Efficacy of loop colostomy construction for acute left-sided colonic obstructions: a cohort analysis.

PURPOSE: Acute primary resection as treatment for left-sided colonic obstruction (LSCO) is notorious for its high morbidity and mortality rates. Both stenting and loop colostomy construction can serve as a bridge to surgery, hereby avoiding the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with emergency resections. This study aims to investigate the safety of a loop colostomy in patients presenting with acute LSCO. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patients that received a loop colostomy for LSCO between 2003 and 2015 was performed. Primary outcomes were mortality, major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grades III-IV) and minor morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grades I-II). RESULTS: One hundred forty-six patients presenting with acute LSCO received a diverting colostomy. After colostomy construction, mortality occurred in four patients (2.7%) and major complications were reported in 20 patients (13.7%). In 61 patients, the diverting colostomy served as a palliative measure, because of metastatic disease or unfitness for major surgery. The remaining 85 patients all underwent delayed resection, resulting in an overall mortality, major morbidity and minor morbidity of 6.9% (n = 6), 14.0% (n = 12) and 26.7% (n = 23), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Diverting colostomy construction is a minimally invasive and safe treatment option for LSCO. It can serve as a definite palliative measure, as well as a bridge to elective surgery. A diverting colostomy as a bridge to surgery might even be a valid alternative for emergency resections, since mortality and morbidity rates following colostomy construction and delayed resection appear lower than reported outcomes following primary resection.

Acute resection versus bridge to surgery with diverting colostomy for patients with acute malignant left sided colonic obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, no consensus exists on the best treatment strategy for acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes following the two surgical treatment options; primary resection versus colostomy creation as bridge to surgery. METHODS: This systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to minimize risk of bias. Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for all relevant literature. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the MINORS criteria. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated using random effects models. RESULTS: Eight comparative studies were included, reporting on 2424 patients; 1973 patients were treated with primary resection and 451 patients with colostomy construction followed by elective resection. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between both treatment groups regarding 30-day mortality and morbidity (OR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.3-1.96 and OR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.51-1.13, respectively). However, patients treated with a colostomy followed by elective resection had significantly more primary anastomoses constructed and were less likely to be left with a permanent colostomy (OR = 0.17, 95%CI 0.11-0.26 and OR = 0.22, 95%CI 0.11-0.46, respectively). CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides an overview of all available literature on primary resection versus colostomy creation as bridge to surgery in patients with acute LSCO. Keeping the limitations of this study in mind, we conclude that a diverting colostomy as bridge to surgery is a safe and valid alternative for primary resection.

Adalimumab and infliximab are equally effective for Crohn's disease in patients not previously treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) are thought to have equal efficacy for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD), although no direct comparison has been performed. We compared the effectiveness and safety of IFX and ADA in carefully matched cohorts. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 200 patients with CD (100 treated with IFX and 100 treated with ADA, starting in 2006 or later) who had not received anti-tumor necrosis factor α agents previously; the patients were identified from databases of 6 hospitals in The Netherlands. The groups were matched carefully for indication, duration of disease, age, and Montreal classification. The primary end point was the steroid-free clinical response, defined by a combination of multiple clinical parameters, after 1 year. RESULTS: Of the total patient population, 63.5% and 45% had a clinical response after 1 and 2 years, respectively. There were no significant differences between treatment groups: at 1 and 2 years, 62% and 41% of those receiving ADA vs 65% and 49% of those receiving IFX had responses, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves showed identical decreases in response rates over time. Combining IFX or ADA with immunomodulator therapy was associated with a higher clinical response than monotherapy, although this was only significant among patients who received IFX (P = .03). There were no differences in numbers of side effects or opportunistic infections. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of ADA or IFX treatment in anti-tumor necrosis factor α-naive patients with CD is comparable after 1 and 2 years of follow-up evaluation. The efficacies of IFX and ADA each seem to increase when given with immunomodulator therapy, although only significantly for IFX.