Comprehensive anatomy of the superior hypogastric plexus and its relationship with pelvic surgery landmarks: defining the safe zone around the promontory.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic surgery carries an inherent risk of autonomic nerve injury leading to genitourinary and bowel dysfunction due to the close proximity of the superior hypogastric plexus (SHP). The aim of this study was to define the detailed anatomy of SHP and identify its relationship with the vascular landmarks and ureters for pelvic autonomic nerve-preserving surgery. METHODS: A cadaveric study on the detailed anatomy of the SHP was conducted in our surgical anatomy research unit. Between 02/2019 and 10/2019, macroscopic anatomical dissections were performed on 45 fresh adult cadavers (39 male, 6 female). Distances between the SHP, major vascular structures, and other anatomical landmarks were measured. RESULTS: Three types of SHP morphology were observed: mesh (64.8%), single nerve (24.4%), and fiber (10.8%). SHP bifurcation was located inferior to the aortic bifurcation in all cases; however, it was observed cranial to the promontory in 80% of the cases, whereas 18% were caudally and 2% were over the promontory. The closest vessels to the left and right of the SHP bifurcation were the left common iliac vein (LCIV) (86.2%, the mean distance was 8.49 ± 7.97 mm) and the right internal iliac artery (RIIA) (48.2%, mean distance was 13.4 ± 9.79 mm), respectively. At SHP bifurcation level, the lateral edge of the SHP was detected on the LCIV in 22 cases and on the RIIA in 10 cases for the left and right side of the plexus, respectively. The distance between the SHP bifurcation and the ureter was 27.9 mm on the right and 24.2 mm on the left. The width of the left (LHN) and right hypogastric nerves (RHN) were 4.35 mm and 4.62 mm at 2 cm below the SHP bifurcation, respectively. LHN was on the vascular structures in 13 cases, whereas RHN in only 1 case, 2 cm below the SHP bifurcation. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the location of the SHP, including its relationship with important anatomical landmarks, might prevent iatrogenic injury and reduce postoperative morbidity in the pelvic surgery setting.

The need for unique risk adjustment for surgical site infections at a high-volume, tertiary care center with inherent high-risk colorectal procedures.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to create a unique risk adjustment model for surgical site infection (SSI) in patients who underwent colorectal surgery (CRS) at the Cleveland Clinic (CC) with inherent high risk factors by using a nationwide database. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried to identify patients who underwent CRS between 2005 and 2010. Initially, CC cases were identified from all NSQIP data according to case identifier and separated from the other NSQIP centers. Demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes were compared. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between SSI and center-related factors. RESULTS: A total of 70,536 patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent CRS, 1090 patients (1.5%) at the CC and 69,446 patients (98.5%) at other centers. Male gender, work-relative value unit, diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease, pouch formation, open surgery, steroid use, and preoperative radiotherapy rates were significantly higher in the CC cases. Overall morbidity and individual postoperative complication rates were found to be similar in the CC and other centers except for the following: organ-space SSI and sepsis rates (higher in the CC cases); and pneumonia and ventilator dependency rates (higher in the other centers). After covariate adjustment, the estimated degree of difference between the CC and other institutions with respect to organ-space SSI was reduced (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.08-1.77). CONCLUSIONS: The unique risk adjustment strategy may provide center-specific comprehensive analysis, especially for hospitals that perform inherently high-risk procedures. Higher surgical complexity may be the reason for increased SSI rates in the NSQIP at tertiary care centers.

A novel approach for robotic mobilization of the splenic flexure.

BACKGROUND: The techniques of robotic splenic flexure mobilization in the colorectal surgery setting are not well defined and have been challenging due to limited range of motion of the second-generation robotic platform in multiple quadrants. METHODS: This report describes a novel technique for robotic splenic flexure mobilization with medial-to-lateral approach without a need for robotic cart repositioning during left-sided colon and rectal surgery. The dissection is started with ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery and vein. Unique in this approach, entering the lesser sac is accomplished by extension of the dissection cranially by lifting up the mesocolon from the anterior surface of the pancreatic body toward the stomach. RESULTS: This technique presented in the video allows the mobilization of the splenic flexure without excessive tractions and avoidance of potential splenic injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The described novel approach demonstrates total robotic splenic flexure takedown without excessive traction, with improved visualization, and reduction of potential risk of splenic injury. This approach provides totally robotic mobilization of the splenic flexure at single docking without changing the patient's position.

Conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Are short-term outcomes worse than with open surgery?

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare the perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent planned open colectomy to those who were converted to an open. METHODS: All patients who underwent elective colectomy were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program using procedure-targeted database (2012-2014). Patients were divided into two groups: open (planned) versus converted. Perioperative outcomes were compared. A logistic regression model was used to calculate the propensity of unplanned conversion as opposed to open surgery. RESULTS: There were 21,437 patients; 17,366 (81.0%) in the open group and 4071 (19.0%) in the converted group. Operative time was longer in the converted group (212 ± 99 vs. 182 ± 111 min, p < 0.001), and hospital stay was longer in the open group (10.5 ± 9.3 vs. 8.7 ± 7.7 days, p < 0.001). Difference in morbidity rate (37.6% open vs. 34.5% converted, p < 0.001) was no longer significant once confounders were adjusted. Specific complications were similar except for superficial surgical site infection (SSI) rate, which was significantly lower in open group (odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.76-0.97, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The current study showed that conversion of laparoscopic colectomy to an open approach was associated with slight increase in superficial SSI rate but shorter hospital stay compared to planned open.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis: a case-matched analysis from a nationwide database.

BACKGROUND: In the current study, we aimed to compare peri- and postoperative 30-day outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis in a case-matched design using data procedure-targeted database. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis in 2012 and 2013 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of surgical approach (laparoscopic and open). Laparoscopic and open groups were matched (1:1) based on age, gender, diagnosis, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Comorbidities, perioperative, and short-term (30-day) postoperative outcomes were compared between the matched groups. RESULTS: We identified 1442 patients-549 in the laparoscopic group and 893 patients in the open group. After case matching, there were 326 patients in each group. There were 48 (14.7%) patients who had conversion in the laparoscopic group. The open group had a higher proportion of patients with ascites [0 (0%) vs. 7 (2.1%) p = 0.015], preoperative weight loss [26 (8.0%) vs. 45 (13.8%) p = 0.018], and contaminated wound classifications [Clean/Contaminated 261 (80%) vs. 240 (74%), Contaminated 55 (16.9%) vs. 54 (16.6%), and Dirty/Infected 8 (2.5%) vs. 28 (8.6%), (p = 0.003)]. The laparoscopic group had a significantly longer operative time (242 ± 98 vs. 202 ± 116 min, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (9.4 ± 8.5 vs. 13.3 ± 10.7 days, p < 0.001), and lower ileus rate (23.9 vs. 31.0%, p = 0.045) than the open group. After adjusting for covariates, the differences in terms of operative time and hospital stay remained significant [odds ratio (OR): 0.79, confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.85 and OR 1.36, CI 1.21-1.52, p < 0.001, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic approach for total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis is associated with a shorter hospital stay but longer operative time compared with an open approach.