Loop Ileostomy Closure as a 23-Hour Stay Procedure With Preoperative Efferent Limb Enteral Stimulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop ileostomy closure is a common procedure in colorectal surgery. Often seen as a simple operation associated with a low complication rate, it still leads to lengthy hospitalizations. Reducing postoperative complications and ileus rates could lead to a shorter length of stay and even ambulatory surgery. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of ileostomy closure performed in a 23-hour hospitalization setting using a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: Two high-volume colorectal surgery centers. PATIENTS: Healthy adults undergoing elective ileostomy closure from July 2019 to January 2022. INTERVENTION: All patients were enrolled in a standardized enhanced recovery pathway specific to ileostomy closure, including daily irrigation of efferent limb with a nutritional formula for 7 days before surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to either conventional hospitalization (n = 23) or a 23-hour stay (n = 24). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was total length of stay and secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of readmission, postoperative ileus, surgical site infections, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were ultimately randomly allocated. Patients in the 23-hour hospitalization arm had a shorter median length of stay (1 vs 2 days, p = 0.02) and similar rates of readmission (4% vs 13%, p = 0.35), postoperative ileus (none in both arms), surgical site infection (0% vs 4%, p = 0.49), postoperative morbidity (21% vs 22%, p = 1.00), and mortality (none in both arms). LIMITATIONS: Due to coronavirus disease 2019, access to surgical beds was greatly limited, leading to a shift toward ambulatory surgery for ileostomy closure. The study was terminated early, which affected its statistical power. CONCLUSION: Loop ileostomy closures as 23-hour stay procedures are feasible and safe. Ileus rate might be reduced by preoperative intestinal stimulation with nutritional formula through the stoma's efferent limb, although specific randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this association. See Video Abstract . CIERRE DE ILEOSTOMA EN ASA COMO PROCEDIMIENTO AMBULATORIO DE HORAS CON ESTMULO PREOPERATORIO ENTERAL EFERENTE ESTUDIO ALEATORIO CONTROLADO: ANTECEDENTES:El cierre de la ileostomía en asa es un procedimiento común en la cirugía colorrectal. A menudo vista como una operación simple asociada con bajas tasas de complicaciones, aún conduce a largas hospitalizaciones. La reducción de las complicaciones postoperatorias y las tasas de íleo podría conducir a una estadía hospitalaria más corta o incluso a una cirugía ambulatoria.OBJETIVOS:El presente estudio pretende evaluar la seguridad y la viabilidad del cierre de ileostomía realizadas en un entorno de hospitalización de 23 horas utilizando una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada.DISEÑO:Estudio aleatorio controladoAJUSTES:Dos centros de cirugía colorrectal de gran volúmenPACIENTES:Adultos sanos sometidos a cierre electivo de ileostomía, desde Julio de 2019 hasta Enero de 2022.INTERVENCIÓN:Todos los pacientes fueron inscritos en una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada específica para el cierre de la ileostomía, incluyendo la irrigación diaria de la extremidad eferente del intestino asociada a una fórmula nutricional durante 7 días previos a la cirugía. Los pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente en hospitalización convencional (n = 23) o a una estadía de 23 horas (n = 24).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la duración total de la estadía hospitalaria y los resultados secundarios fueron las tasas de reingreso a los 30 días, el íleo postoperatorio, las infecciones de la herida quirúrgica, la morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatorias.RESULTADOS:Finalmente fueron randomizados un total de 47 pacientes. Aquellos que se encontraban en el grupo de hospitalización de 23 horas tuvieron una estadía media más corta (1 día versus 2 días, p = 0,02) y tasas similares de reingreso (4% vs 13%, p = 0,35), de íleo postoperatorio (ninguno en ambos brazos), de infección del sitio quirúrgico (0 vs 4%, p = 0,49), de morbilidad postoperatoria (21% vs 22%, p > 0,99) y de mortalidad (ninguna en ambos brazos).LIMITACIONES:Debido a la pandemia SARS CoV-2, el acceso a las camas quirúrgicas fue muy limitado, lo que llevó a un cambio hacia la cirugía ambulatoria para el cierre de ileostomías. El estudio finalizó anticipadamente, lo que afectó su poder estadístico.CONCLUSIÓN:Los cierres de ileostomía en asa como procedimientos de estadía de 23 horas son factibles y seguros. La tasa de íleo podría reducirse mediante la estimulación intestinal preoperatoria a través de la rama eferente del estoma asociada a fórmulas nutricionales, por lo que se necesitan estudios randomizados específicos para confirmar esta asociación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a retrospective cohort study of anastomotic complications.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) can be performed with an intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). It is not clear which technique is best. This study evaluated the impact of each anastomosis technique on perioperative safety and postoperative evolution. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study at a tertiary colorectal surgery center. All patients who had an elective LRH from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed according to the anastomosis technique used. RESULTS: In total, 285 patients were included in the study. IA was performed in 64 patients (22.5%). Mean operative time was longer in the patients with IA (IA, 160±31 minutes vs. EA, 138±42 minutes; P<0.001). No differences were observed in intraoperative complications, time to first bowel movement, length of stay, reoperation, or rehospitalization. Time to first flatus was longer in the patients with IA (P=0.049). At 30 days after surgery, there were no differences in the frequency of anastomotic leak (IA, 0% vs. EA, 2.3%; P=0.59), bleeding (IA, 3.1% vs. EA, 2.7%; P>0.99), or intraabdominal abscess (IA, 0% vs. EA, 0.5%; P>0.99). During follow-up, we noted more incisional hernias in patients with EA (IA, 1.6% vs. EA, 11.3%; P=0.01) and a trend toward more hernia in patients with EA in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 7.13; P=0.06). Anastomosis technique had no influence on recurrence. CONCLUSION: For LRH, both IA and EA are safe, with a low incidence of complications when performed by experienced surgeons. IA may be associated with a lower incidence of incisional hernia.

Laparoscopic versus open colonic resection for complicated diverticular disease in the emergency setting: a safe choice? A retrospective comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic colon resection (LCR) with open colon resection (OCR) for complicated diverticular disease (CDD) during emergent hospital admission. METHODS: Charts from all patients undergoing colon resection for CDD during emergent hospital admission at a single academic institution were reviewed. The primary outcomes were overall 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2010, 125 cases were retrieved (49 LCR and 86 OCR). Conversion rate was 5.1%. Overall morbidity significantly decreased with laparoscopic surgery compared with OCR. No mortality occurred with LCR. Prolonged ileus was less frequent (12.8% vs. 32.6%; P = .02), time to oral intake shorter (3 vs. 6 days; P < .01), and LOS shorter (5 vs. 8 days; P = .05) for LCR. CONCLUSIONS: In our series, in the patients selected, LCR for CDD during emergent hospital admission appears to be a safe procedure associated with decreased morbidity, time to oral intake, and LOS compared with OCR.

Laparoscopic emergency surgery for diverticular disease that failed medical treatment: a valuable option? Results of a retrospective comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard of treatment for elective management of diverticular disease. However, its use in the acute setting remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery in the acute management of complicated diverticular disease that failed initial medical treatment. SETTINGS: This is a single-center comparative retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing surgery for complicated diverticular disease after an attempt at medical treatment from 2000 to 2011 were selected. INTERVENTION: Laparoscopic versus open surgery was compared. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were overall 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, time to resume diet, and need for a permanent stoma. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were identified by using medical records: 24 laparoscopic surgery and 18 open surgery. Baseline demographics, ASA classification, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores, Hinchey classification, and Charlson Comorbidity Index did not differ between groups. The mean operative time was 36 minutes longer (p = 0.05) and blood loss was 460 mL less (p < 0.001) for laparoscopic surgery. Two patients (8.3%) in the laparoscopic surgery group required conversion to open surgery. There was no mortality. Overall morbidity was lower favoring laparoscopic surgery (16.7% vs 55.6%; p = 0.01). Two patients in the laparoscopic surgery group experienced an anastomotic leak compared with none in the open surgery group. Mean time to resume diet (3 vs 6.5 days; p < 0.01) and length of stay (5 vs 8 days; p = 0.04) were shorter for the laparoscopic surgery group. Rate of permanent stoma at last follow-up (median, 332 days) did not differ significantly between groups. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery for patients in whom medical treatment for complicated diverticular disease failed is associated with favorable outcomes, including a reduced rate of morbidity and a shorter length of stay. When applied to selected patients, this approach appears to be a safe procedure with a low rate of conversion.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: a literature review and recommendations from the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer treatment has been slow owing to initial case study results suggesting high recurrence rates at port sites. The use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer still raises a number of concerns, particularly with the technique's complexity, learning curve and longer duration. After exploring the scientific literature comparing open and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer with respect to oncologic efficacy and shortterm outcomes, the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie (CEPO) made recommendations for surgical practice in Quebec. METHODS: Scientific literature published from January 1995 to April 2012 was reviewed. Phase III clinical trials and meta-analyses were included. RESULTS: Sixteen randomized trials and 10 meta-analyses were retrieved. Analysis of the literature confirmed that for curative treatment of colorectal cancer, laparoscopy is not inferior to open surgery with respect to survival and recurrence rates. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including a shorter hospital stay, reduced analgesic use and faster recovery of intestinal function. However, this approach does require a longer operative time. CONCLUSION: Considering the evidence, the CEPO recommends that laparoscopic resection be considered an option for the curative treatment of colon and rectal cancer; that decisions regarding surgical approach take into consideration surgeon experience, tumour stage, potential contraindications and patient expectations; and that laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer be performed only by appropriately trained surgeons who perform a sufficient volume annually to maintain competence.

CONTEXTE: L'adoption de la laparoscopie pour traiter le cancer colorectal se fait lentement à cause des résultats des premières études de cas qui indiquent des taux élevés de récidive aux sites d'intervention. La laparoscopie pour traiter le cancer colorectal soulève toujours de nombreuses préoccupations, particulièrement en raison de la complexité de la technique, de la courbe d'apprentissage, et de la durée de la chirurgie. Après avoir étudié des publications scientifiques comparant l'efficacité oncologique et les résultats à court terme de la laparoscopie à ceux de la chirurgie ouverte pour le traitement du cancer colorectal, le Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie (CEPO) a formulé des recommandations pour la pratique chirurgicale au Québec. MÉTHODES: Une revue des écrits scientifiques publiés entre janvier 1995 et avril 2012 a été effectuée. Seuls les essais cliniques de phase III et les méta-analyses ont été répertoriés. RÉSULTANTS: Seize essais randomisés et 10 méta-analyses ont été retenus. L'analyse des publications a confirmé que pour le traitement curatif du cancer colorectal, la laparoscopie n'est pas inférieure à la chirurgie ouverte pour ce qui est des taux de survie et de récidive. La laparoscopie offre de plus des avantages à court terme, y compris une hospitalisation de moins longue durée, une réduction de l'usage d'analgésiques et un rétablissement plus rapide de la fonction intestinale. Cette intervention prend toutefois plus de temps. CONCLUSIONS: Compte tenu des données probantes, le CEPO recommande d'envisager la résection laparoscopique comme technique curative possible du cancer colorectal et que les décisions sur la méthode chirurgicale tiennent compte de l'expérience du chirurgien, du stade de la tumeur, des contre-indications possibles et des attentes du patient. Dans le cas de la résection laparoscopique du cancer du rectum, le CEPO recommande qu'elle ne soit pratiquée que par des chirurgiens ayant reçu la formation nécessaire et qui pratiquent suffisamment d'interventions par année pour maintenir leur compétence.

Antimicrobial resistance and prudent drug use for Streptococcus suis.

This paper reviews information on antimicrobial resistance patterns and prudent use of antimicrobials to reduce the impact and spread of resistant Streptococcus suis strains. S. suis is an important pathogen in swine, which can cause significant economic loss. Prudent use of antimicrobials for S. suis is essential to preserve the therapeutic efficacy of broad-spectrum antimicrobials and to minimize selection of resistant S. suis strains. Resistance of S. suis to antimicrobials commonly used in swine, including lincosamides, macrolides, sulphonamides, and tetracycline, has been documented worldwide, with resistance in up to 85% of strains. Among antimicrobials examined, resistance of S. suis has been demonstrated to be relatively low for penicillin (0-27%), ampicillin (0.6-23%), and ceftiofur (0-23%). For penicillin, this result may be due in part to the unique mechanism by which resistance is acquired through modifications in the structure of penicillin-binding proteins. Recommendations to control S. suis infection include focused and careful choice and appropriate use of antimicrobials, together with preventive measures intended to improve swine management.

Transanal drainage to treat anastomotic leaks after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a valuable option.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leaks after low anterior resection for rectal cancer remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Few studies have focused on their management, particularly on the technique of transanal drainage. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long-term outcomes according to the initial management of clinical leaks. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: This study is a retrospective review of a single institution experience. PATIENTS: All patients treated for a symptomatic anastomotic leak after low anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2000 and March 2011 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were mortality attributed to the leak, sepsis control, stoma closure rate, and functional results. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients (35 men/2 women) developed a symptomatic leak. Leaks were initially managed by transanal drainage in 16 patients, abdominal reintervention in 12 patients, and medical treatment in 9 patients. The only death attributed to the leak occurred in the abdominal reintervention group. In the transanal drainage group, antibiotics were administered for a median length of 9 days, and the drain was left in place for a median length of 30 days. One patient underwent percutaneous drainage of a collection in addition to transanal drainage, but no patient required abdominal reintervention. Of the treatment modalities applied, transanal drainage was associated with the highest stoma closure rate (93%), after a median postoperative time of 7 months. Complications observed after transanal drainage were anastomotic strictures in 33% and the creation of a permanent stoma due to poor function in 13%. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its nonrandomized retrospective design and the presence of selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: : For the management of low anastomotic leaks, transanal drainage allows preservation of the anastomosis and sepsis control with a high rate of ileostomy closure. It is a valuable option in patients with a diverting ileostomy.