Long-term follow-up of a multicentre cohort study on laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated diverticulitis.

AIM: Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has increasingly been investigated as a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis. Most studies only reported outcomes up to 12 months. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate long-term outcomes of patients treated with laparoscopic lavage. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2010, 38 patients treated with laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis in 10 Dutch teaching hospitals were included. Long-term follow-up data on patient outcomes, e.g. diverticulitis recurrence, reoperations and readmissions, were collected retrospectively. The characteristics of patients with recurrent diverticulitis or complications requiring surgery or leading to death, categorized as 'overall complicated outcome', were compared with patients who developed no complications or complications not requiring surgery. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 46 months (interquartile range 7-77), during which 17 episodes of recurrent diverticulitis (seven complicated) in 12 patients (32%) occurred. Twelve patients (32%) required additional surgery with a total of 29 procedures. Fifteen patients (39%) had a total of 50 readmissions. Of initially successfully treated patients (n = 31), 12 (31%) had recurrent diverticulitis or other complications. At 90 days, 32 (84%) patients were alive without undergoing a sigmoidectomy. However, seven (22%) of these patients eventually had a sigmoidectomy after 90 days. Diverticulitis-related events occurred up to 6 years after the index procedure. CONCLUSION: Long-term diverticulitis recurrence, re-intervention and readmission rates after laparoscopic lavage were high. A complicated outcome was also seen in patients who had initially been treated successfully with laparoscopic lavage with relevant events occurring up to 6 years after initial surgery.

A multi-centred randomised trial of radical surgery versus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after local excision for early rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer surgery is accompanied with high morbidity and poor long term functional outcome. Screening programs have shown a shift towards more early staged cancers. Patients with early rectal cancer can potentially benefit significantly from rectal preserving therapy. For the earliest stage cancers, local excision is sufficient when the risk of lymph node disease and subsequent recurrence is below 5 %. However, the majority of early cancers are associated with an intermediate risk of lymph node involvement (5-20 %) suggesting that local excision alone is not sufficient, while completion radical surgery, which is currently standard of care, could be a substantial overtreatment for this group of patients. METHODS/STUDY DESIGN: In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with an intermediate risk T1-2 rectal cancer, that has been locally excised using an endoluminal technique, will be randomized between adjuvant chemo-radiotherapylimited to the mesorectum and standard completion total mesorectal excision (TME). To strictly monitor the risk of locoregional recurrence in the experimental arm and enable early salvage surgery, there will be additional follow up with frequent MRI and endoscopy. The primary outcome of the study is three-year local recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes are morbidity, disease free and overall survival, stoma rate, functional outcomes, health related quality of life and costs. The design is a non inferiority study with a total sample size of 302 patients. DISCUSSION: The results of the TESAR trial will potentially demonstrate that adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is an oncological safe treatment option in patients who are confronted with the difficult clinical dilemma of a radically removed intermediate risk early rectal cancer by polypectomy or transanal surgery that is conventionally treated with subsequent radical surgery. Preserving the rectum using adjuvant radiotherapy is expected to significantly improve morbidity, function and quality of life if compared to completion TME surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02371304 , registration date: February 2015.

Bridge-to-surgery stent placement versus emergency surgery for acute malignant colonic obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to surgery is an option for acute malignant colonic obstruction. There is ongoing debate regarding the superiority and oncological safety of SEMS placement compared with emergency surgery. This retrospective study aimed to compare outcomes of these treatment approaches. METHODS: Patients were identified from cohorts treated between 2005 and 2012 in two teaching hospitals, of which one used emergency surgery only in patients with large bowel obstruction, whereas the other attempted SEMS placement. Only patients treated with curative intent were included. RESULTS: The study included 59 patients in whom SEMS placement was attempted and 51 who underwent surgery alone. The successful primary anastomosis rate was higher in the SEMS group than in the surgery-alone group among patients with left-sided obstruction (30 of 43 versus 10 of 34 respectively; P = 0.001), whereas stoma formation was less common (11 of 43 versus 23 of 34; P < 0.001). Such differences were not apparent in patients with right-sided obstruction. Secondary stoma rates were comparable between treatment approaches (left-sided: 11 of 43 versus 13 of 34, P = 0.322; right-sided: 1 of 16 versus 1 of 17, P = 1.000). There were no significant differences in morbidity, mortality, recurrence or survival. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic SEMS placement increased the primary anastomosis rate in patients with left-sided large bowel obstruction.

[The use of a self-expanding stent as palliation or before elective surgery in patients with obstructive colorectal carcinoma]. / Zelfexpanderende stent bij obstruerend colorectaal carcinoom als palliatie of als overbrugging naar electieve chirurgie.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of colorectal stents. DESIGN: Retrospective. METHOD: Data were collected on all patients treated at the Deventer Hospital, the Netherlands, between 1 April 1996 and 31 December 2003 in whom the placement of a self-expanding colorectal stent was attempted. Each patient's physician was contacted to inquire about the patient's status, including quality of life with the stent in situ. RESULTS: Stent placement was attempted in 57 patients as palliation (n = 45) or before elective surgery (n = 12). Of the 57 patients, 29 were men and 28 were women, and the mean age was 71 years (range: 46-94). All patients had colorectal carcinoma, except 1 patient with stenosis following ischaemic colitis. Passage of air and faeces occurred immediately after stent expansion in 55 of the 57 patients (96%). Perforation during stent placement occurred in 2 patients, who subsequently underwent colostomy. 4 additional patients required a colostomy due to stent migration within a few hours or days after placement (n = 3) or obstruction by tumor growth after 65 days (n = 1). Patients in the palliative group had an acceptable quality of life. Those who received a stent before elective surgery were able to undergo resection, did not require colostomy, and had no postoperative complications. One patient did not undergo surgery because of extensive metastases. CONCLUSION: A colorectal stent can be used in the palliative treatment of terminal patients with colorectal carcinoma before colostomy is considered. Experiences with stents before elective surgery were also positive.