Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

A prospective, randomized, surgeon-blinded trial comparing sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-based oral lavage solutions

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the cleansing ability, patient compliance, and safety of two oral solutions for elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: All eligible patients were prospectively randomized to receive either 4 1 of standard polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution or 90 ml of sodium phosphate (NaP) as mechanical bowel preparation for colorectal surgery. A detailed questionnaire was used to assess patient compliance. In addition, the surgeons, blinded to the preparation, intraoperatively evaluated its quality. Postoperative septic complications were also assessed. The calcium serum level was monitored before and after bowel preparation. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon's rank-sum test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Two hundred patients, well matched for age, gender, and diagnosis, were prospectively randomized to receive either PEG or NaP solutions for elective colorectal surgery. All patients completed all phases of the trial. There was a significant decrease in serum calcium levels after administration of both NaP (mean, 9.3-8.8 mg/dl) and PEG (9.2-8.9 mg/dl), respectively (P <0.0001), with no clinical sequelae. However, patient tolerance to NaP was superior to PEG: less trouble drinking the preparation (17 vs. 32 percent;P <0.0002), less abdominal pain (12 vs. 22 percent;P =0.004), less bloating (7 vs. 28 percent), and less fatigue (8 vs. 17 percent), respectively. Additionally, 65 percent of patients who received the NaP preparation stated they would repeat this preparation again compared with only 25 percent for the PEG group (P <0.0001). Ninety-five percent of patients who received the NaP solution tolerated 100 percent of the solution compared with only 37 percent of the PEG group (P <0.0001). For quality of cleansing, surgeons scored NaP as “excellent” or “good” in 87 compared with 76 percent after PEG (P =not significant). Rates of septic and anastomotic complications were 1 percent and 1 percent for NaP and 4 percent and 1 percent for PEG, respectively (P =not significant). CONCLUSION: Both oral solutions proved to be equally effective and safe. However, patient tolerance of the small volume of NaP demonstrated a clear advantage over the traditional PEG solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ludwig KA, Condon RE. Preoperative bowel preparation. In: Cameron JL, ed. Current surgical therapy. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, 1992:213–6.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bartlett JG, Condon RE, Gorbach SL, Clarke JS, Nichols RL, Ochi S. Veterans Administration cooperative study on bowel preparation for elective colorectal operation: impact of oral antibiotic regimen on colonic flora, wound irrigation cultures and bacteriology of septic complications. Ann Surg 1978;188:249–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fielding LP, Stewart-Brown S, Blesovsky L, Kearney G. Anastomotic integrity after operations for large bowel cancer: a multicenter study. BMJ 1980;2:411–4.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arnspiger RC, Helling TS. An evaluation of results of colon anastomosis in prepared and unprepared bowel. J Clin Gastroenterol 1988;10:638–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nichols RL, Gorbach SL, Condon RE. Alteration of intestinal microflora following preoperative mechanical preparation of the colon. Dis Colon Rectum 1971;14:123–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tyson RR, Spaulding EH. Should antibiotics be used in large bowel preparation? Surg Gynecol Obstet 1959;108:623.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Keighley MR. Mechanical bowel preparation. In: Keighley MR, Williams NS, eds. Surgery of the Colon, rectum and anus. Vol. I. London: WB Saunders, 1993:35–55.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Solla JA, Rothenberger DA. Preoperative bowel preparation: a survey of colon and rectal surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:154–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dueholm S, Rubinstein E, Reipurth G. Preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a randomized, blinded comparison between oral colonic lavage and whole-gut irrigation. Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30:360–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Beck DE, Fazio VW. Current preoperative bowel cleasing methods: results of a survey. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:12–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen SM, Wexner SD, Binderow SR,et al. Prospective, randomized, endoscopic-blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleasing methods. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:689–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Irvin TT, Goligher JC. Aetiology of disruption of intestinal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1973;60:461–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ravo B, Metwall N, Yeh J, Polansky P, Frattaroli FM. Effect of fecal loading with/without peritonitis on the healing of a colonic anastomosis: an experimental study. Eur Surg Res 1991;23:100–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. O'Dwyer PJ, Conway W, McDermott EW, O'Higgins NJ. Effect of mechanical bowel preparation on anastomotic integrity following low anterior resection in dogs. Br J Surg 1989;76:756–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Irvin TT. Collagen metabolism in infected colonic anastomosis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1971;143:220–4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gottrup F, Diederich P, Sorensen K, Nielson SV, Ornsholt J, Brandsborg O. Prophylaxis with whole gut irrigation and antimicrobials in colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized double-blind clinical trial. Am J Surg 1985;149:317–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wexner SD, Beck DE. Sepsis prevention in colorectal surgery. In: Fielding LP, Goldberg SM, eds. Operative surgery: colon, rectum and anus. 5th ed. London: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1992:41.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Adayemi SD, da Rocha-Afodu JT. Clinical studies of 4 methods of bowel preparation in colorectal surgery. Eur Surg Res 1986;18:331–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schouten WR, Gordon PH. Preoperative and postoperative management, In: Gordon PH, Nivatvongs S, eds. Principles and practice of surgery for the colon, rectum and anus. St. Louis: Quality Medical Publishing, 1992:123–8.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Beck DE, Fazio VW, Jagelman DG. Comparison of oral lavage methods for preoperative colonic cleasing. Dis Colon Rectum 1986;29:699–703.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Davis GR, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, Fordtran JS. Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology 80;78:991–5.

  22. Turnberg LA, Bieberdorf FA, Morawski SG, Fordtran JS. Interrelationships of chloride, bicarbonate, sodium and hydrogen transport in the human ileum. J Clin Invest 1970;49:557–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bowden TA, DiPiro JT, Michael KA. Polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS): a rapid, safe mechanical bowel preparation for colorectal surgery. Am Surg 1987;53:34–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Frazee RC, Roberts J, Symmonds R, Snyder S, Hendricks J, Smith R. Prospective, randomized trial of in-patientvs. out-patient bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:223–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wolff BG, Beart RW, Dozois RR,et al. A new bowel preparation for elective colon and rectal surgery: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Arch Surg 1988;123:895–900.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vanner SJ, Mac Donald PH, Paterson WG, Prentice RS, DaCosta LR, Beck IT. A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with standard polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution (Golytely) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1990;85:422–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Handelsman JC, Zeiler S, Coleman J, Dooley W, Walrath JM. Experience with ambulatory preoperative bowel preparation at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Arch Surg 1993;128:441–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kolts BE, Lyles WE, Achem SR, Burton L, Geller AJ, MacMath T. A comparison of the effectiveness and patient tolerance of oral sodium phosphate, castor oil and standard electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88:1218–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dipalma JA, Marshal JB. Comparison of a new sulfate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solutionversus a standard solution for colonoscopy cleansing. Gastrointest Endosc 1990;36:285–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Physicians Desk Reference. 26th ed. Oradell: Medical Economics Books, 1992:992.

  31. Afridi SA, Barthel JS, King PD, Pineda JJ, Marshall JB. Prospective randomized trial comparing a new sodium phosphate-bisacodyl regimen with conventional PEG-ES lavage for outpatient colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;41:485–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fass R, Do S, Hixson LJ. Fatal hyperphosphatemia following Fleet Phospho-Soda in a patient with colonic ileus. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88:929–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Henderson JM, Barnett JL, Turgeon DK,et al. Single-day, divided-dose oral sodium phosphate laxativeversus intestinal lavage as preparation for colonoscopy: efficacy and patient tolerance. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:238–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Clarkston WK, Tsen TN, Dies DF, Schratz CL, Vaswani SK, Bjerregaard P. Oral sodium phosphateversus sulfate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution in outpatient preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective comparison. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:42–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lieberman DA, Ghormley J, Flora K. Effect of oral sodium phosphate colon preparation on serum electrolytes in patients with normal serum creatinine. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:467–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Aradhye S, Brensilver JM. Sodium phosphate-induced hypernatremia in an elderly patient: a complex pathophysiologic state. Am J Kidney Dis 1991;18:1018–9.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gupta SC, Gopalswamy N, Sarkar A, Suryaprasad AG, Markert RJ. Cardiac arrhythmias and electrocardiographic changes during upper and lower endoscopy. Mil Med 1990;155:9–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hixson LJ. Colorectal ulcers associated with sodium phosphate catharsis. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:101–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zwas FR, Cirillo NW, El-Serag HB, Eisen RN. Colonic mucosal abnormalities associated with oral sodium phosphate solution. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;42:463–6.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Lantz PE, Listrom MB, Davis M, Rilke FO. Gastrointestinal pathology. New York: Raven Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Faigel DO, Furth EE, Bachwich DR. Aphthoid lesions of the rectum. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:528–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Marshall JB, Pineda JJ, Barthel JS, King PD. Prospective randomized trial comparing sodium phosphate solution with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 1993;39:631–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 3000 West Cypress Creek Road, 33309, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    Lucia Oliveira M.D.,  Steven D. Wexner M.D., Norma Daniel R.N., Deborah DeMarta M.D., Eric G. Weiss M.D., Juan J. Nogueras M.D. & Mitchel Bernstein M.D.

Authors
  1. Lucia Oliveira M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven D. Wexner M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Norma Daniel R.N.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah DeMarta M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eric G. Weiss M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Juan J. Nogueras M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mitchel Bernstein M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Sponsored, in part, by a research grant from CB Fleet Company, Lynchburg, Virginia.

Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Seattle, Washington, June 9 to 14, 1996.

About this article

Cite this article

Oliveira, L., Wexner, S.D., Daniel, N. et al. Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 40, 585–591 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02055384

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02055384

Key words

Search

Navigation