Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Surg Today. 2016 Jun;46(6):735-40. doi: 10.1007/s00595-015-1239-7. Epub 2015 Aug 30.

Comparison of the risk of surgical site infection and feasibility of surgery between sennoside versus polyethylene glycol as a mechanical bowel preparation of elective colon cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

Author information

1
Department of General and Digestive Tract Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981 Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan. tajifeyfey@yahoo.co.jp.
2
Department of General and Digestive Tract Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981 Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To validate the usefulness of sennoside as a substitute for polyethylene glycol (PEG) as a mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colon cancer surgery.

METHODS:

We performed a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial comparing the use of sennoside and PEG in MBP for elective colon cancer surgery, in terms of the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and the feasibility of surgery.

RESULTS:

The overall incidence of SSIs was 2.9 % in the sennoside group (n = 68) and 6.3 % in the PEG group (n = 63) with a difference of 3.4 % (95 % confidence interval 6.9-10.6 %). The intraoperative spillage of the stool materials in the sennoside and PEG groups was 4.4 and 3.1 %, respectively, and was not significantly different (p = 0.71), even the upstream stool consistency, was more frequently observed to be non-stool in the PEG group (65.1 vs. 30.9 %, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION:

MBP with sennoside could be a substitution for PEG in elective colon cancer surgery.

KEYWORDS:

Colon cancer; Mechanical bowel preparation; Polyethylene glycol; Sennoside

PMID:
26319220
DOI:
10.1007/s00595-015-1239-7
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center