Is the Hartmann's procedure for diverticulitis obsolete? National trends in colectomy for diverticulitis in the emergency setting from 1993 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Historically, Hartmann's procedure (HP) has been the operation of choice for diverticulitis in the emergency setting. However, recent evidence has demonstrated the safety of primary anastomosis (PA) with or without diverting ileostomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the trends of, and factors associated with, HP compared to PA in emergency surgery for diverticulitis over 25 years. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified adult patients ≥ 18 years old who underwent emergency surgery for diverticulitis (HP or PA) between 1993 and 2018 using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease, gastrointestinal cancer or who underwent elective diverticulitis surgery were excluded. Trends in HP were analyzed using multivariable linear regression, and factors associated with HP were assessed with multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 499,433 patients who underwent colectomy in the emergency setting for acute diverticulitis, 271,288 (54.3%) had a HP and 228,145 (45.7%) had a PA. Median age was 61 years (IQR: 50-73), 53% were women, and 70.5% were white. The proportion of HP slightly increased over the study period-HP comprised 52.6% of included cases in 1993-98 and 55.2% of cases in 2014-2018 (p = 0.017). Advanced age (reference = 18-44 years; 45-54 years: OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10-1.22; 55-64 years: OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.20-1.33; 65-74 years: OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.25-1.42; ≥ 75 years: OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.41-1.62), complicated diverticulitis (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.36-1.46), and severity of illness (reference = minor; moderate: OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.38-1.54; major/extreme: OR 3.43, 95% CI 3.25-3.63) were associated with increased odds of HP. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 26-year period, HP has remained the most performed procedure in the emergency setting for diverticulitis. Future work should focus on knowledge translation with a possible change in practice as more randomized controlled trials provide support for PA.

Bowel stimulation before loop ileostomy closure to reduce postoperative ileus: a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of preoperative bowel stimulation on the development of postoperative ileus (POI) after loop ileostomy closure. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (NCT025596350) including adult (≥ 18 years old) patients who underwent elective loop ileostomy closure at 7 participating hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralized computer-generated sequence with block randomization to either preoperative bowel stimulation or no stimulation (control group). Bowel stimulation consisted of 10 outpatient sessions within the 3 weeks prior to ileostomy closure and was performed by trained Enterostomal Therapy nurses. The primary outcome was POI, defined as an intolerance to oral food in the absence of clinical or radiological signs of obstruction, on or after postoperative day 3, that either (a) required nasogastric tube insertion; or (b) was associated with two of the following: nausea/vomiting, abdominal distension, or the absence of flatus. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and November 2020, 101 patients were randomized, and 5 patients never underwent ileostomy closure; thus, 96 patients (47 stimulated vs. 49 control) were analyzed according to a modified intention-to-treat protocol. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. The incidence of POI was lower among patients randomized to stimulation (6.4% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.034; unadjusted RR: 0.26, 95% CI 0.078-0.87). Stimulated patients also had earlier median time to first flatus (2.0 days (1.0-2.0) vs. 2.0 days (2.0-3.0), p = 0.025), were more likely to pass flatus on postoperative day 1 (46.8% vs. 22.4%, p = 0.022), and had a shorter median postoperative hospital stay (3.0 days (2.0-3.5) vs. 4.0 days (2.0-6.0), p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative bowel stimulation via the efferent limb of the ileostomy reduced POI after elective loop ileostomy closure.

The impact of delaying colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer detection and prevention.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a partial to total shutdown of endoscopy in many healthcare centers. This study aims to quantify the impact of the reduction in colonoscopies on colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and screening. METHODS: After institutional ethics board approval, the endoscopy database at an academic tertiary-care center in Montreal, Canada, was searched for all colonoscopies performed from during the first wave locally (March-June 2020), and during the ramp up period where endoscopy service resumed (July to August 2020). We compared these periods to the same periods in 2019, the pre-pandemic periods. The indications, CRC and adenoma detection rates, as well as the prioritization of urgent procedures were compared. RESULTS: In the first wave, only 462 colonoscopies were performed, compared to 2515 in the same period in 2019, an 82% reduction. The ramp up period saw 843 colonoscopies performed compared to 1328 in 2019, a 35% reduction. Urgent and inpatient colonoscopies numbers increased (324 (24.8%) vs. 220 (5.7%)) while surveillance and high-risk screening colonoscopies fell (376 (28.8%) vs 1869 (48.6%)). Emergency access to colonoscopy was preserved with a median time to endoscopy of < 1 day (IQR 0,1) in both pandemic periods. During the pandemic periods, there was an absolute reduction in CRC diagnosis of 28, despite the CRC detection per colonoscopy rate increasing slightly in the first wave from 1.7% (44) to 3.9% (18), and in the ramp up period from 2.5% (33) to 3.6% (31). The rate of adenoma detection per colonoscopy did not increase significantly between the pre- and pandemic periods, resulting in reduction in adenoma removal in 723 patients. DISCUSSION: The restriction of access to colonoscopy resulted in a significant reduction in screening and surveillance of high-risk patients, adenomas removed, and CRCs diagnosed. Clinicians and patients will face the oncologic ramifications this the coming years.