The importance of rectal contrast in CT assessment to detect anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery.

AIM: Computed tomography (CT) is currently the diagnostic tool most often used to detect anastomotic leakage (AL) after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the value of rectal contrast. METHOD: All patients who underwent colorectal surgery with a primary anastomosis between 2009 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients who underwent postoperative CT scanning in suspicion of AL were included. The clinical and radiological outcomes of patients with and without rectal contrast were compared. RESULTS: A total of 1183 patient records were reviewed; 225 patients underwent CT-abdomen in suspicion of AL. Of these patients, 175 (77.8%) received rectal contrast. Sensitivity and specificity in this group were 78% and 94%, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.78 and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.94. In the group without rectal contrast (n = 50), sensitivity was 47%, specificity 88%, PPV 0.66 and NPV 0.76. In patients who received rectal contrast, contrast reached the anastomosis in 81.7% compared with 26.0% in patients who were given only oral contrast (p < 0.001). The sensitivity increased to 93% in the group of patients with contrast at the anastomosis, the specificity to 97%, the PPV to 0.88 and the NPV to 0.98. No adverse events were observed after the use of rectal contrast. CONCLUSION: The use of rectal contrast led to a significant increase in the predictive value of CT scanning for AL, especially when it reached the anastomosis. This suggests that rectal contrast is a safe and useful adjunct to CT-abdomen in the detection of AL.

Laparoscopic wedge resection as an alternative to laparoscopic oncological colon resection for benign endoscopically unresectable colon polyps.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate, by comparing clinical and histological outcomes, whether laparoscopic (hybrid) wedge resection (LWR) could be a less invasive and safe alternative to laparoscopic oncological colon resection (OCR) for patients with an endoscopically unresectable, suspected benign, colon polyp. METHOD: All patients with an endoscopically unresectable colon polyp who were referred for surgery between 2009 and 2018 and without biopsy-proven colon cancer were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients with macroscopic features of malignancy during endoscopy were excluded. Clinical and histological results for patients who underwent OCR or LWR were reviewed. RESULTS: One hundred-and-twenty-two patients were included. Ninety-seven patients underwent OCR and 25 LWR. Major complications occurred in 16.7% (n = 16) of the OCR group compared with 4.0% (n = 1) of the LWR group (p = 0.06). In the OCR group the anastomotic leakage rate was 6.3% (n = 6) and the mortality rate 3.1% (n = 3). No anastomotic leakage or deaths occurred in the LWR group. The median length of hospital stay after OCR was 5 days [interquartile range (IQR) 5-9 days)] compared with 2 days (IQR 2-4 days) after LWR (p < 0.0001). Definite pathology showed a malignancy rate of 4.2% (n = 4) in the OCR group and 4.0% (n = 1) (without high-risk features) in the LWR group. CONCLUSION: This study shows that LWR was associated with significantly lower complication rates and acceptable oncological risks compared with OCR. Therefore we suggest that LWR is a safe alternative treatment, next to other endoscopic options. The treatment that is most suitable for an individual patient should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting.