Comparative study to determine the need for intraoperative colonic irrigation for primary anastomosis in left-sided colonic emergencies

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.

Is colonic lavage a suitable alternative for left-sided colonic emergencies?

BACKGROUND

The use of intra-operative colonic lavage (IOCL) with primary anastomosis remains controversial in the emergency left-sided large bowel pathologies, with alternatives including Hartmann’s procedure, manual decompression and subtotal colectomy.

AIM

To compare the peri-operative outcomes of IOCL to other procedures.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for articles employing IOCL from inception till July 13, 2020. Odds ratio and weighted mean differences (WMD) were estimated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes respectively. Single-arm meta-analysis was conducted using DerSimonian and Laird random effects.

RESULTS

Of 28 studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 1142 undergoing IOCL, and 634 other interventions. IOCL leads to comparable rates of wound infection when compared to Hartmann’s procedure, and anastomotic leak and wound infection when compared to manual decompression. There was a decreased length of hospital stay (WMD = -7.750; 95%CI: -13.504 to -1.996; P = 0.008) compared to manual decompression and an increased operating time. Single-arm meta-analysis found that overall mortality rates with IOCL was 4% (CI: 0.03-0.05). Rates of anastomotic leak and wound infection were 3% (CI: 0.02-0.04) and 12% (CI: 0.09-0.16) respectively.

CONCLUSION

IOCL leads to similar rates of post-operative complications compared to other procedures. More extensive studies are needed to assess the outcomes of IOCL for emergency left-sided colonic surgeries.

Management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. A multidisciplinary review and position paper

Perforated diverticulitis is an emergent clinical condition and its management is challenging and still debated. The aim of this position paper was to critically review the available evidence on the management of perforated diverticulitis and generalized peritonitis in order to provide evidence-based suggestions for a management strategy. Four Italian scientific societies (SICCR, SICUT, SIRM, AIGO), selected experts who identified 5 clinically relevant topics in the management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis that would benefit from a multidisciplinary review. The following 5 issues were tackled: 1) Criteria to decide between conservative and surgical treatment in case of perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis; 2) Criteria or scoring system to choose the most appropriate surgical option when diffuse peritonitis is confirmed 3); The appropriate surgical procedure in hemodynamically stable or stabilized patients with diffuse peritonitis; 4) The appropriate surgical procedure for patients with generalized peritonitis and septic shock and 5) Optimal medical therapy in patients with generalized peritonitis from diverticular perforation before and after surgery. In perforated diverticulitis surgery is indicated in case of diffuse peritonitis or failure of conservative management and the decision to operate is not based on the presence of extraluminal air. If diffuse peritonitis is confirmed the choice of surgical technique is based on intraoperative findings and the presence or risk of severe septic shock. Further prognostic factors to consider are physiological derangement, age, comorbidities, and immune status. In hemodynamically stable patients, emergency laparoscopy has benefits over open surgery. Options include resection and anastomosis, Hartmann’s procedure or laparoscopic lavage. In generalized peritonitis with septic shock, an open surgical approach is preferred. Non-restorative resection and/or damage control surgery appear to be the only viable options, depending on the severity of hemodynamic instability. Multidisciplinary medical management should be applied with the main aims of controlling infection, relieving postoperative pain and preventing and/or treating postoperative ileus. In conclusion, the complexity and diversity of patients with diverticular perforation and diffuse peritonitis requires a personalized strategy, involving a thorough classification of physiological derangement, staging of intra-abdominal infection and choice of the most appropriate surgical procedure.

Feasibility and Safety of Intraoperative Colonoscopy after Segmental Colectomy and Primary Anastomosis

Patients presenting with near-obstructing colon lesions requiring segmental colectomy may benefit from intraoperative colonoscopy (IOC) after primary anastomosis for a more timely and accurate diagnosis of synchronous lesions. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of this technique. A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing single-stage segmental colectomy and anastomosis at a single tertiary care institution from 2011 to 2013 was performed. One Hundred and sixty-eight consecutive patients underwent segmental colectomy and primary anastomosis of which 78 (46%) were unable to receive preoperative colonoscopy (POC) because of near-obstructing lesions and received IOC after the anastomosis. IOC detected synchronous adenomatous polyps in 24.4 per cent, diverticular disease in 19 per cent, and colitis/proctitis in 2.5 per cent. The IOC group was not significantly different from the POC group with regard to overall morbidity (31% vs 39% P = 0.45), anastomotic leakage (1.3% vs 0%, P = 0.46), or wound infection (5.1% vs 1.1%, P = 0.18). Operation time was 19 minutes longer in the intra-operative group, but overall length of hospital stay was not significantly different (6.4 ± 2.9 days vs 7.3 ± 4.6 days). In patients unable to receive POC because of partial obstruction, IOC after primary anastomosis is both feasible and safe for detecting proximal synchronous lesions.

Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Surgery for Obstructive Colorectal Cancer After Tube Decompression

BACKGROUND

It is debatable whether laparoscopic surgery is suitable for obstructive colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and oncological effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery after tube decompression for obstructive colorectal cancer in 54 patients (18 laparoscopic resections, 36 open resections).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between groups with respect to mean size, location, depth, and stage of tumor, median operating times, or median number of lymph nodes retrieved. Abdominal wound infection rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopic than in the open group (0%:22%, P=0.02), as were mean times to first gas passage after surgery (2.3:3.4 d, P=0.002) and mean postoperative hospital stays (16:24.3 d, P=0.03). The 3-year disease-free survival rate of curative resection cases in the laparoscopic (85%) and open (72%) groups were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery after tube decompression achieves faster recovery and equal oncological outcome as open surgery and should be a treatment of choice for obstructive colorectal cancer.

Comparative study of postoperative complications in patients with and without an obstruction who had left-sided colorectal cancer and underwent a single-stage operation after mechanical bowel preparation

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare postoperative complications for single-stage surgery after mechanical bowel preparation in patients who experienced obstruction and those who did not.

Methods

From 2000 to 2011, 1,224 patients underwent a single-stage operation for left colorectal cancer after bowel preparation. Nonobstruction (NOB) and obstruction (OB) colorectal cancer patients were 1,053 (86.0%) and 171 (14.0%), respectively. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were compared between groups.

Results

The OB group had poor preoperative conditions (age, white blood cell, hemoglobin, albumin level, and advanced tumor stage) compared with the NOB group (P < 0.05). Mean on-table lavage time for the OB group was 17.5 minutes (range, 14-60 minutes). Mean operation time for the OB group was statistically longer than that of the NOB group (OB: 210 minutes; range, 120-480 minutes vs. NOB: 180 minutes; range, 60-420 minutes; P < 0.001). Overall morbidity was similar between groups (NOB: 19.7% vs. OB: 23.4%, P = 0.259). Major morbidity was more common in the OB group than in the NOB group, but the difference was without significance (OB: 11.7% vs. NOB: 7.6%, P = 0.070). Postoperative death occurred in 16 patients (1.3%), and death in the OB group (n = 7) was significantly higher than it was in the NOB group (n = 9) (4.1% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.001). Twelve patients had surgical complications, which were the leading cause of postoperative death: postoperative bleeding in five patients and leakage in seven patients.

Conclusion

Postoperative morbidity for a single-stage operation for obstructive left colorectal cancer is comparable to that for NOB, regardless of poor conditions of the patient.

Emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis in the immunosuppressed patient

AIM

Immunosuppression is believed to worsen outcomes for patients who require surgery for perforated diverticulitis. The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes between immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients undergoing surgery for complicated diverticulitis.

METHOD

All patients who underwent emergency surgery for complicated diverticulitis between 2004 and 2012 in a single unit were studied. Patients were classified as immunosuppressed (group I) or immunocompetent (group II). Operation type and postoperative morbidity and mortality were compared between groups. The impact of operating surgeons' specialization and the Peritonitis Severity Score (PSS) were also evaluated to determine their impact on the restoration of gastrointestinal (GI) continuity.

RESULTS

One-hundred and sixteen patients (mean age: 63.7 years), 41.4% women, were included. Fifty-three (45.7%) patients were immunosuppressed (group I): 42 underwent Hartmann's procedure (HP) (79.2%), nine (17.0%) underwent resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) with ileostomy (IL) and two (3.8%) underwent RPA without IL. In group II, 15 HP (23.8%), nine RPA with IL (14.3%) and 39 RPA without IL (61.9%) were performed. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were 79.2% and 26.4%, respectively, in group I and 63.5% and 6.3%, respectively, in group II. The overall mean PSS was 9.5, with a mean PSS of 11.1 in group I and of 8.1 in group II. The decision to perform a primary anastomosis differed significantly between colorectal surgeons and general surgeons in the patients with a PSS of 9-10-11.

CONCLUSION

In immunocompromised patients, RPA with IL can be a safe surgical option, whereas HP should be reserved for patients with a PSS of > 11. Colorectal surgical specialization is associated with higher rates of restoration of GI continuity in patients with perforated diverticulitis, especially in patients with an intermediate PSS score. Evaluation of each patient's PSS facilitates decision making in surgery for perforated diverticulitis.

Surgical management of obstructed and perforated colorectal cancer: still debating and unresolved issues

SUMMARY Emergency surgery for obstruction and perforation from colorectal cancer (CRC) predicts poorer outcomes compared with elective surgery. For obstructed cancers, the evidence suggests significantly poorer outcomes with multistaged procedures compared with single-stage procedures in this group. Stenting remains an attractive option as a ‘bridge-to-surgery’, with multiple single-center studies demonstrating excellent short-term outcomes. However, contradictory evidence from three randomized trials casts doubts on stenting as the preferred modality for initial management of all curative obstructed CRCs. Results from a UK multicenter randomized controlled trial are still awaited. Palliative stenting shows predominantly positive results and is a valuable option for nonresectable or incurable CRCs. All authors agree on emergency surgery as the primary modality of treatment for perforated malignancies. Short-term outcomes are markedly poorer than the elective surgery group and correlate with the degree of peritoneal contamination. Long-term outcomes are comparable to elective surgery when perioperative deaths are excluded.

Current management of acute malignant large bowel obstruction: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The management of colonic obstruction has changed in recent years. In distal obstruction, optimal treatment remains controversial, particularly after the appearance and use of colonic endoluminal stents. The purpose of this study was to review the current treatment of acute malignant large bowel obstruction according to the level of evidence of the available literature.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar for articles published through January 2013 to identify studies of large bowel obstruction and colorectal cancer. Included studies were randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

After a literature search of 1,768 titles and abstracts, 218 were selected for full-text assessment; 59 studies were ultimately included. Twenty-five studies of the diagnosis and treatment of obstruction and 34 studies of the use of stents were assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the various alternatives and the lack of high-grade evidence, the treatment of distal colonic obstruction should be individually tailored to each patient.

Treatment of sigmoid volvulus: a single-center experience of 952 patients over 46.5 years

BACKGROUND

Sigmoid volvulus describes the wrapping of the sigmoid colon around itself and its mesentery, causing an intestinal obstruction. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of 952 patients treated for sigmoid volvulus over a period of 46.5 years.

METHODS

Clinical records were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Nonsurgical detorsion was performed in 686 patients with 77.1 % success, 2.5 % morbidity, 0.7 % mortality, and 4.5 % early recurrence rates; emergency surgical procedures were performed in 447 patients with 35.3 % morbidity, 16.1 % mortality, 0.7 % early recurrence, and 7.4 % late recurrence rates, while elective surgical treatment was performed in 104 patients with 12.5 % morbidity, no mortality, and no recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The principal strategy in the treatment for sigmoid volvulus is early nonsurgical detorsion followed by elective surgery in uncomplicated patients, while emergency surgical treatment is performed for patients with bowel gangrene, perforation, or peritonitis, other difficulties with diagnosis, unsuccessful nonsurgical detorsion, and early recurrence.

Resection and primary anastomosis without diverting ileostomy for left colon emergencies: is it a safe procedure?

INTRODUCTION

Large-bowel obstruction and perforation are still frequently occurring entities for the acute care surgeon. In these cases, Hartmann's procedure is the most commonly used surgical technique. However, recent papers demonstrate that colon resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) in the emergency setting is a safe and feasible procedure. We present our series of left colon resection and primary anastomosis procedures from Torrevieja Hospital (Alicante, Spain), performed without bowel irrigation or a diverting ileostomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two RPA procedures were performed in emergency settings for perforation or obstruction, or both, during an 18-month period. The following data were prospectively collected: age, gender, nationality, diagnoses, ASA score, body mass index (BMI), POSSUM score (Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and morbidity), and the score according to the Hinchey classification. Furthermore, duration of the operation, length of postoperative hospital stay, and mortality and morbidity data were recorded.

RESULTS

Sixteen of these patients were diagnosed with acute diverticulitis, 14 patients with neoplasm (of which 9 cases had obstruction, 2 cases had perforation, and 3 cases had both), and foreign body perforation in the remaining 2 cases. The mean hospital stay was 7.8 (range, 4-10) days. The physiological POSSUM score was 24.4 (range, 15-39), and the surgical POSSUM score was 19.8 (range, 16-24). None of the patients died (0% mortality). Seven patients developed some kind of complication (21.9%), all of which were managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that RPA for left colon obstruction and perforation in emergency settings can be safely performed in certain surgical conditions.

Recurrence and virulence of colonic diverticulitis in immunocompromised patients

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the probability of recurrence and the virulence of colonic diverticulitis correlated with immunocompromised status.

METHODS

Nine hundred thirty-one patients admitted in a single tertiary referral university hospital over a 14-year period were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1, 166 immunosuppressed patients, and group 2, 765 nonimmunosuppressed patients. The variables studied were sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologist status, reasons of immunosuppression (eg, chronic use of corticosteroids, transplant recipients, and diseases affecting the immune system), severity of the diverticulitis episode, recurrence, emergency and elective surgery, and morbidity and mortality rates.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirteen patients underwent an emergency operation during the first hospitalization and 26 patients in further episodes. One hundred thirty-six patients developed 1 or more recurrent episodes of diverticulitis. The overall recurrence rate was similar in both groups. Patients in group 1 with a severe first episode presented significantly higher rates of recurrence and severity without needing more emergency surgery. Mortality after emergency surgery was 33.3% in group 1 and 15.9% in group 2 (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

After successful medical treatment of acute diverticulitis, patients with immunosuppression need not be advised to have an elective sigmoidectomy.

One-stage segmental colectomy and primary anastomosis after intraoperative colonic irrigation and total colonoscopy for patients with obstruction due to left-sided colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative colonic irrigation and intraoperative on-table colonoscopy may be useful for a more accurate diagnosis of colorectal cancer before colectomy in patients with obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer, but the clinical benefit of this technique has not been investigated in large-scale studies.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of intraoperative colonic irrigation with a Y-shaped irrigation device and intraoperative colonoscopy in the management of obstructive colorectal cancer in patients undergoing elective surgery.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing surgical treatment at a single tertiary care institution in Japan.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

Among 715 consecutive patients with left-sided colorectal cancer, 101 patients (14.1%) with obstructing tumor received intraoperative colonic irrigation and intraoperative colonoscopy before colectomy and primary anastomosis, and 614 patients with nonobstructive colorectal cancer underwent preoperative colonoscopy with mechanical bowel preparation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Detection rates of proximal synchronous lesions, occurrence of postoperative complications, and changes in the surgical procedure prompted by the results of the intraoperative colonoscopy were evaluated.

RESULTS

Intraoperative colonoscopy detected synchronous adenomatous polyps in 27 patients (26.8%), carcinoma in 4 patients (4%), and obstructive colitis in 2 patients (2%). Findings of the intraoperative colonoscopy prompted changes in surgical procedure in 9 patients (8.9%). The overall morbidity in the intraoperative group was 17%, with anastomotic leakages in 3 patients, wound infection in 5, and postoperative ileus in 3 patients. The risk of these complications was not increased in patients with intraoperative colonoscopy with intraoperative colonic irrigation compared with those receiving preoperative colonoscopy with mechanical bowel preparation. The operation time was 28 minutes longer in the intraoperative than in the preoperative group, but neither the time to start of oral intake nor the length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly different between the 2 groups.

LIMITATIONS

The study is limited by its retrospective nature.

CONCLUSIONS

: In patients with obstructive colorectal cancer, intraoperative colonic irrigation with intraoperative colonoscopy is a useful strategy for detecting synchronous lesions located proximally to the obstructing tumor, without increasing patient morbidity.

Current management of diverticular disease complications

Diverticular disease is a common problem in the western population and sometimes leads to serious complications such as hemorrhage, bowel stenosis, obstruction, abscesses, fistulae, bowel perforation, and peritonitis. The severity of these complications can differ, and it is not always clear which procedure is indicated in each case and what measures should be followed before bringing the patient into the operating room. Certain operations have high rates of morbidity and mortality, especially in compromised patients. Along with advancements in imaging and minimally invasive techniques, the indications for surgery have currently being adapted to "damage limitation" or "down-staging" protocols, which seem to offer improved results. There are still some questions to be solved in the following years by prospective studies, such as the usefulness of laparoscopic lavage in purulent peritonitis or of Hartmann's procedure in fecal peritonitis. These indications, based on current literature, are systematically discussed in the present review.

Generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis: Hartmann's procedure or primary anastomosis?

PURPOSE

Hartmann's procedure (HP) still remains the most frequently performed procedure for diffuse peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis. The aims of this study were to assess the feasibility and safety of resection with primary anastomosis (RPA) in patients with purulent or fecal diverticular peritonitis and review morbidity and mortality after single stage procedure and Hartmann in our experience.

METHODS

From January 1995 through December 2008, patients operated for generalized diverticular peritonitis were studied. Patients were classified into two main groups: RPA and HP.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients underwent emergency surgery for diverticulitis complicated with purulent or diffuse fecal peritonitis. Sixty (69%) had undergone HP while RPA was performed in 27 patients (31%). At the multivariate analysis, RPA was associated with less post-operative complications (P < 0.05). Three out of the 27 patients with RPA (11.1%) developed a clinical anastomotic leakage and needed re-operation.

CONCLUSIONS

RPA can be safely performed without adding morbidity and mortality in cases of diffuse diverticular peritonitis. HP should be reserved only for hemodynamically unstable or high-risk patients. Specialization in colorectal surgery improves mortality and raises the percentage of one-stage procedures.

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.