Is there still a need for prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage in elective major gastro-intestinal surgery?

SummaryProphylactic drainage of the abdominal cavity after gastro-intestinal surgery is widely used. The rationale is that intra-abdominal drainage enhances early detection of complications (gastro-intestinal leakage, hemorrhage, bile leak), prevents collection of fluid or pus, reduces morbidity and mortality, and decreases the duration of hospital stay. However, dogmatic attitudes favoring systematic drain placement should be questioned. The aim of this review was to evaluate the evidence supporting systematic use of prophylactic abdominal drainage following gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, liver resection, and rectal resection. Based on this review of the literature: (i) there was no evidence in favor of intra-peritoneal drainage following total or sub-total gastrectomy with respect to morbidity-mortality, nor was it helpful in the diagnosis or management of leakage, however the level of evidence is low, (ii) following pancreatic resection, data are conflicting but, overall, suggest that the absence of drainage is prejudicial, and support the notion that short-term drainage is better than long-term drainage, (iii) after liver resection without hepatico-intestinal anastomosis, high level evidence supports that there is no need for abdominal drainage, and (iv) following rectal resection, data are insufficient to establish recommendations. However, results from the French multicenter randomized controlled trial GRECCAR5 (NCT01269567) should provide new evidence this coming year. Accumulating data support that systematic drainage of the abdominal cavity in digestive surgery is a non-beneficial and obsolete practice, except following pancreatectomy where the consensus appears to indicate the usefulness of short-term drainage. While the level of evidence is high for liver resections, new randomized controlled trials are awaited regarding gastric, pancreatic and rectal surgery

Implementation of Psychosocial Intervention StomieCare for Patients with Rectal Cancer Treated by Rectal Excision and Temporary Stoma: A Pilot Study of Feasibility, Acceptability and Efficacy

L’objectif de cette étude est d’évaluer la faisabilité, l’acceptabilité et l’efficacité d’une intervention psychosociale en individuel (appelée StomieCare) auprès de patients atteints d’un cancer du rectum et traités par chirurgie avec stomie temporaire. Cette intervention, en trois séances individuelles, comprend des discussions thématiques autour de problèmes communs relatifs à la maladie et/ou la stomie comme l’impact du cancer et de ces traitements sur la qualité de vie, l’estime de soi, d’apport d’informations et d’apprentissage de techniques (résolution de problème et restructuration cognitive). Trente-sept patients atteints d’un cancer du rectum et traités par chirurgie avec stomie temporaire ont été recrutés et randomisés soit dans le groupe contrôle (prise en charge traditionnelle, n = 20) soit dans le groupe intervention (prise en charge traditionnelle et StomieCare, n = 17). Une semaine avant l’opération (T1) et trois mois après le rétablissement de continuité (T2), tous les patients ont rempli la HADS pour évaluer l’anxiété et la dépression, la BIS pour l’image du corps, l’ESS pour la honte liée à l’image du corps et la FACT-C pour la qualité de vie. Des analyses statistiques intergroupes et intragroupes ont été réalisées. Les critères de faisabilité et d’acceptabilité sont satisfaisants. A T2, les scores de dépression du groupe contrôle sont significativement plus élevés que ceux du groupe intervention. A T2, et uniquement pour le groupe contrôle, il y a une altération significative des scores de qualité de vie, dépression et image du corps. Aucune différence significative n’est observée pour le groupe intervention. L’anxiété diminue entre T1 et T2 de manière significative uniquement pour le groupe contrôle. Pour conclure, StomieCare semble être une intervention faisable et acceptable à visée préventive de la symptomatologie dépressive.Objective: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of StomieCare for rectal cancer patients undergoing surgery with a temporary stoma. StomieCare (three individual sessions) comprises thematic discussions, information and education, and teaching problem-solving and cognitive restructuring. Methods: Thirty-seven rectal cancer participants treated by surgery and temporary stoma were recruited and randomized to control (routine care approach, n = 20) and intervention (routine care and StomieCare, n = 17) groups. Outcomes were psychological distress (anxiety and depression, HADS), body image (BIS, ESS), and quality of life (FACT-C), at one week before surgery (T1) and 3 months after stoma closure (T2). Interand intragroup statistical analyses were performed. Results: This study demonstrated that StomieCare is feasible and acceptable. At T2, depression scores were higher for controls than for the intervention group. The mean scores for quality of life, depression, and body image decreased in the control group but remained stable in the intervention group. Anxiety scores significantly decreased between T1 and T2 only for the control group. Conclusion: StomieCare is a feasible and acceptable intervention for the prevention of depressive symptomatology

Limited Resection Versus Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Duodenal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors? Enucleation Interferes in the Debate: A European Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Background The optimal surgical procedure for duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (D-GISTs) remains poorly defined. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) allows for a wide resection but is associated with a high morbidity rate. Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of PD versus limited resection (LR) for D-GISTs and to evaluate the role of tumor enucleation (EN). Methods In this retrospective European multicenter cohort study, 100 patients who underwent resection for D-GIST between 2001 and 2013 were compared between PD (n = 19) and LR (n = 81). LR included segmental duodenectomy (n = 47), wedge resection (n = 21), or EN (n = 13). The primary objective was to evaluate disease-free survival (DFS) between the groups, while the secondary objectives were to analyze the overall morbidity and mortality, radicality of resection, and 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence rates between groups. Furthermore, the short- and long-term outcomes of EN were evaluated. Results Baseline characteristics were comparable between the PD and LR groups, except for a more frequent D2 tumor location in the PD group (68.3% vs. 29.6%; p = 0.016). Postoperative morbidity was higher after PD (68.4% vs. 23.5%; p < 0.001). OS (p = 0.70) and DFS (p = 0.64) were comparable after adjustment for D2 location and adjuvant therapy rate. EN was performed more in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) stage III/IV patients with tumors < 5 cm and was associated with a 5-year OS rate of 84.6%, without any disease recurrences. Conclusions For D-GISTs, LR should be the procedure of choice due to lower morbidity and similar oncological outcomes compared with PD. In selected patients, EN appears to be associated with equivalent short- and long-term outcomes. Based on these results, a surgical treatment algorithm is proposed

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: the optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. this worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2 : 1). results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. one-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. there was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. after active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort

Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA-score) for one-year stoma-free survival in rectal cancer (RC) patients with anastomotic leakage (AL). Background: AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma. Methods: This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres, and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014-2018. Clinically relevant predictors for one-year stoma-free survival were included in uni- and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA-score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014-2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated. Results: This study included 2499 AL patients; 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA-score: sex, age, ASA-classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal- and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction and reactivation leakage. The STOMA-score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index 0.71, 95%CI 0.66-0.76). Conclusion: The STOMA-score consists of eighteen clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for one-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counselling and give guidance when analyzing efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies

The influence of obesity and body mass index on the outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic literature review

AIM: The relationship between obesity, body-mass index (BMI) and laparoscopic colorectal resection is unclear. Our object was to assess systematically the available evidence to establish the influence of obesity and BMI on the outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection. METHOD: A search of PubMed/Medline databases was performed in May 2015 to identify all studies investigating the impact of BMI and obesity on elective laparoscopic colorectal resection performed for benign or malignant bowel disease. Clinical end points examined included operation time, conversion rate to open surgery, post-operative complications including anastomotic leakage, length of hospital stay, readmission rate, reoperation rate and mortality. For patients who underwent an operation for cancer, the harvested number of lymph nodes and long-term oncological data were also examined. RESULTS: 45 studies were analysed, the majority of which were Level IV with only four level III case-controlled studies. Thirty comparative studies containing 23649 patients including 17895 non-obese and 5754 obese showed no significant differences between the two groups with respect to intraoperative blood loss, overall postoperative morbidity, anastomotic leakage, reoperation rate, mortality and the number of retrieved lymph nodes in patients operated on for malignancy. Most studies, including 15 non-comparative studies, reported a longer operation time in patients who underwent a laparoscopic procedure with the BMI being an independent predictor in multivariate analyses for the operation time. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colorectal resection is safe and technically and oncologically feasible in obese patients. These results, however, may be different outside high volume centres of expertise. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection : worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Funding Information: The TENTACLE-Rectum study was funded by Medtronic External Research Program. The authors declare no other conflict of interest.Peer reviewedPublisher PD