Anastomotic leakage after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) after colorectal surgery is well-researched, yet the effect of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) after Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) is unclear. Assessment of risk factors in these patients may assist surgeons during perioperative decision making. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases. Main outcome measures were anastomotic leakage and associated morbidity. RESULTS: AL was observed in 17 of the 234 (7.3%) anastomoses in 17 of the total of 165 (10.3%) of patients. No association was observed between the number and location of anastomoses and AL, although only one in 87 small bowel anastomoses showed leakage. The only factor associated with AL was administration of bevacizumab within 60 days prior to surgery with an odds ratio (OR) of 6.13 (1.32-28.39), P = 0.03. Deviating stomata were not statistically protective of increased morbidity, although more AL occurred in the patients with colocolic and colorectal anastomoses when no concomitant deviating stoma was created. Deviation stomata were reversed in 52.6%, and no AL was observed after stoma reversal. CONCLUSION: The overall AL rate of CRS-HIPEC is comparable to colorectal surgery, and there is no cumulative risk of multiple anastomoses - especially in the case of small bowel anastomoses. Deviating stomata should be considered in patients with colocolic or colorectal anastomosis, although there is a significant chance that the stoma will not be reversed in these patients. Due to increased AL-risk surgeons should be aware of previous bevacizumab treatment, and plan the CRS-HIPEC at least 60 days after the treatment-day.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of tube thoracostomy following traumatic chest injury; suction versus water seal.

PURPOSE: Tube thoracostomy is frequently used in thoracic trauma patients. However, there is no consensus on whether low pressure suction or water seal is the optimal method of tube management. Against this background, we performed a systematic review of studies comparing suction and water seal management of chest tubes placed for traumatic chest injuries in adults. Evaluated outcomes are duration of chest tube treatment, length of stay in hospital, incidence of persistent air leak, clotted hemothorax, and the need for (re-)interventions. METHODS: A systematic literature search according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was performed. Included studies were evaluated according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias, and according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines for assessing the quality of evidence. RESULTS: After assessment of 120 identified studies, three RCT's (randomized controlled trials) were included in this review and meta-analysis. A favorable effect of suction was found for duration of chest tube treatment [MD (mean difference) - 3.38 days, P = 0.005], length of stay in hospital (MD -3.90 days, P = 0.0003), and the incidence of persistent air leak [OR (odds ratio) 0.27, P = 0.001]. No significant difference was found for the incidence of clotted hemothorax and (re-)interventions. The quality of evidence according to GRADE was low, except for persistent air leak (moderate). CONCLUSIONS: Suction seems to have a positive effect on duration of chest tube treatment, length of stay in hospital and persistent air leakage in chest trauma. However, available data was limited and the quality of evidence was (very) low to moderate according to GRADE.