The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Bowel preparation with oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution vs. no preparation in elective open colorectal surgery: Prospective, randomized study
Abstract
PURPOSE: Efficient mechanical bowel preparation has been regarded as essential in preventing postoperative complications of colorectal surgery, but the necessity of bowel cleansing has been disputed recently. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of elective colorectal surgery in patients with or without bowel preparation. METHODS: Altogether, 267 consecutive adult patients admitted for elective open colorectal surgery were randomly assigned either to the bowel preparation group with oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (138 patients) or no preparation group (129 patients). Patients who were unable to drink polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution, those who had had bowel preparation within the previous week, and patients not needing opening of the bowel were excluded. Routine colorectal surgery was undertaken, and infectious and other complications were registered daily. Late complications were checked up one to two months after surgery. RESULTS: No deaths were recorded, and 76 percent of the patients in the polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution group and 81 percent in the unprepared group recovered without complication. Anastomotic leaks occurred in 4 percent of the polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution patients and in 2 percent of the other cases, and other surgical site infections occurred in 6 and 5 percent, respectively. None of the differences was statistically significant. There was no difference in restoration of bowel function. The median postoperative stay was eight days in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative bowel preparation seems to offer no benefit in elective open colorectal surgery.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols: Time to change practice?
Melnyk, M., Casey, R. G., Black, P., & Koupparis, A. J. (2011) · Canadian Urological Association Journal · doi:10.5489/cuaj.11002 · Cited by 384
Slim, K., Vicaut, E., Panis, Y., & Chipponi, J. (2004) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.4651 · Cited by 337
Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery
Haya, N., Feiner, B., Baessler, K., Christmann-Schmid, C., & Maher, C. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013105 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Miettinen, P. J. R., Laitinen, S. T., Mäkelä, J. T., & Pääkkönen, M. E.
- Venue
- Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 669-675
- ISSN
- 0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976553128
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bowel preparation with oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution vs. no preparation in elective open colorectal surgery: Prospective, randomized study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/bf02235585
- The paper
- Miettinen, P. J. R., Laitinen, S. T., Mäkelä, J. T., & Pääkkönen, M. E. (2000). Bowel preparation with oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution vs. no preparation in elective open colorectal surgery: Prospective, randomized study. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02235585
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.