Skip to Main Content (Press Enter)

Logo UNISR
  • ×
  • Home
  • People
  • Outputs
  • Organizations
  • Expertise & Skills

UNIFIND
Logo UNISR

|

UNIFIND

unisr.it
  • ×
  • Home
  • People
  • Outputs
  • Organizations
  • Expertise & Skills
  1. Outputs

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

Academic Article
Publication Date:
2024
Short description:
Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort / Catarci, M., Guadagni, S., Masedu, F., Ruffo, G., Viola, M.G., Borghi, F., Garulli, G., Pirozzi, F., Delrio, P., De Luca, R., Baldazzi, G., Scatizzi, M., Elmore, U., Puccetti, F.. - 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.
Iris type:
1.1 Articolo in rivista
List of contributors:
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
Authors of the University:
ELMORE UGO
PUCCETTI FRANCESCO
Handle:
https://iris.unisr.it/handle/20.500.11768/163877
Full Text:
https://iris.unisr.it//retrieve/handle/20.500.11768/163877/221805/s00384-024-04627-6.pdf
Published in:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
Journal
  • Overview

Overview

URL

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00384-024-04627-6
  • Use of cookies

Powered by VIVO | Designed by Cineca | 26.7.2.0