PURPOSE: Water for colostomy irrigation is largely absorbed by the colon, whic h may result in less efficient expulsion of stool. This study compared the outco me 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 wash-out 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 interquartil e 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 i rrigation 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 re spectively, 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 interqua rtile 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 epis odes (2.3 (range, 1.7-3.8) vs. 0.7 (range, 0.2-1); P < 0.001), satisfaction sc ore (5.8 (range, 4-7.5) vs. 8.8 (range, 8.3-10); P < 0.001), and stoma pouch u sage per week (75 (range, 45-80) vs. 43 (range, 0-80); P = 0.008). No differen ce was demonstrated for frequency of cramps (P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Polyethylen e glycol solution performed significantly better than water and may be a superio r alternative fluid regimen for colostomy irrigation. PURPOSE: Water for colostomy irrigation is largely absorbed by the colon, whic h may result in less efficient expulsion of stool. This study compared the outco me 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 wash-out time, cramps, leakage episodes, number of stoma pouches used, and satisfaction scores The median and interquartile e range for each variable was calculated, and the two treatments were compared (Wilcoxon’s test). RESULTS: Eight patients failed to complete the Thirty-three patients (20 females; mean age, 55 (range, 39-73) years) provided 352 i rrigation sessions: water (n = 176), and polyethylene glycol solution 24, 48, and 72 hours by 17, 9 and 7 patients re spectively, using 500 ml (n = 1), 750 ml (n = 2), 1,000 ml (n = 16), 1,500 ml = 2), and 3,500 ml (n = 1) of fluid. The median and interqua rtile range for water vs. polyethylene glycol solution were: fluid inflow time (6 (range, 4.4-10.8) vs. 6.3 (2.3 (range, 1.7-3.8) minutes); total washout time (53 (range, 33-69) vs. 38 (range, 28-55) minutes; P = vs. 0.7 (range, 0.2-1); P <0.001), scores (5.8 (range, 4-7.5) vs. 8.8 (range, 8.3-10); P <0.001), and stoma pouch u sage per week (75 (range, 45-80) vs. 43 (range, 0-80); P = 0.008). No differen ce was demonstrated for frequency of cramps (P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Polyethylen e glycol solution observed significantly better than water and may be a superio r alternative fluid regimen for colostomy irrigation.