Prospective, randomized trial of inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery
A prospective, randomized trial of inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery was performed in 100 consecutive patients. Bowel preparation was standardized for both groups and consisted of 4 liters of Colyte (Reed & Carnrick, Piscataway, NJ) and oral neomycin and...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Diseases of the colon & rectum 1992-03, Vol.35 (3), p.223-226 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 226 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 223 |
container_title | Diseases of the colon & rectum |
container_volume | 35 |
creator | Frazee, R C Roberts, J Symmonds, R Snyder, S Hendricks, J Smith, R |
description | A prospective, randomized trial of inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery was performed in 100 consecutive patients. Bowel preparation was standardized for both groups and consisted of 4 liters of Colyte (Reed & Carnrick, Piscataway, NJ) and oral neomycin and Flagyl (G. D. Searle & Co., Skokie, IL) the day before surgery. Patients were randomized into four subcategories: ileocolostomy, colocolostomy, abdominal perineal resection, and other. Tap water enemas were administered on the morning of surgery to ensure and adequate mechanical preparation. Ninety-six percent of the inpatient group and 97 percent of the outpatient group were able to drink three-fourths or more of the oral lavage preparation (P = 0.789, Fisher's exact text). A mean of 2.26 tap water enemas was required to achieve clear returns for the inpatient group, compared with 2.28 tap water enemas for the outpatient group (P = 0.221, Fisher's exact test). The adequacy of the bowel preparation as graded by the primary surgeon was good (84 percent), fair (12 percent), and poor (4 percent) in the outpatient group (P = 0.673, Fisher's exact test). Wound infection developed in 4 percent of the inpatient group and 4 percent of the outpatient group (P = 1.0, Fisher's exact test). Anastomotic leak of intra-abdominal abscess was seen in one patient in each group (P = 1.0, Fisher's exact test). We conclude that outpatient bowel preparation is as effective as inpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery and offers the advantage of cost savings and shorter hospitalization. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/BF02051011 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72812309</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>72812309</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c282t-738a31bc569cd2346c42f6fba6c3a87986bd923a48d535be06c7b8622735b95b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkD1PwzAQhj2ASiks7EieGBAp_kjsZISKAlIlGGCObOeCAkkcbKeo_HqMUsR09949eoYXoTNKlpQQeX27JoxklFB6gOaEUJZwScQROvb-Pcb4lDM0ozIlRGRz9PHsrB_AhGYLV9ipvrJd8w0VDq5RLbY1bvpBhQb6gLd-ie0Y_qK2X9DiwcGgXDzZHtfWYWgnGTa2tS7u0eJH9wZud4IOa9V6ON3PBXpd372sHpLN0_3j6maTGJazkEieK061yURhKsZTYVJWi1orYbjKZZELXRWMqzSvMp5pIMJInQvGZExFpvkCXUzewdnPEXwou8YbaFvVgx19KVlOGSdFBC8n0MQSvIO6HFzTKbcrKSl_2yz_24zw-d466g6qf3Sqkv8ALJpyow</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72812309</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prospective, randomized trial of inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload</source><creator>Frazee, R C ; Roberts, J ; Symmonds, R ; Snyder, S ; Hendricks, J ; Smith, R</creator><creatorcontrib>Frazee, R C ; Roberts, J ; Symmonds, R ; Snyder, S ; Hendricks, J ; Smith, R</creatorcontrib><description>A prospective, randomized trial of inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery was performed in 100 consecutive patients. Bowel preparation was standardized for both groups and consisted of 4 liters of Colyte (Reed & Carnrick, Piscataway, NJ) and oral neomycin and Flagyl (G. D. Searle & Co., Skokie, IL) the day before surgery. Patients were randomized into four subcategories: ileocolostomy, colocolostomy, abdominal perineal resection, and other. Tap water enemas were administered on the morning of surgery to ensure and adequate mechanical preparation. Ninety-six percent of the inpatient group and 97 percent of the outpatient group were able to drink three-fourths or more of the oral lavage preparation (P = 0.789, Fisher's exact text). A mean of 2.26 tap water enemas was required to achieve clear returns for the inpatient group, compared with 2.28 tap water enemas for the outpatient group (P = 0.221, Fisher's exact test). The adequacy of the bowel preparation as graded by the primary surgeon was good (84 percent), fair (12 percent), and poor (4 percent) in the outpatient group (P = 0.673, Fisher's exact test). Wound infection developed in 4 percent of the inpatient group and 4 percent of the outpatient group (P = 1.0, Fisher's exact test). Anastomotic leak of intra-abdominal abscess was seen in one patient in each group (P = 1.0, Fisher's exact test). We conclude that outpatient bowel preparation is as effective as inpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery and offers the advantage of cost savings and shorter hospitalization.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-3706</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/BF02051011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1740065</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Ambulatory Care ; Colon - surgery ; Diet ; Electrolytes ; Female ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Male ; Metronidazole - administration & dosage ; Middle Aged ; Neomycin - administration & dosage ; Polyethylene Glycols ; Preoperative Care - methods ; Prospective Studies ; Rectum - surgery ; Therapeutic Irrigation</subject><ispartof>Diseases of the colon & rectum, 1992-03, Vol.35 (3), p.223-226</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c282t-738a31bc569cd2346c42f6fba6c3a87986bd923a48d535be06c7b8622735b95b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c282t-738a31bc569cd2346c42f6fba6c3a87986bd923a48d535be06c7b8622735b95b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1740065$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Frazee, R C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Symmonds, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hendricks, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, R</creatorcontrib><title>Prospective, randomized trial of inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery</title><title>Diseases of the colon & rectum</title><addtitle>Dis Colon Rectum</addtitle><description>A prospective, randomized trial of inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery was performed in 100 consecutive patients. Bowel preparation was standardized for both groups and consisted of 4 liters of Colyte (Reed & Carnrick, Piscataway, NJ) and oral neomycin and Flagyl (G. D. Searle & Co., Skokie, IL) the day before surgery. Patients were randomized into four subcategories: ileocolostomy, colocolostomy, abdominal perineal resection, and other. Tap water enemas were administered on the morning of surgery to ensure and adequate mechanical preparation. Ninety-six percent of the inpatient group and 97 percent of the outpatient group were able to drink three-fourths or more of the oral lavage preparation (P = 0.789, Fisher's exact text). A mean of 2.26 tap water enemas was required to achieve clear returns for the inpatient group, compared with 2.28 tap water enemas for the outpatient group (P = 0.221, Fisher's exact test). The adequacy of the bowel preparation as graded by the primary surgeon was good (84 percent), fair (12 percent), and poor (4 percent) in the outpatient group (P = 0.673, Fisher's exact test). Wound infection developed in 4 percent of the inpatient group and 4 percent of the outpatient group (P = 1.0, Fisher's exact test). Anastomotic leak of intra-abdominal abscess was seen in one patient in each group (P = 1.0, Fisher's exact test). We conclude that outpatient bowel preparation is as effective as inpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery and offers the advantage of cost savings and shorter hospitalization.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Ambulatory Care</subject><subject>Colon - surgery</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Electrolytes</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Metronidazole - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neomycin - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Polyethylene Glycols</subject><subject>Preoperative Care - methods</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Rectum - surgery</subject><subject>Therapeutic Irrigation</subject><issn>0012-3706</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkD1PwzAQhj2ASiks7EieGBAp_kjsZISKAlIlGGCObOeCAkkcbKeo_HqMUsR09949eoYXoTNKlpQQeX27JoxklFB6gOaEUJZwScQROvb-Pcb4lDM0ozIlRGRz9PHsrB_AhGYLV9ipvrJd8w0VDq5RLbY1bvpBhQb6gLd-ie0Y_qK2X9DiwcGgXDzZHtfWYWgnGTa2tS7u0eJH9wZud4IOa9V6ON3PBXpd372sHpLN0_3j6maTGJazkEieK061yURhKsZTYVJWi1orYbjKZZELXRWMqzSvMp5pIMJInQvGZExFpvkCXUzewdnPEXwou8YbaFvVgx19KVlOGSdFBC8n0MQSvIO6HFzTKbcrKSl_2yz_24zw-d466g6qf3Sqkv8ALJpyow</recordid><startdate>199203</startdate><enddate>199203</enddate><creator>Frazee, R C</creator><creator>Roberts, J</creator><creator>Symmonds, R</creator><creator>Snyder, S</creator><creator>Hendricks, J</creator><creator>Smith, R</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199203</creationdate><title>Prospective, randomized trial of inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery</title><author>Frazee, R C ; Roberts, J ; Symmonds, R ; Snyder, S ; Hendricks, J ; Smith, R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c282t-738a31bc569cd2346c42f6fba6c3a87986bd923a48d535be06c7b8622735b95b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Ambulatory Care</topic><topic>Colon - surgery</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Electrolytes</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Metronidazole - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neomycin - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Polyethylene Glycols</topic><topic>Preoperative Care - methods</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Rectum - surgery</topic><topic>Therapeutic Irrigation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Frazee, R C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Symmonds, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hendricks, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, R</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Diseases of the colon & rectum</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Frazee, R C</au><au>Roberts, J</au><au>Symmonds, R</au><au>Snyder, S</au><au>Hendricks, J</au><au>Smith, R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prospective, randomized trial of inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery</atitle><jtitle>Diseases of the colon & rectum</jtitle><addtitle>Dis Colon Rectum</addtitle><date>1992-03</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>223</spage><epage>226</epage><pages>223-226</pages><issn>0012-3706</issn><abstract>A prospective, randomized trial of inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery was performed in 100 consecutive patients. Bowel preparation was standardized for both groups and consisted of 4 liters of Colyte (Reed & Carnrick, Piscataway, NJ) and oral neomycin and Flagyl (G. D. Searle & Co., Skokie, IL) the day before surgery. Patients were randomized into four subcategories: ileocolostomy, colocolostomy, abdominal perineal resection, and other. Tap water enemas were administered on the morning of surgery to ensure and adequate mechanical preparation. Ninety-six percent of the inpatient group and 97 percent of the outpatient group were able to drink three-fourths or more of the oral lavage preparation (P = 0.789, Fisher's exact text). A mean of 2.26 tap water enemas was required to achieve clear returns for the inpatient group, compared with 2.28 tap water enemas for the outpatient group (P = 0.221, Fisher's exact test). The adequacy of the bowel preparation as graded by the primary surgeon was good (84 percent), fair (12 percent), and poor (4 percent) in the outpatient group (P = 0.673, Fisher's exact test). Wound infection developed in 4 percent of the inpatient group and 4 percent of the outpatient group (P = 1.0, Fisher's exact test). Anastomotic leak of intra-abdominal abscess was seen in one patient in each group (P = 1.0, Fisher's exact test). We conclude that outpatient bowel preparation is as effective as inpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery and offers the advantage of cost savings and shorter hospitalization.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>1740065</pmid><doi>10.1007/BF02051011</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0012-3706 |
ispartof | Diseases of the colon & rectum, 1992-03, Vol.35 (3), p.223-226 |
issn | 0012-3706 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72812309 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals; Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload |
subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Ambulatory Care Colon - surgery Diet Electrolytes Female Hospitalization Humans Male Metronidazole - administration & dosage Middle Aged Neomycin - administration & dosage Polyethylene Glycols Preoperative Care - methods Prospective Studies Rectum - surgery Therapeutic Irrigation |
title | Prospective, randomized trial of inpatient vs. outpatient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T11%3A09%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prospective,%20randomized%20trial%20of%20inpatient%20vs.%20outpatient%20bowel%20preparation%20for%20elective%20colorectal%20surgery&rft.jtitle=Diseases%20of%20the%20colon%20&%20rectum&rft.au=Frazee,%20R%20C&rft.date=1992-03&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=223&rft.epage=226&rft.pages=223-226&rft.issn=0012-3706&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/BF02051011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72812309%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72812309&rft_id=info:pmid/1740065&rfr_iscdi=true |