Sexual and urinary functioning after rectal surgery: a prospective comparative study with a median follow-up of 8.5 years

The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare rectal resection (RR) with colonic resection on sexual, urinary and bowel function and quality of life in both short-term and long-term. Eighty-three patients who underwent RR were compared to 53 patients who underwent a colonic resection leaving the rectum in situ (RIS). A questionnaire assessing sexual, urinary and bowel functioning with a quality of life questionnaire (SF-36) was sent to all participants preoperatively, 3 and 12 months postoperatively and approximately 8 years after the onset of the study. Short-term dysfunction included diminished sexual activity in female RR patients at 3 months and significantly more erectile dysfunction in RR patients 1 year postoperatively. Long-term dysfunction included more frequent and more severe erectile dysfunction in RR patients compared to RIS patients. These short-term and long-term outcomes did not influence overall quality of life. The incidence of urinary dysfunction was comparable between both groups. Bowel functioning was significantly better in the RIS group compared to the RR group 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Patients who underwent RR experienced up to 1 year postoperatively more sexual and bowel function problems than RIS patients. However, short-term and long-term dysfunction did not influence overall quality of life. Erectile dysfunction in male RR patients persisted in time, whereas other aspects of sexual, urinary and bowel function after RR and colonic resection are similar after a median follow-up of 8.5 year

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists.MethodsAn online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy.ResultsThe response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive).DiscussionThe step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2–3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis

Incidence and Treatment of Symptomatic Diaphragmatic Hernia After Esophagectomy for Cancer

Background: Diaphragmatic hernias after esophagectomy are mostly asymptomatic. However, they can also manifest with severe complications and be associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. The aims of this study were to assess the incidence, predictive factors, and preferred treatment of symptomatic diaphragmatic hernias and to evaluate the role of prophylactic cruroplasty in patients after esophagectomy for carcinomas of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Methods: A prospective database was used to retrospectively analyze consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy between January 2005 and December 2015. Results: A symptomatic diaphragmatic hernia was diagnosed in 21 (2.5%) of 851 included patients; 15 (4.3%) after 345 minimally invasive esophagectomies and 6 (1.2%) after 506 open esophagectomies (p = 0.004). Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis procedures had the highest incidence (9.4%; p = 0.002) as compared with all other procedures. Prophylactic cruroplasty did not decrease the incidence of symptomatic diaphragmatic hernias (2.1% vs 2.7%; p = 0.608). Surgical treatment consisted of cruroplasty, with reinforcement of Prolene pledgets (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ) in 11 patients. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade >IIIb) occurred in 3 patients, all after open repair (n = 9). Recurrences were found in 4 patients (19.0%), three after laparoscopic repair and one after open repair. Conclusions: The incidence of symptomatic diaphragmatic hernia after esophagectomy was 2.5%, with the highest incidence after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (9.4%) as compared with other procedures. Although prophylactic cruroplasty is now the standard of care in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy, a significant lower hernia rate was not found in this study