Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

AIM: The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR. METHOD: Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed. RESULTS: Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%). CONCLUSION: The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma.

Biliopancreatic Diversion for Severe Obesity: Long-Term Effectiveness and Nutritional Complications.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is currently the treatment of choice for those patients with severe obesity, but the procedure of choice is not clearly established. We describe weight loss and nutritional parameters in severely obese patients after biliopancreatic diversion for 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: Patients were followed by the same multidisciplinary team, and data are shown for 10 years. Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS) questionnaire, data regarding the evolution of obesity-related diseases, and nutritional parameters are reported. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-nine patients underwent biliopancreatic diversion, 76.1 % women, initial BMI 50.1 kg/m(2) (7.2). Weight loss was maintained throughout 10 years with EWL% around 65 % and EBMIL% around 70 %. More than 80 % of the patients showed EWL higher than 50 %. Blood pressure, glucose metabolism, and lipid profile clearly improved after surgery. Mean nutritional parameters remained within the normal range during follow-up. Protein malnutrition affected less than 4 % and anemia up to 16 %. Fat-soluble vitamin levels decreased along the time, with vitamin D deficiency in 61.5 % of patients. No significant differences were found either in nutritional parameters or weight loss regarding gastrectomy or gastric preservation, or common limb length longer or shorter than 55 cm CONCLUSIONS: Biliopancreatic diversion is an effective surgical procedure in terms of weight loss, quality of life, and evolution of obesity-related diseases. Nutritional deficiencies are less frequent than feared for a malabsorptive procedure, but must be taken into account, especially for fat-soluble vitamins.