BACKGROUND: Growing evidence demonstrates minimal impact of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on reducing postoperative complications following elective colectomy. This study investigated the necessity of MBP prior to elective colonic resection.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing the effects of MBP with no preparation before elective colectomy, up until May 26, 2023. Surgical-related outcomes were compiled and subsequently analyzed. The primary outcomes included the incidence of anastomosis leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI), analyzed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3).
RESULTS: The analysis included 14 studies, comprising seven RCTs with 5146 participants. Demographic information was consistent across groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of AL ((P = 0.43, OR = 1.16, 95% CI (0.80, 1.68), I2 = 0%) or SSI (P = 0.47, OR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.73, 1.96), I2 = 0%), nor were there significant differences in other outcomes. Subgroup analysis on oral antibiotic use showed no significant changes in results. However, in cases of right colectomy, the group without preparation showed a significantly lower incidence of SSI (P = 0.01, OR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.86), I2 = 1%). No significant differences were found in other subgroup analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence robustly indicates that MBP before elective colectomy does not confer significant benefits in reducing postoperative complications. Therefore, it is justified to forego MBP prior to elective colectomy, irrespective of tumor location.

Although rare, colo-renal fistulas pose diagnostic challenges due to their varied presentations and etiologies. Here, we present a unique case of a woman with recurrent pyelonephritis, severe anemia, and unintended weight loss, who was eventually diagnosed with a colo-renal fistula. Delayed imaging following intraoperative fluoroscopy revealed the abnormal connection between the colon and upper urinary tract. The patient underwent nephrectomy and colon resection. This case report emphasizes the need for suspicion in diagnosing such fistulas and highlights their varied management. This case adds to the literature by illustrating an unusual presentation and underscores the complexity of diagnosis and treatment.

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most severe complications following colorectal cancer surgery and is associated with increased short and long term mortality. The literature is conflicting regarding increased risk of recurrence after AL. The aim of this study was to systematically review the impact of anastomotic leakage on the risk of local or distant recurrence and overall survival, cancer specific survival, and disease-free survival.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, CINHAL, and The Cochrane Library was performed and meta-analyses were performed on all outcomes including analysis based on time-to-event data.
A total of eighteen cohort studies, including 69,047 patients whereof 2,555 patients had anastomotic leakage, were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant effects of anastomotic leakage on local recurrence (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84-1.59) or distant recurrence (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.52-3.96). Anastomotic leakage decreased overall survival (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.94), disease free survival (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89), and cancer specific survival (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97). A time-to-event analysis was conducted on available data and the results were congruent with the frequency analyses.
Anastomotic leakage following colonic resections is significantly associated with impaired overall survival, disease free survival and cancer specific survival. The study did not show any statistically significant association between anastomotic leakage and recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Diverticulitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in western population. Colonic resection is recommended by international guidelines as a routinely used technique for purulent diverticulitis. Laparoscopic lavage was introduced as a non-resection alternative. The studies available so far have shown contradictory results. This meta-analysis aims to compare laparoscopic lavage versus colonic resection in patients with Hinchey Ⅲ-Ⅳ diverticulitis.
METHODS: We did a systematic review of articles published before March 20, 2019, with no language restriction by searching PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE databases, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases. We included all RCTs and cohort studies comparing outcomes between patients with Hinchey Ⅲ-Ⅳ diverticulitis undergoing laparoscopic lavage versus colonic resection. Important outcomes were mortality, complications, length of stay, readmission and reoperation rates. We combined data to assess the outcomes using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.
RESULTS: A total of 569 patients with diverticulitis of which more than 80% were Hinchey Ⅲ were enrolled from 3 RCTs and 5 cohort studies. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with shorter operative time (WMD -78.9, 95%CI -100.58 to -57.11, P < 0.0001) and total postoperative hospital stay (WMD -7.62, 95%CI -11.60 to -3.63, P = 0.0002) but a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess (OR 2.69, 95%CI 1.39 to 5.21, P = 0.0032) and secondary peritonitis (OR 5.30, 95%CI 1.91 to 14.73, P = 0.0014).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic lavage for patients with Hinchey Ⅲ to Ⅳ diverticulitis does provide similar mortality, shorter operative time and hospital stay. However, the evidence so far suggests that it might be inadequate for sepsis control and may result in more unplanned reoperations. Further studies are needed to standardize the formal indication for laparoscopic lavage.