Prophylaxis with anticoagulants is recommended for patients hospitalized for surgery or medical conditions, but is not routinely administered in the ambulatory setting.122 However, antic
Trang 1increased risk Intermittent pulse oximetry with observation does
not provide the same level of safety.(100) Continuous positive
airway pressure ventilation (CPAP) is given to all patients using
it preoperatively
diabetes
The frequency of glucose abnormalities and type II diabetes
increases with age; almost 25% of patients aged more than 60 had
an abnormal value in one report.(66) The diabetic patient who is
recognized and well managed perioperatively can achieve a
surgi-cal mortality which is equal to the nondiabetic patient Protein
catabolism after colorectal surgery is increased in patients with
type 2 diabetes mellitus.(101)
The preoperative assessment should include any complaints
of polyuria, polydypsia, or polyphagia An associated weight loss
with any of these could be a sign of diabetes A fasting blood
glucose >140 mg/dl confirms a diagnosis of diabetes Control of
hyperglycemia should be started preoperatively and continued in
the postoperative phase In contrast to past doctrine that mild
hyperglycemia is permissible in the perioperative period, newer
studies indicate that there is a benefit in tighter glucose control
These intensive insulin strategies result in less hyperglycemia
and as a result appear to improve immune function and reduce
infectious complications.(102) These intensive strategies require
frequent monitoring of blood glucose levels but may result in more
hypoglycemia which has serious potential adverse consequences,
causing two large scale studies of this method to be stopped.(103)
Close monitoring of glucose and avoidance of hyperglycemia has
clear benefit, but especially in difficult-to-control diabetics it can
be challenging to avoid dangerous hypoglycemia
Renal and cardiovascular disease occurs commonly in
diabet-ics and is a major cause of death in these patients Compared to
the nondiabetic population, cardiovascular disease occurs more
frequently at a younger age, and with more severe manifestations
The reasons for this accelerated atherosclerosis are postulated to
include the high incidence of hyperlipoproteinemia in diabetic
patients, abnormalities of endothelial cell function, increased
platelet aggregation, and a high incidence of hypertension in
diabetics
age
Despite advances in surgery, anesthesia, and perioperative care,
increasing age continues to be a risk factor for perioperative
complications There is an increased risk of surgery associated
with advancing age In a 1982 review of 50,000 elderly patients,
the risk of mortality with elective surgery increased from 1.3%
for those under age 60, to 11.3% in the 80–89 year-old age group
(104) A recent review nearly 20 years later demonstrates an
in-hospital mortality of 0.3% for patients 50–59 and increasing to
2.6% for those patients older than 80.(105) Major perioperative
complications increased by decade from 4.3% for 50–59, to 5.7%
for 60–69, to 9.6% for 70–79 and 12.5% for 80 or older
Surgical procedures and surgery should not be restricted on
the basis of age alone.(106) There is clear evidence that age has
an effect on physiologic life processes.(107) Maximum heart rate
slowly decreases with age (108) and there is an increasing frequency
of arrhythmias (109) There is a decline in maximum oxygen
consumption except in very active patients.(110) A decrease in ven-tilatory threshold with age is predominantly due to an age-related decline of skeletal muscle mass.(111, 112) Chronologic age does not always correlate with the more important estimation of physiologic age Active athletic individuals can maintain lean body mass equal
to that of younger athletes well into their 8th decade.(113) Aging is characterized by a decline in renal function and by a sus-ceptibility to renal diseases Renal function is preserved with aging
in healthy subjects at the expense of a complete reduction of renal functional reserve Proteinuria (114) and bacteriuria (115) increase with the age Aging is associated with insulin resistance often attrib-utable to obesity and inactivity Recent evidence suggests that skeletal muscle insulin resistance in aging is associated with mitochondrial alterations Aging is associated with both whole body and myocar-dial insulin resistance, independent of obesity and inactivity.(113) The population is steadily aging and geriatric surgical care is likely to increase As patients enter their 9th decade it will not
be uncommon for them to be acceptable candidates for major surgery Extremely elderly patients are likely to be poorly toler-ant of complications and difficult to salvage once complications occur “Failure to rescue” is a new quality of care indicator to measure the inability to save a patient once a complication has occurred.(116) It is likely that elderly patients will prove particu-larly difficult to rescue once a problem has occurred, so it is up to the surgeon to be fastidious in his preoperative preparation and risk assessment, intraoperative technique and postoperative care
to avoid complications in this fragile patient population
neurologic system
The prevalence of occult cerebrovascular disease in elderly patients
is a common problem An asymptomatic carotid bruit indicates the presence of peripheral vascular disease and is an indication for further evaluation by duplex scanning However, prophylactic endarterectomy is not indicated usually, as the increased risk of a perioperative stroke compared to the unselected population is small.(118) Symptomatic disease should be treated before elective interventions Aspirin prophylaxis and occasionally endarterectomy might be indicated to reduce the incidence of cerebrovascular acci-dents (CVA).(119)
Patients who have had a stroke in the past are at an estimated 5–15% annual risk of a recurrent event if left untreated Thus these patients are often maintained on either aspirin or clopidog-rel (Plavix) to reduce their risk While clopidogclopidog-rel is more effective
in high-risk patients, it is associated with a higher incidence of bleeding events The risk of stroke while stopping the anticoagu-lation must be weighed against the adverse event of postsurgical bleeding The decision-making must be tailored to the stroke risk
of the individual patient based on their history and the magnitude and bleeding risk of the proposed procedure For most patients, the interruption in their anticoagulation for 7 days to proceed with surgery is not likely to result in harm
Parkinson’s disease is a progressive degenerative neurologic condition associated with tremor and gait disturbance In its later stages, aspiration pneumonia is common thus patients with advanced disease having abdominal surgery must have particular attention paid to their postoperative respiratory program Most anti-Parkinsonian medications are only orally administered so
Trang 2they must be withheld after abdominal surgery until oral
medi-cations can be given This can result in rigidity and further
wors-ening of airway protection One author describes use of rectally
administered domperidone to patients with Parkinson’s disease
having abdominal surgery in an effort to avoid such problems
(120) We have little experience with this, but it may prove useful
in a particularly symptomatic patient
hyPerCOAgUAble dISOrderS
Management of patients with hypercoaguable syndromes can
be especially challenging in the setting where the need to
con-trol postoperative bleeding is crucial Common (factor V Leiden
deficiency) and relatively uncommon (antithrombin deficiency,
protein C and protein S deficiency) causes of thrombosis have
different risk associations For example, the relative risk of venous
thrombosis in the Caucasian population can range from 2.5%
for the prothrombin gene mutation to 25% in the presence of
antithrombin deficiency.(121) Furthermore, approximately 50%
of cases of venous thrombosis associated with these hereditary
disorders are provoked by known risk factors such as surgery
Therefore, aggressive prophylaxis with subcutaneous heparin or
low-molecular heparin is warranted peri- and postoperatively
By contrast, for those on long-term anticoagulation, the decision
to continue treatment for thrombosis should be individualized
In general, warfarin therapy can be switched to low-molecular
weight or intravenous heparin 3 to 5 days before surgery.(121)
Patients with antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (lupus
anti-coagulant/anticardiolipin antibodies, history of arterial or venous
thrombosis, and/or recurrent fetal loss) deserve special mention
Currently available anticoagulants are effective in reducing the
recurrence rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) VTE is a
common complication in cancer patients and can lead to delay in
cancer therapy and is predictive of a worse prognosis Prophylaxis
with anticoagulants is recommended for patients hospitalized for
surgery or medical conditions, but is not routinely administered
in the ambulatory setting.(122) However, anticoagulant treatment
is associated with an increased risk for bleeding complications and
needs to be discontinued when benefit of treatment no longer
clearly outweigh its risks.(123) The incidence of recurrent VTE
can be estimated through a two-step decision algorithm First, the
features of the patient (gender), of the initial event (proximal or
distal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), and the
associated conditions (cancer, surgery, etc) provide essential
infor-mation on the risk for recurrence after anticoagulant treatment
discontinuation Second, at time of anticoagulant treatment
dis-continuation, D-dimer levels and residual thrombosis have been
indicated as predictors of recurrent VTE Current evidence
sug-gests that the risk of recurrence after stopping therapy is largely
determined by whether the acute episode of VTE has been
effec-tively treated and by the patient’s intrinsic risk of having a new
episode of VTE All patients with acute VTE should receive oral
anticoagulant treatment for 3 months At the end of this
treat-ment period, physicians should decide for withdrawal or
indefi-nite anticoagulation Based on intrinsic patient’s risk for recurrent
VTE and for bleeding complications and on patient preference,
selected patients could be allocated to indefinite treatment with
scheduled periodic reassessment of the benefit from extending
anticoagulation Cancer patients should receive low-molecular weight heparin over warfarin in the long-term treatment of VTE These patients should be considered for extended anticoagulation
at least until resolution of underlying disease.(123)
conclusion
The history and physical examination is the most important part
of the preoperative evaluation and can be used to guide further workup and testing Multiple scoring systems are available to quantify risk of postoperative complications and mortality based
on preoperative conditions Optimization of these conditions will increase the likelihood of a successful outcome
references
1 Wilson ME, NB WI, Baskett PJ, Bennett JA, Skene AM Assessment of fitness for surgical procedures and the vari-ability of anesthetists’’ judgments Br Med J 1980; 280(6213): 509–12
2 Parker BM, Tetzlaff JE, Litaker DL, Maurer WG Redefining the preoperative evaluation process and the role of the anes-thesiologist J Clin Anesth 2000; 12(5): 350–6
3 Arvidsson S OJ, Sjostedt L, Svardsudd Predicting postop-erative adverse events Clinical efficiency of four general classification systems The project perioperative risk Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1996; 40(7): 783–91
4 Roizen MF The surgical burden: how to prevent a crisis in perioperative medicine Cleve Clin J Med 2006; 73(Suppl 1): S8–12
5 Mancuso CA Impact of new guidelines on physicians’ ordering of preoperative tests J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14(3): 166–72
6 Greer AE, Irwin MG Implementation and evaluation of guidelines for preoperative testing in a tertiary hospital Anaesth Intensive Care 2002; 30(3): 326–30
7 Roizen M Preoperative patient evaluation Can J Anaesth 1989; 36: S13–9
8 Kaplan EB, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ et al The usefulness
of preoperative laboratory screening JAMA 1985; 253(24): 3576–81
9 Carson JL, Duff A, Poses RM et al Effect of anaemia and cardiovascular disease on surgical mortality and morbidity Lancet 1996; 348(9034): 1055–611
10 Bushick JB, Eisenberg JM, Kinman J, Cebul RD, Schwartz JS Pursuit of abnormal coagulation screening tests generates modest hidden preoperative costs J Gen Intern Med 1989; 4(6): 493–7
11 Delaney CP, McKeigan J Pre-operative management – bowel preparation, medical evaluation ASCRS Textbook of Colorectal Surgery, eds Fleshman, Beck, Wolff, Pemberton, Wexner Springer Verlag, New York, NY, 2006
12 Arvidsson S, Ouchterlony J, Sjostedt L, Svardsudd K Predicting postoperative adverse events Clinical efficiency
of four general classification systems The project periop-erative risk Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1996; 40(7): 783–91
13 Klotz HP, Candinas D, Platz A et al Preoperative risk assess-ment in elective general surgery Br J Surg 1996; 83(12): 1788–91
Trang 314 Hartley MN, Sagar PM The surgeon's 'gut feeling' as a
predictor of post-operative outcome Ann R Coll Surg Engl
1994; 76(6 Suppl): 277–8
15 Kiran RP, Delaney CP, Senagore AJ “Peri-operative
Management.” Preoperative evaluation and risk assessment
scoring Clinics in Colorectal Surgery 2003; 16(2): 75–84
16 Keats AS The ASA classification of physical status–a
reca-pitulation Anesthesiology 1978; 49(4): 233–6
17 Vacanti CJ, VanHouten RJ, Hill RC A statistical analysis of
the relationship of physical status to postoperative mortality
in 68,388 cases Anesth Analg 1970; 49(4): 564–6
18 Menke H, Klein A, John KD, Junginger T Predictive value
of ASA classification for the assessment of the perioperative
risk Int Surg 1993; 78(3): 266–70
19 Owens WD, Dykes MH, Gilbert JP, McPeek B, Ettling MB
Development of two indices of postoperative morbidity
Surgery 1975; 77(4): 586–92
20 Wolters U, Wolf T, Stutzer H, Schroder T ASA classification
and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative
outcome Br J Anaesth 1996; 77(2): 217–22
21 Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M POSSUM: a scoring
system for surgical audit Br J Surg 1991; 78(3): 355–60
22 Bennett-Guerrero E, Hyam JA, Shaefi S et al Comparison
of P-POSSUM risk-adjusted mortality rates after surgery
between patients in the USA and the UK Br J Surg 2003;
90(12): 1593–8
23 Prytherch DR, Whiteley MS, Higgins B et al POSSUM
and Portsmouth POSSUM for predicting mortality
Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the
enU-meration of Mortality and morbidity Br J Surg 1998; 85(9):
1217–20
24 Wijesinghe LD, Mahmood T, Scott DJ et al Comparison
of POSSUM and the Portsmouth predictor equation for
predicting death following vascular surgery Br J Surg 1998;
85(2): 209–12
25 Kuhan G, Abidia AF, Wijesinghe LD et al POSSUM and
P-POSSUM overpredict mortality for carotid endarterectomy
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2002; 23(3): 209–11
26 Midwinter MJ, Tytherleigh M, Ashley S Estimation of
mortality and morbidity risk in vascular surgery using
POSSUM and the Portsmouth predictor equation Br J Surg
1999; 86(4): 471–4
27 Tekkis PP, Kocher HM, Bentley AJ et al Operative mortality
rates among surgeons: comparison of POSSUM and
p-POS-SUM scoring systems in gastrointestinal surgery Diseases of
the colon and rectum 2000; 43(11): 1528–32
28 Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Duepree HJ, Brady KM, Fazio VW
Evaluation of POSSUM and P-POSSUM scoring systems in
assessing outcome after laparoscopic colectomy Br J Surg
2003; 90(10): 1280–4
29 Tekkis PP, Prytherch DR, Kocher HM et al Development
of a dedicated risk-adjustment scoring system for
colorec-tal surgery (coloreccolorec-tal POSSUM) Br J Surg 2004; 91(9):
1174–82
30 Law WL, Lam CM, Lee YM Evaluation of outcome of
lap-aroscopic colorectal resection with POSSUM, Portsmouth
POSSUM and colorectal POSSUM Br J Surg 2006; 93(1): 94–9
31 Senagore AJ, Warmuth AJ, Delaney CP, Tekkis PP, Fazio VW POSSUM, P-POSSUM, CR-POSSUM: implementation issues in a United States health care system for prediction
of outcome for colon cancer resection Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47(9): 1435–41
32 Khuri S, Daley J, Henderson W et al The national veterans administration surgical risk study: risk adjustment for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care J Am Coll Surg 2005; 180: 519–531
33 Khuri S, Daley J, Henderson W The comparative assess-ment and improveassess-ment of quality of surgical care in the Department of Veterans Affairs Arch Surg 2002; 137: 20–27
34 Longo WE, Virgo KS, Johnson FE et al Risk factors for mor-bidity and mortality after colectomy for colon cancer Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43: 83–91
35 Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ et al The effect of biso-prolol on perioperative mortality and myocardial infarction
in high-risk patients undergoing vascular surgery N Engl
J Med 1999; 341: 1789–94
36 Goldman L, Caldera DL, Nussbaum SR et al Multifactorial index of cardiac risk in noncardiac surgical procedures
N Engl J Med 1977; 297(16): 845–50
37 Detsky AS, Abrams HB, McLaughlin JR et al Predicting cardiac complications in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery J Gen Intern Med 1986; 1: 211–9
38 Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM et al Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction
of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery Circulation 1999; 100: 1043–9
39 Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Freeman WK et al ACC/AHA 2006 guideline update on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation
on noncardiac surgery: focused update on perioperative beta-blocker therapy J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47: 1–12
40 Weksler N, Klein M, Szendro G et al The dilemma of imme-diate preoperative hypertension: to treat and operate, or to postpone surgery? J Clin Anesth 2003; 15: 179–83
41 Hlatky MA, Boineau RE, Higginbotham MB et al A brief self-administered questionnaire to determine functional capacity (the Duke Activity Status Index) Am J Cardiol 1989; 64(10): 651–4
42 Goldberger AL, O’Konski M Utility of the routine electro-cardiogram before surgery and on general hospital admis-sion Critical review and new guidelines Ann Intern Med 1986; 105(4): 552–7
43 Liu LL, Dzankic S, Leung JM Preoperative electrocardio-gram abnormalities do not predict postoperative cardiac complications in geriatric surgical patients J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50(7): 1186–91
44 Tait AR, Parr HG, Tremper KK Evaluation of the efficacy
of routine preoperative electrocardiograms J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 1997; 11(6): 752–5
45 Noordzij PG, Boersma E, Bax JJ et al Prognostic value of rou-tine preoperative electrocardiography in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery Am J Cardiol 2006; 97(7): 1103–6
Trang 446 van Klei WA, Bryson GL, Yang H et al The value of routine
pre-operative electrocardiography in predicting myocardial
infarc-tion after noncardiac surgery Ann Surg 2007; 246(2): 165–70
47 Kannel WB, Abbott RD Incidence and prognosis of
unrecog-nized myocardial infarction An update on the Framingham
study N Engl J Med 1984; 311(18): 1144–7
48 Velanovich V Preoperative screening electrocardiography:
predictive value for postoperative cardiac complications
South Med J 1994; 87(4): 431–4
49 McFalls EO, Ward HB, Moritz TE et al Coronary-artery
revascularization before elective major vascular surgery
N Eng J Med 2004; 351: 2795–804
50 Poldermans D, Schouten O, Vidakovic R et al A clinical
randomized trial to evaluate the safety of a noninvasive
approach in high-risk patients undergoing major vascular
surgery: the DECREASE-V Pilot Study J Am Coll Cardiol
2007; 49: 1763–9
51 Poldermans D, Bax JJ, Schouten O et al Should major
vas-cular surgery be delayed because of preoperative cardiac
testing in intermediate-risk patients receiving beta-blocker
therapy with tight heart rate control? J Am Coll Cardiol
2006; 48: 964–9
52 Hindler K, Shaw AD, Samuels J et al Improved
postopera-tive outcomes associated with preoperapostopera-tive statin therapy
Anesthesiology 2006; 105: 1260–72
53 Smetana GW, Lawrence VA, Cornell JE Preoperative
pul-monary risk stratification for noncardiothoracic surgery:
systematic review for the American College of Physicians
Ann Int Med 2006; 144: 581–95
54 Arozullah AM, Daley J, Henderson WG, Khuri SF
Multifactorial risk index for predicting postoperative
respi-ratory failure in men after major noncardiac surgery Ann
Surg 2000; 232: 242–53
55 Smetana GW, Macpherson DS The case against routine
preoperative laboratory testing Med Clin North Am 2003;
87: 7–40
56 Archer C, Levy AR, McGregor M Value of routine preoperative
chest x-rays: a meta-analysis Can J Anesth 1993; 40: 1022–7
57 Kroenke K, Lawrence VA, Theroux JF, Tuley MR Operative
risk in patients with severe obstructive pulmonary disease
Arch Intern med 1992; 152: 967–71
58 Lawrence VA, Cornell JE, Smetana GW Strategies to reduce
postoperative pulmonary complications after
noncardio-thoracic surgery: systematic review for the American College
of Physicians Ann Intern Med 2006; 144(8): 596–608
59 Nakagawa M, Tanaka H, Tsukauma H, Kishi Y Relationship
between the duration of the preoperative smoke-free
period and the incidence of postoperative pulmonary
com-plications after pulmonary surgery Chest 2001; 120(3):
705–10
60 Bluman LG, Mosca L, Newman N, Simon D Preoperative
smoking habits and postoperative pulmonary
complica-tions Chest 1998; 113: 883–9
61 Barrera R, Shi W, Amar D et al Smoking and Timing of
Cessation: impact on pulmonary complications after
thora-cotomy Chest 2005; 127: 1977–83
62 Abraham NS, Young J, Solomon M Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer Br J Surg 2004; 91: 1111–24
63 National asthma education and prevention program expert panel report: guidelines for the diagnosis and management
of asthma update on selected topics-2002 J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 110: S141–219
64 Lawrence VA, Kroenke K The unproven utility of preopera-tive urinalysis Clinical use Arch Intern Med 1988; 148(6): 1370–3
65 Hricik DE, Browning PJ, Kopelman R Captopril-induced functional renal insufficiency in patients with bilateral renal-artery stenoses or renal-artery stenosis in a solitary kidney N Engl J Med 1983; 308(7): 373–6
66 Velanovich V Preoperative laboratory screening based on age, gender, and concomitant medical diseases Surgery 1994; 115(1): 56–61
67 Chertow GM, Lazarus JM, Christiansen CL et al Preoperative renal risk stratification Circulation 1997; 95(4): 878–84
68 Gailiunas P Jr, Chawla R, Lazarus JM et al Acute renal fail-ure following cardiac operations J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1980; 79(2): 241–3
69 Abrahamov D, Tamariz M, Fremes S et al Renal dysfunction after cardiac surgery Can J Cardiol 2001; 17(5): 565–70
70 Krysa J, Patel V, Taylor J et al Outcome of patients on renal replacement therapy after colorectal surgery Dis Col Rectum 2008; 51(6): 961–5
71 Touraine JL, Touraine F, Revillard JP, Brochier J, Traeger
J T-lymphocytes and serum inhibitors of cell-mediated immu-nity in renal insufficiency Nephron 1975; 14(2): 195–208
72 Bleyl U, Sander E, Schindler T The pathology and biology
of uremic pneumonitis J Intensive Care Med 1981; 7(4): 193–202
73 Adams PL, Rutsky EA, Rostand SG, Han SY Lower gastro-intestinal tract dysfunction in patients receiving long-term hemodialysis Archives of internal medicine 1982; 142(2): 303–6
74 Garrison RN, Cryer HM, Howard DA, Polk HC Clarification
of risk factors for abdominal operations in patients with hepatic cirrhosis Ann Surg 1984; 199(6): 648–54
75 Metcalf AM, Dozois RR, Wolff BG, Beart RW Jr The surgi-cal risk of colectomy in patients with cirrhosis Dis Colon Rectum 1987; 30(7): 529–31
76 Narr BJ, Hansen TR, Warner MA Preoperative laboratory screening in healthy Mayo patients: cost-effective elimi-nation of tests and unchanged outcomes Mayo Clin Proc 1991; 66(2): 155–9
77 Smetana GW, Macpherson DS The case against routine preoperative laboratory testing Med Clin North Am 2003; 87(1): 7–40
78 Powell-Jackson P, Greenway B, Williams R Adverse effects
of exploratory laparotomy in patients with unsuspected liver disease Br J Surg 1982; 69(8): 449–51
79 Suchman AL, Mushlin AI How well does the activated par-tial thromboplastin time predict postoperative hemorrhage? JAMA 1986; 256(6): 750–3
Trang 580 Campos AC, Meguid MM A critical appraisal of the
useful-ness of perioperative nutritional support Am J Clin Nutr
1992; 55(1): 117–30
81 Thompson BR, Julian TB, Stremple JF Perioperative total
parenteral nutrition in patients with gastrointestinal cancer
J Surg Res 1981; 30(5): 497–500
82 Vitello JM Nutritional assessment and the role of
preopera-tive parenteral nutrition in the colon cancer patient Semin
Surg Oncol 1994; 10(3): 183–94
83 Cook JW, Pierson LM, Herbert WG et al The influence
of patient strength, aerobic capacity and body
composi-tion upon outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 49(2): 89–93
84 Engelman DT, Adams DH, Byrne JG et al Impact of body
mass index and albumin on morbidity and mortality after
cardiac surgery J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999; 118(5):
866–73
85 Rosen FS, Cooper MD, Wedgwood RJ The primary
immu-nodeficiencies (2) N Engl J Med 1984; 311(5): 300–10
86 Morstyn G, Campbell L, Souza LM et al Effect of
granulo-cyte colony stimulating factor on neutropenia induced by
cytotoxic chemotherapy Lancet 1988; 1(8587): 667–72
87 Bronchud M, Scarffe JH, Thatcher N et al Phase I/II study
of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating
fac-tor in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy for small
cell lung cancer Behring Inst Mitt 1988; 83: 327–9
88 Cook EJ, Walsh SR, Farooq N et al Post-operative
neutro-phil-lymphocyte ratio predicts complications following
colorectal surgery Int J Surg (London, England) 2007; 5(1):
27–30
89 Barrett WL, Callahan TD, Orkin BA Perianal
manifesta-tions of human immunodificiency virus infection:
expe-rience with 260 patients Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41(5):
606–12
90 Friedman JE, Dallal RM, Lord JL Gouty attacks occur
frequently in postoperative gastric bypass patients Surg
Obes Relat Dis 2008; 4(1): 11–3
91 Craig MH, Poole GV, Hauser CJ Postsurgical gout Am Surg
1995; 61(1): 56–9
92 Wyngaarden JB Gout Philadelphia: Saunders; 1992
93 Dindo D, Muller MK, Weber M, Clavien PA Obesity in
general elective surgery Lancet 2003; 361: 2032–5
94 Riou JP, Choen JR, Johnson H Factors affecting wound
dehiscence Am J Surgery 1992; 163: 324–30
95 Sugerman HJ, Kellum JM, Reines D et al Greater risk of
incisional hernia with morbidly obese than
steroid-depen-dent patients and low recurrence with incisional prefascial
polypropylene mesh Am J Surg 1996; 171: 80–4
96 Arumugam PJ, Bevan L, Macdonald L et al A prospective
audit of stomas: analysis of risk factors and complications
and their management Colorectal Dis 2003; 5: 49–52
97 Rullier R, Laurent C, Garrelon JL et al Risk factors for
anas-tamotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer Br J Surg
1998; 85: 355–8
98 Gendall KA, Raniga S, Kennedy R, Frizelle FA The impact
of obesity on outcome after major colorectal surgery Dis
Colon Rectum 2007; 2223–37
99 Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW Evaluation
of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections Ann Surg 2005; 242: 83–91
100 Practice guidelines for the perioperative management
of patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a report by the American Society of anesthesiologists task force on peri-operative management of patients with obstructive sleep apnea Anesthesiology 2006; 104(5): 1081–93
101 Schricker T, Gougeon R, Eberhart L et al Type 2 diabetes mel-litus and the catabolic response to surgery Anesthesiology 2005; 102(2): 320–6
102 Van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F et al Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients NEJM 2001; 345: 1359–67
103 Blondet JJ, Beilman GJ Glycemic control and prevention of postoperative infection Curr Opin Crit Care 2007; 13(4): 421–7
104 Linn BS, Linn MW, Wallen N Evaluation of results of surgi-cal procedures in the elderly Annals of surgery 1982; 195(1): 90–6
105 Polanczyk C, Marcantonio E, Goldman L et al Impact of age on perioperative complications and length of stay in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery Ann Int Med 2001; 134(8): 637–42
106 Faivre J, Lemmens VE, Quipourt V, Bouvier AM Management and survival of colorectal cancer in the elderly
in population-based studies Eur J Cancer 2007; 43(15): 2279–84
107 Leach RE Aging and physical activity Der Orthopade 2000; 29(11): 936–40
108 Helwig BG, Parimi S, Ganta CK et al Aging alters regula-tion of visceral sympathetic nerve responses to acute hypo-thermia Am J Physiol 2006; 291(3): R573–9
109 Moller CS, Haggstrom J, Zethelius B et al Age and
follow-up time affect the prognostic value of the ECG and conven-tional cardiovascular risk factors for stroke in adult men
J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61(8): 704–12
110 Bogaard HJ, Woltjer HH, Dekker BM et al Haemodynamic response to exercise in healthy young and elderly subjects Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1997; 75(5): 435–42
111 Sanada K, Kuchiki T, Miyachi M et al Effects of age on ventilatory threshold and peak oxygen uptake normalized for regional skeletal muscle mass in Japanese men and women aged 20–80 years Eur J Appl Physiol 2007; 99(5): 475–83
112 Galban CJ, Maderwald S, Stock F, Ladd ME Age-related changes in skeletal muscle as detected by diffusion ten-sor magnetic resonance imaging J Gerontol 2007; 62(4): 453–8
113 Frisard MI, Fabre JM, Russell RD et al Physical activity level and physical functionality in nonagenarians compared to individuals aged 60–74 years J Gerontol 2007; 62(7): 783–8
114 Garg AX, Muirhead N, Knoll G et al Proteinuria and reduced kidney function in living kidney donors: a system-atic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression Kidney Int 2006; 70(10): 1801–10
Trang 6115 Wagenlehner FM, Naber KG, Weidner W Asymptomatic
bacteriuria in elderly patients: significance and implications
for treatment Drugs Aging 2005; 22(10): 801–7
116 Bhashyam S, Parikh P, Bolukoglu H et al Aging is
associ-ated with myocardial insulin resistance and mitochondrial
dysfunction Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2007; 293(5):
H3063-71
117 Schmid A, Hoffman L, Happ MB, Wolf GA, DeVita M Failure
to rescue: a literature review J Nurs Adm 2007; 37(4): 188–98
118 Evans BA, Wijdicks EF High-grade carotid stenosis detected
before general surgery: is endarterectomy indicated?
Neurology 2001; 57(7): 1328–30
119 King MS Preoperative evaluation Am Fam Physician 2000;
62(2): 387–96
120 Galvez-Jimenez N, Lang AE Perioperative problems in Parkinson’s disease and their management: apomorphine with rectal domperidone Can J Neurol Sci 1996; 23(3): 198–203
121 Douketis JD, Berger PB, DunnAS, et al The periopera-tive management of antithrombotic therapy: Amercian College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition) Chest 2008; 133(6 Suppl): 299S–339S
122 Lee AY Cancer and venous thromboembolism: prevention, treatment, and survival J Thomb Thrombolysis 2008; 25: 33–36
123 Agnelli G, Becattani C Treatment of DVT: how long
is enough and how do you predict recurrence J Throm Thrombolysis 2008; 25: 37–44
Trang 72 Preoperative bowel preparation
David A Margolin and Sean Mayfield
challenging case
A 57-year-old gentleman with a sigmoid colon cancer found via
colonoscopy for a history of anemia and weight loss is awaiting
surgery You stop by the pre-op holding area to see the patient
where he tells you, “I tried drinking that prep last night and after
only half a glass I got sick and threw up I just couldn’t take it.” Do
you perform elective surgery?
case management
Yes Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety of elective
bowel surgery in the absence of a mechanical bowel preparation
intRODUctiOn
The objectives of preoperative bowel preparation in elective colon
and rectal surgery include decreasing the bacterial count in the colon,
decreasing the wound infection rate, decreasing the rate of
anasto-motic leaks, improving interoperative bowel handling, and facilitating
interoperative endoscopy if necessary Aside from the medical reasons
for a patient undergoing a bowel prep, there is surgical tradition as
well as the medicolegal implications of deviations from the perceived
norm We know that there are a variety of well-documented factors
that play a role in infectious compilations in colon and rectal surgery
most notably, increased American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)
classification, obesity, diabetes, prolonged surgical time,
interopera-tive hypotension, excessive blood loss, surgical intervention for bowel
obstruction, whether partial or complete, and emergency surgery
(1–5) We as surgeons also try to adhere the dictum of primum non
nocere With those thoughts in mind, preoperative bowl preparation
has become the standard before elective colon surgery
Preoperative bowel preparation is divided into two parts:
antibi-otic prophylaxis and mechanical bowel preparation The use of
anti-biotic prophylaxis in elective colon surgery is mandatory to minimize
infection complications Unfortunately the choice antibiotic and
rout of antibiotic administration is not as clear The first principle
in prophylactic use of antibiotic administration is to provide
cover-age for the normal bowel flora This means choosing antibiotics that
cover both aerobic bacteria, especially Escherichia coli and anaerobic
species most notably bacteroides sp Even with appropriately
cho-sen antibiotics the route of antibiotic administration is undergoing
a re-evaluation Oral antibiotics as used in the traditional
Nichols-Condon antibiotic preparation have been shown to reduce
intralu-minal and mucosal bacterial count while parenteral antibiotics have
been shown to reduce systemic bacterial counts at the tissue level
Colorectal surgery performed before 1970 was fraught with
infectious complications which occurred in more than 30–50%
of all operations With a better understanding of bacteriology and
the availability of an increasing number of antibiotics, surgeons
attempted to improve their outcomes with regards to infections
Garlock and Seley in 1939 gave patients sulfanilamides before
sur-gery; unfortunately, there was no real improvement in infectious
complications.(6) Dearing in 1951 and Poth in 1960 tied tetracycline and neomycin respectively with only minimal improvement.(7, 8)
It was not till the 1970s that a significant improvement in mitigat-ing infectious complications was seen In a 1977 VA cooperative study, Nichols and Condon showed that by using oral neomycin sulfate and erythromycin base that they were able to decrease the wound infection rate of elective colon resections from 35% to 9% They also showed that this regimen showed a significant decrease in all septic complica-tions (wound infection, anastomotic leak, and abscess) from 43% to 9%.(9–11) The dosing of 1 g of oral neomycin sulfate and erythromy-cin base at 2:00 pm, 3:00 pm, and 10:00 pm for an 8:00 am case became and remains a standard oral antibiotic regime for elective surgery Unfortunately, the Nichols prep has its draw backs While this antibi-otic combination is efficacious, it can cause significant gastrointestinal discomfort severely limiting patient compliance with the remainder of the antibiotic prep and completion of their mechanical preparation These limitations, along with the significant increase in number and spectrum of paranteral antibiotics, led many investigators to utilize various IV antibiotic combinations to minimize infectious complications In 1969, Polk demonstrated that cephaloridine ver-sus mechanical prep alone decreased the rate of wound infection
in elective colon resections from 30% to 7%.(12) Since that initial study their have been numerous attempts to find the best parenteral antibiotic From 1983 to 1995 there were more than 150 randomized controlled trials performed (Table 2.1 and 2.2) Finally in 1998, Song
and colleagues, in a landmark review in the British Journal of Surgery,
codified modern practice and confirmed that parenteral antibiotics alone decrease the rate of wound infection and that no single regi-men is superior as long as the antibiotics chosen cover both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria and are given before incision.(13) In 2003, the Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup (SIPGWW), a project endorsed by both the American College of Surgeons (ACS) and American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), submitted consensus positions for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis.(3) They stated that the standard for parenteral antibi-otic prophylaxis in elective colon resections should include:
1 Timing: Infusion of the first antimicrobial dose should begin
within 60 minutes before surgical incision
2 Duration: Prophylactic antimicrobials should be
discontin-ued within 24 hours following surgery
3 Dosing: The initial dose should be adequate based on weight,
adjusted dosing weight, or BMI An additional dose should
be administered if the operation continues over two half-lives after the initial dose
4 Selection (Colon Surgery): Cefotetan, cefoxitin, or cefazolin/
metronidazole
– Options for β-lactam allergic patients:
– Clindamycin + gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, or aztreonam – Metronidazole + gentamycin or ciprofloxacin
Trang 8Since 1887, when Halsted described intestinal anastomosis, the
idea of mechanically preparing the bowel has become accepted
surgical practice The rationale for mechanical bowel prep has
been to reduce the risk of infectious complications including
wound infection and anastomotic leak At the beginning of the
20th century, morbidity and mortality secondary to septic
com-plications following colon and rectal surgery was high However,
medical innovations including broad-spectrum oral and
intrave-nous antibiotics, improved surgical techniques and
instrumenta-tion, improved anesthetic and perioperative care, and presumably
mechanical bowel preparation has resulted in decreased
infec-tious complication rates making elective colorectal surgery safe
Mechanical bowel preparation preceding elective colon and
rec-tal surgery has become surgical dogma, and surgeons are trained
that primary colonic anastomosis is unsafe in the presence of an
unprepared bowel Proponents argue that the “clean” bowel has
a lower bacterial load and is easier to handle thus reducing the
chance of fecal spillage and contamination of the wound and
peritoneal cavity during surgery Mechanical bowel prep is also
believed to eliminate the proximal stool column, possibly reduc-ing the chance of anastomotic disruption by the passreduc-ing stool, and the sequelae should a disruption occur The merits of this practice however have lacked clear investigational proof and have undergone continued scrutiny over the last decade In 1973, Hewitt et al presented whole gut irrigation, using a large volume
of isotonic solution, administered via a nasogastric tube.(26) No change in the rate of infection was displayed, although the qual-ity of the prep was improved A subsequent advance was whole gut lavage using mannitol as an osmotic agent Mannitol reduced the absorption of water, but was associated with dehydration and
loss of electrolytes Because mannitol is fermented by E coli into
a potentially explosive gas, explosions while using electrocautery were reported
There are two oral preparations routinely used today, polyeth-ylene glycol (PEG) and sodium phosphate (NaP) PEG is an inert osmotically active polymer that is mixed with an electrolyte solu-tion resulting in an isosomotic preparasolu-tion that acts to lavage stool from the colon lumen The electrolyte content combined with the osmotic activity of PEG prevents net absorption or excretion or water and electrolytes Typically, 4 L of PEG is ingested over 2 to 3 hours This produces good to excellent cleansing in most patients without causing significant fluid or electrolyte derangements These issues are of particular importance in elderly patients or those with renal insufficiency or congestive heart failure Nausea, vomiting, and patient compliance are obstacles to achieving ade-quate results in some patients This has been addressed by the addition of flavor additives and a reduced volume prep in which patients take 2–4 (10 mg) bisacodyl tablets and ½ the normal vol-ume of PEG (2 L) Some surgeons also prescribe metoclopramide
to hasten gastric emptying, or an antiemetic such as promethaz-ine However, prospective, randomized trials have not confirmed significant benefit from either of these adjuvant medications NaP is a hypersomolar oral saline laxative Smaller volumes of hypertonic NaP can produce adequate bowel cleansing with bet-ter patient compliance Patients are instructed to consume 45 ml
of sodium phosphate diluted in clear liquids (15 ml NaP in 240 ml) in two doses separated by 10 hours The timing of this should
be such that the patient is not kept awake evacuating the entire night before the procedure Sodium phosphate tablets are also available and are equally efficacious Three to four tablets with
8 oz of clear liquid are taken every 15 minutes to a total of 28 tablets In May 2006, the Federal Drug Administration issued a warning regarding oral NaP for bowel preps in elderly patients or those with underlying kidney disease, dehydration, or those tak-ing medication that affect renal perfusion (diuretics, ACE inhibi-tors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and NSAIDs).(27) These patients are at increased risk for developing acute renal failure and nephrocalcinosis due to the relatively large phosphate load, fluid shifts, and decreased intravascular volume associated with NaP preps However, both the avoidance of this complication as well as improved efficacy can be achieved by appropriate patient selection and consumption of large volumes (2–3 L) of clear liq-uids as part of this prep
A 2003 survey by Zmora et al of members of the American Society of Colon & Rectum Surgeons displayed that 99%
of respondents routinely use mechanical bowel preparation
Table 2.1 Intravenous Antibiotics.
Wound infections
Periti 1989 (14) 403 cefoxitin
cefotetan
11.0%
9.0%
Skipper 1992 (15) cefotetan 14.7%
Zanella 2000 (16) 615 cefepime plus
metronidazole
7.2%
Mosimann 1998 (17) 440 amoxicillin/
clavulanic
11.1%
Hall 1989 (18) 237 gentamicin plus
metronidazole
14.8%
Corman 1993 (19) 907 cefuroxime plus
metronidazole
7.3%
Table 2.2 Effect of Intravenous Antibiotics.
Wound infections
Codon 1983 (20) 1082 neo/erythro
neo/erythro + cephalothin
8.0 6.0 Coppa 1983 (21) 241 neo/erythro
neo/erythro + cefoxitin
18 7 Portnoy 1983 (22) 104 neo/erythro
neo/erythro + cefazolin neo/erythro + ticarcillin
27 4.7 2.3 Lau 1988 (23) 194 neo/erythro
metronidazole + gentamicin neo/erythro + metronidazole + gentamicin
27.4 11.9 12.3 Schoetz 1990 (24) 197 neo/erythro
neo/erythro + cefoxitin
14.6 5 Stellato 1990 (25) 146 neo/erythro
cefoxitin only neo/erythro +cefoxitin
11.4 11.7 7.8
Trang 9although 10% questioned its use.(28) 47% of the surgeons used
sodium phosphate, 32% used polyethylene glycol, and 14%
alter-nated between these two options These results are the same as
those reported by Beck et al in 1990 and are most likely based on
surgical tradition rather than evidence-based science.(29)
Since 1992, several randomized controlled trials and
meta-analyses have studied the influence of mechanical bowel
prepara-tion on the outcome of colorectal surgery Brownson et al were
the first to perform a randomized trial which consisted of 179
patients Patients were divided into preparation with polyethylene
glycol or no mechanical preparation.(30) Interestingly, patients
who received a mechanical prep had a higher rate of anastomotic
leak and intraabdominal infection There was no statistically
sig-nificant difference in wound infection Burke et al and Santos
et al in 1994 published similar studies Neither study showed
a significant difference in intraabdominal infection; however,
Santos displayed a higher wound infection rate 24% vs 12% in
patients who received mechanical bowel preparation.(31, 32)
Miettinen et al reported the results of a prospective
rand-omized trial in 2000 including patients undergoing rectal surgery
(33) Again, no significant differences in infectious complications
were found between the two groups 4% vs 2% for both wound
infections and anastomotic leaks It was difficult to determine the
effect on anastomotic leakage, as this study included patients who
did not undergo an anastomosis Zmora et al performed the
larg-est study thus far, a randomized prospective trial in 2003 which
included 415 patients separated into mechanical bowel prep with
polyethylene glycol vs no bowel prep.(34) Once again surgical
infectious complications did not significantly differ between the
two groups with the wound infection rate 6.4% for patient who
underwent a mechanical bowel prep vs 5.7 for those who did not
Similar results were seen with regards to anastomotic leak rate
3.7% vs 2.1% Fa-Si-Oen et al performed a well-designed
mul-ticenter randomized controlled trial published in 2005.(35)
Left-sided colonic resections accounted for approximately half of the
procedures This was distinctive, given the current thinking that
right-sided anastomosis are generally safe No significant differ-ence in wound infection or anastomotic leak was detected, but the method of determining a wound infection was performed incor-rectly in 65 patients which might have therefore affected the valid-ity of the results
Bucher et al published a randomized control study in 2005 which again compared the outcome of patients who underwent left-sided colorectal surgery with or without mechanical bowel prep.(36) 153 patients were randomized into mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) with polyethylene glycol vs no prep The overall rate of abdominal infectious complications was 22% in the prepped group vs 8% in the unprepped Anastomotic leak occurred in 6% in the prepped group vs 1% Interestingly hospital stay was longer for patient who had MBP, 14.9 days vs 9.9 in the nonprepped This was
a multicenter trial which the authors agree may partially bias the results The conclusion was that left-sided colorectal surgery could
be performed safely without MBP and that MBP might have a nega-tive impact on the complication rate and hospital stay.(Table 2.3) Additional evidence against the use of mechanical bowel prep has arisen from the literature regarding urgent surgery for trau-matic colon injuries A retrospective review by Conrad et al was performed in 2000 which evaluated 145 patients with penetrat-ing colon injuries.(33) Two separate time periods were com-pared, the latter of which included a significantly larger number
of primary repairs compared to proximal diversions The colonic injuries were distributed equally between the right and left colon Anastomosis of the unprepped bowel appeared safe with only one anastomotic leak in the study Other infectious complica-tions showed no statistical difference between the two periods The main focus of this study was to evaluate the safety of primary anastomosis vs fecal diversion; however it also revealed the safety
of an anastomosis in unprepped bowel
A Cochrane review was performed in 2004 as a meta-analysis
to analyze the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mechanical bowel preparation for morbidity and mortality rates in elective colorectal surgery.(39) Out of 1159 patients with anastomoses, 576
Table 2.3 Mechanical Bowel Prep Randomized Controlled Trials.
Patients 415 250 329 153 267 Patients
(MBP/no MBP) 187/193 125/125 164/165 78/75 138/129 Mean age
(MBP/no MBP) 68/68 68/70 68/68 63/63 61/64 Cancer %
(MBP/no MBP) 78/78 90/92 75/88 32/28 46/55
L colon surgery %
(MBP/no MBP) 68/72 48/58 89/85 100/100 45/47 Type of prep PEG PEG NaPO4 PEG PEG Anastomotic leak %
(MBP/no MBP) 3.7/2.1 (NS) 5.6/4.8 (NS) 0.6/1.2 (NS) 6/1 (NS) 4/2 (NS) Wound infection %
(MBP/no MBP) 6.4/5.7 (NS) 7.2/5.6 (NS) 9.8/6.1 (NS) 13/4 (NS) 4/2 (NS) Intraabdominal abscess %
(MBP/no MBP) 1.1/1 (NS) Not given 0.6/0.6 (NS) 1/3 (NS) 2/3 (NS)
Trang 10received mechanical bowel prep and 583 underwent no prep There
was no difference in anastomotic leak rates for low anterior
resec-tion (12.5 vs 12%), or colonic surgery (1.2 vs 6%) in patients with
or without MBP Anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower
overall without MBP (5.5 vs 2.9%) Wound infection, peritonitis,
reoperation, mortality, and extra abdominal complications were
similar between groups The authors’ conclusion was no
convinc-ing evidence exists that MBP is associated with reduced rates of
anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery and that MBP
may be associated with an increased rate of anastomotic leakage
and wound complications No definitive conclusion on
compli-cation rates was possible due to the clinical heterogeneity of trial
inclusion criteria, poor reporting of concealment and allocation,
potential performance biases, and failure-to-treat analyses.(39)
One other important consideration when evaluating MBP is
the patient’s experience A 2007 study from Sweden performed by
Jung et al evaluated 105 patients who underwent elective colon
surgery.(40) 60 patients received MBP with half receiving
poly-ethylene glycol and the remainder receiving sodium phosphate
52% in the MBP group required assistance via hospital staff or a
relative with the prep Only 30% of the MBP group would
con-sider undergoing the same preoperative procedure There was no
significant difference in postoperative pain and nausea; however,
patients in the no MBP group had more pain on postoperative
day #4 This was thought to be due to patient’s regaining bowel
function earlier compared to the no MBP group
Despite the growing evidence against MBP, there are
sev-eral benefits unrelated to the risk of infection A prepped colon
is easier to palpate and manipulate, and allows the surgeon to
identify smaller tumors and perform intraoperative
colonos-copy if required During laparoscolonos-copy, it may reduce the risk of
traumatic bowel injury of an otherwise heavy, fecal loaded colon
being manipulated by relatively traumatic laparoscopic grasping
instruments However, the overall data from randomized
tri-als and meta-analyses clearly show the safety of performing an
anastomosis in unprepared bowel and the lack of benefit of MBP
toward infectious complications
ReFeRences
1 Smith RL, Bohl JK, McElearney ST et al Wound
infec-tion after elective colorectal resecinfec-tion Ann Surg 2004; 239:
599–605
2 National Academy of Science NRC Postoperative wound
infections: the influence of ultraviolet irradiation of the
operating room and of various other factors Ann Surg 1964;
160: 1–132
3 Bratzler DW, Houck PM Antimicrobial prophylaxis for
surgery: An advisory statement from the National Surgical
Infection Prevention Project CID 2004; 38: 1706–15
4 Forse RA, Karam B, MacLean LD, Christou NV Antibiotic
prophylaxis for surgery in morbidly obese patients Surgery
1989; 106: 750–6
5 Perncevich E, Sands K, Cosgrove S et al Health and
eco-nomic impact of surgical site infections diagnosed after
hos-pital discharge Emerg Infect Dis 2003; 9: 196–203
6 Garlock JH, Seley GP The use of sulfanilamide in surgery of the
colon and rectum A preliminary report Surgery 1939; 5: 787
7 Dearing WH, Needham GM The effect of terramycin on the intestinal bacterial flora of patients being prepared for intes-tinal surgery Proc Staff Meet Mayo Clin 1951; 26(3): 49–52
8 Poth EJ The role of intestinal antisepsis in the preoperative preparation of the colon Surgery 1960; 47: 1018–28
9 Clarke JS, Condon RE, Bartlett JG et al Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce septic complications of colon operations: results of prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study Ann Surg 1977; 186: 151
10 Bartlett JG, Condon RE, Gorbach SL et al Veterans admin-istration cooperative study on bowel preparation for elective colorectal operations: impact of oral antibiotic regimen on colonic flora, wound irrigation cultures and bacteriology of septic complications Ann Surg 1978; 188(2): 249–54
11 Condon RE, Bartlett JG, Nichols RL et al Preoperative pro-phylactic cephalothin fails to control septic complications
of colorectal operations: results of controlled clinical trial
A Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Am J Surg 1979; 137: 68
12 Polk HC, Zeppa R, Warren WD Surgical significance of dif-ferentiation between acute and chronic pancreatic collec-tions Ann Surg 1969; 169(3): 444–6
13 Song F, Glenny A Antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Br J Surg 1998; 85: 1232–41
14 Periti P, Mazzei T, Tonelli F Single-dose cefotetan vs mul-tiple-dose cefoxitin antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery Results of a prospective, multicenter, randomized study Dis Colon Rectum 1989; 32(2): 121–7
15 Skipper D, Karran SJ A randomized prospective study to compare cefotetan with cefuroxime plus metronidazole as prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery J Hosp Infect 1992; 21(1): 73–7
16 Zanella E, Rulli F A multicenter randomized trial of prophy-laxis with intravenous cefepime + metronidazole or ceftri-axone + metronidazole in colorectal surgery The 230 Study Group J Chemother 2000; 12(1): 63–71
17 Mosimann F, Cornu P Are enemas given before abdominal operations useful? A prospective randomised trail Eur J Surg 1998; 164(7): 527–30
18 Hall C, Curran F, Burdon DW, Keighley MR A randomized trial to compare amoxycillin/clavulanate with metronidazole plus gentamicin in prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery
J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 24 (Suppl B): 195–202
19 Corman M, Robertson W, Lewis T et al A controlled clinical trial Cefuroxime, metronidazole, and cefoxitin as prophylac-tic therapy for colorectal surgery Complications in Surgery 1993; 12: 37–40
20 Condon RE, Bartlett JG, Greenlee H et al Efficacy of oral and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal operations Arch Surg 1983; 118(4): 496–502
21 Coppa GF, Eng K, Gouge TH, Ranson JH, Localio SA Parenteral
and oral antibiotics in elective colon and rectal surgery A pro-spective, randomized trial Am J Surg 1983; 145(1): 62–5
22 Portnoy J, Kagan E, Gordon PH, Mendelson J Prophylactic antibiotics in elective colorectal surgery Dis Colon Rectum 1983; 26(5): 310–13