Complications after colorectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation

Role of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in children with Hirschsprung's disease undergoing colostomy closure and pull-through

BACKGROUND

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) has been performed routinely before colorectal surgery in children, but the necessity was questioned recently. We evaluated the utility of MOABP in children with Hirschsprung's disease (HSCR) undergoing colostomy closure and pull-through.

METHODS

The medical records of pediatric patients with HSCR who underwent colostomy closure and pull-through in a single center from January 2010 to January 2020 were reviewed. The use of MOABP was noted. The incidence of postoperative complications, duration of postoperative antibiotic therapy, total hospital cost and length-of-stay were compared between patients receiving MOABP and no bowel preparation (NBP).

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients were included in the study: 33 received MOABP and 31 had NBP. The respective postoperative complications in the MOABP and NBP groups were: intra-abdominal infection (18.2% vs. 29.0%), wound infection (9.1% vs. 16.1%), anastomotic leak (0 vs. 0), intestinal obstruction (6.1% vs. 0) and enterocolitis (3.03% vs. 12.90%). The duration of antibiotic therapy was 4.91±4.21 and 5.23±3.77 days (P=0.75) and hospitalization was 18.21±7.26 and 16.26±6.63 days (P=0.27) respectively. The total hospital cost in the MOABP group (4,720.14±1,858.89 USD) was higher than in the NBP group (3,749.06±2,009.97 USD) (P=0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any clear benefit of MOABP in children with HSCR before colostomy closure and pull-through. However, a multicenter randomized controlled trial is needed to more definitely determine the best preoperative approach for children with HSCR.

Intraoperative fluorescence angiography and risk factors of anastomotic leakage in mini-invasive low rectal resections

BACKGROUND

One of the prerequisites for proper healing of the anastomosis after a colorectal resection is adequate blood supply to the connected intestinal segments. It has been proposed that adequate visualization of the blood flow using indocyanine green (ICG) could lead to the reduction in the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL). The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of intraoperative fluorescence angiography (FA) in decreasing the incidence of AL after minimally invasive low anterior resection (LAR) with total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer patients and to determine predictors of anastomotic leak.

METHODS

From August 2015 to January 2019, data from 100 patients who underwent mini-invasive TME for rectal cancer using FA with indocyanine green (ICG) were prospectively collected and analyzed. They were compared with retrospectively analyzed data from a historical control group operated by one team of surgeons before the introduction of FA from November 2012 to August 2015 (100 patients). All patients from both groups were operated sequentially in one oncological center in Nový Jičín.

RESULTS

The incidence of AL was significantly lower in the ICG group (19% vs. 9%, p = 0.042, χ² test). In fifteen patients in the ICG group (15%), the resection line was moved due to insufficient perfusion. Using Pearson's χ² test, diabetes (p = 0.036) and application of a transanal drain (NoCoil) (p = 0.032) were identified as other risk factors (RFs) for AL.

CONCLUSION

The use of ICG to visualize tissue perfusion in low rectal resections for cancer can lead to a reduction of AL.

Malnutrition-Related Factors Increased the Risk of Anastomotic Leak for Rectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Surgery

Objective

To study the possible risk factors and related prediction indexes of anastomotic leakage (AL) in patients with rectal cancer during the perioperative period and to provide effective indexes for predicting whether AL will occur in postoperative patients with rectal cancer and whether early nutritional support is needed.

Background

AL after rectal cancer surgery is a common and serious complication. Many of the risk factors for AL have been confirmed. Nevertheless, the evidence of the effect of perioperative malnutrition on AL is still insufficient. This article will make a further study on this point.

Methods

We collected perioperative clinical data from 382 patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgery from September 2015 to May 2017. After 1 month of follow-up, relevant risk factor data were collected and analyzed.

Results

Data analysis showed that the incidence of AL was 14.65%. In single factor analysis, patients with high score of NRS-2002, high score of PG-SGA, diabetes, perioperative blood transfusion, postoperative diarrhea, later tumor stage, high score of ASA, low postoperative albumin, and rectal cancer patients with tumor close to the anus may led to AL. Multivariate analysis revealed that low postoperative albumin (p = 0.044), tumor close to the anus (p = 0.004), diabetes (p = 0.003), perioperative blood transfusion (p < 0.001), diarrhea (p = 0.005), later tumor stage, and high score of PG-SGA (p < 0.001) were the independent risk factors for postoperative AL.

Conclusions

AL in rectal cancer operation is a common postoperative complication. Patients with diabetes or high PG-SGA score or low perioperative albumin will have increased risk factors of AL, which should be paid enough attention in the perioperative period and nutritional support should be provided as soon as possible. Patients who have incomplete intestinal obstruction but can make effective intestinal preparation or who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy have no increased risk of AL.

Influence of preoperative enema application on the return of gastrointestinal function in elective Cesarean sections: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

There is an extensive literature on the mechanical bowel preparation by an enema in colorectal, abdominal, and gynecologic surgeries that provide evidence against the use of enema. There are, however, few studies investigating the effect of enema prior to elective Cesarean sections. The aim of this study is to investigate whether preoperative enema facilitates the return of gastrointestinal activity in pregnant women undergoing elective Cesarean section.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The surgeon-blinded prospective randomized controlled study included 225 elective Cesarean patients between the ages of 18 and 44. The patients were randomized into two groups: those who had enema preoperatively (n = 114) and those who did not (n = 111). The outcome measures were first bowel sound time and first flatus time, the length of hospital stay, the rate of mid ileus symptoms, and additional analgesic and antiemetic need.

RESULTS

In the non-enema group, the time of the first bowel sound, flatus time, length of hospital stay, the rates of additional analgesic need, additional antiemetic need, and mild ileus symptoms were respectively 10.5 ± 5.8 hours, 16.0 ± 7.6 hours, 1.9 ± 0.3 days, 8.1%, 7.2%, and 2.7%. For the enema group, the same parameters were respectively 11.6 ± 4.7 hours, 17.5 ± 6.5 hours, 1.8 ± 0.3 days, 7%, 6.1% ,and 1.8%. For all parameters, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p values were respectively .09, .12, .8, .79, .68, and .26).

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that preoperative enema in elective cesarean sections does not prevent postoperative gastrointestinal complications and does not shorten the recovery of bowel movements or length of hospital stay.

Bowel Preparation Is Associated with Reduced Morbidity in Elderly Patients Undergoing Elective Colectomy

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation in elderly patients is associated with physiologic derangements that may result in postoperative complications. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of bowel preparation on postoperative outcomes in elderly patients.

METHODS

Patients age 75 years and older who underwent elective colectomy were identified from the 2012-2014 American College of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP database). Patients were grouped into no bowel preparation, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), oral antibiotic preparation (OABP), or combined MBP + OABP. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to calculate risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 4829 patients included in the analysis. Morbidity was 34.3% in no bowel prep, 32.4% in MBP, 24.8% in OABP, and 24.6% in MBP + OABP groups (p < 0.001). The MBP + OABP group compared with no bowel prep was associated with reduced rates of anastomotic leak, ileus, superficial surgical site infection (SSI), organ space SSI, respiratory compromise, and reduced length of stay. There was no difference in the rate of acute kidney injury between the groups.

CONCLUSION

MBP + OABP was associated with reduced morbidity compared with no bowel preparation in elderly patients undergoing elective colorectal resection. MBP alone was not associated with differences in outcomes compared with no bowel preparation. The use of MBP + OABP is safe and effective in elderly patients undergoing elective colectomy.

The effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on experimental colon anastomosis after preoperative chemoradiotherapy

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) on colon anastomosis after chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Sixty female Wistar-Albino rats were divided into 5 groups and underwent left colon resection and end-to-end anastomosis. CRT simulation was performed on 2 sham groups before the anastomosis, and 1 of these groups was administered additional postoperative HBOT. Two groups were administered CRT before the anastomosis, and 1 of them received additional postoperative HBOT. On postoperative day 5, all groups underwent relaparotomy; burst pressure was measured and samples were obtained for histopathologic and biochemical analysis. There was a significant weight loss in the CRT groups and postoperative HBOT had an improving effect. Significantly decreased burst pressure values increased up to the levels of the controls after HBOT. Hydroxyproline levels were elevated in all groups compared to the control group. Hydroxyproline levels decreased with HBOT after CRT. No significant difference was observed between the groups regarding fibrosis formation at the anastomosis site. However, regression was observed in fibrosis in the group receiving HBOT after CRT. Preoperative CRT affected anastomosis and wound healing unfavorably. These unfavorable effects were alleviated by postoperative HBOT. HBOT improved the mechanical and biochemical parameters of colon anastomosis in rats.

The influence of fluorescence imaging on the location of bowel transection during robotic left-sided colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Hypoperfusion is an important risk factor for anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of fluorescence imaging on visualization of perfusion and subsequent change of transection line during left-sided robotic colorectal resections.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for robotic left-sided colon or rectal resections were enrolled in this prospective, multicenter study. Resections were performed as per each surgeon's preference. After complete colorectal mobilization, ligation of blood vessels, and distal transection of the bowel, the mesocolon was completely divided to the planned proximal or distal transection line, which was marked in white light. Indocyanine green was injected intravenously and the transection location(s) and/or distal rectal stump, if applicable, were re-assessed in fluorescent imaging mode. Imaging information, perioperative, and early postoperative outcomes were recorded. An independent video review of the surgeries was performed.

RESULTS

Data for 40 patients (20 female/20 male) with a mean age of 63.9 years and a mean body mass index of 27.6 kg/m(2) were analyzed. Fluorescence imaging resulted in a change of the proximal transection location in 40 % (16/40) of patients. There was one change in the distal transection location in a patient with benign disease. The use of fluorescence imaging took an average of 5.1 min of the mean overall operative room time of 232 min. Two patients (5 %) with a change in transection line developed an anastomotic leak at postoperative days 15 and 40.

CONCLUSION

Fluorescence imaging provides additional information during determination of transection location in left-sided colorectal procedures. This results in a significant change of transection location, particularly at the proximal transection site. Further research needs to be conducted with larger patient cohorts and in comparative design to determine actual effect on anastomotic leak rate.

Colectomy without mechanical bowel preparation in the private practice setting

BACKGROUND

Despite randomized trials and meta-analyses demonstrating the safety of omitting mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery, private practice surgeons may hesitate to eliminate MBP for fear of being outside community standards. This study evaluated the safety of eliminating MBP before colectomy in a private practice setting.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included elective abdominal colorectal operations from one surgeon's practice from October 2008 to June 2011. MBP was not routinely utilized after November 2009. Postoperative 30-day complication rates and length of hospital stay were compared in patients with and without MBP. Multivariable regression models were developed to compare outcomes among study groups, adjusting for demographics, diagnoses, procedures, and year.

RESULTS

A total of 165 patients were analyzed. Demographics were similar between groups. Laparoscopic procedures were more common in patients without MBP due to increased laparoscopy over time (43 vs. 61 %, p = 0.03). As regards complications, infection rates were similar between groups (MBP 10.5 % vs. no MBP(NMBP) 11.4 %, adj p = 0.57). Patients without MBP had a shorter length of hospital stay (median: 6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.01), but those differences were not statistically significant after adjustment (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Private practice surgeons should embrace evidence-based practice changes and make efforts to quantitatively evaluate the safety of those changes. Omission of MBP for most elective colectomy procedures appears to be safe with no significant increase in complications or length of hospital stay. Because MBP has substantial drawbacks, there is little justification for its routine use in the majority of elective abdominal colorectal procedures.

Evaluation of morbidity and mortality after anastomotic leakage following elective colorectal surgery in patients treated with or without mechanical bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

A previous multicenter randomized trial demonstrated that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) does not guard against anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery. The aim of this complementary study was to evaluate the effects of MBP on morbidity and mortality after anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A subgroup analysis was performed of a randomized trial comparing the incidence of anastomotic leakage and septic complications with and without MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

Elective colorectal surgery was performed in 1,433 patients with primary anastomoses, of whom 63 patients developed anastomotic leakage. Twenty-eight patients (44%) received MBP and 35 patients (56%) did not. Mortality rate, initial need for surgical reintervention, and extent of bowel contamination did not differ between groups (29% vs 40%; P = .497, P = .667, and P = .998, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

No benefit of MBP was found regarding morbidity and mortality after anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage, but the belief that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications is based on observational data and expert opinions only.An enema before the rectal surgery to clean the rectum and facilitate the manipulation for the mechanical anastomosis is used for many surgeons. This is analysed separately

OBJECTIVES

To determine the security and effectiveness of MBP on morbidity and mortality in colorectal surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Publications describing trials of MBP before elective colorectal surgery were sought through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IBECS and The Cochrane Library; by handsearching relevant medical journals and conference proceedings, and through personal communication with colleagues.Searches were performed December 1, 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants submitted for elective colorectal surgery. Eligible interventions included any type of MBP compared with no MBP. Primary outcomes included anastomosis leakage - both rectal and colonic - and combined figures. Secondary outcomes included mortality, peritonitis, reoperation, wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, and overall surgical site infections.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of randomisation, blinding, type of analysis, and number lost to follow up were recorded. For analysis, the Peto-Odds Ratio (OR) was used as the default (no statistical heterogeneity was observed).

MAIN RESULTS

At this update six trials and a new comparison (Mechanical bowel preparation versus enema) were added. Altogether eighteen trials were analysed, with 5805 participants; 2906 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2899 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation Versus No Mechanical Bowel Preparation results were:1. Anastomotic leakage for low anterior resection: 8.8% (38/431) of Group A, compared with 10.3% (43/415) of Group B; Peto OR 0.88 [0.55, 1.40].2. Anastomotic leakage for colonic surgery: 3.0% (47/1559) of Group A, compared with 3.5% (56/1588) of Group B; Peto OR 0.85 [0.58, 1.26].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (101/2275) of Group A, compared with 4.5% (103/2258) of Group B; Peto OR 0.99 [0.74, 1.31].4. Wound infection: 9.6% (223/2305) of Group A, compared with 8.5% (196/2290) of Group B; Peto OR 1.16 [0.95, 1.42].Sensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation (A) Versus Rectal Enema (B) results were:1. Anastomotic leakage after rectal surgery: 7.4% (8/107) of Group A, compared with 7.9% (7/88) of Group B; Peto OR 0.93 [0.34, 2.52].2. Anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery: 4.0% (11/269) of Group A, compared with 2.0% (6/299) of Group B; Peto OR 2.15 [0.79, 5.84].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (27/601) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (21/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.32 [0.74, 2.36].4. Wound infection: 9.9% (60/601) of Group A, compared with 8.0% (49/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 [0.85, 1.88].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the inclusion of more studies with a total of 5805 participants, there is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation, nor the use of rectal enemas. In colonic surgery the bowel cleansing can be safely omitted and induces no lower complication rate. The few studies focused in rectal surgery suggested that mechanical bowel preparation could be used selectively, even though no significant effect was found. Further research on patients submitted for elective rectal surgery, below the peritoneal verge, in whom bowel continuity is restored, and studies with patients submitted to laparoscopic surgeries are still warranted.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage, but the belief that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications is based on observational data and expert opinions only.An enema before the rectal surgery to clean the rectum and facilitate the manipulation for the mechanical anastomosis is used for many surgeons. This is analysed separately

OBJECTIVES

To determine the security and effectiveness of MBP on morbidity and mortality in colorectal surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Publications describing trials of MBP before elective colorectal surgery were sought through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IBECS and The Cochrane Library; by handsearching relevant medical journals and conference proceedings, and through personal communication with colleagues.Searches were performed December 1, 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants submitted for elective colorectal surgery. Eligible interventions included any type of MBP compared with no MBP. Primary outcomes included anastomosis leakage - both rectal and colonic - and combined figures. Secondary outcomes included mortality, peritonitis, reoperation, wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, and overall surgical site infections.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of randomisation, blinding, type of analysis, and number lost to follow up were recorded. For analysis, the Peto-Odds Ratio (OR) was used as the default (no statistical heterogeneity was observed).

MAIN RESULTS

At this update six trials and a new comparison (Mechanical bowel preparation versus enema) were added. Altogether eighteen trials were analysed, with 5805 participants; 2906 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2899 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation Versus No Mechanical Bowel Preparation results were:1. Anastomotic leakage for low anterior resection: 8.8% (38/431) of Group A, compared with 10.3% (43/415) of Group B; Peto OR 0.88 [0.55, 1.40].2. Anastomotic leakage for colonic surgery: 3.0% (47/1559) of Group A, compared with 3.5% (56/1588) of Group B; Peto OR 0.85 [0.58, 1.26].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (101/2275) of Group A, compared with 4.5% (103/2258) of Group B; Peto OR 0.99 [0.74, 1.31].4. Wound infection: 9.6% (223/2305) of Group A, compared with 8.5% (196/2290) of Group B; Peto OR 1.16 [0.95, 1.42].Sensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results.For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation (A) Versus Rectal Enema (B) results were:1. Anastomotic leakage after rectal surgery: 7.4% (8/107) of Group A, compared with 7.9% (7/88) of Group B; Peto OR 0.93 [0.34, 2.52].2. Anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery: 4.0% (11/269) of Group A, compared with 2.0% (6/299) of Group B; Peto OR 2.15 [0.79, 5.84].3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (27/601) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (21/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.32 [0.74, 2.36].4. Wound infection: 9.9% (60/601) of Group A, compared with 8.0% (49/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 [0.85, 1.88].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the inclusion of more studies with a total of 5805 participants, there is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation, nor the use of rectal enemas. In colonic surgery the bowel cleansing can be safely omitted and induces no lower complication rate. The few studies focused in rectal surgery suggested that mechanical bowel preparation could be used selectively, even though no significant effect was found. Further research on patients submitted for elective rectal surgery, below the peritoneal verge, in whom bowel continuity is restored, and studies with patients submitted to laparoscopic surgeries are still warranted.

Management and outcome of anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery

AIM

Anastomotic leakage remains a key factor for morbidity after colonic surgery. The aim of the study was to analyse the outcome of different therapeutical approaches.

METHOD

Of 1731 consecutive patients undergoing colonic resection between 1998 and 2005 at our institution, 67 patients with anastomotic leakage were identified from a prospective database. A logistic regression model was used to determine factors which influenced the therapeutic approach and outcome.

RESULTS

The overall anastomotic leakage rate was 3.5%. All patients were re-operated. The anastomosis was resected without restoration of continuity in 31 but preserved in 36 patients. An ileostomy was constructed in 27 of 36 patients with anastomotic leakage after repair or revision of the anastomosis, the remaining nine cases were treated without ileostomy. Five of these latter nine vs three of the 27 patients with ileostomy experienced re-leakage (P = 0.05). The overall mortality was 25%. The Mannheim Peritonitis Index was 17.44 for survivors vs 25.64 for nonsurvivors (P < 0.001). Restoration of intestinal continuity was performed in 95% of the patients with ileostomy and in 88% after Hartmann's procedure. Multivariate analysis identified multi organ failure as the only factor predictive of a fatal outcome (P < 0.001). An ASA-score of more than 2 (P = 0.02) and peritonitis (P = 0.002) were reasons for not preserving the anastomosis.

CONCLUSION

Repair or redo of the anastomosis without a protective ileostomy frequently results in failure of the procedure. After Hartmann's operation or split stoma creation a majority of patients undergo restoration of intestinal continuity.

Intraoperative laser fluorescence angiography in colorectal surgery: a noninvasive analysis to reduce the rate of anastomotic leakage

PURPOSE

Up to 19% of all colorectal resections develop clinically apparent insufficiencies. Insufficient perfusion of the anastomosis is recognized as an important risk factor. As tissue perfusion can be objectified intraoperatively using laser fluorescence angiography (LFA), its effect on the rate of anastomotic complications was evaluated in a retrospective matched-pairs analysis.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2008, all anastomosis or resection margins in colorectal cancer resections were investigated intraoperatively using LFA (LFA group). Patients with colorectal cancer resections between 1998 and 2003 without LFA served as the control group. Four hundred two patients were matched for age, T-stage, type of resection and anastomosis, defunctioning stoma, administration of blood, emergency conditions, and body mass index. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher and the Wilcoxon tests.

RESULTS

Twenty-two surgical revisions were necessary due to anastomotic leakage, seven (3.5%) in the LFA group and 15 (7.5%) in the control group. Subgroup analysis revealed that in elective resections the rate of revision was 3.1% (LFA group) and 7.7% (control group) (p = 0.04, risk of revision (ROR) reduced by 60%). In patients older than 70 years, the rate of revision was 4.3% (LFA group) compared to 11.9% (control group) (p = 0.04, ROR reduced by 64%). After hand-sewn anastomosis, the rate of revision was 1.2% (LFA group) and 8.5% (control group) (p = 0.03, ROR reduced by 84%). Hospital stay was significantly reduced in the LFA group (Wilcoxon test; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There was an overall reduction in the absolute revision rate of 4% in the LFA group and a significantly reduced rate of revision in the subgroup analysis of patients undergoing elective colorectal resections, in patients older than 70 years and in patients with hand-sewn anastomosis. This demonstrates that LFA is a method that may significantly reduce not only the rate of severe complications in colorectal surgery but also the hospital length of stay.

The influence of mechanical bowel preparation in elective lower colorectal surgery

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on anastomosis below the peritoneal verge and questions the influence of MBP on anastomotic leakage in combination with a diverting ileostomy in lower colorectal surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

In a previous large multicenter randomized controlled trial MBP has shown to have no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in overall colorectal surgery. The role of MBP in lower colorectal surgery with or without a diverting ileostomy remains unclear.

METHODS

This study is a subgroup analysis of a prior multicenter (13 hospitals) randomized trial comparing clinical outcome of MBP versus no MBP. Primary end point was the occurrence of anastomotic leakage and secondary endpoints were septic complications and mortality.

RESULTS

Total of 449 Patients underwent a low anterior resection with a primary anastomosis below the peritoneal verge. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was 7.6% for patients who received MBP and 6.6% for patients who did not. Significant risk factors for anastomotic leakage were the American Society of Anesthesiologists-classification (P = 0.005) and male gender (P = 0.007). Of total, 48 patients received a diverting ileostomy during initial surgery; 27 patients received MBP and 21 patients did not. There were no significant differences regarding septic complications and mortality between both groups.

CONCLUSION

MBP has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in low colorectal surgery. Furthermore, omitting MBP in combination with a diverting ileostomy has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage, septic complications, and mortality rate.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The presence of bowel contents during surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage, but the belief that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications is based on observational data and expert opinions only.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the security and effectiveness of MBP on morbidity and mortality in colorectal surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Publications describing trials of MBP before elective colorectal surgery were sought through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and The Cochrane Library; by handsearching relevant medical journals and conference proceedings, and through personal communication with colleagues.Searches were performed March 13, 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants submitted for elective colorectal surgery. Eligible interventions included any type of MBP compared with no MBP. Primary outcomes included anastomosis leakage - both rectal and colonic - and combined figures. Secondary outcomes included mortality, peritonitis, reoperation, wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, and overall surgical site infections.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of randomisation, blinding, type of analysis, and number lost to follow up were recorded. For analysis, the Peto-Odds Ratio (OR) was used as the default (no statistical heterogeneity was observed).

MAIN RESULTS

Four new trials were included at this update (total 13 RCTs with 4777 participants; 2390 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2387 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery) .Anastomotic leakage occurred:(i) in 10.0% (14/139) of Group A, compared with 6.6% (9/136) of Group B for low anterior resection; Peto OR 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73 to 4.10).(ii) in 2.9% (32/1226) of Group A, compared with 2.5% (31/1228) of Group B for colonic surgery; Peto OR 1.13 (95% CI: 0.69 to 1.85). Overall anastomotic leakage occurred in 4.2% (102/2398) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (82/2378) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 (95% CI: 0.941 to 1.69). Wound infection occurred in 9.6% (232/2417) of Group A, compared with 8.3% (200/2404) of Group B; Peto OR 1.19 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.45). Sensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from MBP. The belief that MBP is necessary before elective colorectal surgery should be reconsidered. Further research on patients submitted for elective colorectal surgery in whom bowel continuity is restored, with stratification for colonic and rectal surgery, is still warranted.

One stage procedure in the management of acute sigmoid volvulus without colonic lavage

BACKGROUND

There is a growing acceptance of one-stage primary resection and anastomosis of left-sided colon obstruction with on-table antegrade colonic lavage to reduce the risk of post-operative infectious complications and anastomotic dehiscence. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of single-stage resection and anastomosis for acute left-sided colonic obstruction due to acute sigmoid volvulus, without intraoperative colonic lavage, in a consecutive series of patients admitted to our department.

METHODS

Emergency resection of acute sigmoid volvulus was performed by an experienced senior surgeon (consultant grade). This was followed by primary anastomosis without on-table colonic lavage after a manual decompression.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients underwent bowel decompression, resection and primary colorectal anastomosis. Two of the patients who had ileosigmoid knotting and gangrenous bowel had double resection with primary ileoileal and colorectal anastomosis. There were two superficial wound infections. No death or clinical anastomotic failure were recorded in this series. The mean hospital stay was 10.3 days.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that resection of acute sigmoid volvulus and primary anastomosis after decompression alone can be carried out safely in reasonably fit patients.

Pilot study on one-stage colonic resection without lavage in obstructed left colon in children in an emergency setting

Classically, left-sided colon obstruction is managed by a multi-staged resection and defunctioning colostomy. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of single-stage resection and anastomosis without intraoperative colonic lavage for acute left-sided colonic obstruction in children. Between October 2000 and May 2006, nine consecutive patients who had a one-stage left-sided colon resection without preceding colonic lavage were evaluated. The main outcome measures were anastomotic leakage, wound infection and death. There were nine patients: six were males and three were females (M:F = 2:1). Their ages ranged from 2-10 years (mean age 6 years). The obstruction was due to irreducible colo-colic intussusceptions in two patients and colo-colic intussusceptions with colonic perforation in four patients, and colo-colic intussusceptions with gangrene in three. All the patients had resection and primary anastomosis without on-table colonic lavage. There were no anastomotic leakages or deaths. Postoperative complications included superficial wound infections in two patients and dry cough in four other patients. Three patients were lost to follow up after 3 years of follow up, but the remaining six are presently doing well. Primary anastomosis without colonic lavage is safe for resection of the left colon in children in an emergency setting.

Preparar el colon para la cirugía. ¿Necesidad real o nada más (y nada menos) que el peso de la tradición?

Mechanical bowel preparation is a traditional procedure for preparing patients for colorectal surgery. This practice aims to reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications since colonic fecal content has classically been related to stool spillage during surgery and anastomotic disruption. However, increasing evidence against its routine use can be found in experimental studies, clinical observations, prospective studies, and meta-analyses. We performed a review of the literature on mechanical bowel preparation and its consequences. There is no clear evidence that preoperative bowel cleansing reduces the septic complications of surgery and routine use of this procedure may increase anastomotic leaks and morbidity. Therefore, the results suggest that mechanical preparation is not required in elective colon and rectal surgery and that its use should be restricted to specific indications such as small nonpalpable tumors to aid their localization during laparoscopic procedures or to enable intraoperative colonoscopy. The role of mechanical bowel preparation in rectal surgery is not well defined and further trials with a larger number of patients are required.

Anastomotic leaks after intestinal anastomosis: it's later than you think

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leaks are among the most dreaded complications after colorectal surgery. However, problems with definitions and the retrospective nature of previous analyses have been major limitations. We sought to use a prospective database to define the true incidence and presentation of anastomotic leakage after intestinal anastomosis.

METHODS

A prospective database of two colorectal surgeons was reviewed over a 10-year period (1995-2004). The incidence of leak by surgical site, timing of diagnosis, method of detection, and treatment was noted. Complications were entered prospectively by a nurse practitioner directly involved in patient care. Standardized criteria for diagnosis were used. A logistic regression model was used to discriminate statistical variation.

RESULTS

A total of 1223 patients underwent resection and anastomosis during the study period. Mean age was 59.1 years. Leaks occurred in 33 patients (2.7%). Diagnosis was made a mean of 12.7 days postoperatively, including four beyond 30 days (12.1%). There was no difference in leak rate by surgeon (3.6% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.08). The leak rate was similar by surgical site except for a markedly increased leak rate with ileorectal anastomosis (P = 0.001). Twelve leaks were diagnosed clinically versus 21 radiographically. Contrast enema correctly identified only 4 of 10 leaks, whereas CT correctly identified 17 of 19. A total of 14 of 33 (42%) patients had their leak diagnosed only after readmission. Fifteen patients required fecal diversion, whereas 18 could be managed nonoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Anastomotic leaks are frequently diagnosed late in the postoperative period and often after initial hospital discharge, highlighting the importance of prospective data entry and adequate follow-up. CT scan is the preferred diagnostic modality when imaging is required. More than half of leaks can be managed without fecal diversion.

[Feasibility of colorectal surgery without colonic preparation. A prospective study]

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), aimed at reducing the infectious complications of colorectal surgery, was considered as indispensable. This benefit is actually disputed. The aim of this study was to report an experience of colorectal surgery without MBP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hundred ninety patients without MBP and without low residue diet, who underwent colorectal surgery with primary anastomosis not requiring a diverting stoma were included. The main outcome were the rate of mortality, anastomotic leak, wound infection and intra-abdominal abscess. Secondary outcomes were duration of intravenous perfusion, nasogastric aspiration, total hospitalisation stay and time to realimentation.

RESULTS

The procedure was performed by laparotomy (n=142) or laparoscopy (n=48). Forty-eight patients underwent emergency surgery. Ninety-two patients were operated for malignancy. The rate of mortality was 6.3% in correlation with the scale of AFC. The rate of anastomotic leak was 3.7%. The rate of specific morbidity was independent of scale of AFC on the contrary to the frequency of non-specific complications. The mean duration of intravenous perfusion and nasogastric suction were 6 days and 0.3 day. The patient had normal diet to the 4th day (4+/-3 days). The mean hospital stay was 13.4 days.

CONCLUSION

The colorectal surgery without MBP may be safely performed and could improve the quality of life of patients in the perioperatory period.

Morphologic alterations associated with mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

The feasibility and safety of left-sided colorectal procedures with avoidance of mechanical bowel preparation has recently been demonstrated. Moreover, mechanical preparation has been associated with an increased risk for abdominal septic complications, including anastomotic leakage. This study was designed to determine whether mechanical bowel preparation is associated with histologic alterations in the colon.

METHODS

Fifty patients (mean age, 61 (range, 45-78) years) scheduled to undergo elective colorectal surgery were prospectively randomized to receive mechanical preparation (polyethylene glycol; Group 1) or no preparation (Group 2) preoperatively. A macroscopically healthy segment of the bowel was excised at the proximal margin of the colectomy piece. A pathologist, blinded to the patient's group allocation, assessed various morphologic parameters.

RESULTS

Indications for colectomy (cancer and complicated diverticulosis) did not differ between groups. Bowel wall alterations were more frequent in patients who received a preparation. The most striking alterations associated with mechanical preparation were loss of superficial mucus (moderate-to-severe in 96 and 52 percent in Groups 1 and 2, respectively; P < 0.001) and epithelial cells (moderate-to-severe in 88 and 40 percent in Groups 1 and 2, respectively; P < 0.01). In addition, inflammatory changes, i.e., lymphocytes (severe in 48 and 12 percent in Groups 1 and 2, respectively; P < 0.02) and polymorphonuclear cells infiltration (severe in 52 and 8 percent in Groups 1 and 2, respectively; P < 0.02), were more prevalent after mechanical preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical bowel preparation is associated with structural alteration and inflammatory changes in the large bowel wall. Although bowel wall inflammation is a known risk factor for anastomotic leak, it remains to be elucidated whether these changes have a direct relation to the deleterious effect of mechanical bowel preparation in terms of abdominal morbidity.

Mechanical bowel preparation or not? Outcome of a multicenter, randomized trial in elective open colon surgery

PURPOSE

Mechanical bowel preparation is common practice in elective colon surgery. In recent literature the value of this procedure is under discussion. To verify the value of mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery, a randomized clinical trial was conducted.

METHODS

During a prospective, multicenter, randomized study, 250 patients undergoing elective open colon surgery were randomized between receiving mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG group, 125 patients) and having a normal meal preoperatively (normal meal preoperatively group, 125 patients). Outcome parameters were wound infection with bacterial results of intraoperative swabs and anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

In the polyethylene glycol group there were a total of nine wound infections (7.2 percent) and seven anastomotic leaks (5.6 percent) compared with seven wound infections (5.6 percent) (P = 0.61) and six anastomotic leaks (4.8 percent) (P = 0.78) in the normal meal preoperatively group. Bacterial results showed 52 percent sterile subcutis swabs in the PEG group and 63 percent sterile subcutis swabs in the normal meal preoperatively group (P = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

In the present study we could not detect a difference in outcome parameters between patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery and patients without preoperative treatment of the bowel. The present study, although underpowered, did not show a difference in the primary outcome of bacterial wound cultures between patients receiving preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and patients receiving no preoperative bowel treatment. We conclude that there may be no need to continue the use of mechanical bowel preparation in elective open colon surgery.

Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer Without Bowel Preparation and Diverting Stoma

PURPOSE

Since the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) as the standard operation technique for rectal cancer, anastomotic leakage percentages of up to 18% have been reported. To prevent such leakage, the use of mechanical bowel preparation and also the construction of a diverting ileostoma or colostomy have been standard procedures for years. In our institute, however, all patients undergoing colorectal surgery are operated upon without these measures. The present study was undertaken to investigate the results of this strategy in terms of the occurrence of postoperative anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

All patients who underwent an elective (low) anterior resection between January 1996 and December 2001 (n = 144) entered the study. The clinical and pathological records of these patients were reviewed retrospectively. The exclusion criteria were patients with fixed rectal carcinoma who received preoperative radiotherapy and/or a stoma only at operation, emergency operations, abdominoperoneal resections, and Hartmann's procedures.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage occurred in 7 out of 144 patients (4.9%). There was a trend toward a higher leakage frequency in men, in patients with a distal anastomosis, in patients with a stapled anastomosis, and in patients with a T3-T4 tumor or with positive lymph nodes. None of these factors, however, had a significant prognostic value based on a univariate or multivariate analysis. Those who died after leakage tended to be older than those who did not (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A (low) anterior resection can be performed safely without mechanical bowel preparation or a diverting stoma, and results in an anastomotic leakage percentage of less than 5%. Appropriate selection of patients may be important, but none of the investigated patient- or tumor-related factors could be identified as decisive.

Pre-operative mechanical bowel cleansing or not? an updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation has been considered an efficient regimen against leakage and infectious complications, after colorectal resections. This dogma is based only on observational data and experts' opinions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library and abstracts from major gastroenterological congresses were searched. No language restrictions were applied. The selection criterion used was randomised clinical trials (RCT) comparing any kind of mechanical bowel preparation with no preparation in patients submitted to elective colorectal surgery and where anastomotic leakage, mortality, and wound infection were outcome measurements. Data were independently extracted by the reviewers and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same reviewers. For meta-analysis the Peto-Odds ratio was used.

RESULTS

Of 1592 patients (9 RCTs), 789 were allocated to mechanical bowel preparation (Group A) and 803 to no preparation (Group B) before elective colorectal surgery. Anastomotic leakage developed in 48 (6%) of 772 patients in A compared with 25 (3.2%) of 777 patients in B; Peto OR 2.03, 95% (CI: 1.28-3.26; P = 0.003). Wound infection occurred in 59 (7.4%) of 791 patients in A and in 43 (5.4%) of 803 patients in B; Peto OR 1.46, 95% (CI: 0.97-2.18; P = 0.07); Five (1%) of 509 patients died in group in A compared with 3 (0.61%) of 516 patients in group B; Peto OR 1.72, 95% (CI: 0.43-6.95; nonsignificant).

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation. On the contrary taking colorectal surgery as a whole, pre-operative bowel cleansing leads to a higher rate of anastomotic leakage. The dogma that mechanical bowel preparation is necessary before elective colorectal surgery has to be reconsidered.

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.

Elective intestinal operations in infants and children without mechanical bowel preparation: a pilot study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective intestinal operations has been a long accepted practice. However, MBP is often unpleasant and time-consuming for patients, and clinical trials in adults have not shown improved outcomes. We conducted this pilot study to test whether omitting MBP before elective intestinal operations in infants and children would increase the risk of infectious or anastomotic complications.

METHODS

Retrospective review was performed of 143 patients who had an elective colon or distal small bowel procedure performed at our children's hospital between 1990 and 2003.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients (No PREP) were managed by a single surgeon who routinely omitted MBP, whereas another 110 patients (PREP) were prepared with enemas, laxatives, or both. Both groups received 24 hours of preoperative dietary restriction to clear liquids and perioperative parenteral antibiotics. The No PREP group had one anastomotic leak and no wound infections, whereas the PREP group had 2 anastomotic leaks and 1 wound infection (P = .58). These results occurred despite greater duration of antibiotic therapy and incidence of delayed wound closures in the PREP group.

CONCLUSION

The results of this pilot study suggest that omitting MBP before elective intestinal operations in infants and children carries no increased risk of infectious or anastomotic complications. Eliminating MBP may reduce health care costs and inconvenience to patients. These findings warrant a large, prospective, randomized clinical trial to validate our findings and to investigate further the necessity of MBP in the pediatric population.

Randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before elective left-sided colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is performed routinely before colorectal surgery to reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the outcome of patients who underwent elective left-sided colorectal surgery with or without MBP.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for elective left-sided colorectal resection with primary anastomosis were randomized to preoperative MBP (3 litres of polyethylene glycol) (group 1) or surgery without MBP (group 2). Postoperative abdominal infectious complications and extra-abdominal morbidity were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three patients were included in the study, 78 in group 1 and 75 in group 2. Demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The overall rate of abdominal infectious complications (anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal abscess, peritonitis and wound infection) was 22 per cent in group 1 and 8 per cent in group 2 (P = 0.028). Anastomotic leak occurred in five patients (6 per cent) in group 1 and one (1 per cent) in group 2 (P = 0.210) [corrected] Extra-abdominal morbidity rates were 24 and 11 per cent respectively (P = 0.034). Hospital stay was longer for patients who had MBP (mean(s.d.) 14.9(13.1) versus 9.9(3.8) days; P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Elective left-sided colorectal surgery without MBP is safe and is associated with reduced postoperative morbidity.

Mechanical and Antibacterial Bowel Preparation in Colon and Rectal Surgery

Colorectal surgery performed prior to 1970 was fraught with postoperative infectious complications which occurred in more than 30-50% of all operations. Diversion of the fecal stream appeared mandatory when operating on an urgent or emergent basis, thereby requiring the performance of multiple, staged operations instead of a single surgery encompassing resection and primary anastomosis as is performed commonly today. Multiple studies conducted in the early 1970s determined that anaerobic colonic microflora were causative agents in postoperative infections in colon and rectal surgery, and these studies initiated the development of effective oral preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in combination with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. This dual-tier regimen significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative infectious complications, thus allowing most uncomplicated colon and rectal surgeries to be performed in a single stage without the need for the diversion of the fecal stream and multiple operations. Therefore, a preoperative mechanical and antibacterial bowel regimen serves as the cornerstone of modern elective colorectal surgery, and these regimens now comprise three therapeutic directives. The first step is preoperative mechanical cleansing of the bowel, which is then followed by preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis. Finally, perioperative parenteral antibiotics directed against aerobic and anaerobic colonic microflora are utilized.

[Anastomotic leakage in the gastrointestinal tract-repair and prognosis]

Anastomotic leakage is still a serious complication in surgery, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. The reasons for its onset are various and due to two main reasons: general risk factors of the individual patient and technical surgical factors influencing the outcome after gastrointestinal anastomoses. Changes in the extracellular matrices, particularly due to collagen metabolism, and related disturbances are assumed to be important factors influencing wound healing processes. The technique chosen and the surgical skill are important with regard to inflammation and tissue necroses at the anastomotic line. Analysis of data obtained by clinical studies that concern clinical risk factors for anastomotic leakage reveal an inhomogeneous picture. Attempts to develop risk profiles or scores based on these results have failed until now. Problems encompass the complexity of wound healing processes, and it is questionable whether our current knowledge about them is complete. Therefore, profound understanding of anastomotic leakage requires in-depth analysis of the interaction of extracellular matrix components. Preliminary results indicate the presence of a risk population with collagen metabolism disturbances that have a major effect on wound healing after gastrointestinal anastomosis.

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.

Bowel Preparation before Microvascular Free Colon Transfer for Head and Neck Reconstruction: Is It Necessary?

Mechanical bowel preparation before any intestinal operation, especially when the large intestine is involved, is routine practice for most surgeons. This practice has been questioned by many colorectal surgeons, with convincing data showing the lack of benefit of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. Free microvascular transfer of the large intestine is occasionally performed for reconstruction of the upper esophagus, as it provides a better size match for the oropharynx than other visceral organs. Nine patients underwent reconstruction of the cervical esophagus and voice tube using a segment of ileocolon. In all patients, the cervical esophagus was reconstructed using the ascending colon and the voice tube was reconstructed using the ileal segment. Both were transferred as one free flap. All patients underwent the procedure without any form of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. The patients were able to tolerate a solid diet at the end of the mean follow-up period of 7 months, and all esophagograms showed no evidence of stricture formation. One patient developed a fistula at the recipient site that was treated with a regional flap, one patient developed a superficial wound infection of the abdominal wall, and one patient developed a postoperative abdominal wound dehiscence after several episodes of excessive coughing. Microvascular transfer of a large intestinal segment without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation for the reconstruction of the esophagus is a safe procedure. It can avoid the discomfort and complications associated with mechanical bowel preparation. If preoperative mechanical bowel preparation is preferred, the results of this study, which are based on nine patients, demonstrate the safety of this practice in cases where the patient did not follow proper instructions or in cases where the use of the colon was not anticipated preoperatively.

Management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia: the National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey

BACKGROUND

The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey was undertaken to determine the management patterns for individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Australia.

METHODS

Between 1 February and 30 April 2000, all new cases of colorectal cancer registered at each Cancer Registry within Australia were entered into the survey. This generated a questionnaire that was sent to the treating surgeons. Chi-squared and logistic regression analyses were used to determine levels of statistical significance for the various comparisons of interest.

RESULTS

Of 2383 surgical questionnaires generated, 2015 (85%) were completed. A total of 1911 patients (95% of those who responded to the questionnaire) had an operation. Of the 86 guidelines for the management of colorectal cancer published by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the survey allowed for comparison between 18 of these, which covered a spectrum of surgical management. Thromboembolic prophylaxis was given to 1843 patients (96.4%) undergoing surgery. Prophylactic antibiotics were commonly used, but there appear to be issues regarding the best regimen to use. Curative resections were carried out in 1563 patients (81.8%), with anterior resections being the most commonly performed procedure. Adjuvant therapy was regularly used, but not all eligible patients were offered such treatment.

CONCLUSION

With the considerable resources required to develop clinical practice guidelines, studies like this are essential to monitor the impact of the guidelines. To ensure that the guidelines are in line with current evidence, regular reviews of the guideline recommendations are required.

Prophylaxis of Infection for Elective Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Influenced by the key results of the clinical trials conducted in the early 1970s by Condon, Nichols, and Gorbach, surgeons have adopted the routine use of mechanical bowel prep and antimicrobial prophylaxis prior to elective colorectal procedures as a widely established practice. Recent clinical trial data, however, led us to reexamine the benefits of mechanical bowel preparation, methods of antimicrobial prophylaxis and to assess the role of new, specific risk factors for surgical site infection after colorectal operations.

METHODS

Pertinent studies on antimicrobial prophylaxis for elective colorectal surgery were identified from a Medline search of English language publications since 1966.

RESULTS

We found credible clinical trial data that mechanical bowel preparation prior to elective colorectal surgery may not be essential. Timing of the administration of prophylactic antimicrobials is often inaccurate in current practice and suggests the need for a long-acting, broad-spectrum agent that would deemphasize precision in time of preoperative infusion. New risk factors have been identified that increase infection after colorectal surgery, including patient core temperature and tissue oxygenation. Independent observers identify postoperative surgical site infection at a higher rate than physician self-reporting and should be incorporated into future clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

The once settled area of antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery is again controversial. Cooperative clinical trials will be needed to resolve key questions such as the efficacy for bowel preparation and how to obtain effective timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis.