Colonic decompression without on-table irrigation for obstructing left-sided colorectal tumours

Malignant Large Bowel Obstruction

Large bowel obstruction is a serious and potentially life-threatening surgical emergency which is associated with high morbidity and mortality rate. The most common etiology is colorectal cancer which accounts for over 60% of all large bowel obstructions. Proper assessment, thoughtful decision-making and prompt treatment is necessary to decrease the high morbidity and mortality which is associated with this entity. Knowledge of the key elements regarding the presentation of a patient with a large bowel obstruction will help the surgeon in formulating an appropriate treatment plan for the patient. Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the various treatment options available is necessary when caring for these patients. This chapter will review the presentation of patients with malignant large bowel obstruction, discuss the various diagnostic modalities available, as well as discuss treatment options and the various clinical scenarios in which they are most appropriately utilized.

Reviewing the Management of Obstructive Left Colon Cancer: Assessing the Feasibility of the One-stage Resection and Anastomosis After Intraoperative Colonic Irrigation

BACKGROUND

The management of obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) remains debatable with the single-stage procedure of primary colonic anastomosis after cancer resection and on-table intracolonic lavage now being supported.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with acute OLCC who were admitted between January 2008 and January 2015 were distributed into 5 different groups. Group ICI underwent emergency laparotomy for primary anastomosis following colonic resection and intraoperative colonic lavage; Group HP underwent emergency Hartmann's Procedure; Group CON consisted of patients treated by conservative management with subsequent elective open cancer resection; Group COL were colostomy patients; and Group INT consisted of patients who had interventional radiology followed by open elective colon cancer resection. The demographics of the patients and comorbidity, intraoperative data, and postoperative data were collected, with P < .05 as significant.

RESULTS

There were 4 deaths in 138 cases (2.90%). There was only 1 patient who had anastomotic leakage (5.56%) in Group ICI, compared with none in Group HP and Group COL, 1 case in Group INT (7.69%), and 2 cases in Group CON (6.06%) (P > .05). Group INT and Group CON, when compared to the three surgical groups, Groups ICI, Group COL, and Group HP, individually, were statistically significant for the duration of surgery (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary anastomosis following colonic resection after irrigation can be safely performed in selected patients, with the necessary surgical expertise, with no increased risk in mortality, anastomotic leakage, and other postoperative complications.

Endoscopic stenting and elective surgery versus emergency surgery for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a prospective randomized trial

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the role of colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery in acutely obstructed left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction with no evidence of peritonitis were recruited. After informed consent, patients were randomized to colonic stenting followed by elective surgery or immediate emergency surgery. Patients who had successful colonic stenting underwent elective surgery 1 to 2 weeks later, while the other group had emergency surgery. Patients in whom stenting was unsuccessful also underwent emergency surgery.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were randomized to stenting and 19 to emergency surgery. Fourteen patients (70%) had successful stenting and underwent elective surgery at a median of 10 days later; the rest underwent emergency surgery. Technical stent failure occurred in five patients (25%). One patient failed to decompress after successful stent deployment. All patients underwent definitive colonic resection with primary anastomosis. Two of 20 patients in the stenting group required defunctioning stomas compared to 6 of 19 in emergency surgery group, p = 0.127. Overall complication rate was 35% versus 58% (p = 0.152) and mortality was 0% versus 16% (p = 0.106) in the stenting group and emergency surgery group, respectively. Postoperatively, the stenting group was discharged from hospital earlier (median of 6 versus 8 days, p = 0.028) than the emergency surgery group.

CONCLUSION

Colonic stenting followed by interval elective surgery may be safer, with a trend towards lower morbidity and mortality when compared with the current practice of emergency surgery for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction.

Comparative study of one-stage colectomy of the descending colon in emergency and elective surgery without mechanical preparation

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare one-stage colectomy of the descending colon without mechanical preparation in emergency and elective surgery.

METHODS

From January 2004 to September 2009, 327 consecutive patients underwent surgery in a coloproctology unit for several conditions of the descending colon, 122 on an emergency basis and 205 as elective surgery. In the emergency surgery group, patients with septic shock, multiorgan failure, immunodeficiency or corticoid treatment, ASA IV stage, generalized fecal peritonitis (Hinchey IV stage), nonviable cecum or unresectable tumors were excluded (n = 54). In the elective surgery group, patients who underwent intraoperative colonoscopy, total abdominal colectomy, or an ostomy were excluded (n = 59). In the remaining 214 patients, a colectomy of the descending colon with primary colorectal anastomosis was performed without mechanical bowel preparation, 68 in emergency surgery and 146 in elective surgery. The end points of the study were mortality, anastomotic dehiscence, and surgical site infection.

RESULTS

No differences were found in mortality (0 in the emergency group vs 3 (2%) in the elective group; P = .571), symptomatic anastomotic dehiscence (1 in the emergency group (1.4%) vs 4 in the elective group (2.7%); P = 1.000), or surgical site infection (7 (10.2%) in the emergency group vs 8 (5.4%) in the elective group; P = .250).

CONCLUSIONS

In emergencies involving the descending colon one-stage surgery may be performed without colonic preparation as safely as elective surgery in selected patients considered suitable for segmental resection of the descending colon and primary anastomosis.

Systematic review of intraoperative colonic irrigation vs. manual decompression in obstructed left-sided colorectal emergencies

AIMS

A systematic review was conducted to determine if manual decompression is a safe alternative to intraoperative colonic irrigation prior to primary anastomosis in obstructed left-sided colorectal emergencies.

METHODS

Search for relevant articles from 1980 to 2007 was conducted on Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using the keywords "colonic lavage, irrigation, decompression, washout, obstructed and bowel preparation", either singularly or in combination. Trials in English publications with similar patient characteristics, inclusion criteria and outcome measures were selected for analysis. Thirty-day mortality, anastomotic leak rates and post-operative wound infection were studied as outcome variables. Analysis was performed with RevMan 4.2 software.

RESULTS

Seven trials were identified for systematic review, with a total of 449 patients. Data from the single randomised controlled trial and one prospective comparative trial were analysed separately. Results from the remaining five studies were pooled into two arms of a composite series, one with colonic irrigation and one without. Results showed no significant difference in the anastomotic leak rates and mortality rates between the colonic irrigation and manual decompression arms in the randomised and comparative trials. The composite series, however, showed significantly better results with manual decompression (RR 6.18, 95% CI 1.67-22.86). The post-operative infection rate was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Manual decompression was comparable to colonic irrigation for primary anastomosis in obstructed left-sided colorectal emergencies, with no significant increase in mortality, leak or infection rates.

Exteriorized colon anastomosis for unprepared bowel: An alternative to routine colostomy

AIM: To see the possibility of avoiding routine colostomy in patients presenting with unprepared bowel.

METHODS: The cohort is composed of 103 patients, of these, 86 patients presented as emergencies (self-inflected and iatrogenic colon injuries, stab wounds and blast injury of the colon, volvulus sigmoid, obstructing left colon cancer, and strangulated ventral hernia). Another 17 patients were managed electively for other colon pathologies. During laparotomy, the involved segment was resected and the two ends of the colon were brought out via a separate colostomy wound. One layer of interrupted 3/0 silk was used for colon anastomosis. The exteriorized segment was immediately covered with a colostomy bag. Between the 5^th and 7^th postoperative day, the colon was easily dropped into the peritoneal cavity. The defect in the abdominal wall was closed with interrupted nonabsorbable suture. The skin was left open for secondary closure.

RESULTS: The mean hospital stay (± SD) was 11.5 ± 2.6 d (8-20 d). The exteriorized colon was successfully dropped back into the peritoneal cavity in all patients except two. One developed a leak from oesophago-jejunostomy and from the exteriorized colon. She subsequently died of sepsis and multiple organ failure (MOF). In a second patient the colon proximal to the exteriorized anastomosis prolapsed and developed severe serositis, an elective ileo-colic anastomosis (to the left colon) was successfully performed.

CONCLUSION: Exteriorized colon anastomosis is simple, avoids the inconvenience of colostomy and can be an alternative to routine colostomy. It is suitable where colostomy is socially unacceptable or the facilities and care is not available.

Feasibility of single-stage resection and primary anastomosis in patients with acute noncomplicated sigmoid volvulus

BACKGROUND

The management of sigmoid volvulus remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of treating sigmoid volvulus by using a single-stage resection and anastomosis versus a 2-stage approach.

METHODS

A total of 136 patients with noncomplicated sigmoid volvulus who had undergone emergency surgery within the last 15 years were evaluated retrospectively. Sigmoid resection plus Hartmann colostomy was performed in 45 patients, and sigmoid resection plus primary anastomosis was performed in 91 patients. In 40 of the patients who underwent a Hartmann procedure, we performed a second operation for colostomy closure (HC&CC group).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences among the groups with regard to age, sex, morbidity, reoperation because of complications, mortality rates, and duration of intensive care unit stay (P > .05). The duration of hospital stay was significantly longer in the HC&CC group than in the other groups (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In cases without the complications of perforation or gangrene, sigmoid resection with immediate anastomosis was feasible. Single-stage operations did not increase morbidity or mortality rates, and patients required a shorter hospital stay than those who had undergone 2-stage operations.

Impact of emergency surgery in the outcome of rectal and left colon carcinoma

The negative results in terms of morbidity, mortality and survival among emergency treated patients affected by colorectal cancer are well known. The specific contribution of emergency surgery to adverse outcome is not clear because of the presence in all series of other possible determinants of a poor prognosis. We used a case-control study design to compare a group of 50 patients operated on for cancer of the rectum and left colon presented as emergencies in our department during the last 14 years, and an equal number of patients who underwent elective procedures during the same period. All records of these patients were reviewed and matched for age, stage, tumor location, and medical comorbidities (coronaropathy, diabetes mellitus, cerebral vascular deficiency, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Outcome measures included length of hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and actuarial 5-year survival. Univariate and multivariate analysis of factors potentially influencing survival was performed on the entire population of 100 patients. Age, tumor location, stage of disease, and medical comorbidities were well matched by intent of the study design. Overall surgical morbidity (44% versus 12% P = 0.0004), length of hospital stay (16, 64 versus 10, 97 days P = 0.0026) and postoperative mortality (4% versus 0% P = 0.4949) resulted higher in the emergency group. Actuarial overall 5-year survival was not different between the two groups. The only variables independently predictive of survival in multivariate analysis were age and rectal location of the tumor. Postoperative surgical mortality and long-term survival appear not to be influenced by emergency presentation of colorectal cancer; the negative impact of the emergency procedures is confined to the immediate postoperative period and is probably connected to the acute medical pathology often presented by patients in emergency situations. Dealing with this kind of patient's accurate preoperative assessment and solution of acute medical pathologies before surgical treatment are mandatory.

One-stage resection without colonic lavage in emergency surgery of the left colon

OBJECTIVE

Intra-operative colonic lavage is a widespread procedure introduced to decompress and clean the colon of its faecal load during emergency surgery of the left colon in order to perform a safe anastomosis. This type of lavage is never performed at our institution. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and acceptability of emergency left-sided colectomy without colonic lavage in a consecutive series of patients admitted at our department for perforation and obstruction of the left colon.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All 44 patients (29 with obstruction and 15 with perforation) on whom a one-stage left-sided colon resection was performed without colonic lavage between January 1998 and June 2004 were evaluated in a retrospective review. During this period all patients with acute disease of the left colon underwent a one stage resection without colonic lavage. The only exclusion criteria for anastomosis were: haemodynamic instability, ASA > 3, unresectable tumour. Death, anastomotic leakage and wound infection were main outcome measures.

RESULT

The leak rate was 4.5% and mortality 2.3% due to one case of postoperative myocardial infarction. A 16% morbidity rate was recorded due to 4 wound infections and 3 minor complications.

CONCLUSION

The procedure is safe. The low morbidity and mortality of one stage resection without colonic lavage can justify future prospective studies enrolling a large number of patients to compare its results with those obtained by one stage resection with colonic lavage.

Prospective, randomized trial comparing intraoperative colonic irrigation with manual decompression only for obstructed left-sided colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This is a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing the outcome of intraoperative colonic irrigation with that of manual decompression for acutely obstructing colorectal cancers distal to the splenic flexure.

METHODS

All patients admitted to our department from June 1999 to August 2002 with obstructing left-sided colorectal cancers were recruited. Patients were randomized intraoperatively and were excluded if deemed unsuitable for segmental resection and primary anastomosis. Twenty-five patients were randomized to receive colonic irrigation and twenty-eight to receive manual decompression. Perioperative parameters and outcome including mortality and anastomotic leak were recorded.

RESULTS

Both groups of patients were comparable in terms of gender and age. The time taken for mobilization, decompression, and irrigation in the colonic irrigation group (median, 31 minutes) was significantly longer than that for the manual decompression group (median, 13 minutes) (P; = 0.0005). However, the total time of the operation was similar for both groups. Times for recovery of bowel function, of wound infection, and until discharge from the hospital were also similar. In the manual decompression group there were two cases of anastomotic leak (8 percent, 2/25) requiring reoperation but none (0/24) in the colonic irrigation group. However, this difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Manual decompression of proximal colon without irrigation is as safe as colonic irrigation in one-stage surgical management of obstructing left-sided colorectal cancer.

Colonic stent vs. emergency surgery for management of acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute colonic obstruction because of malignancy is often a surgical emergency. Surgical decompression with colostomy with or without resection and eventual re-anastomosis is the traditional treatment of choice. Endoscopic colonic stent insertion effectively decompresses the obstructed colon, allowing for surgery to be performed electively. This study sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of colonic stent vs. surgery for emergent management of acute malignant colonic obstruction.

METHODS

Decision analysis was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of two competing strategies in a hypothetical patient presenting with acute, complete, malignant colonic obstruction: (1) emergent colonic stent followed by elective surgical resection and re-anastomosis; (2) emergent surgical resection followed by diversion (Hartmann's procedure) or primary anastomosis. Cost estimates were obtained from a third-party payer perspective. Primary outcome measures were mortality, stoma requirement, and total number of operative procedures.

RESULTS

Colonic stent resulted in 23% fewer operative procedures per patient (1.01 vs. 1.32 operations per patient), an 83% reduction in stoma requirement (7% vs. 43%), and lower procedure-related mortality (5% vs. 11%). Colonic stent was associated with a lower mean cost per patient ($45,709 vs. $49,941).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic stent insertion followed by elective surgery appears more effective and less costly than emergency surgery under base-case conditions. This finding remains robust over a wide range of assumptions for clinical inputs in sensitivity analysis. Our findings suggest that colonic stent insertion should be offered, whenever feasible, as a bridge to elective surgery in patients presenting with malignant colonic obstruction.

Restorative resection of unprepared left-colon in gangrenous vs. viable sigmoid volvulus

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Emergency resection and primary anastomosis of unprepared left-colon is a controversial subject. Although this approach has been reported in several series, there is paucity of data on the relative safety of it in viable vs. gangrenous colon especially when the gut is unprepared.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Case records of 57 consecutive patients with acute sigmoid volvulus were reviewed; there were 27 with gangrenous colon (group G) and 30 with viable colon (group V). All of them had undergone emergency resection and primary anastomosis without on-table lavage or caecostomy.

RESULTS

Group G had a lower mean haemoglobin value (8.4 vs. 9.7 g/dl) and higher incidence of circulatory shock on admission (26% vs. 7%) and required more blood transfusion (85% vs. 53%) than group V. Mean hospital stay (16 vs. 12 days), overall anastomotic leak (15% vs. 27%) and mortality (3.5% vs. 3%) did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the rate of wound infection in Group G was four times greater than that of group V.

CONCLUSION

One-stage restorative resection without on-table lavage or caecostomy appears to be a promising alternative in the emergency management of acute sigmoid volvulus. Comparison of primary anastomosis in gangrenous vs. viable colon did not reveal any significant difference in hospital stay, rate of anastomotic leak or mortality. However, the risk of wound infection was more in patients with gangrenous sigmoid volvulus.

Duodenogastric reflux after biliary surgery: scintigraphic quantification and improvement with erythromycin

BACKGROUND

Persistence of dyspeptic symptoms after cholecystectomy or choledochoduodenostomy is common. There is -evidence that at least some of these symptoms may be attributed to duodenogastric reflux (DGR). The aim of the study was to quantify DGR before and after cholecystectomy, with or without choledochoduodenostomy, and endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones, and to assess the effect of erythromycin on the increased DGR.

METHODS

Forty-seven patients before and after cholecystectomy, 26 after cholecystectomy and choledochoduodenostomy and nine after sphincterotomy had postprandial (300 mL of fresh milk, 4% fat) duodenogastric reflux measured by 99mTc-hepatic imino diacetic acid scintigraphy. Patients with a DGR index (DGRi) >20% were considered as having pathological DGR that justifies symptoms, and their DGRi was reassessed after administration of 200 mg of erythromycin intravenously.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients before cholecystectomy (57%) showed a normal DGRi <7%. In five cases DGRi was greater than 20%. After cholecystectomy, duodenogastric refluxes increased, so that only 16 patients (32%) showed a normal DGRi, while a DGRi >20% was observed in 10 cases. Only eight patients after cholecystectomy and choledochoduodenostomy (23%) presented with a DGRi within the normal range. The remaining 18 had a DGRi >7%. Five of them exhibited a DGRi >20%. Of the nine patients with sphincterotomy, three showed a DGRi >20%. Erythromycin almost completely normalized DGRi in all 18 patients with pathological DGR (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Duodenogastric reflux is common after biliary surgery, including endoscopic sphincterotomy. Erythromycin appears to decrease duodenogastric reflux to normal levels.

Safety of primary anastomosis in emergency colo-rectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The surgical management of left-sided large bowel emergency patients remains controversial. There has been an increasing trend towards primary reconstructive surgery. The main dilemma remains appropriate patient selection for primary anastomosis.

METHODS

The records of 323 patients who presented as acute emergencies and underwent surgery between January 1990 and December 2000 for left-sided colorectal cancer and diverticular disease were reviewed, to compare the outcome of resection and primary anastomosis with Hartmann's procedure. Patients were stratified into 3 groups according to whether the presentation was with localized or generalized peritonitis, or with obstruction.

RESULTS

Resection and anastomosis was carried out in 176 (55.7%) patients with a 30-day mortality of 5.7%. Anastomotic dehiscence occurred in 9 (5.1%) patients, with no difference between the three groups. Wound sepsis occurred in 8 (4.5%) patients, and the median hospital stay was 13 days. Hartmann's resection was associated with a higher incidence of systemic and surgical morbidity (39.5% and 24.3%, respectively). The mortality rates in those selected for primary anastomosis (5.7%) compared favourably with those undergoing Hartmann's resections (20.4%) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Emergency primary anastomosis in left-sided disease can be performed with a low morbidity and mortality in selected patients, even in the presence of a free perforation with diffuse peritonitis. Patients selected for staged resection, were those with major comorbid disease.

Surgery for colon and rectal cancer

Radical surgery remains the only potentially curative treatment for colorectal cancer. Major changes in the principles of rectal cancer resection have been recently described (total mesorectum excision) whereas there have been few changes in the principles of colonic cancer resection. This chapter presents surgical procedures for curative treatment of colorectal cancer in both the elective and emergency settings.

Complications after colorectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

The current practice of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery is questionable. Mechanical bowel preparation is unpleasant for the patient, often distressful, and potentially harmful. The results are often less than desired, increasing the risk of contamination. Cleansing the colon and rectum before surgery has never been shown in clinical trials to benefit patients. In animal experiments MBP has a detrimental effect on colonic healing.

STUDY DESIGN

To investigate the outcomes of colorectal surgery without MBP, we prospectively evaluated a consecutive series of patients who underwent resection and primary anastomosis of the colon and upper rectum, including emergency operations. One surgeon performed all operations. Endpoints were wound infection, anastomotic failure, and death. Late signs and symptoms that might be secondary to leakage of the anastomosis were considered as an anastomotic failure as well, during a followup of 1 year.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty operations were performed, of which 199 (79.6%) were elective. Colectomies were left-sided in 65.6%. Anastomoses were ileocolic in 32%, colocolic in 20.8%, colorectal intraperitoneal in 34.4%, and extraperitoneal in 12.8%. No patient suffered from fecal impaction. Followup was complete in 97.2%. Eight patients (3.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-6.4) developed superficial wound infections. In three patients there was leakage from an extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis, in two of them after hospital discharge. The overall anastomotic failure rate was 1.2% (95% CI: 0.3-3.6). The in-hospital mortality rate was 0.8% (95% CI: 0.1-2.9) and was not related to abdominal or septic complications.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical bowel preparation is not a sine qua non for safe colorectal surgery.

Prospective study of primary anastomosis without colonic lavage for patients with an obstructed left colon

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, left-sided colon obstruction is managed by a multistaged defunctioning colostomy and resection. However, there is growing acceptance of one-stage primary resection and anastomosis with on-table antegrade irrigation. This paper presents a series of patients managed prospectively by primary anastomosis without intraoperative colonic lavage.

METHODS

Emergency resection of acutely obstructed left-sided colonic carcinomas was performed. This was followed by primary anastomosis without on-table lavage after bowel decompression using a new technique.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight consecutive, unselected patients underwent bowel decompression, resection and primary colocolic anastomosis. Only one patient developed a leak at the anastomotic site, requiring pelvic abscess drainage and transverse loop colostomy. One death occurred 12 h following surgery. Autopsy confirmed that this was due to myocardial infarction. Mean hospital stay was 9.8 days.

CONCLUSION

Emergency surgery on the obstructed left colon can be carried out safely after decompression alone, without intraoperative colonic lavage.

Comparison between segmental left and extended right colectomies for obstructing left-sided colonic carcinomas

PURPOSE

This study was designed to compare complications and functions following either radical extended right colectomy without colonic decompression or radical segmental left colectomy with intraoperative decompression for obstructed left-sided colonic carcinomas.

METHODS

One hundred three patients with obstructed left-sided colonic carcinoma undergoing primary resection and anastomoses were studied.

RESULTS

There were 57 males and 46 females with a median age of 65 (range, 24-98) years and who had a median follow-up of 31 (range, 2-59) months. There were no leaks or intra-abdominal sepsis in the extended right colectomy group (44 patients) compared with one anastomosis leak in the segmental left colectomy (59 patients) group. Median hospital stay was 14 days in both groups, with a range of 8 to 36 days in the segmental left colectomy group and 7 to 44 days in those with extended right resection. One month after surgery, the patients who underwent segmental left colectomy had a median bowel movement of 3 (range, 1-6) per 24 hours compared with those with extended right colectomies who had a median of 5 (2-11) bowel movements per 24 hours. Bowel frequency decreased to four or less episodes per 24 hours in all patients in both groups at six months.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between bowel function or complications between the two groups.