Ann Surg Treat Res.  2022 Aug;103(2):96-103. 10.4174/astr.2022.103.2.96.

The risk of surgical site infection of oral sulfate tablet versus sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation in colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial

• Park SS
• Park SC
• Lee DE
• Lee DW
• Yu K
• Park HC
• Hong CW
• Sohn DK
• Han KS
• Kim B
• Kim BC
• Oh JH

• KMID: 2532364
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2022.103.2.96

Abstract

Purpose
Oral sulfate tablets are abundantly used for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, their efficiency and safety for bowel preparation before colorectal surgery remain ill-defined. Herein, we aimed to compare the surgical site infection rates and efficiency between oral sulfate tablets and sodium picosulfate.
Methods
We designed a prospective, randomized, phase 2 clinical trial. Patients with colorectal cancer aged 19–75 years who underwent elective bowel resection and anastomosis by minimally invasive surgery were administered oral sulfate tablets or sodium picosulfate. Eighty-three cases were analyzed from October 2020 to December 2021. Surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery was considered the primary endpoint. Postoperative morbidities, the degree of bowel cleansing, and tolerability were the secondary endpoints.
Results
Surgical site infection was detected in 1 patient (2.5%) in the oral sulfate tablet group and 2 patients (4.7%) in the sodium picosulfate group, indicating no significant difference between the 2 groups. Postoperative morbidity and the degree of bowel cleansing bore no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, none of the investigated tolerability criteria, namely bloating, pain, nausea, vomiting, and discomfort, differed significantly between the 2 groups. The patients’ willingness to reuse the drug was also not significantly different between the 2 groups.
Conclusion
Although we could not establish the noninferiority of oral sulfate tablets to sodium picosulfate, we found no evidence suggesting that oral sulfate tablets are less safe or tolerable than sodium picosulfate in preoperative bowel preparation.

Keyword

Cathartics; Picosulfate sodium; Sulfates; Surgical wound infection; Tablets

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Study flowchart.

Reference

1. Nichols RL, Condon RE, Gorbach SL, Nyhus LM. Efficacy of preoperative antimicrobial preparation of the bowel. Ann Surg. 1972; 176:227–232. PMID: 4562009.

2. Scarborough JE, Mantyh CR, Sun Z, Migaly J. Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces incisional surgical site infection and anastomotic leak rates after elective colorectal resection: an analysis of colectomy-targeted ACS NSQIP. Ann Surg. 2015; 262:331–337. PMID: 26083870.

3. Kiran RP, Murray AC, Chiuzan C, Estrada D, Forde K. Combined preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics significantly reduces surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and ileus after colorectal surgery. Ann Surg. 2015; 262:416–425. PMID: 26258310.

4. Kang BM, Lee KY, Park SJ, Lee SH. Mechanical bowel preparation and prophylactic antibiotic administration in colorectal surgery: a survey of the current status in Korea. Ann Coloproctol. 2013; 29:160–166. PMID: 24032117.

5. Slim K, Vicaut E, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of colorectal surgery with or without mechanical bowel preparation. Br J Surg. 2004; 91:1125–1130. PMID: 15449262.

6. Kim YS, Hong CW, Kim BC, Han KS, Park JW, Choi HS, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing reduced-volume oral picosulfate and a prepackaged low-residue diet with 4-liter PEG solution for bowel preparation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014; 57:522–528. PMID: 24608310.

7. Yang HJ, Park DI, Park SK, Lee CK, Kim HJ, Oh SJ, et al. Novel sulfate tablet PBK-1701TC versus oral sulfate solution for colon cleansing: a randomized phase 3 trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 35:29–36. PMID: 31396995.

8. Ikeda A, Konishi T, Ueno M, Fukunaga Y, Nagayama S, Fujimoto Y, et al. Randomized clinical trial of oral and intravenous versus intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Br J Surg. 2016; 103:1608–1615. PMID: 27550722.

9. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999; 20:250–278. PMID: 10219875.

10. Tajima Y, Ishida H, Yamamoto A, Chika N, Onozawa H, Matsuzawa T, et al. 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. Surg Today. 2016; 46:735–740. PMID: 26319220.

11. Koskenvuo L, Lehtonen T, Koskensalo S, Rasilainen S, Klintrup K, Ehrlich A, et al. Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus no bowel preparation for elective colectomy (MOBILE): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, single-blinded trial. Lancet. 2019; 394:840–848. PMID: 31402112.

12. Golub RW, Kerner BA, Wise WE Jr, Meesig DM, Hartmann RF, Khanduja KS, et al. Colonoscopic bowel preparations: which one?: a blinded, prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995; 38:594–599. PMID: 7774469.

13. Kastenberg D, Chasen R, Choudhary C, Riff D, Steinberg S, Weiss E, et al. Efficacy and safety of sodium phosphate tablets compared with PEG solution in colon cleansing: two identically designed, randomized, controlled, parallel group, multicenter phase III trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 54:705–713. PMID: 11726845.

14. Yoshioka K, Connolly AB, Ogunbiyi OA, Hasegawa H, Morton DG, Keighley MR. Randomized trial of oral sodium phosphate compared with oral sodium picosulphate (Picolax) for elective colorectal surgery and colonoscopy. Dig Surg. 2000; 17:66–70. PMID: 10720834.

15. An SH, Youn MK, Kim IY. Effect of laparoscopic surgery on the risk for surgical site infections in colorectal resection: results from the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service Database. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2020; 98:315–323. PMID: 32528911.