Staged abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of complex gastrointestinal reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Literature on one- versus two-staged abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) with complex gastrointestinal reconstruction (GIR) is limited to single-arm case series with a focus on patients who complete all planned stages. Herein, we describe our experience with both one- and two-staged approaches to AWR/GIR, with attention to those who did not complete both intended stages. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted to identify patients who underwent a one- or two-stage approach to GIR/AWR from 2013 to 2020. The one-stage approach included GIR and definitive sublay mesh herniorrhaphy. The two-stage approach included Stage 1 (S1)-GIR and non-definitive herniorrhaphy and Stage 2 (S2)-definitive sublay mesh herniorrhaphy. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients underwent GIR/AWR: 20 (37.0%) underwent a planned 1-stage operation while 34 (63.0%) underwent S1 of a planned 2-stage approach. Patients assigned to the 2-stage approach were more likely to be smokers, have a history of mesh infection, have an enterocutaneous fistula, and a contaminated wound class (p<0.05). Of the 34 patients who underwent S1, 12 (35.3%) completed S2 during the mean follow-up period of 44 months while 22 (64.7%) did not complete S2. Of these, 10 (45.5%) developed hernia recurrence but did not undergo S2 secondary to elective nonoperative management (40%), pending preoperative optimization (30%), additional complex GIR (10%), hernia-related incarceration requiring emergent surgery (10%), or unrelated death (10%). No differences in outcome including SSI, SSO, readmission, and recurrence were noted between the 12 patients who completed the two-stage approach and the 20 patients who completed a one-stage approach, despite increased risk factors for complications in the 2-stage group (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Planned two-stage operations for GIR/AWR may distribute operative complexity and post-operative morbidity into separate surgical interventions. However, many patients may never undergo the intended definitive S2 herniorrhaphy. Future evaluation of 1- versus 2-stage GIR/AWR is needed to clarify indications for each approach. This work must also consider the frequent deviations from intended clinical course demonstrated in this study.

Vedolizumab as a rescue therapy for patients with medically refractory Crohn's disease.

AIM: Vedolizumab, a monoclonal antibody resulting in gut-selective anti-inflammatory activity, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for use in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of vedolizumab as a rescue therapy when other medical therapies have failed. METHOD: A retrospective review was performed on consecutive patients with CD receiving vedolizumab at the Penn State Hershey IBD Center between May 2014 and March 2016. These patients were unresponsive or intolerant to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist therapy, and previously would have been candidates for surgery. Outcomes included surgical intervention, clinical response and endoscopic improvement. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients with medically refractory CD receiving vedolizumab were included. The median length of follow-up was 69 weeks (range 15-113 weeks). A majority (81%) of patients previously failed at least two TNF antagonists, and 77% had prior surgery for CD. Surgical intervention was required in 21 (44%) patients and 13 (27%) patients required intra-abdominal operations. At the conclusion of the study, 23 (48%) patients reported continued improvement of symptoms, and 22 of 37 (59%) patients undergoing endoscopy showed improvement. Patients with the inflammatory CD phenotype were more likely to improve clinically and avoid surgery. CONCLUSION: Vedolizumab alone or in combination with immunomodulators or steroids may be used as a rescue therapy in patients with medically refractory CD and may decrease the rate of surgical intervention. Patients with the inflammatory CD phenotype had the best clinical response and decreased need for surgery, suggesting that vedolizumab is most effective in the inflammatory phenotype.

Compliance with Clostridium difficile treatment guidelines: effect on patient outcomes.

Guidelines for the severity classification and treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) were published by Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) in 2010; however, compliance and efficacy of these guidelines has not been widely investigated. This present study assessed compliance with guidelines and its effect on CDI patient outcomes as compared with before these recommendations. A retrospective study included all adult inpatients with an initial episode of CDI treated in a single academic center from January 2009 to August 2014. Patients after guideline publication were compared with patients treated in 2009-2010. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected to stratify for disease severity. Outcome measures included compliance with guidelines, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and surgical intervention for CDI. A total of 1021 patients with CDI were included. Based upon the 2010 guidelines, 42 (28·8%) of 146 patients treated in 2009 would have been considered undertreated, and treatment progressively improved over time, as inadequate treatment decreased to 10·0% (15/148 patients) in 2014 (P = 0·0005). Overall, patient outcomes with guideline-adherent treatment decreased CDI attributable mortality twofold (P = 0·006) and CDI-related LOS by 1·9 days (P = 0·0009) when compared with undertreated patients. Compliance with IDSA/SHEA guidelines was associated with a decreased risk of mortality and LOS in hospitalized patients with CDI.