Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma provide recommendations for the management of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal or perianal region. Primary treatment of anal cancer usually includes chemoradiation, although certain lesions can be treated with margin-negative local excision alone. Disease surveillance is recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is essential for optimal patient care.

Surgical management of children with intractable functional constipation; experience of a single tertiary children's hospital.

BACKGROUND: Children with intractable functional constipation (FC) may eventually require surgery. However, guidelines regarding the surgical management of children with intractable FC are lacking. The aim of this study was to describe the surgical management of FC in children. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of children with FC (according to the Rome III criteria) who underwent ileostomy, colostomy or (sub)total colectomy at a tertiary hospital. Treatment success was defined as no longer fulfilling the Rome III-FC-criteria or having a functional ostomy. In addition, a self-developed questionnaire was administered to parents by telephone to assess postsurgical satisfaction (yes-no question and rated on a scale of 1-10). KEY RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (68% female) were included; median age at first surgery was 12 years (range 1.6-17.6). The initial surgical procedure consisted of ileostomy (n=21), colostomy (n=10), sigmoid resection (n=5) and subtotal colectomy (n=1). Success criteria were fulfilled by 85% of the patients. Postsurgical satisfaction of parents was 91% with a median postoperative satisfaction score of 8 (range 2-10), and 97% would opt for the same procedure(s) if necessary. Thirty patients (81%) experienced stoma problems, with 12 patients (32%) requiring stoma-revisions. Other complications occurred in 16 patients (43%). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Surgery can improve symptoms in children with intractable FC. Despite morbidity and complications, parental satisfaction is high. Prospective, high-quality research is necessary to develop guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and surgical management in children with intractable FC.

Executive Summary: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Best Practice Guideline for Care of Patients With a Fecal Diversion.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal program developed to decrease postoperative complications, improve patient safety and satisfaction, and promote early discharge. In the province of Ontario, Canada, a standardized approach to the care of adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery (including benign and malignant diseases) was adopted by 15 hospitals in March 2013. All colorectal surgery patients with or without an ostomy were included in the ERAS program targeting a length of stay of 3 days for colon surgery and 4 days for rectal surgery. To ensure the individual needs of patients requiring an ostomy in an ERAS program were being met, a Provincial ERAS Enterostomal Therapy Nurse Network was established. Our goal was to develop and implement an evidence-based, ostomy-specific best practice guideline addressing the preoperative, postoperative, and discharge phases of care. The guideline was developed over a 3-year period. It is based on existing literature, guidelines, and expert opinion. This article serves as an executive summary for this clinical resource; the full guideline is available as Supplemental Digital Content 1 (available at: http://links.lww.com/JWOCN/A36) to this executive summary.

Management of Diverticular Disease in Scandinavia.

Throughout the last century, the incidence of diverticular disease of the colon has increased tremendously in industrialized countries; nevertheless, the management of this condition is still controversial. Although several international guidelines for the management of diverticular disease are based on the same evidence, the recommendations differ greatly, emphasizing the lack of high-quality prospective studies. In Scandinavia, official guidelines for the management of diverticular disease exist only in Denmark. However, the treatment policies are quite similar in all Scandinavian countries. Computed tomography is the first choice for imaging of acute diverticulitis and its complications. Furthermore, the use of antibiotics in uncomplicated diverticulitis is nearly abandoned in Scandinavia, whereas several international guidelines still recommend their use. There is a broad consensus that abscesses secondary to acute diverticulitis can safely be managed with percutaneous drainage, which is in line with international recommendations. The surgical management of perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis is still as controversial in Scandinavia as elsewhere. Common surgical options are laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, primary resection with anastomosis, and primary resection with terminal colostomy (Hartmann's procedure). Elective sigmoid resection in patients with diverticular disease seems to be performed less frequently in Scandinavia than in other European countries; the right indications are a current matter of debate. Symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease in the absence of diverticulitis has not gained great attention in Scandinavia.

Optimal Colostomy Placement in Spinal Cord Injury Patients.

Barring unusual circumstances, sigmoid colostomy is the optimal technique for management of defecation in spinal cord injury (SCI) patients. We sought to provide evidence that a sigmoid colostomy is not difficult to perform in SCI patients and has better long-term results. The St. Louis Department of Veterans Affairs has a Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF)-approved SCI Unit. We reviewed the operative notes on all SCI patients who received a colostomy for fecal management by three ASCRS-certified colorectal surgeons at the St. Louis Department of Veterans Affairs from January 1, 2007 to November 26, 2012. There were 27 operations for which the recorded indication for surgery suggested that the primary disorder was SCI. Fourteen had traumatic SCI of the thoracic and/or lumbar spine and were evaluable. Of these 14 patients, 12 had laparoscopic sigmoid colostomy and two had open sigmoid colostomy. We encountered one evaluable patient with a remarkably large amount of retroperitoneal bony debris who successfully underwent laparoscopic sigmoid colostomy. In conclusion, sigmoid colostomy is the consensus optimal procedure for fecal management in SCI patients. Laparoscopic procedures are preferred. Care providers should specify sigmoid colostomy when contacting a surgeon.

Stoma placement in obstructive rectal cancer prior to neo-adjuvant treatment and definitive surgery: A practical guideline.

INTRODUCTION: Mechanical bowel obstruction in rectal cancer is a common problem, requiring stoma placement to decompress the colon and permit neo-adjuvant treatment. The majority of patients operated on in our hospital are referred; after stoma placement at the referring centre without overseeing final type of surgery. Stoma malpositioning and its effects on rectal cancer care are described. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for locally advanced or locally recurrent rectal cancer between 2000 and 2013 in our tertiary referral centre were reviewed and included if they received a stoma before curative surgery. Patients with recurrent rectal cancer were only included if the stomas from the primary surgery had been restored. The main outcome measures are stoma malpositioning, postoperative and stoma-related complications. RESULTS: A total of 726 patients were included; of these, 156 patients (21%) had a stoma before curative surgery. In the majority of patients, acute or pending large bowel obstruction was the main indication for emergent stoma creation; some of the patients had tumour-related fistulae. In 53 patients (34%), the stoma required revision during definitive surgery. No significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: One-third of the previously placed emergency stomas were considered to be located inappropriately and required revision. We were able to avoid increased complication rates in patients with a malpositioned stoma, however unnecessary surgery for an inappropriately placed stoma should be avoided to decrease patient inconvenience and risks. An algorithm is proposed for the placement of a suitable stoma.

Analgesic efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block in neonates and early infants for colostomy and reversal of colostomy.

The application of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in paediatric population is gaining popularity among anaesthetists. We present a case series of ultrasound-guided TAP block in ten neonate and infants undergoing colostomy and reversal of stoma. Classical TAP as described by Hebbard was carried out and a maximum dosage of 1ml/kg of 0.25% levobupivacaine was injected. Pain score was assessed using Neonatal Infant Pain Scale for 24 hours. In all patients, the block was successful with minimal hemodynamic changes intraoperatively and no additional systemic analgesia was needed intraoperative and immediate postoperatively. Ultrasound-guided TAP block has an important role in providing safe and effective analgesia for colostomy creation and reversal of stoma surgeries in paediatric population.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing interventions for peristomal skin care.

Standard skin care procedures for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes and peristomal skin care for colostomy and ileostomy patients are not always sufficient to prevent peristomal skin problems. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare the effectiveness of standard peristomal skin care to adjunctive techniques or barriers (including glycogel dressings, gelatin- and pectin-based skin barriers, glycerin hydrogel wound dressing, Acacia senegal fiber pockets, hydrocolloid powder crusting, and German chamomile) to manage or treat patients with a stoma. Using systematic literature search techniques, all healthcare databases were searched up through September 2014. No language restrictions were applied. Studies were included if they met criteria for published RCTs or quasi-RCTs that evaluated the outcome of standardized peristomal skin care and other adjunctive techniques or barriers used among patients with a stoma or PEG tube. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate a pooled effect size by using random-effect models for the primary (skin irritation/reaction) and secondary (length of pouch wear time) outcomes. Six RCTs comprising 418 total patients were identified. Four evaluated the outcome of colostomy or ileostomy peristomal skin care, and no significant differences were detected in the incidence of skin problems (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.31-1.41). In the two studies that included length of pouch wear time, no significant differences were observed (RR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.03-7.97). No significant differences were seen in the rate of skin irritations of gastrostomy patients (RR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.20-1.59), but the difference in treatment outcomes of peristomal damage in patients with a colostomy was significant (P = 0.01). The limited number of studies, study quality, heterogeneity of variability in peristomal care strategies and techniques, clinical factors, and nonuniform reporting of clinical parameters contributed to the heterogeneity among the trials. Well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the efficacy of various barriers and techniques for peristomal skin care and to help develop evidence-based standards of caring for the skin of patients with a colostomy, ileostomy, or gastrostomy.

Predictors of mortality after emergent surgery for acute colonic diverticulitis: analysis of National Surgical Quality Improvement Project data.

BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment of acute colonic diverticulitis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. However, patient and operative characteristics associated with mortality in this patient population are unclear. We hypothesize that demographic and perioperative variables can be used to predict postoperative mortality.The purpose of this study was to identify perioperative variables predictive of postoperative mortality after emergent surgery for acute diverticulitis. METHODS: Patients with diverticulitis undergoing colostomy and/or partial colectomy with or without primary anastomosis were retrieved from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for years 2005 to 2008 inclusive. Only patients undergoing emergent surgery for acute diverticulitis were included. Univariate analyses were performed to compare demographic characteristics, preoperative laboratory values, comorbidities, and intraoperative variables. Variables with a significant (p < 0.10) difference between survivors and nonsurvivors were included in a stepwise logistic regression model to determine predictors of 30-day mortality. Concordance indices (c indices) for postoperative mortality were calculated using 2005 to 2008 data to determine predictive accuracy and validated on 2009 data. RESULTS: A total of 2,214 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 61 years, and 50% of patients were male. Thirty-day mortality was 5.1%. Nine preoperative variables were significantly associated with postoperative mortality on multivariable analysis. The c index of this nine-variable model was 0.901. Renal dysfunction, hypoalbuminemia, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and age were chosen to create a simpler model, with a c index of 0.886 for 2005 to 2008 data and 0.893 for 2009 data. CONCLUSION: Four readily available perioperative variables can be used to predict 30-day mortality after emergent surgery for acute diverticulitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level II.

Amputación abdominoperineal cilíndrica: racionalidad y aspectos técnicos / Cylindric Abdominoperineal Resection: rational and technique

La resección quirúrgica sigue siendo la piedra angular de la terapia curativa en el cáncer de recto. La amputación abdominoperineal implica la remoción en bloque del recto, mesorrecto, aparato esfinteriano y el ano; con la creación de una colostomía definitiva. Esta cirugía es la propuesta para pacientes sin posibilidad de conservación esfinteriana. Este grupo representa aproximadamente el 80% de los pacientes con lesiones a menos de 5 cm del margen anal y aquellos con una continencia preoperatoria deficiente. Recientemente una modificación de la técnica denominada “Amputación abdominoperineal extraelevador” destinada a la ampliación del margen circunferencial sugiere mejores resultados oncológicos que la técnica clásica. El siguiente trabajo tiene por objetivo caracterizar y describir a la amputación abdominoperineal cilíndrica en comparación a la técnica clásica.

Surgery remains the cornerstone in rectal cancer treatment. Abdominoperineal resection involves the en bloc removal of the rectum, mesorectum, sphincters and anus with confection of a definitive colostomy. This surgery is indicated in patients without the possibility of sphincter preservation. This group represents approximately 80% of patients with lesions <5 cm from the anal verge and those with preoperative incontinence. Recently “Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision” has been described to improve rates of circumferential margin positivity suggesting better oncological outcomes compared to the standard procedure. The objective of this paper is to provide a technical description and compare available data of both Extralevator and Standard techniques.

Amputación abdominoperineal cilíndrica: racionalidad y aspectos técnicos / Cylindric Abdominoperineal Resection: rational and technique

La resección quirúrgica sigue siendo la piedra angular de la terapia curativa en el cáncer de recto. La amputación abdominoperineal implica la remoción en bloque del recto, mesorrecto, aparato esfinteriano y el ano; con la creación de una colostomía definitiva. Esta cirugía es la propuesta para pacientes sin posibilidad de conservación esfinteriana. Este grupo representa aproximadamente el 80% de los pacientes con lesiones a menos de 5 cm del margen anal y aquellos con una continencia preoperatoria deficiente. Recientemente una modificación de la técnica denominada ôAmputación abdominoperineal extraelevadorö destinada a la ampliación del margen circunferencial sugiere mejores resultados oncológicos que la técnica clásica. El siguiente trabajo tiene por objetivo caracterizar y describir a la amputación abdominoperineal cilíndrica en comparación a la técnica clásica. (AU)

Surgery remains the cornerstone in rectal cancer treatment. Abdominoperineal resection involves the en bloc removal of the rectum, mesorectum, sphincters and anus with confection of a definitive colostomy. This surgery is indicated in patients without the possibility of sphincter preservation. This group represents approximately 80% of patients with lesions <5 cm from the anal verge and those with preoperative incontinence. Recently ôExtralevator Abdominoperineal Excisionö has been described to improve rates of circumferential margin positivity suggesting better oncological outcomes compared to the standard procedure. The objective of this paper is to provide a technical description and compare available data of both Extralevator and Standard techniques. (AU)

Towards optimizing perioperative colorectal care: outcomes for 1,000 consecutive laparoscopic colon procedures using enhanced recovery pathways.

BACKGROUND: Learning curves and efficiency concerns have slowed the integration of laparoscopy into colorectal practice. We evaluated our experience with laparoscopic colorectal (LC) surgery using enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs). METHODS: One thousand consecutive LC procedures performed by 2 surgeons over a 5-year period using previously published, standardized ERPs were assessed. RESULTS: The mean age was 59, and the mean body mass index was 29.5. Procedures included segmental colectomy (54%), proctectomy (19%), total colectomy (11%), ostomy (5%), and other procedures (11%). Diagnoses included malignancy (41%), diverticulitis (16%), inflammatory bowel disease (13%), and other (30%). The mean operative time was 151 minutes, and the mean blood loss was 55 mL. Conversion to an open surgery occurred in 5.8%, whereas 2.3% were performed using a hand-assist procedure. The mean hospital stay was 4.1 days (median 3), with a 6% readmission rate. Complications (20%) included mortality (0.3%), wound infection (4%), and anastomotic leak (1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: LC surgery with ERP offers excellent outcomes with efficient use of resources.

How often do patients return to the operating room after colorectal resections?

AIM: We sought to identify the rate of re-operation after an index colorectal surgical procedure and potential contributing risk factors. METHOD: This is a retrospective cohort study from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. We identified all patients who either returned or did not return to the operating room after any colorectal resection from January 2005 to December 2008. RESULTS: From a total cohort of 635, 265 patients included in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program over the 4-year study period, we identified 54, 237 patients who underwent colorectal operations. A return to the operating room was coded in 5.4 ± 0.1% of non colorectal resection patients and 7.6 ± 0.2% of colorectal resection patients (P < 0.001). The multivariate model identified patients with postoperative diagnostic codes for abdominal cavity hernia or colostomy complication as having the highest odds of return to the operating room within 30 days. Patients returning to the operating room had longer length of stay and higher overall mortality compared with those patients who did not return to the operating room. CONCLUSION: Return to the operating room is a relatively common occurrence after colorectal resections, with an associated high rate of mortality. Given the association between return to the operating room and adverse patient outcomes, emphasis should be placed on determining strategies to reduce the need for return to the operating room.

Quality of care in advanced ovarian cancer: the importance of provider specialty.

BACKGROUND: One of the cornerstones of ovarian cancer therapy is cytoreductive surgery, which can be performed by surgeons with different specialty training. We examined whether surgeon specialty impacts quality of life (as proxied by presence of ostomy) and overall survival for women with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: Stage IIIC/IV ovarian cancer patients were identified using 4 state cancer registries: California, Washington, New York, and Florida and linked records to the corresponding inpatient-hospital discharge file, AMA Masterfile, and 2000 U.S. Census SF4 File. Predictors of receipt of care by a general surgeon and creation of fecal ostomy were analyzed. Multivariate modeling was performed to assess the association of hospital volume (low volume (LV) [0-4 cases], middle volume (MV) [5-9], high volume (HV) [10-19], and very high volume (VHV) [20+]) and surgeon specialty training (gynecologic oncologists/gynecologists, general surgeons, and other specialty) on survival. RESULTS: We identified 31,897 Stage IIIC/IV patients; mean age was 64 years. Treatment of patients by a general surgeon was predicted by LV, rural patient residence, poverty, and high level of comorbidity. Patients had lower hazard of death when treated in higher volume hospitals as compared to LV [VHV hazard ratio (HR)=0.79, P<.0001; HV HR=0.89, P<0.001]. Patients treated by a general surgeon had higher likelihood of an ostomy (OR=4.46, P<.0001) and hazard of death (HR=1.63, P<.0001) compared to gynecologic oncologist/gynecologist. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced stage ovarian cancer patients have better survival when treated by gynecologic oncology/gynecology trained surgeons. Data suggest that referral to these specialists may optimize surgical debulking and minimize the creation of a fecal ostomy.

Ileostomy or colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The controversy regarding whether loop ileostomy or loop transverse colostomy is a better method for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis motivated this review. METHODS: Five randomized trials were included, with 334 patients: 168 in the loop ileostomy group and 166 in the loop transverse colostomy group. The outcomes analyzed were: 1. Mortality; 2. Wound infection; 3. Time of stoma formation; 4. Time of stoma closure; 5. Time interval between stoma formation and closure; 6. Stoma prolapse; 7. Stoma retraction; 8. Parastomal hernia; 9. Parastomal fistula; 10. Stenosis; 11. Necrosis; 12. Skin irritation; 13. Ileus; 14. Bowel leakage; 15. Reoperation; 16. Patient adaptation; 17. Length of hospital stay; 18. Colorectal anastomotic dehiscence; 19. Incisional hernia; 20. Postoperative bowel obstruction. RESULTS: Stoma prolapse was statistically significant (p = 0.00001), but with statistical heterogeneity; the sensitive analysis was applied, excluding the trials that included emergency surgery, and this showed: p = 0.02, with I2 = 0% for the heterogeneity test. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes reported were not statistically or clinically significant except for stoma prolapse. Better evidence for making the choice between loop ileostomy or loop colostomy requires large-scale randomized controlled trials.

Ileostomy or colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis: systematic review and meta-analysis / Ileostomia ou colostomia na descompressão temporária de anastomose colorretal: revisão sistemática da literatura e metanálise

PURPOSE: The controversy regarding whether loop ileostomy or loop transverse colostomy is a better method for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis motivated this review. METHODS: Five randomized trials were included, with 334 patients: 168 in the loop ileostomy group and 166 in the loop transverse colostomy group. The outcomes analyzed were: 1. Mortality; 2. Wound infection; 3. Time of stoma formation; 4. Time of stoma closure; 5. Time interval between stoma formation and closure; 6. Stoma prolapse; 7. Stoma retraction; 8. Parastomal hernia; 9. Parastomal fistula; 10. Stenosis; 11. Necrosis; 12. Skin irritation; 13. Ileus; 14. Bowel leakage; 15. Reoperation; 16. Patient adaptation; 17. Length of hospital stay; 18. Colorectal anastomotic dehiscence; 19. Incisional hernia; 20. Postoperative bowel obstruction. RESULTS: Stoma prolapse was statistically significant (p = 0.00001), but with statistical heterogeneity; the sensitive analysis was applied, excluding the trials that included emergency surgery, and this showed: p = 0.02, with I² = 0 percent for the heterogeneity test. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes reported were not statistically or clinically significant except for stoma prolapse. Better evidence for making the choice between loop ileostomy or loop colostomy requires large-scale randomized controlled trials.

OBJETIVO: A controvérsia entre ileostomia em alça ou colostomia em alça como a melhor forma para a descompressão temporária da anastomose colorretal motivou a realização desta revisão. MÉTODOS: Cinco ensaios clínicos casualizados foram incluídos com 334 pacientes: 168 no grupo de ileostomia e 166 no grupo de colostomia. Os resultados analisaram: 1. Mortalidade; 2. Infecção da ferida; 3. Tempo de formação do estoma; 4. Tempo de fechamento do estoma; 5. Intervalo de tempo entre a formação e o fechamento do estoma; 6. Prolapso do estoma; 7. Retração do estoma; 8. Hérnia parastomal; 9. Fistula parastomal; 10. Estenose; 11. Necrose; 12. Irritação de pele; 13. Íleo; 14. Fístula entérica; 15. Reoperação; 16. Adaptação do paciente; 17. Tempo de internação hospitalar; 18. Deiscência da anastomose colorretal; 19. Hérnia de Incisional; 20. Obstrução intestinal pós-operatória. RESULTADOS: Prolapso do estoma: p = 0.00001, mas com heterogeneidade estatística; a análise de sensibilidade foi aplicada excluindo os estudos que incluíram cirurgias de emergência: p = 0.02 e teste de heterogeneidade: I²=0 por cento. CONCLUSÕES: Os resultados encontrados não foram estatística ou clinicamente significantes, exceto prolapso do estoma. A melhor evidência para a escolha entre ileostomia em alça ou colostomia em alça necessita de maior número de ensaios clínicos.