25 research outputs found

    Mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation for elective rectal cancer surgery: A propensity score matching analysis using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan

    No full text
    Abstract Aim The best bowel preparation method for rectal surgery remains controversial. In this study we compared the efficacy and safety of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone and MOABP (MBP combined with oral antibiotic bowel preparation [OABP]) for rectal cancer surgery. Methods In this retrospective study we analyzed data from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database on 37 291 patients who had undergone low anterior resection for rectal cancer from 2014 to 2017. Propensity score matching analysis was used to compare postoperative outcomes between MBP alone and MOABP. Results A total of 37 291 patients were divided into four groups: MBP alone: 77.7%, no bowel preparation (NBP): 16.9%, MOABP: 4.7%, and OABP alone: 0.7%. In propensity score matching analysis with 1756 pairs, anastomotic leakage (4.84% vs 7.86%, P < 0.001), small bowel obstruction (1.54% vs 3.08%, P = 0.002) and reoperation (3.76% vs 5.98%, P = 0.002) were less in the MOABP group than in the MBP group. The mean duration of postoperative antibiotics medication was shorter in the MOABP group (5.2 d vs 7.5 d, P < 0.001) than in the MBP group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of Clostridium difficile (CD) colitis (0.40% vs 0.68%, P = 0.250) and methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colitis (0.11% vs 0.17%, P = 0.654). There was no significant difference in in‐hospital mortality between the two groups (0.00% vs 0.11% respectively, P = 0.157). Conclusion MOABP for rectal surgery is associated with a decreased incidence of postoperative complications without increasing the incidence of CD colitis and MRSA colitis

    An outbreak of H7N6 low pathogenic avian influenza in quails in Japan

    No full text
    In February and March 2009, a total of seven quail farms in the Aichi Prefecture in Japan were found to be infected with an avian influenza (AI) virus. Low pathogenic AI viruses, subtype H7N6, were isolated from three of these farms. The infection was eliminated through the destruction of susceptible birds on the infected premises, movement controls of quail and other poultry in areas around infected premises, accompanied by intensive clinical, serological and virological surveillance. Sentinel quails were used to verify that the infected farms were free from AI virus before they were restocked. An epidemiological study revealed that the virus was likely to have been introduced into the infected area some time ago. Economic losses amounted to 874 million yen (US$9.75 million), mainly accounting for costs incurred by control and eradication measures and financial support for the infected farms and farms in the movement control areas
    corecore