Incidence and Characterization of Rectal Complications From Fecal Management Systems.

BACKGROUND: Fecal management systems have become ubiquitous in hospitalized patients with fecal incontinence or severe diarrhea, especially in the setting of perianal wounds. Although fecal management system use has been shown to be safe and effective in initial series, case reports of rectal ulceration and severe bleeding have been reported, with a relative paucity of clinical safety data in the literature. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of rectal complications attributable to fecal management systems, as well as to characterize possible risk factors and appropriate management strategies for such complications. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a large academic medical center. PATIENTS: All medical and surgical patients who underwent fecal management system placement from December 2014 to March 2017 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured any rectal complication associated with fecal management system use, defined as any rectal injury identified after fecal management system use confirmed by lower endoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 629 patients were captured, with a median duration of fecal management system use of 4 days. Overall, 8 patients (1.3%) experienced a rectal injury associated with fecal management system use. All of the patients who experienced a rectal complication had severe underlying comorbidities, including 2 patients on dialysis, 1 patient with cirrhosis, and 3 patients with a recent history of emergent cardiac surgery. In 3 patients the bleeding resolved spontaneously, whereas the remaining 5 patients required intervention: transanal suture ligation (n = 2), endoscopic clip placement (n = 1), rectal packing (n = 1), and proctectomy in 1 patient with a history of pelvic radiotherapy. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design and single institution. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date evaluating rectal complications from fecal management system use. Although rectal injury rates are low, they can lead to serious morbidity. Advanced age, severe comorbidities, pelvic radiotherapy, and anticoagulation status or coagulopathy are important factors to consider before fecal management system placement. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B698. INCIDENCIA Y CARACTERIZACIN DE LAS COMPLICACIONES RECTALES DE LOS SISTEMAS DE MANEJO FECAL: ANTECEDENTES:Los sistemas de manejo fecal se han vuelto omnipresentes en pacientes hospitalizados con incontinencia fecal o diarrea severa, especialmente en el contexto de heridas perianales. Aunque se ha demostrado que el uso del sistema de tratamiento fecal es seguro y eficaz en la serie inicial, se han notificado casos de ulceración rectal y hemorragia grave, con una relativa escasez de datos de seguridad clínica en la literatura.OBJETIVO:Determinar la tasa de complicaciones rectales atribuibles a los sistemas de manejo fecal. Caracterizar los posibles factores de riesgo y las estrategias de manejo adecuadas para tales complicaciones.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Centro médico académico de mayor volumen.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes médicos y quirúrgicos que se sometieron a la colocación del sistema de manejo fecal desde diciembre de 2014 hasta marzo de 2017.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Cualquier complicación rectal asociada con el uso del sistema de manejo fecal, definida como cualquier lesión rectal identificada después del uso del sistema de manejo fecal confirmada por endoscopia baja.RESULTADOS:Se identificaron un total de 629 pacientes, con una duración media del uso del sistema de manejo fecal de 4,0 días. En general, 8 (1,3%) pacientes desarrollaron una lesión rectal asociada con el uso del sistema de manejo fecal. Todos los pacientes que mostraron una complicación rectal tenían comorbilidades subyacentes graves, incluidos dos pacientes en diálisis, un paciente con cirrosis y tres pacientes con antecedentes recientes de cirugía cardíaca emergente. En tres pacientes el sangrado se resolvió espontáneamente, mientras que los cinco pacientes restantes requirieron intervención: ligadura de sutura transanal (2), colocación de clip endoscópico (1), taponamiento rectal (1) y proctectomía en un paciente con antecedentes de radioterapia pélvica.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, institución única.CONCLUSIONES:Este es el estudio más grande hasta la fecha que evalúa las complicaciones rectales del uso del sistema de manejo fecal. Si bien las tasas de lesión rectal son bajas, pueden provocar una morbilidad grave. La edad avanzada, las comorbilidades graves, la radioterapia pélvica y el estado de anticoagulación o coagulopatía son factores importantes a considerar antes de la colocación del sistema de manejo fecal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B698.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is safe in elderly patients: a propensity-score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have established the effectiveness of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) for weight loss and co-morbidity amelioration. However, its safety and efficacy in elderly patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes in patients aged ≥60 years who underwent RYGB compared with nonsurgical controls with the hypothesis that RYGB provides weight loss benefits without differences in survival. SETTING: University-affiliated tertiary center. METHODS: All patients who underwent RYGB from 1985 to 2015 were identified and divided into elderly (age ≥60) and nonelderly (age <60) groups. A nonsurgical elderly control population was identified using a clinical data repository of outpatient visits to propensity match elderly patients 4:1 on demographic characteristics, co-morbidities, and relevant preoperative substance/medication use. Unpaired appropriate univariate analyses compared each stratified group. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were fitted based on social security death data. RESULTS: A total of 2306 patients underwent RYGB. The 107 elderly patients had lower median body mass index (47.0 versus 49.9; P = .007) and higher rates of co-morbidities. Rates of complications did not differ between elderly and nonelderly patients. Elderly surgical patients were propensity matched 4:1 (10,044 controls) yielding 428 well-matched nonsurgical controls. The elderly group demonstrated significant percent reduction in excess body mass index compared with the control group (81.8% versus 10.3%; P < .001). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test demonstrated no difference in midterm survival (P = .63). CONCLUSIONS: A significant weight reduction benefit was identified after RYGB in elderly patients without a difference in midterm survival compared with propensity-matched controls, suggesting RYGB is a safe and efficacious weight loss strategy in the elderly.

Ureteral stents increase risk of postoperative acute kidney injury following colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Ureteral stents are commonly placed before colorectal resection to assist in identification of ureters and prevent injury. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common cause of morbidity and increased cost following colorectal surgery. Although previously associated with reflex anuria, prophylactic stents have not been found to increase AKI. We sought to determine the impact of ureteral stents on the incidence of AKI following colorectal surgery. METHODS: All patients undergoing colon or rectal resection at a single institution between 2005 and 2015 were reviewed using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset. AKI was defined as a rise in serum creatinine to ≥ 1.5 times the preoperative value. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of AKI. RESULTS: 2910 patients underwent colorectal resection. Prophylactic ureteral stents were placed in 129 patients (4.6%). Postoperative AKI occurred in 335 (11.5%) patients during their hospitalization. The stent group demonstrated increased AKI incidence (32.6% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.0001) with bilateral having a higher rate than unilateral stents. Hospital costs were higher in the stent group ($23,629 vs. $16,091; p < 0.0001), and patients with bilateral stents had the highest costs. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of AKI after colorectal surgery including age, procedure duration, and ureteral stent placement. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic ureteral stents independently increased AKI risk when placed prior to colorectal surgery. These data demonstrate increased morbidity and hospital costs related to usage of stents in colorectal surgery, indicating that placement should be limited to patients with highest potential benefit.

Standardization of care: impact of an enhanced recovery protocol on length of stay, complications, and direct costs after colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgery is associated with considerable morbidity and prolonged length of stay (LOS). Recognizing the need for improvement, we implemented an enhanced recovery (ER) protocol for all patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery at an academic institution. STUDY DESIGN: A multidisciplinary team implemented an ER protocol based on: preoperative counseling with active patient participation, carbohydrate loading, multimodal analgesia with avoidance of intravenous opioids, intraoperative goal-directed fluid resuscitation, immediate postoperative feeding, and ambulation. Discharge requirements remained identical throughout. A before and after study design was undertaken comparing patients before (August 2012 to February 2013) and after implementation of an ER protocol (August 2013 to February 2014). Risk stratification was performed using the NSQIP risk calculator to calculate the predicted LOS for each patient based on 23 variables. RESULTS: One hundred and nine consecutive patients underwent surgery within the ER protocol compared with 98 consecutive historical controls (conventional). The risk-adjusted predicted LOS was similar for each group at 5.1 and 5.2 days. Substantial reductions were seen in LOS, morphine equivalents, intravenous fluids, return of bowel function, and overall complications with the ER group. There was a $7,129/patient reduction in direct cost, corresponding to a cost savings of $777,061 in the ER group. Patient satisfaction as measured by Press Ganey improved considerably during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ER protocol led to improved patient satisfaction and substantial reduction in LOS, complication rates, and costs for patients undergoing both open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery. These data demonstrate that small investments in the perioperative environment can lead to large returns.