Cited by 14Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryPelvic floor disorders treatmentsSurgical site infection prevention

The use of mechanical bowel preparation in pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Adelowo, Amos O., Hacker, Michele R., Modest, Anna M., Apostolis, Costa A., Disciullo, Anthony J., Hanaway, Katherine J., Elkadry, Eman E., Rosenblatt, Peter L. +2 more·2017·Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/spv.0000000000000346

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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)
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
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