Ileal Pouch-anal Anastomosis Complications and Pouch Failure

Objective:. This systematic review aims to assess the incidence of pouch failure and the correlation between ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA)-related complications and pouch failure. Background:. Previous studies demonstrated wide variation in postoperative complication rates following IPAA. Methods:. A systematic review was performed by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for studies reporting on pouch failure published from January 1, 2010, to May 6, 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and the relationship between pouch-related complications and pouch failure was assessed using Spearman’s correlations. Results:. Thirty studies comprising 22,978 patients were included. Included studies contained heterogenic patient populations, different procedural stages, varying definitions for IPAA-related complications, and different follow-up periods. The pooled pouch failure rate was 7.7% (95% confidence intervals: 5.56–10.59) and 10.3% (95% confidence intervals: 7.24–14.30) for studies with a median follow-up of ≥5 and ≥10 years, respectively. Observed IPAA-related complications were anastomotic leakage (1–17%), pelvic sepsis (2–18%), fistula (1–30%), stricture (1–34%), pouchitis (11–61%), and Crohn’s disease of the pouch (0–18%). Pelvic sepsis (r = 0.51, P < 0.05) and fistula (r = 0.63, P < 0.01) were correlated with pouch failure. A sensitivity analysis including studies with a median follow-up of ≥5 years indicated that only fistula was significantly correlated with pouch failure (r = 0.77, P < 0.01). Conclusions:. The single long-term determinant of pouch failure was pouch fistula, which is a manifestation of a chronic leak. Therefore, all effort should be taken to prevent an acute leak from becoming a chronic leak by early diagnosis and proactive management of the leak. Mini abstract:. This systematic review aims to assess the incidence of pouch failure and the correlation between IPAA-related complications and pouch failure. Long-term pouch failure was correlated with fistula, suggesting that early septic complications may result in fistula formation during long-term follow-up, leading to an increased risk of pouch failure

Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Surgery in the Emergency Setting

Objective:. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare published outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open emergency colorectal surgery, with mortality as primary outcome. Background:. In contrast to the elective setting, the value of laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery remains unclear. Methods:. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched until January 6, 2021. Only comparative studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effect model. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment. Results:. Overall, 28 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial were included, comprising 7865 laparoscopy patients and 55,862 open surgery patients. Quality assessment revealed ‘good quality’ in 16 of 28 observational studies, and low to intermediate risk of bias for the randomized trial. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower postoperative mortality compared to open surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35–0.54). Laparoscopy resulted in significantly less postoperative overall morbidity (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43–0.65), wound infection (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45–0.88), wound dehiscence (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18–0.77), ileus (OR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.51–0.91), pulmonary (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24–0.78) and cardiac complications (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35–0.90), and shorter length of stay. No meta-analyses were performed for long-term outcomes due to scarcity of data. Conclusions:. The systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a benefit of laparoscopy for emergency colorectal surgery, with a lower risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, the almost exclusive use of retrospective observational study designs with inherent biases should be taken into account

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision: A Case-Matched Comparison With Primary Resection

Objectives:. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and oncological results of completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) versus primary total mesorectal excision (pTME). Background:. Early-stage rectal cancer can be treated by local excision alone, which is associated with less surgical morbidity and improved functional outcomes compared with radical surgery. When high-risk histological features are present, cTME is indicated, with possible worse clinical and oncological outcomes compared to pTME. Methods:. This retrospective cohort study included all patients that underwent TME surgery for rectal cancer performed in 11 centers in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017. After case-matching, we compared cTME with pTME. The primary outcome was major postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included the rate of restorative procedures and 3-year oncological outcomes. Results:. In total 1069 patients were included, of which 35 underwent cTME. After matching (1:2 ratio), 29 cTME and 58 pTME were analyzed. No differences were found for major morbidity (27.6% vs 19.0%; P = 0.28) and abdominoperineal excision rate (31.0% vs 32.8%; P = 0.85) between cTME and pTME, respectively. Local recurrence (3.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.43), systemic recurrence (3.4% vs 12.1%; P = 0.25), overall survival (93.1% vs 94.8%; P = 0.71), and disease-free survival (89.7% vs 81.0%; P = 0.43) were comparable between cTME and pTME. Conclusions:. cTME is not associated with higher major morbidity, whereas the abdominoperineal excision rate and 3-year oncological outcomes are similar compared to pTME. Local excision as a diagnostic tool followed by completion surgery for early rectal cancer does not compromise outcomes and should still be considered as the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer