Skip to Main Content (Press Enter)

Logo UNISR
  • ×
  • Home
  • Persone
  • Pubblicazioni
  • Facoltà
  • Ambiti Di Ricerca

UNIFIND
Logo UNISR

|

UNIFIND

unisr.it
  • ×
  • Home
  • Persone
  • Pubblicazioni
  • Facoltà
  • Ambiti Di Ricerca
  1. Pubblicazioni

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort

Articolo
Data di Pubblicazione:
2024
Citazione:
Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort / Catarci, Marco; Guadagni, Stefano; Masedu, Francesco; Ruffo, Giacomo; Viola, Massimo Giuseppe; Borghi, Felice; Garulli, Gianluca; Pirozzi, Felice; Delrio, Paolo; De Luca, Raffaele; Baldazzi, Gianandrea; Scatizzi, Marco; Elmore, Ugo; Puccetti, Francesco. - In: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE. - ISSN 0179-1958. - 39:1(2024). [10.1007/s00384-024-04627-6]
Abstract:
Background Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation.Methods A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).Results Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008).Conclusions MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.
Tipologia CRIS:
1.1 Articolo in rivista
Elenco autori:
Catarci, Marco; Guadagni, Stefano; Masedu, Francesco; Ruffo, Giacomo; Viola, Massimo Giuseppe; Borghi, Felice; Garulli, Gianluca; Pirozzi, Felice; Delrio, Paolo; De Luca, Raffaele; Baldazzi, Gianandrea; Scatizzi, Marco; Elmore, Ugo; Puccetti, Francesco
Autori di Ateneo:
ELMORE UGO
PUCCETTI FRANCESCO
Link alla scheda completa:
https://iris.unisr.it/handle/20.500.11768/163877
Link al Full Text:
https://iris.unisr.it//retrieve/handle/20.500.11768/163877/221805/s00384-024-04627-6.pdf
Pubblicato in:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
Journal
  • Dati Generali

Dati Generali

URL

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00384-024-04627-6
  • Utilizzo dei cookie

Realizzato con VIVO | Designed by Cineca | 26.5.1.0