Relaparotomy in colorectal cancer surgery – Do any factors influence the risk of mortality? A case controlled study

Risk factors for relaparotomy after a cesarean delivery: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Relaparotomy following a cesarean delivery (CD) is an infrequent complication, with inconsistency regarding risk factors and indications for its occurrence. We therefore aimed to determine risk factors and indications for a relaparotomy following a CD at a single large tertiary center.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control single-center study (2013-2023). We identified all women who had a relaparotomy up to six weeks following a CD (study group). Maternal characteristics, obstetrical and surgical data were compared to a control group in a 1:2 ratio. Controls were women with a CD before and immediately after each case in the study group, who did not undergo a relaparotomy. Included were CDs occurring after 24 gestational weeks. CD performed at different centers and indications for repeat surgery unrelated to the primary surgery (e.g., appendicitis) were excluded. Logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

During the study period, 131,268 women delivered at our institution. Of them, 28,280 (21.5%) had a CD, and 130 patients (0.46%) underwent a relaparotomy. Relaparotomies following a CD occurred during the first 24 h, the first week, and beyond the first week, in 59.2%, 33.1%, and 7.7% of cases, respectively. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, relaparotomy was significantly associated with Mullerian anomalies (aOR 3.33, 95%CI 1.08-10.24, p = 0.036); uterine fibroids (aOR 3.17, 95%CI 1.11-9.05,p = 0.031); multiple pregnancy (aOR 4.1, 95%CI 1.43-11.79,p = 0.009); hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (aOR 3.46, 95%CI 1.29-9.3,p = 0.014); CD during the second stage of labor (aOR 2.54, 95%CI 1.15-5.88, p = 0.029); complications during CD (aOR 1.62, 95%CI 1.09-3.21,p = 0.045); and excessive bleeding during CD or implementation of bleeding control measures (use of tranexamic acid, a hemostatic agent, or a surgical drain) (aOR 2.23, 95%CI 1.29-4.12,p = 0.012). Indications for relaparotomy differed depending on the time elapsed from the CD, with suspected intra-abdominal bleeding (36.1%) emerging as the primary indication within the initial 24 h.

CONCLUSION

We detected several pregnancy, intrapartum, and intra-operative risk factors for the need for relaparotomy following a CD. Practitioners may utilize these findings to proactively identify women at risk, thereby potentially reducing their associated morbidity.

Impact of hospital volume on failure to rescue for complications requiring reoperation after elective colorectal surgery: multicentre propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

It has previously been reported that there are similar reoperation rates after elective colorectal surgery but higher failure-to-rescue (FTR) rates in low-volume hospitals (LVHs) versus high-volume hospitals (HVHs). This study assessed the effect of hospital volume on reoperation rate and FTR after reoperation following elective colorectal surgery in a matched cohort.

METHODS

Population-based retrospective multicentre cohort study of adult patients undergoing reoperation for a complication after an elective, non-centralized colorectal operation between 2006 and 2017 in 11 hospitals. Hospitals were divided into either HVHs (3 hospitals, median ≥126 resections per year) or LVHs (8 hospitals, <126 resections per year). Patients were propensity score-matched (PSM) for baseline characteristics as well as indication and type of elective surgery. Primary outcome was FTR.

RESULTS

A total of 6428 and 3020 elective colorectal resections were carried out in HVHs and LVHs, of which 217 (3.4%) and 165 (5.5%) underwent reoperation (P < 0.001), respectively. After PSM, 142 patients undergoing reoperation remained in both HVH and LVH groups for final analyses. FTR rate was 7.7% in HVHs and 10.6% in LVHs (P = 0.410). The median Comprehensive Complication Index was 21.8 in HVHs and 29.6 in LVHs (P = 0.045). There was no difference in median ICU-free days, length of stay, the risk for permanent ostomy or overall survival between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The reoperation rate and postoperative complication burden was higher in LVHs with no significant difference in FTR compared with HVHs.

Magnitude of early relaparotomy and its outcome among patients who underwent laparotomy in a tertiary hospital in Eastern Ethiopia: a cross- sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Several studies conducted worldwide revealed the magnitude of early relaparotomy and its outcome among patients undergoing laparotomy. However, there was very little evidence on the magnitude of early relaparotomy and its outcome among patients who underwent laparotomy in Ethiopia, especially in the study area.

OBJECTIVE

this study aimed to the assess magnitude of early relaparotomy and its outcome among patients who underwent laparotomy in a Tertiary Hospital in Eastern Ethiopia.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted. All patients who underwent laparotomy during the data retrieval period were included. Data were collected using a data abstraction checklist from patients' medical records. The collected data were entered, cleaned, and analyzed by using SPSS version 23. Descriptives statistics were generated where by continuous variables were summarized into means and standard deviation and categorical variables were summarized as the frequency with proportions.

RESULT

The magnitude of relaparotomy was 6.8%. Among 82 patients included in the final analysis, 53 (64.6%) were males and the mean (± SD) age of patients was 33.32 ± 16.63 years. The major indications for relaparotomy were intra-abdominal collection (26.8%) and anastomotic leak (24.4%). Among 82 patients who underwent relaparotomy, 52(63.4%) were developed post relaparotomy complications, and 30(36.6%) patients died.

CONCLUSION

The magnitude of early relaparotomy was 6.8%. The magnitude of in-hospital mortality was high in comparison to earlier study findings from developing countries. About three fourth of patients who underwent relaparotomy were developed postoperative complications.

Time interval between rectal cancer resection and reintervention for anastomotic leakage and the impact of a defunctioning stoma: A Dutch population-based study

AIM

In the Netherlands, a selective policy of faecal diversion after rectal cancer surgery is generally applied. This study aimed to evaluate the timing, type, and short-term outcomes of reoperation for anastomotic leakage after primary rectal cancer resection stratified for a defunctioning stoma.

METHOD

Data of all patients who underwent primary rectal cancer surgery with primary anastomosis from 2013-2019 were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Primary outcomes were new stoma construction, mortality, ICU admission, prolonged hospital stay, and readmission.

RESULTS

In total, 10,772 rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery with primary anastomosis were included, of whom 46.6% received a primary defunctioning stoma. The reintervention rate for anastomotic leakage was 8.2% and 11.6% for patients with and without a defunctioning stoma (p < 0.001). Reintervention consisted of reoperation in 44.0% and 85.3% (p < 0.001), with a median time interval from primary resection to reoperation of seven days (IQR 4-14) vs. five days (IQR 3-13), respectively. In the presence of a defunctioning stoma, early reoperation (<5 days; n = 47) was associated with significantly more end-colostomy construction (51% vs. 33%) and ICU admission (66% vs. 38%) than late reoperation (≥5 days; n = 127). Without defunctioning stoma, early reoperation (n = 252) was associated with significantly higher mortality (4% vs. 1%), and more ICU admissions (52% vs.34%) than late reoperation (n = 302).

CONCLUSIONS

Early reoperations after rectal cancer resection are associated with worse outcomes reflected by a more frequent ICU admission in general, more colostomy construction, and higher mortality in patients with primary defunctioned and nondefunctioned anastomosis.

Safety of anastomotic techniques and consequences of anastomotic leakage in patients with colorectal cancer: a single surgeon experience

Introduction

Colorectal cancer is a common type of malignant disease of the digestive tract. Anastomotic leakage (AL) still represents a serious complication in gastrointestinal surgery, associated with high morbidity and mortality.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective case-control study and analyzed a single surgeon’s data about 359 patients treated for colorectal cancer. Patients were divided as follows: Study Group (patients with AL - 37 patients) and Control Group (patients without AL - 322 patients). Surgical and anastomotic technique-related information was processed.

Results

Surgical procedures for right sided colon tumors resulted in a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leakage (P=0.0231). For left sided colectomies end to end handsewn double layer anastomosis presented decreased odds (OR=0.176). For sigmoid segmental resection end to end anastomotic techniques developed low rate of fistula formation (handsewn - OR=0.593, stapled - OR=0.685). Performing Dixon type surgical interventions, anastomotic techniques seemed without influence on anastomotic leak appearance (handsewn and stapled), although distal anastomoses were identified as significant risk factors for fistula formation (P=0.0017). In order to perform subtotal colectomy, side to side sutures (handsewn and stapled) seemed safe choices for anastomotic procedure (P=0.0073). Patient with anastomotic leakage suffered a significantly longer hospital stay (P=0.0079), presented higher rate of surgical reintervention (P=0.0001), increased mortality (P=0.0001) and elevated hospitalization costs (P=0.0079).

Conclusion

Postoperative complications like anastomosis leakage significantly increase hospitalization period, necessity of surgical reintervention, mortality and financial costs. In order to avoid these unpleasant events, bowel anastomoses require standardization during surgery.

Incidence and Long-term Outcomes of Patients Requiring Early Reoperation After HIPEC

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) remains a formidable operation associated with considerable morbidity. It is unclear how often these patients require reoperation for postoperative complications and if the need for reoperations leads to worse long-term outcomes.

METHODS

The Peritoneal Surface Malignancy Database at a single center was retrospectively queried. Out of 149 entries, 141 HIPECs performed between 2012 and 2018 met inclusion criteria. Patients were categorized based on early reoperation (<60 d after HIPEC), and demographic and tumor factors were compared using univariate analyses. Recurrence was calculated for patients with complete cytoreduction and overall survival analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

There were 15 reoperations after 141 HIPECs (10.6%). Median duration between HIPEC and reoperation was 18 d. Indications for reoperation included intra-abdominal infection (n = 5), bowel obstruction (n = 4), wound infection (n = 3), bleeding (n = 2), and evisceration (n = 1). There were no identified patient- or tumor-related risk factors for reoperation. Reoperations were associated with longer hospital length of stay (19 versus 9 d, P = 0.005) and 30-d readmissions (46.7% versus 12.8%, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in 3-year recurrence-free survival, but there was a significant association between reoperation and 3-year overall survival (38.0% versus 71.9%, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Complications requiring reoperation after HIPEC lead to increased short-term morbidity, longer hospital length of stay, and most importantly, reduced overall survival. Further studies investigating interventions to decrease complications and reduce reoperation rates are needed to improve outcomes after HIPEC.

National cohort study on postoperative risks after surgery for submucosal invasive colorectal cancer

Background

The decision to perform surgery for patients with T1 colorectal cancer hinges on the estimated risk of lymph node metastasis, residual tumour and risks of surgery. The aim of this observational study was to compare surgical outcomes for T1 colorectal cancer with those for more advanced colorectal cancer.

Methods

This was a population‐based cohort study of patients treated surgically for pT1–3 colorectal cancer between 2009 and 2016, using data from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Postoperative complications (overall, surgical, severe complications and mortality) were compared using multivariable logistic regression. A risk stratification table was developed based on factors independently associated with severe complications (reintervention and/or mortality) after elective surgery.

Results

Of 39 813 patients, 5170 had pT1 colorectal cancer. No statistically significant differences were observed between patients with pT1 and pT2–3 disease in the rate of severe complications (8·3 versus 9·5 per cent respectively; odds ratio (OR) 0·89, 95 per cent c.i. 0·80 to 1·01, P = 0·061), surgical complications (12·6 versus 13·5 per cent; OR 0·93, 0·84 to 1·02, P = 0·119) or mortality (1·7 versus 2·5 per cent; OR 0·94, 0·74 to 1·19, P = 0·604). Male sex, higher ASA grade, previous abdominal surgery, open approach and type of procedure were associated with a higher severe complication rate in patients with pT1 colorectal cancer.

Conclusion

Elective bowel resection was associated with similar morbidity and mortality rates in patients with pT1 and those with pT2–3 colorectal carcinoma.

Short- and long-term outcomes after colorectal anastomotic leakage is affected by surgical approach at reoperation

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is the most serious surgical complication following colorectal resection, and surgical intervention is often required. The purpose of the study was to investigate short- and long-term outcomes after reoperation for anastomotic leakage.

METHOD

Patients with a symptomatic anastomotic leakage following a laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection from January 2009 to December 2014 were identified from our local prospective database. Patients were grouped according to the management of anastomotic leaks: local, lap, or open approach. Primary outcomes were length of stay, chance of bowel continuity, and overall mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 40 months (0-82 months). Overall mortality was significantly associated with UICC stage III-VI disease (vs. UICC stage I-II disease) [adj. HR 5.35 (CI 2.32-12.4), p = 0.0001] and minimal invasive reoperation compared with open approach [local: adj. HR 0.12 (CI 0.03-0.52), p = 0.004; lap: adj. HR 0.32 (CI 0.12-0.86), p = 0.024]. Chance of bowel continuity was significantly increased in younger patients below 67 years [adj. OR 6.15 (1.76-21.5), p = 0.004] and following a local procedure [adj. OR 7.45 (1.07-51.8), p = 0.043]. Patients in the open group had significantly longer length of stay and time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with those in the lap group.

CONCLUSION

Our data confirms that minimal invasive reoperation for anastomotic leakage is a safe and feasible approach associated with short- and long-term advantages and can be chosen in selected cases.

Thirty days post-operative mortality after surgery for colorectal cancer: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The goal of surgery for colorectal cancer is cure. Unfortunately post-operative mortality occurs. This study aims to identify co-morbidity and causes of mortality in the post-operative period in relation to direct technical complications of surgery.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer were included. Co-morbidity was determined via the Charlson co-morbidity score. The post-operative course was studied and cause of death within 30 days was determined. Patients were divided in two groups: group 1 died within 30 days after surgery and group 2 survived for longer than 30 days.

RESULTS

Twenty three out of 333 patients (6.9%) with colon cancer and 6 out of 112 (5.3%) with rectal cancer died in the post-operative period. Patients in group 1 were significantly older than patients in group 2 (P<0.001). Patients in group 1 with colon cancer also significantly had more often a higher stage of cancer (P=0.03). The Charlson co-morbidity score for patients with colon cancer in group 1 was mean 5.17 (SD 1.57, range, 1-8), and for rectal cancer mean 4.83 (SD 2.32, range, 2-7). There was no difference in Charlson co-morbidity score when patients from groups 1 and 2 were compared. In group 1, 13 (44%) died as a direct consequence of technical surgical complications. Sixteen patients died due to complications because of pre-existing co-morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-operative mortality very often is the direct result of pre-existing co-morbidity and not always the direct result of the surgical procedure.