Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch reservoir in ulcerative colitis : the first series from Malta

Seventy five to eighty percent of patients with ulcerative colitis are more or less satisfactorily treated medically. Surgery cures the disease, but because proper surgical therapy has until recently necessitated a permanent ileostomy, physicians and patients are understandably reluctant to agree to definitive surgical treatment until absolutely necessary.peer-reviewe

Emergency treatment of complicated colorectal cancer

Aim: To find evidence to suggest the best approach in patients admitted as an emergency for complicated colorectal cancer. Methods: The medical records of 131 patients admitted as an emergency with an obstructing, perforated, or bleeding colorectal cancer to Noble’s Hospital, Isle of Man, and the Umberto I University Hospital, Rome, were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided in 3 groups on the basis of the emergency treatment they received, namely 1) immediate resection, 2) damage control procedure and elective or semielective resection, and 3) no radical treatment. Demographic variables, clinical data, and treatment data were considered, and formed the basis for the comparison of groups. Primary endpoints were 90-day mortality and morbidity. Secondary endpoints were length of stay, number of lymph nodes analyzed, rate of radical R0 resections, and the number of patients who had chemoradiotherapy. Results: Forty-two patients did not have any radical treatment because the cancer was too advanced or they were too ill to tolerate an operation, 78 patients had immediate resection and 11 had damage control followed by elective resection. There was no statistically significant difference between immediate resections and 2-stage treatment in 90-day mortality and morbidity (mortality: 15.4% vs 0%; morbidity: 26.9% vs 27.3%), number of nodes retrieved (16.6±9.4 vs 14.9±5.7), and rate of R0 resections (84.6% vs 90.9%), but mortality was slightly higher in patients who underwent immediate resection. The patients who underwent staged treatment had a higher possibility of receiving a laparoscopic resection (11.5% vs 36.4%). Conclusion: The present study failed to demonstrate a clear superiority of one treatment with respect to the other, even if there is an interesting trend favoring staged resection

Loop Ileostomy Closure: Comparison of Cost Effectiveness between Suture and Stapler

Background: Closure of loop ileostomy can be safely performed using sutures or staplers. The aim of the present study was to compare the cost effectiveness of three different techniques. Methods: A total of 128 consecutive patients who underwent closure of loop ileostomy between January 2002 and December 2008 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome parameter was operative cost. Results: Closure of ileostomy was performed in 66 patients with hand-sewn anastomosis, in 25 patients with stapler only, and in 37 patients with a combination of stapler and suture. There were no differences in terms of early and late postoperative complications. Operative time was significantly longer for "suture only” (101.4±26min) than for "stapler/suture” (−4.9min) and "stapler only” (−17.8min); the difference between the three groups is significant (p=0.05). Duration of hospital stay was not different among the three groups. Operative costs with "stapler/suture” (1,755.9±355.6 EUR) were significantly higher than with "suture only” (−254 EUR; p=0.001) and "stapler only” (−236 EUR; p=0.005). Conclusions: Operative time using the stapler only is significantly shorter than with hand-sewn anastomosis or combinations of stapler and suture. Operative costs are significantly higher for a procedure that includes suture and staple

Hartmann's Procedure or Primary Anastomosis?

Perforation following acute diverticulitis is a typical scenario during the first attack. Different classification systems exist to classify acute perforated diverticulitis. While the Hinchey classification, which is based on intraoperative findings, is internationally best known, the German Hansen-Stock classification which is based on CT scan is widely accepted within Germany. When surgery is necessary, sigmoid colectomy is the standard of care. An important question is whether patients should receive primary anastomosis or a Hartmann procedure subsequently. A priori there are several arguments for both procedures. Hartmann's operation is extremely safe and, therefore, represents the best option in severely ill patients and/or extensive peritonitis. However, this operation carries a high risk of stoma nonreversal, or, when reversal is attempted, a high risk in terms of morbidity and mortality. In contrast, primary anastomosis with or without loop ileostoma is a slightly more lengthy procedure as normally the splenic flexure needs to be mobilized and construction of the anastomosis may consume more time than the Hartmann operation. The big advantage of primary anastomosis, however, is that there is no need for the potentially risky stoma reversal operation. The most interesting question is when to do the Hartmann operation or primary anastomosis. Several comparative case series were published showing that primary anastomosis is feasible in many patients. However, no randomized trial is available to date. It is of note, that all non-randomized case series are biased, i.e. that patients in better condition received anastomosis and those with severe peritonitis underwent Hartmann's operation. This bias is undoubtedly likely to be present, even if not obvious, in the published papers! Our own data suggest that this decision should not be based on the extent of peritonitis but rather on patient condition and comorbidity. In conclusion, sigmoid colectomy and primary anastomosis is feasible and safe in many patients who need surgery for perforated diverticulitis, particularly when combined with loop ileostomy. Based on our own published analysis, however, we recommend performing Hartmann's operation in severely ill patients who carry substantial comorbidity, while the extent of peritonitis appears not to be of predominant importance. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base

Barnes Hospital Bulletin

https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/bjc_barnes_bulletin/1251/thumbnail.jp

Reducing gastrointestinal anastomotic leak rates: Review of challenges and solutions

Various techniques and interventions have been developed in an effort to obviate gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks. This review is intended to delineate potential modifications that can be made to reduce the risk of anastomotic leaks following gastrointestinal surgery. It may also serve to aid in identifying patients who are at increased risk of anastomotic leak. Modifiable risk factors for leak discussed include malnutrition, smoking, steroid use, bowel preparation, chemotherapy, duration of surgery, use of pressors, intravenous fluid administration, blood transfusion, and surgical anastomotic technique. Based upon literature review, operative techniques should include minimizing operative time, reducing ischemia, and utilizing stapled anastomoses. Buttressing of anastomoses with omentum has proven utility for esophageal surgery. Further recommendations include 5-7 days of immune-modifying nutritional supplementation for malnourished patients, discontinuation of smoking in the perioperative period, limiting steroid use, utilization of oral antibiotic preparation for colorectal surgery, avoidance of early operations (,4 weeks) following chemotherapy, limiting pressor use, and the utilization of goal-directed fluid management. © 2016 Phillips