Preoperative infliximab treatment and postoperative complications after laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch–anal anastomosis: a case-matched study

Background  

Infliximab offers promising new therapeutic options for treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. However, several studies suggest that it increases postoperative complication rates for patients who later require a restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA). This study aimed to assess the postoperative course of patients after laparoscopic IPAA, comparing those who had and those who had not received infliximab before surgery.     

Pediatric chronic ulcerative colitis: does infliximab increase post–ileal pouch anal anastomosis complications?

BackgroundTotal proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a common surgical approach to chronic ulcerative colitis (CUC). Preoperative use of Infliximab (IFX) has raised concern of increased postoperative complications. We sought to compare outcomes of pediatric patients (≤18 years) who were treated with IFX before IPAA to those who did not.MethodsPatients (≤18 years of age) who underwent IPAA from 2003 to 2008 for CUC were included, and their records were retrospectively reviewed for preoperative medications, operative technique, and 1-year postoperative complications (leak, wound infection, small bowel obstruction, pouchitis). Subjects were divided into 2 groups—those who received IFX preoperatively and those who did not.ResultsEleven patients received IFX preoperatively, and 27 children did not. All complications following IPAA were more frequent in the IFX group compared to controls (55% vs 26%). Small bowel obstruction was significantly higher in the IFX group (55% vs 7%). Long-term complications occurred in 64% of the IFX group and 61% of the controls.ConclusionChildren that were treated with IFX prior to IPAA suffered twice as many postoperative complications. Long-term outcomes are similar. Currently, we recommend colectomy with end ileostomy for patients that receive IFX within 8 weeks of colectomy for CUC.     

Laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection with double-stapling technique anastomosis: safe and feasible for lower rectal cancer?

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been considered more demanding than laparoscopic colectomy due to its technical difficulties.

Objective

The aim of this study was to show safety and feasibility of laparoscopic low anterior resection for lower rectal cancer reconstructed by double-stapling technique (DST).

Methods

The present study reviewed 159 patients with rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection reconstructed by DST. They were subdivided into two groups: 98 patients with upper rectal cancer located between 75 and 150 mm from the anal verge (group A) and 61 with lower rectal cancer located within 75 mm from the anal verge (group B). Short-term results and pathological findings were compared between the two groups.

Results

There was no conversion in both groups. Operating time and intraoperative blood loss were similar in the two groups. No mortality occurred in either group. Overall morbidity rate was 10.2% in group A and 11.5% in group B (p = 0.798). Anastomotic leak rate was similar in the two groups (2.0% in group A versus 3.3% in group B; p = 0.638). Pathological examination of resected specimen showed no involvement of distal resection margin or circumferential resection margin in both groups.

Conclusions

The present study shows that laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible for lower rectal cancer in a very select group of patients.     

Simplification of total mesorectal excision with colonic J-pouch anal anastomosis for middle and lower rectal cancer: One surgeon’s experience

PURPOSE: The introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) has dramatically improved local control of rectal cancer. Yet, despite its complexity, there is no clear technical explanation of this procedure in the text references. Thus, we attempted to simplify the TME procedure according to its original concept. METHODS: Our procedure has three principles: posterolateral dissection, which is helpful for performing complete TME with autonomic nerve preservation; detachment of the hiatal ligament, which enables mobilization of the whole mesorectum and transection of the distal rectum just above the anal canal; and colonic J-pouch anal anastomosis to support fecal continence. We evaluated our modified TME, focusing on one surgeon's experience. RESULTS: Between 1993 and 2006, 164 patients underwent modified TME, performed by one surgeon (M.K.). Intraoperative blood loss and operating time were both significantly lower than for conventional resection (P < 0.01), and the rate of anastomotic leakage was less than 1%. Modified TME combined with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, also improved prognosis considerably. CONCLUSION: We have succeeded in simplifying the original TME procedure and improved its outcome even further, based on our familiarity with its anatomyoriented elements.     

Single incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer: less is more?

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy has been reported to be safe and feasible using several techniques and devices. The authors' report their experience with a single incision laparoscopic colectomy performed in a lateral to medical fashion using a commercially developed access device with standard laparoscopic instruments.     

Feasibility of single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer: a prospective case–control comparison

Background

Single-site laparoscopic colectomy (SLC) is an emerging concept that, compared with conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC), yields reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmesis. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is a novel concept for colon cancer surgery that provides improved oncologic outcomes; however, there are no reports of SLC with CME. We conducted a prospective case–control study to evaluate the feasibility and safety of SLC with CME for colon cancer.

Methods

Prospectively collected data of patients with stage I-III colon cancer who underwent SLC (n = 150) or MLC (n = 150) between June 2008 and March 2012 were analyzed. Patients who underwent SLC were, in terms of clinical characteristics and tumor location, matched as closely as possible with those undergoing MLC. Within each group, patients were classified as having right-sided (n = 69 in each group) or left-sided (n = 81 in each group) colon cancer, and short-term outcomes were compared between the two procedures overall and per side.

Results

Overall perioperative outcomes, including operation time, blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, length of the resected specimen, and complications, were similar between the two procedures, whereas postoperative pain was significantly lower with SLC. Operation time for right-sided SLC was significantly shortened. SLC with CME was completed successfully in 94 % (65/69) of right-sided cases and in 88 % (71/81) of left-sided cases. Conversion rates were 1.4 % (1/69) and 1.1 % (1/81), respectively. The umbilical scars were nearly invisible 3 months after the procedure, and most patients reported being quite satisfied with the cosmetic outcomes.

Conclusions

SLC with CME for colon cancer is feasible when performed by experienced surgeons in selected patients. Excellent cosmesis and reduced postoperative pain as well as oncologic clearance can be expected. A large-scale, prospective, randomized, controlled trial should be conducted to confirm the superiority of this procedure over MLC with CME.     

Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopy-assisted Billroth-I anastomosis for gastric cancer: a case–control and case-matched study

Objective

To evaluate the safety, feasibility and clinical results of the modified delta-shaped gastroduodenostomy (MDSG) in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) for gastric cancer (GC).

Methods

We performed a case–control and case-matched study enrolling 642 patients with GC undergoing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with Billroth-I anastomosis from January 2011 to December 2014. TLDG with MDSG was performed in 158 patients (Group TL), and laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with circular anastomosis was performed in 484 patients (Group LA). One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to compare the clinicopathological characteristics between the two groups.

Results

Patients with smaller tumors or stage I cancer were more likely to receive TLDG (P < 0.05). In the propensity-matched analysis of 143 pairs, there were no differences in demographic and pathologic characteristics between groups (all P < 0.05). All patients successfully underwent laparoscopic radical distal gastrectomy. Before PSM, Group TL had more dissected lymph nodes (LNs), a longer time to first fluid diet and a longer postoperative length of stay than Group LA (all P < 0.05). After PSM, except for the fact that more dissected LNs were obtained in Group LA (P < 0.05), no difference was found in the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between the groups (all P > 0.05). The postoperative complications were similar in both groups (all P > 0.05). Stratification analysis performed after PSM showed that in early GC, no difference was observed in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between the groups (all P > 0.05). However, in locally advanced GC, Group TL had more dissected LNs and a higher rate of postoperative complications (both P < 0.05). Univariate analysis carried out in locally advanced cases after PSM showed that the body mass index (BMI), the method of digestive tract reconstruction and Charlson’s score were significant factors that affected postoperative morbidity (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis indicated that BMI was an independent risk factor for postoperative morbidity (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The MDSG in TLDG is safe and feasible for early GC; however, it should be chosen with caution in advanced GC, particularly in patients with a high BMI.

     

Trauma surgery by general surgeons: Still an option for proximal femoral fractures?

IntroductionSurgery for proximal femoral fractures in the Netherlands is performed by trauma surgeons, general surgeons and orthopaedic surgeons. The aim of this study was to assess whether there is a difference in outcome for patients with proximal femoral fractures operated by trauma surgeons versus general surgeons. Secondly, the relation between hospital and surgeon volume and postoperative complications was explored.MethodsPatients of 18 years and older were included if operated for a proximal femoral fracture by a trauma surgeon or a general surgeon in two academic, eight teaching and two non-teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from January 2010 until December 2013. The combined endpoint was defined as reoperation or surgical site infection. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for patient and fracture characteristics and hospital and surgeon volume. Categories for hospital volume were >170/year (high volume), 96–170/year (medium volume) and <96/year (low volume).ResultsIn 4552 included patients 2382 (52.3%) had surgery by a trauma surgeon. Postoperative complications occurred in 276 (11.6%) patients operated by a trauma surgeon and in 258 (11.9%) operated by a general surgeon (p = 0.751). When considering confounders in a multivariate analysis, surgery by trauma surgeons was associated with less postoperative complications (OR 0.746; 95%CI 0.580–0.958; p = 0.022). Surgery in high volume hospitals was also associated with less complications (OR 0.997; 95%CI 0.995–0.999; p = 0.012). Surgeon volume was not associated with complications (OR 1.008; 95%CI 0.997–1.018; p = 0.175).ConclusionSurgery by trauma surgeons and high hospital volume are associated with less reoperations and surgical site infections for patients with proximal femoral fractures.     

Obesity: is there an increase in perioperative complications in those undergoing elective colon and rectal resection for carcinoma?

The hypothesis of this study was that obese and overweight patients undergoing elective resection for colon and rectal cancer have longer operative times, increased intraoperative blood loss, and more postoperative complications compared with normal-weight individuals. Our study cohorts included all patients undergoing elective first-time colon resection for proven colorectal carcinoma. Patients undergoing resection for recurrent disease or for emergent indications such as obstruction, perforation, or hemorrhage and those who underwent an additional surgical procedure at the time of colon resection were excluded from analysis. We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing resection for colorectal carcinoma during a 30-month period. One hundred fifty-three consecutive patients were identified. Body Mass Index was calculated for each patient. Each patient was labeled as normal, overweight, or obese on the basis of World Health Organization criteria. Estimated intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgery, and postoperative complications were recorded for each patient. Comparisons of continuous variables were made using one- or two-way analysis of variance testing. Comparisons of discrete variables were made with chi-square testing. Level of confidence was defined as P < 0.05. Forty-eight normal, 54 overweight, and 51 obese patients were identified. The type of colon resection, age range, and premorbid conditions were well matched between groups. There was no statistical difference in intraoperative blood loss between groups. The operative times were statistically longer in obese and overweight groups compared with the normal group. No statistical differences existed in postoperative complications between groups. We conclude that obese and overweight patients undergoing resection for colorectal carcinoma when compared with normal-weight patients have similar intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications but longer operative times.     

Barbed versus traditional suture for enterotomy closure after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis: a case–control study

Our aim was to establish the safety and efficacy of barbed suture for enterotomy closure after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. This study included 47 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis and barbed suture enterotomy closure (barbed suture closure—BSC) for adenocarcinoma (with the exception of T4 lesions and metastasis), compared with 47 matched patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis and conventional suture enterotomy closure (conventional suture closure—CSC) during the same period. Controls were matched for stage, age, and gender via a statistically generated selection of all laparoscopic right hemicolectomies performed from January 2009 until December 2015. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of age, sex, BMI, ASA, co-morbidity, previous abdominal surgery, cancer site and cancer staging. In terms of operating time (median 120 min for BSC and 127.5 min for CSC), histopathological results, surgical site complications (2.1% for BSC and 8.5% for CSC), hospitalization (median 6 days for BSC and 5 days for CSC), readmission rate (0%), there were no differences between the groups (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted between the two groups in terms of the postoperative course. Our results support that the use of knotless barbed sutures for enterotomy closure after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis is safe and reproducible.