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients, well matched for age, gender, body mass index, clinical history, and diagnosis, were prospectively randomized to receive either MGC or PEG for laparoscopic surgery. Comparing the score of bowel distension between MGC and PEG group showed that MGC controlled bowel distension significantly in each part of intestines except descending and sigmoid colon. CONCLUSION: MBP with MGC proved to be more effective to make the laparoscopic surgery easy and safe by the controllability of bowel distension.
ISSN:0047-1801
1882-9619
DOI:10.3862/jcoloproctology.64.62