The use of mechanical bowel preparation in pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To compare mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) using oral magnesium citrate with sodium phosphate enema to sodium phosphate (NaP) enema alone during minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery. Methods: We conducted a single-blind, randomized controlled trial of MBP versus NaP in women undergoing minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery. The primary outcome was intraoperative quality of the surgical field. Secondary outcomes included surgeon assessment of bowel handling and patient-reported tolerability symptoms. Results: One hundred fifty-three participants were enrolled; 148 completed the study (71 MBP and 77 NaP). Patient demographics, clinical and intraoperative characteristics were similar. Completion of assigned bowel preparation was similar between MBP (97.2%) and NaP (97.4%). The MBP group found the preparation more difficult (P<0.01) and reported more overall discomfort and negative preoperative side effects (all P≤0.01). Quality of surgical field at initial port placement was excellent/good in 80.0% of the MBP group compared with 62.3% in the NaP group (P=0.02). This difference was not maintained by the conclusion of surgery (P=0.18). Similar results were seen in the intent-to-treat population. Surgeons accurately guessed preparation 65.7% of the time for MBP versus 41.6% for NaP (P=0.36). At 2 weeks postoperatively, both reported a median time for return of bowel function of 3.0 (2.0–4.0) days. Conclusions: Mechanical bowel preparation with oral magnesium citrate before minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery offered initial improvement in the quality of surgical field, but this benefit was not sustained. It was associated with an increase in patient discomfort preoperatively, but did not seem to impact postoperative return of bowel function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Six trials with a total of 695 women evaluated POP surgery with or without bowel preparation.
“POP surgery with or without bowel preparation: six trials with a total of 695 women (Adelowo 2017; Ballard 2014; Deng 2019; Estanol 2011; Liu 2020; Sassani 2020).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Adelowo 2017
The Materials and Methods identify Adelowo 2017 as a randomized trial of prolapse surgery comparing mechanical bowel preparation with a sodium-phosphate enema, so it fits the cited group of trials in that respect. But the Discussion explicitly says there was no group receiving no bowel preparation: both arms received some form of preparation. The six-trial, 695-woman total is a collective figure, not a result this individual paper establishes. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery
Güenaga, K. F., Matos, D., & Wille-Jørgensen, P. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001544.pub4 · Cited by 925 · see citing works
Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery
Bucher, P. (2004) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.139.12.1359 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery
Oliveira, L. C. C., Wexner, S. D., Daniel, N., DeMarta, D., Weiss, E. G., Nogueras, J. J., & Bernstein, M. (1997) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1007/bf02055384 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Colon preparation and surgical site infection
Fry, D. E. (2011) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.08.038 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Preoperative bowel preparation
Solla, J. A., & Rothenberger, D. A. (1990) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1007/bf02055549 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Muzii, L., Bellati, F., Zullo, M. A., Manci, N., Angioli, R., & Panici, P. B. (2006) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.08.049 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Yang, L. C., Arden, D., Lee, T. T. M., Mansuria, S., Broach, A., D’Ambrosio, L., & Guido, R. S. (2010) · Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.10.007 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Bowel Preparation Before Vaginal Prolapse Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Ballard, A. C., Parker-Autry, C. Y., Markland, A. D., Varner, R. E., Huisingh, C., & Richter, H. E. (2014) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000000081 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Mechanical bowel preparation in gynaecological surgery--are we doing more harm than good?
Botha, M. H. (2007) · PubMed · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery
Shahid, U., Haya, N., Baessler, K., Christmann-Schmid, C., Yeung, E., Chen, Z., & Maher, C. (2025) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013105.pub2 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Adelowo, A. O., Hacker, M. R., Modest, A. M., Apostolis, C. A., Disciullo, A. J., Hanaway, K. J., Elkadry, E. E., Rosenblatt, P. L., Rogers, K. J., & Hota, L. S.
- Affiliations
- Mount Auburn Hospital (US)
- From the *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston; †Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reliant Medical Group, Worcester; ‡Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston; §Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, MA
- Corresponding author
- Adelowo, Amos O.
- Hacker, Michele R.
- Modest, Anna M.
- Venue
- Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-7
- ISSN
- 2151-8378 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5161559
- OpenAlex
- W2545664681
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Urogynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001102)
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025758)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
- Keywords
- mechanical bowel preparation, sodium phosphate enema, surgical field quality, patient tolerability, bowel function recovery, preoperative bowel preparation
- MeSH terms
- Cathartics, Enema, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Organometallic Compounds, Laparoscopy, Phosphates, Postoperative Period, Preoperative Care, Single-Blind Method, Pelvic Floor, Citric Acid, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Robotic Surgical Procedures
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