Endoluminal negative pressure therapy in colorectal anastomotic leaks.

AIM: The aim of the present work was to perform an up-to-date review of the literature on endoluminal negative pressure therapy for colorectal anastomotic leak. METHOD: An electronic search in PubMed and Google Scholar and a manual search without language restrictions were performed on 25 January 2019. Only original series reporting endoluminal negative pressure therapy in colorectal anastomotic leaks were included. The primary outcome was the success rate (complete closure of the abscess cavity). The secondary outcomes were the rates of complications and stoma closure. RESULTS: Nineteen series with a total of 295 cases were analysed. The median distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge and the size of the abscess were 5.65 cm (4.9-10) and 6.0 cm (5-8.1) respectively. In 84.5% (78%-91%) the stoma was created at the first intervention. Neoadjuvant therapy was performed in 48.6% (3%-60%). Median 7 sponges (2-34) were used with median negative pressure 150 mmHg (125-700) for a median of 31 days (14-127). The success rate was 85.4% (80%-91%) with ileostomy closure in 72.6%. Complications were observed in 19% (13%-25%): abscesses 11.5% and anastomotic stenosis 4.4%. Laparotomy was required in 15% of the complications. The stoma was the only significant predictor for the success of the therapy (0.007, SE 0.004, P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: The initial experience looks promising with an 85% success rate, which precludes risky re-resections with redo anastomosis or Hartmann's procedure. Despite the good initial results, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn because of the small sample size and the lack of high-quality comparative studies.

A modern combat trauma.

INTRODUCTION: The world remains plagued by wars and terrorist attacks, and improvised explosive devices (IED) are the main weapons of our current enemies, causing almost two-thirds of all combat injuries. We wished to analyse the pattern of blast trauma on the modern battlefield and to compare it with combat gunshot injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of a consecutive series of combat trauma patients presenting to two Bulgarian combat surgical teams in Afghanistan over 11 months. Demographics, injury patterns and Injury Severity Scores (ISS) were compared between blast and gunshot-injured casualties using Fisher's Exact Test. RESULTS: The blast victims had significantly higher median ISS (20.54 vs 9.23) and higher proportion of ISS>16 (60% vs 33.92%, p=0.008) than gunshot cases. They also had more frequent involvement of three or more body regions (47.22% vs 3.58%, p<0.0001). A significantly higher frequency of head (27.27% vs 3.57%), facial (20% vs 0%) and extremities injuries (85.45% vs 42.86%) and burns (12.72% vs 0%) was noted among the victims of explosion (p<0.0001). Based on clinical examination and diagnostic imaging, primary blast injury was identified in 24/55 (43.6%), secondary blast injury in 37 blast cases (67.3%), tertiary in 15 (27.3%) and quaternary blast injury (all burns) in seven (12.72%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results corroborate the 'multidimensional' injury pattern of blast trauma. The complexity of the blast trauma demands a good knowledge and a special training of the military surgeons and hospital personnel before deployment.