Table 4.
Surgeon perceptions
| Intention to Treat |
P | Per Protocol |
P | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bowel Prep n=43 (%) | No Prep n=52 (%) | Bowel Prep n=50 (%) | No Prep n=45 (%) | |||
| Quality of surgical field | .65 | .61 | ||||
| Poor | 7 (16.3) | 7 (13.5) | 6 (12.0) | 8 (17.8) | ||
| Fair | 8 (18.6) | 15 (28.9) | 10 (20.0) | 13 (28.9) | ||
| Good | 16 (37.2) | 16 (30.8) | 19 (38.0) | 13 (28.9) | ||
| Excellent | 11 (25.6) | 14 (26.9) | 14 (28.0) | 11 (24.4) | ||
| Overall ability to retract bowel | .73 | .49 | ||||
| Extremely poor | 4 (9.3) | 3 (5.8) | 3 (6.0) | 4 (2.9) | ||
| Below average | 9 (20.9) | 16 (30.8) | 10 (20.0) | 15 (33.3) | ||
| Average | 9 (20.9) | 7 (13.5) | 10 (20.0) | 6 (13.3) | ||
| Above average | 7 (16.3) | 9 (17.3) | 8 (16.0) | 8 (17.8) | ||
| Excellent | 14 (32.6) | 17 (32.7) | 19 (38.0) | 12 (26.7) | ||
| Overall ability to safely access surgical field | .80 | .91 | ||||
| Extremely poor | 4 (9.3) | 3 (5.8) | 4 (8.0) | 3 (6.8) | ||
| Below average | 5 (11.6) | 8 (15.4) | 6 (12.0) | 7 (15.6) | ||
| Average | 9 (20.9) | 12 (23.1) | 10 (20.0) | 11 (24.4) | ||
| Above average | 10 (23.3) | 8 (15.4) | 9 (18.0) | 9 (20.0) | ||
| Excellent | 15 (34.9) | 21 (40.4) | 21 (42.0) | 15 (33.3) | ||
| Overall complexity of the case | .68 | .027 | ||||
| Easier than average | 6 (14.0) | 11 (21.2) | 6 (12.0) | 11 (24.4) | ||
| Average | 16 (37.2) | 17 (32.7) | 23 (46.0) | 10 (22.2) | ||
| More difficult than average | 21 (48.8) | 24 (46.2) | 21 (42.0) | 24 (53.3) | ||
| Do you think surgery was compromised by adequacy of prep? | ||||||
| 6 (14.0) | 9 (17.3) | .78 | 3 (6.0) | 12 (26.7) | .010 | |
| Do you feel increased complexity was due to bowel prep? | ||||||
| 5 (23.8) | 6 (26.1) | .92 | 2 (9.5) | 9 (37.5) | .06 | |
| Do you think participant used bowel prep? | .91 | .013 | ||||
| No | 23 (53.5) | 26 (50.0) | 20 (40.0) | 29 (64.4) | ||
| Yes | 20 (46.5) | 25 (48.1) | 30 (60.0) | 15 (33.3) | ||