About Irrigation Methods

Articles about Irrigation Methods.


Randomized cross-over trial of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution and water for colostomy irrigation.

---

St. Mark's Hospital and Northwick Park Institute for Medical Research, Harrow, United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: Water for colostomy irrigation is largely absorbed by the colon, which may result in less efficient expulsion of stool. This study compared the outcome of colonic cleansing with water and polyethylene glycol solution.

METHODS: In a cross-over study, 41 colostomy irrigators were randomly assigned to water or polyethylene glycol solution irrigation first and then the other regimen, each for one week. Patients recorded fluid inflow time, total washout time, cramps, leakage episodes, number of stoma pouches used, and satisfaction scores (Visual Analog Scale, 1-10: 1 = poor, and 10 = excellent). The median and interquartile range for each variable was calculated, and the two treatments were compared (Wilcoxon's test).

RESULTS: Eight patients failed to complete the study. Thirty-three patients (20 females; mean age, 55 (range, 39-73) years) provided 352 irrigation sessions: water (n = 176), and polyethylene glycol solution (n = 176). Irrigation was performed every 24, 48, and 72 hours by 17, 9, and 7 patients respectively, using 500 ml (n = 1), 750 ml (n = 2), 1,000 ml (n = 16), 1,500 ml (n = 11), 2,000 ml (n = 2), and 3,500 ml (n = 1) of fluid. The median and interquartile range for water vs. polyethylene glycol solution were: fluid inflow time (6 (range, 4.4-10.8) vs. 6.3 (range, 4.1-11) minutes; P = 0.48), total washout time (53 (range, 33-69) vs. 38 (range, 28-55) minutes; P = 0.01), leakage episodes (2.3 (range, 1.7-3.8) vs. 0.7 (range, 0.2-1); P < 0.001), satisfaction score (5.8 (range, 4-7.5) vs. 8.8 (range, 8.3-10); P < 0.001), and stoma pouch usage per week (75 (range, 45-80) vs. 43 (range, 0-80); P = 0.008). No difference was demonstrated for frequency of cramps ( P = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS: Polyethylene glycol solution performed significantly better than water and may be a superior alternative fluid regimen for colostomy irrigation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15486748&dopt=Abstract∞

Summary of above.

---

PURPOSE: Water for colostomy irrigation is largely absorbed by the colon, which may result in less efficient expulsion of stool. This study compared the outcome of colonic cleansing with water and polyethylene glycol solution.

METHODS: In a cross-over study, 41 colostomy irrigators were randomly assigned to water or polyethylene glycol solution irrigation first and then the other regimen, each for one week.
Patients recorded:

*fluid inflow time,
*total washout time,
*cramps,
*leakage episodes,
*number of stoma pouches used,
*satisfaction scores.

The two treatments were compared.

RESULTS: 8 patients failed to complete the study. 33 patients (20 females) provided 352 irrigation sessions:

Irrigation was performed every 24, 48, and 72 hours by 17, 9, and 7 patients respectively, using 500 ml, 750 ml, 1,000 ml, 1,500 ml, 2,000 ml, and 3,500 ml of fluid.

fluid inflow time
Water 6 minutes
Glycol solution 6.3 minutes

total washout time
Water 53 minutes
Glycol solution 38 minutes

cramps
No difference was demonstrated for frequency of cramps.

leakage episodes
Water 2.3
Glycol solution 0.7

stoma pouch usage per week
Water 75
Glycol solution 43.

satisfaction score
Water 5.8
Glycol solution 8.8

CONCLUSIONS: Polyethylene glycol solution performed significantly better than water and may be a superior alternative fluid regimen for colostomy irrigation.

Categories

CategoryIrrigationInfo