Abstract
Purpose:
Recent updates from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicated that mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation (MOABP) can reduce post-operative surgical site infection (SSI), but its effect on anastomotic leakage (AL) remains controversial. This study systematically reviews and conduct trial sequential analysis (TSA) of the RCTs to determine whether MOABP can reduce SSI and AL after colorectal surgery.
Methods:
We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for RCTs comparing MOABP to mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone, from database inception to February 1, 2025. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were conducted using RevMan 5.3.1 software. TSA was performed with TSA software to evaluate the robustness of the primary outcomes.
Results:
A total of 17 RCTs involving 4,633 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the MOABP significantly reduced SSI (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.37–0.54, p < 0.00001, I2 = 33%, moderate-quality evidence) and AL (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.30–0.57, p < 0.00001, I2 = 3%, moderate-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses indicated reductions in superficial SSI, deep SSI, space and organ infection. TSA further confirmed the robustness of these findings.
Conclusion:
MOABP can effectively reduce the risk of SSI and AL in colorectal surgery. Pre-operative bowel preparation should consider incorporating oral antibiotics to optimize surgical outcomes.
Systematic Review Registration:
Background
Colorectal surgery represents a fundamental procedure in gastrointestinal operations, Yet post-operative surgical site infection (SSI) remain frequent complications, affecting approximately one-third of patients undergoing colorectal procedures (). This clinical challenge persists despite colorectal cancer ranking as the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, driving a substantial volume of colorectal resections annually (, ). Moreover, surgical intervention constitutes an essential treatment modality for refractory inflammatory bowel diseases. Current pre-operative protocols typically involve MBP utilizing oral laxatives or enema administration. Nevertheless, considerable controversy persists regarding the adjunctive use of pre-operative oral antibiotics, with no established consensus on optimal preparation regimens (). Despite the ongoing debate, several guidelines have already recommended the use of oral antibiotics in combination with mechanical bowel preparation (, ). Recent years have witnessed renewed research interest in this domain, evidenced by multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (–). Emerging evidence suggests that mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation (MOABP) may confer superior SSI risk reduction compared to mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) monotherapy (–). However, contrary findings from a 2019 RCT failed to demonstrate significant benefits of MOABP (), a conclusion subsequently corroborated by studies conducted by Lee H et al. () and Catarci M et al. (). Similarly, contrasting evidence exists regarding its impact on anastomotic leakage (AL). While Koskenvuo L et al. () reported a protective association between MOABP and AL risk, subsequent investigations by Frountzas M et al. () and Lei P et al. () found no statistically significant differences. Notably, the current evidence base remains constrained by the absence of large-scale multicenter RCTs definitively establishing MOABP‘s efficacy in SSI and AL prevention following colorectal surgery. Given the Recent publication of several high-quality RCTs, we conducted this updated meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of MOABP and provide evidence-based guidance for clinical decision-making.
Methods
Literature search strategy
Two researchers independently conducted systematic searches in PubMed, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, and Web of Science databases, as well as other sources from their inception to February 1, 2025. The search strategy combined Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free-text words using Boolean operators “OR” and “AND”. Key search terms included: Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Colorectal Neoplasm*, Colorectal Tumor*, Colorectal Cancer*, Colorectal Carcinoma*, Rectum Neoplasm*, Rectal Tumor*, Rectal Cancer*, Rectum Cancer*, Rectal Neoplasm*, mechanical bowel preparation, and bowel preparation. The complete search strategy is provided in Supplementary material 1. Non-English publications were excluded. Additionally, we manually screened the reference lists of all included studies to identify any other potentially relevant publications. Following the PRISMA statement, we performed a meta-analysis of the retrieved literature, with all search processes and study selection procedures independently verified by both investigators to ensure accuracy.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: the study eligibility was defined according to the PICOS framework: population: patients undergoing colorectal resection for colorectal neoplasms or inflammatory bowel disease. Intervention: mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation. Comparison: mechanical bowel preparation alone. Outcomes: the primary outcome was surgical site infection. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leakage rates and analyses of risk factors associated with SSI development. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Exclusion criteria: single-arm studies, review articles, case reports, letters to the editor, non-English publications, and studies with incomplete or inaccessible data were excluded. The eligibility assessment was independently performed by two investigators to ensure objectivity, with discrepancies resolved through consensus discussion.
Quality assessment of included studies
The methodological quality of the RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) for RCT. All domains were assessed, including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential sources of bias. Two researchers independently performed the quality assessment. To ensure objectivity, discrepancies in evaluations were resolved through consultation with a third investigator until consensus was achieved. The risk of bias for each domain was categorized as “low,” “high,” or “some concerns” based on pre-defined criteria (Supplementary material 2). Subsequently, the overall risk of bias for each individual study was classified into three levels: (1) Low risk: the study was rated as low risk across all five domains; (2) Some concerns: the study was rated as raising some concerns in at least one domain, but with no domain rated as high risk; (3) High risk: the study was rated as high risk in at least one domain, or there were multiple domains with some concerns whose cumulative effect could significantly compromise the reliability of the results.
Data extraction
All retrieved records were managed using Zotero reference management software. Two researchers independently performed a three-stage screening process: initial title and abstract review, full-text assessment, and final eligibility confirmation based on pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The following data were systematically extracted using standardized forms: i) Study characteristics: First author, publication year, country of origin, sample sizes of intervention and control groups. ii) Clinical outcomes: incidence of surgical site infections (categorized as superficial SSI, deep SSI, or organ/space Infection), AL. iii) Risk factor analysis: documented variables associated with post-operative infectious complications. All literature screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers, who selected studies and extracted data according to the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any disagreements arising during the assessment were first resolved through discussion between the two researchers. If consensus could not be reached, a third senior researcher was consulted for arbitration.
Study outcomes
The primary outcomes were the incidence of SSI, classified according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria as superficial incisional, deep incisional, or organ/space infections. Secondary outcomes included AL rates and analyses of risk factors associated with SSI development.
Statistical analysis
Data synthesis and statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.3.1 (The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen) (). For dichotomous outcomes, pooled effects were estimated as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity across studies was quantified using the I2 statistic. A random-effects model was applied when I2 exceeded 50% (indicating substantial heterogeneity), whereas a fixed-effects model was utilized for I2 values below 50%. The statistical significance threshold was pre-defined as α = 0.05. In scenarios with significant heterogeneity (I2 >50%), subgroup analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of funnel plots. Prior to evaluating risk factors for surgical site infections, raw data were logarithmically transformed to derive the log (OR) and corresponding standard error (SE). Final pooled effect estimates were reported as OR with 95% CI. The quality of evidence for the outcomes was assessed using the GRADEpro GDT software (version 3.6).
Ethical statement
This meta-analysis utilized data from previously published studies, all of which had obtained ethical approval from their respective institutional review boards. As no new human or animal experiments were conducted, additional ethical approval was not required for this study. This study was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO international registry (Registration No. CRD420251008491).
Trial sequential analysis
TSA was conducted using dedicated software (version 0.9.5.10 Beta) to evaluate the robustness of primary outcomes. The type I error rate was pre-defined at 0.01, and the statistical power was set to 90% (). Event rates from control groups of eligible RCTs were extracted to calculate the pooled incidence of target outcomes in the control population. The relative risk reduction (RRR) was estimated under a low-bias assumption. Based on these parameters, the required sample size was computed to determine the minimum number of participants needed to achieve statistically conclusive results in the meta-analysis.
Outcomes
Study selection
A total of 3,054 records were initially identified through database searches. After removing 256 duplicates, 2,798 studies underwent title and abstract screening. Of these, 2,678 were excluded for the following reasons: 2,389 irrelevant titles, 25 meta-analyses, 45 review articles, 32 letters/comments, 18 single-arm studies, and 78 animal experiments. Full-text evaluation of the remaining 120 articles led to the exclusion of 75 studies: 22 for mismatched outcomes, eight for inconsistent interventions, 27 for non-RCT designs, and one unavailable full text. Ultimately, 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (–, –) met all eligibility criteria and were included for quantitative synthesis (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Study characteristics
Seventeen RCTs involving 4,633 patients were included in the meta-analysis, with 2,291 patients assigned to the MOABP group and 2,342 to the MBP group. Gender distribution was available for all studies except one by Clarke et al. (), which did not report sex-specific data. Geographically, six studies were conducted in Japan, with seven high-quality RCTs published since 2020. Six studies included patients undergoing colorectal surgery without restriction on disease type. The study by Uchino M et al. () enrolled patients diagnosed with Crohn‘s disease, while the remaining studies included patients with colorectal tumors. All surgical procedures were elective. All studies compared SSI rates between groups, revealing significant disparities: SSI incidence ranged from 2 to 18.25% in the MOABP group vs. 7.5 to 43.27% in the MBP group. Subgroup analyses were performed in 12 studies, categorizing infections as superficial SSI, deep SSI, or organ/space infection, while 13 studies reported AL rates of 1.01 to 5.78% in the MOABP group and 2 to 13.56% in the MBP group. Six studies further identified MBP alone as an independent risk factor for SSI. Detailed characteristics of the included studies, including population demographics and outcome metrics, are summarized in Table 1 and Supplementary material 3.
Table 1
| Author/year | Country | Gender (M/F) | Age | Sample size | SSI | AL | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOABP | MBP | MOABP | MBP | MOABP | MBP | MOABP | MBP | MOABP | MBP | ||
| Laura Koskenvuo () 2024 | Finland | 158/119 | 190/98 | 70 (62–75) | 69 (69–74) | 277 | 288 | 23 | 48 | 16 | 39 |
| Maximos Frountzas () 2024 | Greece | 118/85 | 701 ± 1 | 100 | 105 | 7 | 17 | 4 | 7 | ||
| Purun Lei () 2023 | China | 102/55 | 95/57 | 62 (54, 70) | 61 (54, 68) | 157 | 152 | 13 | 27 | 7 | 14 |
| Alberto Arezzo () 2021 | Italy | 53/47 | 56/48 | 70 (25, 95) | 100 | 104 | 3 | 14 | 10 | 8 | |
| Evgeny Rybakov () 2021 | Russia | 24/33 | 31/28 | 65 (59; 66) | 64 (59; 70) | 57 | 59 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 8 |
| G. Papp () 2021 | Hungary | 152/101 | 130/146 | 66.1 (12.1) | 66.5 (12.3) | 253 | 276 | 8 | 27 | 4 | 13 |
| H. M. Schardey () 2020 | Germany | 28/12 | 24/16 | 64.1 (65) | 64.58 (65) | 40 | 40 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 8 |
| MotoiUchino () 2019 | Japan | 115/48 | 128/34 | 38.51 ± 0.8 | 40.41 ± 3.4 | 126 | 126 | 23 | 27 | / | / |
| Nadeem Anjum () 2017 | China | 61/34 | 59/36 | 46.3± 14.4 | 45.2± 15.6 | 95 | 95 | 7 | 26 | / | / |
| A. Ikeda () 2016 | Japan | 141/114 | 141/115 | 65(27–93) | 62 (29–86) | 255 | 256 | 20 | 20 | 3 | 6 |
| Hiroaki Hata () 2016 | Japan | 153/136 | 175/115 | 67(60.5–75) | 67.5(60–75) | 289 | 290 | 21 | 37 | 5 | 6 |
| Sotaro Sadahiro () 2014 | Japan | 56/43 | 51/44 | 671 ± 1 | 661 ± 2 | 99 | 95 | 10 | 22 | 1 | 7 |
| Minako Kobayashi () 2007 | Japan | 154/88 | 137/105 | 67.9 (31–92) | 69.1 (46–95) | 242 | 242 | 17 | 26 | / | / |
| B.S. Reddy () 2007 | United Kingdom | 13/9 | 11/13 | 72.5(53–81) | 68.5(61–75) | 22 | 24 | 3 | 3 | / | / |
| Hideyuki Ishida () 2001 | Japan | 47/25 | 42/29 | 62 (37–87) | 65 (21–89) | 72 | 71 | 8 | 17 | 1 | 2 |
| D. M. Matheson () 1978 | United Kingdom | 28/23 | 35/24 | 64.7 | 63.2 | 51 | 59 | 9 | 25 | 0 | 7 |
| James.Clarke () 1977 | United States | / | / | 61.3 | 63.5 | 56 | 60 | 5 | 21 | 1 | 7 |
Baseline information for inclusion in the study.
MOABP, Mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation; MBP, Mechanical bowel preparation; SSI, Surgical site infection; AL, Anastomotic leakage.
Risk of bias assessment
The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Three studies were identified as having high-risk biases: Ikeda A et al. () demonstrated high risk of performance bias due to unblinded investigators and participants, along with unclear allocation concealment; Rybakov E () exhibited high risk of detection bias from unblinded outcome assessors; and Lei P () showed high risk of performance bias with unblinded investigators and participants. Nine studies (, , , , –) lacked sufficient description of allocation concealment, while nine studies (, , , , –) did not report whether outcome assessors were blinded. The remaining studies maintained low-risk profiles across all domains. Overall, the included studies met criteria for low risk of bias, indicating acceptable methodological quality (Figures 2, 3).
Figure 2
Figure 3
Assessment of evidence quality
The certainty of evidence for the study outcomes was rated as moderate to low. Factors contributing to the downgrading of the evidence level included: lack of allocation concealment and inadequate blinding, an insufficient number of studies included in the analysis, and an I2 value greater than 50%, indicating substantial heterogeneity (Figure 4).
Figure 4
Surgical site infection
Seventeen RCTs involving 4,633 patients (2,290 in the MOABP group and 2,343 in the MBP group) were analyzed. Post-operative SSI occurred in 180 (7.86%) patients in the MOABP group and 373 (15.91%) patients in the MBP group. Meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in SSI risk with MOABP (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.37–0.54, p < 0.00001; I2 = 33%; Figure 5). Funnel plot analysis revealed symmetrical distribution of studies, indicating minimal publication bias (Figure 6).
Figure 5
Figure 6
Anastomotic leakage
Thirteen studies involving 3,661 patients (1,806 in the MOABP group and 1,855 in the MBP group) systematically evaluated the incidence of AL following colorectal surgery. The analysis revealed 56 (3.1%) patients of anastomotic leakage in the MOABP group compared to 132 (7.1%) patients in the MBP group. Meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in AL rates favoring the MOABP protocol (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.30–0.57, p < 0.00001), with low heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 3%; Figure 7). Funnel plot evaluation showed symmetrical distribution of study outcomes, suggesting minimal publication bias in the included literature (Figure 8).
Figure 7
Figure 8
Subgroup analysis
Superficial SSI: nine studies involving 3,477 patients (1,724 in the MOABP group and 1,753 in the MBP group) evaluated post-operative superficial SSI rates. Superficial incisional infection occurred in 65 (3.8%) patients in the MOABP group and 121 patients (6.9%) in the MBP group. Meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference between groups (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.38–0.71, p < 0.0001), though substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies (I2 = 56%). Sensitivity analysis using a leave-one-out approach identified the study by Ikeda A et al. () as the primary source of heterogeneity. After excluding this study, the pooled effect estimate remained statistically significant (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.30–0.59, p < 0.0001) with no residual heterogeneity (I2 = 0%), confirming the robustness of the findings. Deep SSI: five studies involving 1,723 patients (851 in the MOABP group and 872 in the MBP group) evaluated the incidence of deep SSI following colorectal surgery. Deep incisional infection occurred in 10 (1.2%) patients in the MOABP group compared to 29 (3.3%) patients in the MBP group. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant reduction in deep SSI rates favoring the MOABP protocol (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.16–0.69, p = 0.003), with no observed heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 0%). Organ/space Infection: 12 studies involving 3,998 patients (1,978 in the MOABP group and 2020 in the MBP group) was conducted to evaluate the incidence of organ/space infection. The analysis revealed 72 (3.64%) patients of organ/space infection in the MOABP group compared to 121 (5.99%) patients in the MBP group. A statistically significant difference in organ/space Infection was observed between the two groups (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.43–0.79, p = 0.0005), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 22%) across studies. These findings suggest that MOABP demonstrates superior efficacy in reducing organ/space infection risk compared to MBP (Figure 9).
Figure 9
Risk factors for SSI
Six studies investigated risk factors for SSI, with meta-analysis demonstrating that MBP alone served as a risk factor for SSI. In contrast, the MOABP significantly reduced infection rates (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.26–0.62, p < 0.0001), though moderate heterogeneity was observed across studies (I2 = 58%; Figure 10). Sensitivity analysis using a leave-one-out approach identified the study by Rybakov E et al. () as the primary source of heterogeneity. Exclusion of this study yielded a consistent effect estimate (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.36–0.68, p < 0.0001) with substantially reduced heterogeneity (I2 = 24%), confirming the robustness of the association.
Figure 10
Trial sequential analysis
TSA was conducted to assess the conclusiveness of evidence for SSI and AL. The cumulative Z-curves for both outcomes crossed the pre-defined traditional significance boundaries, exceeded the TSA-adjusted monitoring thresholds, and surpassed the required sample size (Figures 11, 12). This indicates robust evidence with a low probability of type I or II errors, confirming that further studies are unlikely to alter the established conclusions.
Figure 11
Figure 12
Discussion
SSI following colorectal procedures remain a significant clinical concern, imposing substantial economic and psychological burdens on patients (). A Japanese study reported an SSI rate of approximately 10% after colorectal surgery (), while a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis demonstrated temporal trends: superficial and deep incisional infection rates declined from 5.9 and 3.3% in 2013 to 1.4 and 0.6% in 2020, respectively, though organ/space infection increased from 5.2 to 7.1% during this period (). Recent evidence indicates that risk factors for SSI after colorectal surgery have expanded beyond traditional patient demographics to include more modifiable perioperative variables. In addition to well-established factors such as diabetes and obesity, pre-operative nutritional status and hypoalbuminemia have also been confirmed to be significantly associated with SSI (–). To mitigate SSI risks, the World Health Organization endorses antibiotic-enhanced bowel preparation protocols (). Recent RCT have further demonstrated that oral antibiotics do not increase the risk of gut microbiota dysbiosis, with only one documented case of Clostridium difficile infection across these studies (). However, current practice in many regions still prioritizes MBP alone, with ongoing debate regarding the additive benefit of oral antibiotics. A large-scale Korean retrospective study controversially identified oral antibiotics as a protective factor against SSI while concluding no significant overall effect (). In contrast, investigations by Hansen RB et al. (37) and Yue Y et al. (38) demonstrated reduced SSI risks with MOABP, though these studies lacked granular subgroup analyses of superficial and deep SSI, organ/space infection, and associated risk factors. Notably, multiple RCTs are currently underway to further evaluate MOABP‘s efficacy (39, 40). This meta-analysis synthesizes evidence from 17 high-quality RCTs, including recently published trials, to systematically assess MOABP‘s impact. Our findings robustly support MOABP‘s superiority over MBP in reducing overall SSI rates after colorectal surgery. Subgroup analyses further revealed consistent benefits across infection subtypes: superficial SSI (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.38–0.71), deep SSI (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.16–0.69), and organ/space infections (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.30–0.57), all with statistical significance (p < 0.01). Crucially, our risk factor analysis confirmed MBP alone as a risk factor of SSI (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.26–0.62, p < 0.0001), underscoring the clinical imperative for antibiotic augmentation in bowel preparation protocols.
AL remains a frequent and severe complication following colorectal surgery, with reported incidence rates ranging from 3 to 24% (41–43). AL is associated with prolonged hospitalization, increased healthcare costs, reoperation risks, and elevated mortality. The role of pre-operative MOABP in mitigating AL remains contentious. While a retrospective study suggested MOABP reduces AL risk (44), and a prior meta-analysis reported its efficacy specifically for AL without impacting other complications (45), recent RCTs have yielded conflicting conclusions. Koskenvuo L et al. () observed reduced AL rates with MOABP, whereas studies by Frountzas M et al. (), Lei P et al. (), and Catarci M's propensity-matched analysis (46) demonstrated no significant differences. Our meta-analysis, synthesizing 13 RCTs involving 3,661 patients, identified 59 AL cases in the MOABP group vs. 136 in the MBP group, revealing a statistically significant risk reduction favoring MOABP (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.31–0.58, p < 0.0001, I2 = 5%). However, a critical limitation persists: none of the included studies stratified outcomes by anastomotic location, precluding subgroup analyses to evaluate site-specific AL risks. Given the well-documented anatomical and physiological differences between colonic and rectal anastomoses, future studies must systematically address this variable to refine pre-operative optimization strategies.
Trial sequential analysis, a methodological advancement addressing the inherent limitations of conventional meta-analyses (47, 48), was employed to validate the robustness of our findings. For both SSI and AL, the cumulative Z-curves surpassed three critical thresholds: i) traditional statistical significance, ii) TSA-adjusted monitoring boundaries, and iii) the required sample size. This tripartite confirmation indicates conclusive evidence with a < 5% probability of false-positive or false-negative conclusions, thereby solidifying the reliability of MOABP‘s protective effects. Notably, while our analysis demonstrates MOABP‘s efficacy in reducing AL risk (p < 0.0001), the current evidence base remains constrained by the absence of large-scale, multicenter RCT explicitly designed to evaluate anastomotic outcomes. Future studies must prioritize standardized protocols for anastomotic location documentation and intraoperative risk stratification to resolve lingering uncertainties.
Study limitations: first, inadequate allocation concealment and blinding in some of the included studies may have led to an overestimation of the effect size of MOABP. Second, considerable heterogeneity was observed among the studies in relation to superficial SSI, which could affect the stability of the pooled results. Moreover, inconsistencies in the oral antibiotic regimens used in the MOABP groups across the studies may limit the generalizability and clinical applicability of the findings. Finally, the lack of blinding in the study selection process may have introduced subjective bias, potentially reducing the reliability of the results.
Conclusion
MOABP significantly reduces the risk of SSI and AL following colorectal surgery. The inclusion of oral antibiotics in pre-operative bowel preparation is strongly recommended. Incorporating oral antibiotics into pre-operative bowel preparation may be a beneficial strategy.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
KLu: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Software, Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. XP: Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Formal analysis. FuZ: Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Formal analysis. FaZ: Writing – review & editing, Project administration. HY: Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. KLa: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2026.1788204/full#supplementary-material
References
1.
WickECVogelJDChurchJMRemziFFazioVW. Surgical site infections in a “high outlier” institution: are colorectal surgeons to blame?Dis Colon Rectum.(2009) 52:374–9. doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e31819a5e45
2.
SiegelRLWagleNSCercekASmithRAJemalA. Colorectal cancer statistics 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. (2023) 73:233–54. doi: 10.3322/caac.21772
3.
BaidounFElshiwyKElkeraieYMerjanehZKhoudariGSarminiMTet al. Colorectal cancer epidemiology: recent trends and impact on outcomes. Curr Drug Targets. (2021) 22:998–1009. doi: 10.2174/1389450121999201117115717
4.
WoodfieldJA-OCliffordKSchmidtBThompson-FawcettM. Has network meta-analysis resolved the controversies related to bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery?Color Dis. (2022) 24:1117–27. doi: 10.1111/codi.16194
5.
AntoniouSAHuoBTzanisAAKoutsiouroumpaOMavridisDBallaAet al. EAES, SAGES, and ESCP rapid guideline: bowel preparation for minimally invasive colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. (2023) 37:9001–12. s00464-023-10477-0. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10477-0
6.
MigalyJBaffordACFranconeTDGaertnerWBEskiciogluCBordeianouLet al. The American society of colon and rectal surgeons clinical practice guidelines for the use of bowel preparation in elective colon and rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. (2019) 62:3–8. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001238
7.
KoskenvuoLLunkkaPVarpePHyötyMSatokariRHaapamäkiCet al. Morbidity after mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics prior to rectal resection: the MOBILE2 randomized clinical trial [published correction appears in JAMA Surg. (2024) 159:722]; JAMA Surg. (2024) 159:606–14. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0184
8.
FrountzasMMichalopoulouVGeorgiouGKanataDMatiatouMKimpiziDet al. The impact of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics in colorectal cancer surgery (MECCA Study): a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Med. (2024) 13:1162. doi: 10.3390/jcm13041162
9.
LeiPJiaGYangXRuanYWeiBChenT. Region-specific protection effect of preoperative oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation before laparoscopic colorectal resection: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Int J Surg. (2023) 109:3042–51. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000569
10.
ArezzoAMistrangeloMBoninoMASalussoPForcignanòEVettorettoNet al. Oral neomycin and bacitracin are effective in preventing surgical site infections in elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre, randomized, parallel, single-blinded trial (COLORAL-1). Updates Surg. (2021) 73:1775–86. doi: 10.1007/s13304-021-01112-5
11.
RybakovENagudovMSukhinaMShelyginY. Impact of oral antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical site infection after rectal surgery: results of randomized trial. Int J Colorectal Dis. (2021) 36:323–30. doi: 10.1007/s00384-020-03746-0
12.
PappGSafticsGSzabóBEBaracsJVereczkeiAKollárDet al. Systemic versus Oral and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SOAP) study in colorectal surgery: prospective randomized multicentre trial. Br J Surg. (2021) 108:271–6. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaa131
13.
SchardeyHMWirthUStraussTKasparekMSSchneiderDJauchKW. Prevention of anastomotic leak in rectal cancer surgery with local antibiotic decontamination: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled single center trial. Int J Colorectal Dis. (2020) 35:847–57. doi: 10.1007/s00384-020-03544-8
14.
KoskenvuoLLehtonenTKoskensaloSRasilainenSKlintrupKEhrlichAet al. Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus no bowel preparation for elective colectomy (MOBILE): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, single-blinded trial. Lancet. (2019) 394:840–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31269-3
15.
LeeHLeeJLLeeJSKimCWYoonYSParkIJet al. Influence of additional prophylactic oral antibiotics during mechanical bowel preparation on surgical site infection in patients receiving colorectal surgery. World J Surg. (2024) 48:1534–44. doi: 10.1002/wjs.12193
16.
CatarciMGuadagniSMaseduFSartelliMMontemurroLABaiocchiGLet al. Oral antibiotics alone versus oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matching re-analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 prospective cohorts. Antibiotics (Basel). (2024) 13:235. doi: 10.20944/preprints202402.0882.v1
17.
HigginsJPThomasJChandlerJLiTCumpstonMPageMJet al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. (2019). doi: 10.1002/9781119536604
18.
WetterslevJThorlundKBrokJGluudC. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. (2008) 61:64–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.013
19.
UchinoMIkeuchiHBandoTChohnoTSasakiHHorioYet al. Efficacy of preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical site infections in patients with Crohn disease: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. (2019) 269:420–6. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002567
20.
AnjumNRenJWangGLiGWuXDongHet al. A randomized control trial of preoperative oral antibiotics as adjunct therapy to systemic antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in clean contaminated, contaminated, and dirty type of colorectal surgeries. Dis Colon Rectum. (2017) 60:1291–8. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000927
21.
IkedaAKonishiTUenoMFukunagaYNagayamaSFujimotoYet al. Randomized clinical trial of oral and intravenous versus intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Br J Surg. (2016) 103:1608–15. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10281
22.
HataHYamaguchiTHasegawaSNomuraAHidaKNishitaiRet al. Oral and parenteral versus parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery (JMTO PREV 07-01): a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial. Ann Surg. (2016) 263:1085–91. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001581
23.
SadahiroSSuzukiTTanakaAOkadaKKamataHOzakiTet al. Comparison between oral antibiotics and probiotics as bowel preparation for elective colon cancer surgery to prevent infection: prospective randomized trial. Surgery. (2014) 155:493–503. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.06.002
24.
KobayashiMMohriYTonouchiHMikiCNakaiKKusunokiMet al. Randomized clinical trial comparing intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis alone with oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of a surgical site infection in colorectal cancer surgery. Surg Today. (2007) 37:383–8. doi: 10.1007/s00595-006-3410-7
25.
ReddyBSMacfieJGattMLarsenCNJensenSSLeserTD. Randomized clinical trial of effect of synbiotics, neomycin and mechanical bowel preparation on intestinal barrier function in patients undergoing colectomy. Br J Surg. (2007) 94:546–54. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5705
26.
IshidaHYokoyamaMNakadaHInokumaSHashimotoD. Impact of oral antimicrobial prophylaxis on surgical site infection and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection after elective colorectal surgery. Results of a prospective randomized trial. Surg Today. (2001) 31:979–83. doi: 10.1007/s005950170006
27.
MathesonDMArabiYBaxter-SmithDAlexander-WilliamsJKeighleyMR. Randomized multicentre trial of oral bowel preparation and antimicrobials for elective colorectal operations. Br J Surg. (1978) 65:597–600. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800650902
28.
ClarkeJSCondonREBartlettJGGorbachSLNicholsRLOchiS. Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce septic complications of colon operations: results of prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study. Ann Surg. (1977) 186:251–9. doi: 10.1097/00000658-197709000-00003
29.
PetrouNAKontovounisiosC. The Use of Mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery: a call for change in practice. Cancers (Basel). (2022) 14:5990. doi: 10.3390/cancers14235990
30.
Ministry Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. Japan Nosocomial Infections Surveillance. Available online at: https://janis.mhlw.go.jp/ report/ssi.html (Accessed 19 May, 2021).
31.
ChangJKarlsdottirBRPhillipsHLLoefflerBTMottSLHrabeJEet al. Modern trends in surgical site infection rates for colorectal surgery: a national surgical quality improvement project study 2013-2020. Dis Colon Rectum. (2024) 67:1201–9. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003155
32.
MartinETKayeKSKnottCNguyenHSantarossaMEvansRet al. Diabetes and Risk of Surgical Site Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. (2016) 37:88–99. doi: 10.1017/ice.2015.249
33.
ChangYWMurphyKYackzanDThomasSKayDDavenportDet al. Abdominal wall thickness is a predictor for surgical site infections in patients undergoing colorectal operations. Am Surg. (2021) 87:1155–62. doi: 10.1177/0003134820956932
34.
Durán-PovedaMRodríguez CaravacaGSuárez-de-la-RicaAVillarDRPernauteASCancer MinchotEet al. The impact of malnutrition risk and perioperative complications in gastrointestinal cancer patients undergoing elective major surgery: a prospective observational multicenter study. Nutrients. (2026) 18:325. doi: 10.3390/nu18020325
35.
World Health Organization. Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, (2018). Available online at: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/277399 (Accessed 14 May, 2024).
36.
LeeHLeeJLLeeJSKimCWYoonYSParkIJet al. Influence of additional prophylactic oral antibiotics during mechanical bowel preparation on surgical site infection in patients receiving colorectal surgery. World J Surg. (2024) 48:1534–44. doi: 10.1002/wjs.12193
37.
HansenRBBalachandranRValsamidisTNIversenLH. The role of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics in prevention of anastomotic leakage following restorative resection for primary rectal cancer - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. (2023) 38:129. doi: 10.1007/s00384-023-04416-7
38.
YueYChenXWangHChengMZhengB. Mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics reduces infectious complications and anastomotic leak in elective colorectal surgery: a pooled-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. (2023) 38:5. doi: 10.1007/s00384-022-04302-8
39.
GhumanASchmockerSBrarMSKennedyED. Is mechanical bowel preparation necessary to reduce surgical site infection following colon surgery? Protocol for a multicentre Canadian randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis. (2024) 26:1292–300. doi: 10.1111/codi.17037
40.
BriaticoDFlageoleHAl-ShahwaniNFarrokhyarFVanHouwelingenL. Pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation and prophylactic oral antibiotics for pediatric patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery: a protocol for a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud. (2024) 10:85. doi: 10.1186/s40814-024-01476-6
41.
SnijdersHSWoutersMWvan LeersumNJKolfschotenNEHennemanDde VriesACet al. Meta-analysis of the risk for anastomotic leakage, the postoperative mortality caused by leakage in relation to the overall postoperative mortality. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2012) 38:1013–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2012.07.111
42.
StearnsATLiccardoFTanKNSivrikozEAzizOJenkinsJTet al. Physiological changes after colorectal surgery suggest that anastomotic leakage is an early event: a retrospective cohort study. Colorectal Dis. (2019) 21:297–306. doi: 10.1111/codi.14524
43.
NgCWPrabhakaranSChakrabortyJLuttonNGourlasPGillespieCet al. Rate of anastomotic leak following right hemicolectomy by general surgical trainees. Int J Colorectal Dis. (2020) 35:2339–46. doi: 10.1007/s00384-020-03730-8
44.
BrodaMSchlesingerNH. Prevention of anastomotic leak following surgical treatment for rectal cancer. Dan Med J. (2020) 67:A04200286.
45.
ElbarmelgiMYShafikAAAbd ElSameeAKTamerM. Impact of pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation in preventing post-operative anastomotic leak: a meta-analysis. Asian J Surg. (2024). doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2024.11.006
46.
CatarciMGuadagniSMaseduFRuffoGViolaMGBorghiFet al. Mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Italian colorectal anastomotic leakage (iCral) study group prospective cohorts. Updates Surg. (2024) 76:107–17.
47.
BrokJThorlundKWetterslevJGluudC. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive–Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol. (2009) 38:287–98. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn188
48.
PogueJMYusufS. Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta-analysis. Control Clin Trials. (1997) 18:580–666. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(97)00051-2
Summary
Keywords
bowel preparation, colorectal surgery, MBP, MOABP, surgical site infection
Citation
Lu K, Peng X, Zhong F, Zhang F, Yang H and Lan K (2026) Mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation reduce the risk of surgical site infections and anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a GRADE-based meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Front. Med. 13:1788204. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2026.1788204
Received
15 January 2026
Revised
14 February 2026
Accepted
27 February 2026
Published
17 March 2026
Volume
13 - 2026
Edited by
Iain Brownlee, Northumbria University, United Kingdom
Reviewed by
Adrian Silaghi, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Romania
Tiago Cunha, Catholic University of Portugal, Portugal
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Lu, Peng, Zhong, Zhang, Yang and Lan.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ke Lan, lankexiaoke@126.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.