"Relaparoscopy" to treat early complications following colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has shown clear benefits that could also be useful in the emergency setting such as early reoperations after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic reintervention ("relaparoscopy") (RL) to manage postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database from 2000 to 2019. Patients who required a reoperation after undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. According to the approach used at the reoperation, the cohort was divided in laparoscopy (RL) and laparotomy (LPM). Demographics, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients underwent a reoperation after a laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 124 (78%) had RL and 35 (22%) LPM. Demographics were similar in both groups. Patients who underwent left colectomy were more frequently reoperated by laparoscopy (RL: 42.7% vs. LPM: 22.8%, p: 0.03). The most common finding at the reoperation was anastomotic leakage, which was treated more often by RL (RL: 67.7% vs. LPM: 25.7%, p: 0.0001), and the most common strategy was drainage and loop ileostomy (RL: 65.8% vs. LPM: 17.6%, p: 0.00001). Conversion was necessary in 12 patients (9.6%). Overall morbidity rate was 52.2%. Patients in the RL group had less postoperative severe complications (RL: 12.1% vs. LPM: 22.8, p: 0.01). Mortality rate was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Relaparoscopy is feasible and safe for treating early postoperative complications, particularly anastomotic leakage after left colectomy.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic sigmoid resection without diversion in perforated diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic primary anastomosis (PA) without diversion for diverticulitis has historically been confined to the elective setting. Hartmann's procedure is associated with high morbidity rates that might be reduced with less invasive and one-step approaches. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of laparoscopic PA without diversion in Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all patients who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease during the period 2000-2018. The sample was divided in two groups: elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for recurrent diverticulitis (G1) and emergent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for Hinchey III diverticulitis (G2). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 415 patients underwent laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease. PA without diversion was performed in 351 patients; 278 (79.2%) belonged to G1 (recurrent diverticulitis) and 73 (20.8%) to G2 (perforated diverticulitis). Median age, gender, and BMI score were similar in both groups. Patients with ASA III score were more frequent in G2 (p: 0.02). Conversion rate (G1: 4% vs. G2: 18%, p < 0.001), operative time (G1: 157 min vs. G2: 183 min, p < 0.001), and median length of hospital stay (G1: 3 days vs. G2: 5 days, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in G2. Overall postoperative morbidity (G1: 22.3% vs. G2: 28.7%, p = 0.27) and anastomotic leak rate (G1: 5.7% vs. G2: 5.4%, p = 0.92) were similar between groups. There was no mortality in G1 and one patient (1.3%) died in G2 (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic sigmoid resection without diversion is feasible and safe in patients with perforated diverticulitis. In centers with vast experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, patients undergoing this procedure have similar morbidity and mortality to those undergoing elective sigmoidectomy.

Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after colorectal surgery. Is it possible to maintain a mini-invasive approach?

Several benefits have been described in laparoscopic surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and the results of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after LCRS. Between May 2001 and March 2014, all charts of consecutive patients who underwent LCRS and developed an incisional hernia were evaluated. Patients with parastomal hernias or those with less than 6 months of follow-up were excluded. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic repair group (LR) and open repair group (OR). Demographics, surgical factors, and 30-day postoperative complications were analyzed. The incisional ventral hernia rate was 7 % (90/1290), and 82 incisional hernia repairs were performed. In 49 patients (60 %) an open approach was performed, and there were 33 laparoscopic repairs (2 converted due to small bowel injury). Mean age was 62 years. Average body mass index was 27.4 ± 5.2 kg/m2. The mean defect size was 56 (4-527) cm2, and there were no differences between the groups (LR: 49 cm2 vs OR: 63 cm2; p = NS). Average operative time was 107 (45-240) minutes (LR: 93 min vs OR: 116 min, p = 0.02). OR showed a higher rate of postoperative complications (OR: 51 % vs LR: 18 %, p = 0.003) and increased hospital stay (OR: 2.77 ± 4 days vs LR: 0.7 ± 0.4 days; p = 0.02). The recurrence rate was 15 % (12 patients, 6 each group; p = NS) after a follow-up of 48 (r: 6-141) months. Laparoscopic approach for incisional hernia repair after LCRS seems to be safe and feasible. Patients who received laparoscopic approach showed significantly less postoperative complications and shorter hospital staying. These observations suggest that mini-invasive surgery may be the initial approach in patients who develop an incisional hernia after LCRS.

Incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Is there any factor associated?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic approach is related to, among others, educing abdominal wall complications such as incisional hernia (IH). However, there are scarce data concerning laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). The aim of this study was to evaluate related factors and incidence of IH following this approach. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent colorectal surgery with laparoscopic approach in a single center was performed. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and also converted to open surgery were included. Uni- and multi-variate analyses were performed using the following variables: age; gender; type of surgery (left, right, total, or segmental colectomy); comorbidities [diabetes and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD)]; previous surgery; colorectal disease (benign and malignant); operative time; surgical site infection (SSI); and body mass index (BMI). Midline incisions (right colectomy) and off-midline incisions (left colectomies and rectal resections) were also compared. RESULTS: During a period of 12 years, 1051 laparoscopic colorectal surgeries were performed. The incidence of IH was 6% (n = 63). Univariate analysis showed that BMI > 30 kg/m(2) [p < 0.01, OR: 2.3 (1.3-4.7)], SSI [p < 0.01, OR: 6.5 (3.4-12.5)], operative time >180 min [p < 0.01, OR: 2.1 (1.2-3.6)] and conversion to open surgery (p = 0.01, OR: 2.4 [1.1-5.0]) were related to incisional hernias. BMI and SSI have a statistically significant relation with the incidence of IH in multivariate analysis (p < 0.01). No statistical difference between right and left colectomy was observed (6.6 vs. 6.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The incidence of IH after LCRS seems to be acceptable. BMI over 30 kg/m(2) and SSI are strongly associated to this complication.

Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: To divert or not to divert-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of proximal diversion in patients undergoing sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with a proximal diversion in perforated diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis. METHOD: A systematic literature search on sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion for diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis was conducted in the Medline and EMBASE databases. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies reporting the primary outcome of interest (30-day mortality) were included. Secondary outcomes were major morbidity, anastomotic leak, reoperation, stoma nonreversal rates, and length of hospital stay. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies involving 544 patients (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 287 versus sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion: 257) were included. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.53-2.40, P = .76), major morbidity (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.80-2.44, P = .24), anastomotic leak (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.099-1.20, P = .10), reoperation (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.46, P = .20), and length of stay (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 12.1 vs resection and primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy: 15 days, P = .44) were similar between groups. The risk of definitive stoma was significantly lower after sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis (odds ratio 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.006-0.35, P = .003). CONCLUSION: Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with or without proximal diversion have similar postoperative outcomes in selected patients with diverticulitis and diffuse peritonitis. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

Re-laparoscopy to Treat Early Complications After Colorectal Surgery: Is There a Learning Curve?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy for treating complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) is still controversial. Moreover, its learning curve has not been evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to analyze whether operative outcomes were influenced by the learning curve of re-laparoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and reoperated by a laparoscopic approach during the period 2000-2019 was performed. A cumulative sum analysis was done to determine the number of operations that must be performed to achieve a stable operative time. Based on this analysis, the cohort was divided in 3 groups. Demographics and operative variables were compared between groups. RESULTS: From a total of 1911 patients undergoing LCS, 132 (7%) were included. Based on the cumulative sum analysis, the cohort was divided into the first 50 (G1), the following 52 (G2), and the last 30 (G3) patients. Less computed tomography scans were performed in G3 (G1: 72% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 43%; P=0.03). There were no differences in the type of operation performed between the groups. The conversion rate (G1: 18% vs. G2: 4% vs. G3: 3%; P=0.02) and the mean operative time (G1: 104 min vs. G2: 80 min vs. G3: 78 min; P=0.003) were higher in G1. Overall morbidity was lower in G3 (G1: 46% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 33%; P=0.01). Major morbidity, mortality, and mean length of stay remained similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 50 laparoscopic reoperations might be needed to achieve an appropriate learning curve with reduced operative time and lower conversion rates. Further research is needed to determine the learning process of re-laparoscopy for treating complications after colorectal surgery.

Consecutive Laparoscopic Colorectal Resections in a Single Workday by the Same Surgeon: Efficient or Risky?

Background: As laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) continues increasing worldwide, surgeons may need to perform more than one LCS per day to accommodate this higher demand. We aimed to determine the safety of performing consecutive LCSs by the same surgeon in a single workday. Materials and Methods: Consecutive LCSs performed by the same surgeon from 2006 to 2019 were included. The sample was divided into two groups: patients who underwent the first (G1) and those who underwent the second and the third (G2) colorectal resections in a single workday. LCSs were stratified into level I (low complexity), level II (medium complexity), and level III (high complexity). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Results: From a total of 1433 LCSs, 142 (10%) were included in G1 and 158 (11%) in G2. There was a higher rate of complexity level III LCS (G1: 23% versus G2: 6%, P < .0001) and a longer operative time (G1: 160 minutes versus G2: 139 minutes, P = .002) in G1. There were no differences in anastomotic leak, overall morbidity, or mortality rates. Mean length of hospital stay and readmission rates were similar between groups. Conclusion: Multiple consecutive laparoscopic colorectal resections can be safely performed by the same surgeon in a single workday. This efficient strategy should be encouraged at high-volume centers with experienced colorectal surgeons.

Second Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: Safety and Feasibility.

BACKGROUND: As laparoscopic colorectal surgery continues increasing worldwide, the need of having a second laparoscopic colorectal resection (SLCR) might increase as well. Experience with this challenging procedure is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SLCR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing colorectal surgery who needed an SLCR during the period 2008-2020 was performed. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. A propensity score matching with a control population undergoing a first elective colorectal resection was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1918 patients underwent colorectal surgery and 32 patients (1.7%) who required a SLCR were included for analysis; 17 (53.1%) were male, and the mean age was 71 (39 to 89) years. The median time between the first and second operations was 69 (6 to 230) months. At the second resection: The median operative time was 170 (90 to 380) minutes, there were 3 (9%) intraoperative complications and 2 (6%) conversions. Overall postoperative morbidity and major morbidity rates were 34% and 19%, respectively. Four patients (12.5%) required reoperation and 1 (3.1%) died of septic shock after an anastomotic leak. After propensity score matching, SLCR was more frequently performed by colorectal surgeons, and no differences in perioperative variables were observed compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: SLCR can be safely performed without jeopardizing perioperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm the benefits of the minimally invasive approach in colorectal second resection and to elucidate the long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic resection and primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis: with or without loop ileostomy?

BACKGROUND: Evidence is growing about the benefits of laparoscopic resection with primary anastomosis (RPA) in perforated diverticulitis. However, the role of a diverting ileostomy in this setting is unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic RPA with or without a proximal diversion in Hinchey III diverticulitis. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated Hinchey III diverticulitis during the period 2000-2019. The sample was divided into two groups: RPA without diversion (G1) and RPA with protective ileostomy (G2). Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day overall morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), and urgent reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes of interest included operative time, readmission, and anastomotic leak rates. RESULTS: Laparoscopic RPA was performed in 94 patients: 76 without diversion (G1) and 18 with proximal loop ileostomy (G2). Mortality (G1: 1.3% vs. G2: 0%, p = 0.6), urgent reoperation (G1: 7.9% vs. G2: 5.6%, p = 0.73), and anastomotic leak rates (G1: 5.3% vs. G2: 0%, p = 0.32) were comparable between groups. Higher overall morbidity (G1: 27.6% vs. G2: 55.6%, p = 0.02) and readmission rates (G1: 1.3% vs. G2: 11.1%, p = 0.03), and longer LOS (G1: 6.3 vs. G2: 9.2 days, p = 0.02) and operative time (G1: 182.4 vs. G2: 230.2 min, p = 0.003) were found in patients with proximal diversion. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic RPA had favorable outcomes in selected patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis. The addition of a proximal ileostomy resulted in increased morbidity, readmissions, and length of stay. Further investigation is needed to establish which patients might benefit from proximal diversion.

"Early" Reoperation to Treat Complications Following Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: The Sooner the Better.

BACKGROUND: Some postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) require reoperation to be treated. However, if the timing to perform this reoperation has some influence on outcome remains elusive. The aim of this study was to analyze if the timing to perform the reoperation has some influence in postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and required a reoperation during the period 2000 to 2019 were included. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: early reoperation (ER): ≤48 hours or delayed reoperation (DR): ≥48 hours based on the interval between the suspicion of a complication and reoperation. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 1843 LCS were performed, 68 (43%) were included in ER and 91 (57%) in DR. A computed tomography scan was less frequently performed in the ER (ER: 45% vs. DR: 70%; P=0.001). The rates of re-laparoscopy (ER: 86% vs. 73%; P=0.04) and negative findings in the reoperation (ER: 13% vs. DR: 1%, P=0.001) were higher in ER. There were no statistically significant differences in overall major morbidity (ER: 9% vs. DR: 21%; P=0.06) and mortality rate (ER: 4% vs. DR: 8.7%; P=0.28) between groups. The need of intensive care unit was significantly higher and the length of stay longer for patients in the DR group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a greater risk of negative findings, ER within 48 hours after the suspicion of a complication after a LCS offers higher chances of using a laparoscopic approach and it could probably provide better postoperative outcomes.

Is a laparoscopic approach useful for treating complications after primary laparoscopic colorectal surgery?

PURPOSE: Although the use of laparoscopy for the management of postoperative complications has been previously well documented for different pathologies, there is scarce information regarding its use after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected from all patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery between June 2000 to October 2007. Patients were divided into two groups according to the approach used for the reoperation: laparoscopy (Group I) or laparotomy (Group II). Data were statistically analyzed by using Student's t-test and chi-squared test. RESULTS: In all, 510 patients were analyzed. Twenty-seven patients (5.2 percent), 14 men and 13 women (men/women Group I: 10/7 vs. Group II: 4/6; P = not significant (NS)), required a second surgery because of postoperative complications (Group I: 17 (63 percent); Group II: 10 (37 percent)). Mean age was 60 +/- 17 years (Group I: 61.7 +/- 17.7 vs. Group II: 57.1 +/- 16 years; P = NS). Fifteen patients (55.5 percent) had anastomotic leaks (Group I 13/17 (76.5 percent) vs. Group II 2/13 (15 percent); P = 0.004). The were no differences between the groups regarding the length of stay or postoperative complications (Group I: 11.9 +/- 9.6 vs. Group II: 18.1 +/- 19.7 days: P = NS; Group I: 1 vs. Group II: 3; P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic approach is a useful tool for treating complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, especially anastomotic leaks. Randomized, controlled trials are necessary to validate these findings.

Laparoscopic approach in complicated diverticular disease.

AIM: To analyze the results of laparoscopic colectomy in complicated diverticular disease. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at an academic teaching hospital. Data were collected from a database established earlier, which comprise of all patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy for diverticular disease between 2000 and 2013. The series was divided into two groups that were compared: Patients with complicated disease (abscess, perforation, fistula, or stenosis) (G1) and patients undergoing surgery for recurrent diverticulitis (G2). Recurrent diverticulitis was defined as two or more episodes of diverticulitis regardless of patient age. Data regarding patient demographics, comorbidities, prior abdominal operations, history of acute diverticulitis, classification of acute diverticulitis at index admission and intra and postoperative variables were extracted. Univariate analysis was performed in both groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty patients were included: 28% (72 patients) belonged to G1 and 72% (188 patients) to G2. The mean age was 57 (27-89) years. The average number of episodes of diverticulitis before surgery was 2.1 (r 0-10); 43 patients had no previous inflammatory pathology. There were significant differences between the two groups with respect to conversion rate and hospital stay (G1 18% vs G2 3.2%, P = 0.001; G1: 4.7 d vs G2 3.3 d, P < 0.001). The anastomotic dehiscence rate was 2.3%, with no statistical difference between the groups (G1 2.7% vs G2 2.1%, P = 0.5). There were no differences in demographic data (body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology and previous abdominal surgery), operative time and intraoperative and postoperative complications between the groups. The mortality rate was 0.38% (1 patient), represented by a death secondary to septic shock in G2. CONCLUSION: The results support that the laparoscopic approach in any kind of complicated diverticular disease can be performed with low morbidity and acceptable conversion rates when compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis.

Rectal bleeding in Klippel-Trénaunay syndrome: treatment with laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection with intersphincteric dissection.

Klippel-Trénaunay syndrome is a rare congenital vascular disorder characterized by varicose veins, hypertrophy of the soft tissues and bones, and hemangiomas. Although colorectal angiomatosis is uncommon, this association can lead to life-threatening complications because of acute or chronic bleeding. We report a patient with Klippel-Trénaunay syndrome who presented with transfusion-dependent anemia secondary to chronic rectal bleeding. Endoscopy and image studies revealed venous angiomata involving the rectum and distal sigmoid colon. We performed a laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection with intersphincteric dissection, obtaining good results. After a follow-up of 20 months the patient did not present hematochezia and maintained fecal continence.

Laparoscopic colectomy: medial versus lateral approach.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colectomy can be performed using 2 approaches: lateral or medial. However, it is unknown if one of these techniques provides better results. Thus, the object of the present study is to assess whether one of the approaches has any potential benefits over the other. METHODS: A comparative, retrospective study was performed that included all patients scheduled for left and right laparoscopic colon resection for both neoplastic and benign diseases between June 2000 and June 2006. The following factors were assessed: operation time, recovery variables (bowel sounds, passage of gases, intake of liquids and solids), length of hospital stay, and morbidity and mortality rates. The population was divided into 4 groups: right colectomy using a lateral approach (RL); right colectomy using a medial approach (RM); left colectomy using a lateral approach (LL); and left colectomy using a medial approach (LM). RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were evaluated: RL: 16 (8%); RM: 37 (18.3%); LL: 110 (54.4%); LM: 39(19.3%). No differences in recovery parameters were observed between the right colectomies. However, the presence of bowel sounds and solid intake was significantly earlier in the patients subjected to left colectomies using a medial approach. A tendency toward a higher conversion rate was observed in left colectomies with lateral approach (LL: 18 vs. LM: 1, P=0.052). The operation time was significantly shorter when a medial approach was used for both right and left colectomies (RL: 185.6 min vs. RM: 148.6 min, P=0.009; LL: 205.5 min vs. LM: 139.9 min, P<0.0001). No differences in the morbidity and mortality rates were found between lateral and medial approach in both types of colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a medial approach in a laparoscopic colectomy provides short-term benefits compared with a lateral approach.

Procedimiento para prolapso y hemorroides como cirugía ambulatoria / Procedure for hemorrhoids and mucosal prolapse as a day surgery

Introducción: Estudios prospectivos randomizados demostraron que la técnica "Procedimiento para Prolapso y Hemorroides" (PPH) es eficaz. Si bien esta cirugía reduce el dolor postoperatorio pocas publicaciones la incluyen como procedimiento ambulatorio. El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar la factibilidad, la seguridad y los resultados del uso de PPH en forma ambulatoria para el tratamiento de la enfermedad hemorroidal. Diseño: Observacional retrospectivo. Pacientes y métodos: Se analizó una base de datos completada en forma prospectiva que incluía todos los pacientes operados de hemorroides con técnica PPH entre mayo del 2005 y mayo del 2009 bajo anestesia general con alta programada el mismo día del procedimiento. Resultados: En este período de 4 años de 74 pacientes operados con técnica PPH, 63 ingresaron bajo Cirugía Mayor Ambulatoria (85,1 por ciento). 41 pacientes (65 por ciento) fueron de sexo masculino. La edad promedio fue de 55 (28-79) años. El tiempo quirúrgico promedio fue 48,1 (20-120) minutos. 53 pacientes (84 por ciento) cumplieron con éxito el régimen ambulatorio, con internación promedio de 5,2 (2.2-9.2) horas. 10 pacientes (16 por ciento) debieron pernoctar en el hospital por diferentes causas: 4 por dolor intenso, 2 por vómitos, 1 por retención aguda de orina, 1 por hipotensión, 1 por eritema perianal y 1 por sangrado postoperatorio que requirió reoperación. 7 pacientes (11 por ciento) presentaron complicaciones postoperatorias tempranas (entre día 1 y 28 postoperatorio): 3 hematoma perianal, 1 trombosis externa, 1 fisura anal, 1 tenesmo rectal por edema de sutura y 1 dehiscencia de la hemorroideopexia. Con un seguimiento postoperatorio promedio de 24 (12 a 14) meses se han registrado 2 estenosis (3,1 por ciento) que se resolvieron con dilataciones y 7 recidivas (11.1 por ciento) que se resolvieron 6 con bandas elástica y 1 con PPH...

Background: Stapled haemorrhoidopexy has been shown in randomized controlled trials to be associated with less postoperative pain and an earlier return to normal activities. Given the decreased postoperative pain and no need for wound care, stapled haemorrhoidectomy should be feasible as a day surgery procedure. The objective of this study is to assess the safety, feasibility and results of stapled haemorrhoidopexy as day surgery procedure. Study design: Descriptive retrospective evaluation. Patients and methods: This is a retrospective study based on a prospective collected database. All consecutive patients with haemorrhoids who underwent stapled haemorrhoidopexy as day surgical procedure between May 2005 and May 2009 were included. Pre and perioperative parameters, early and late postoperative complications and long term results were analyzed. Results: In this period, PPH was performed in 74 patients. Of these, 63 (85 per cent) patients were considered appropriate candidates for day case surgery. 41 (65 per cent) were men and average age was 55 (28-79) years. Average operative time was 48 (20-120) minutes. 53 patients (84 per cent) successfully underwent stapled haemorrhoidopexy on a day case basis and the average hospital stay was 5.2 (2.2-9.2) hours. Ten patients (16 per cent) did not complete successfully the day case surgery and require staying at the hospital. Indications for admission were acute postoperative complications were as follow: four for analgesia, two for vomits, one for urinary retention, one for hypotension, one for perianal erythema and one for early postoperative bleeding who need reoperation. 7 patients (11 per cent) had early postoperative complications (1-28 days after surgery): 3 perianal hematoma, 1 thrombosis of the external haemorrhoidal plexus, 1 anal fissure, 1 tenesmus and 1 anastomotic dehiscence...

Morbilidad de las ileostomías temporarias / Morbidity of temporary ileostomies

Antecedentes: La morbilidad de las ileostomías oscila entre un 11 y 70 por ciento. Objetivo: Evaluar la morbilidad de las ileostomías temporarias. Lugar de aplicación: Centro de alta complejidad. Diseño: Estudio retrospectivo. Población: 93 pacientes con ileostomías temporarias. Método: Se evaluaron los pacientes en los que se realizaron ileostomías temporarias entre Septiembre de 1999 y Junio de 2006. Se analizó la morbilidad de las ileostomías, antes y luego del cierre. Tres técnicas de cierre fueron evaluadas: enterorrafia (21 por ciento), enterectomía con enterorrafia (16. 1 por ciento) y anastomosis latero-lateral mecánica (60.9 por ciento). Resultados: Se incluyeron 93 pacientes. Los motivos de desfuncionalización fueron: resección anterior ultrabaja en 29 (31 por ciento) casos, pouch ileoanal en 33 (35.5 por ciento) pacientes, y otras causas en 31 (33.3 por ciento). La morbilidad global fue 39.8 por ciento. Las complicaciones más frecuentes fueron: dermatitis (15 por ciento), suboclusión (10.7 por ciento) y alto débito (7.5 por ciento). No existieron diferencias significativas en la morbilidad al comparar el tipo de cirugía (urgencia vs. electiva), ni la causa (benigna vs. neoplasia). El cierre se efectuó en 87 pacientes (93.5 por ciento), en un período medio de 2.3 ± 2.8 meses. La morbilidad global fue 17.2 por ciento; dehiscencia de anastomosis (6.9 por ciento), suboclusión intestinal (2.3 por ciento), perforaciones periileostómicas (3.4 por ciento). La tasa de reoperación fue 9.2 por ciento. Un 6.9 por ciento presentó eventraciones y 3.4 por ciento infecciones de herida. Al comparar las complicaciones entre las técnicas de cierre intestinal, no hubo diferencias significativas. Conclusiones: La morbilidad de las ileostomías antes del cierre no fue despreciable, la mayoría fueron complicaciones menores. Luego del cierre no hubo diferencias significativas entre las tres técnicas.

Background: The morbidity of ileostomies has been reported between 11 and 70 per cent. Aim: Evaluate the morbidity of temporary loop ileostomies. Place of application: High complexity center. Design: Retrospective study. Methods: Ninety three patients with temporay loop ileostomies were included between September 1999 and June 2006. The end point was morbidity before and after closure of the ostomies. Three techniques were analized: enterorraphy (21 per cent), bowel resection with enterorraphy (16.1 per cent), and lineal stappled anastomosis (60.9 per cent). Results: Ninety three patients were included. The causes of construction the ileostomies were: low anterior resection in 29 (31 per cent) cases, ileoanal pouch in 33 (35.5 per cent) patients, and other causes in 31 (33.3 per cent). The overall morbidity was 39.8 per cent. The most frecuent complications were: skin scoriation (15 per cent), Small bowel occlusion (10.7 per cent), and high output (7.5 per cent). There were no statistical difference between the type of surgery (emergency vs. elective), neither the causes (benign vs. neoplasia). The ileostomy closure was performed in 87 (93.5 per cent) patients, in a median time of 2.3 ± 2.8 months. The overaIl morbidity was 17.2 per cent: anastomotic leakeage (6.9 per cent), small bowel occlusion (2.3 per cent), paraileostomic perforations (3.4 per cent). The reoperation rate was 9.2 per cent. There were 6.9 per cent of eventrations and 3.4 per cent of wound infections. There were no statistical differences when the three techniques of closure were compared. Conclusions: Complications of ileostomies before closure were not few, but most were minor. After closure there were no statistical differences between surgical techniques.

Inflamación del remanente rectal (Cuffitis) posterior a una proctocolectomía total con reservorio ileal: reporte de caso y enfoque actual de tratamiento / Rectal cuff inflammation (Cuffitis) after total proctoclectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: case report and current approach to treatment

La alternativa quirúrgica de elección para los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa (CU) refractaria al tratamiento médico es la proctocolectomía total con una reconstrucción a través de la confección de un reservorio ileal y una anastomosis ileo-anal. Esta cirugía permite la curación de la enfermedad con buen resultado funcional. A pesar de las demostradas ventajas, no está exenta de complicaciones. Una de las complicaciones es la inflamación sintomática del remanente rectal o cuffitis. Esta genera controversias importantes acerca de la técnica que debe utilizarse para la anastomosis ileo-anal debido a la asociación que presenta con la preservación de mucosa rectal en técnicas de sutura mecánica. El presente trabajo propone la revisión del tema y el análisis del enfoque actual de tratamiento, basada en un caso clínico.

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch is the treatment of choice in the majority of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) refractory to medical treatment. This surgery can cure the disease with good functional outcome. Despite the proven benefits, is not without complications. One of the complications is symptomatic inflammation of the rectal remnant or cuffitis. This generates significant controversy about the technique to be used for the Ileo-anal anastomosis because of the association presented to the preservation of rectal mucosa in mechanical suture techniques. This paper proposes the review of the topic and analysis of the current approach to treatment based on one case.