Ureteral Stents Do Not Increase the Risk for Acute Kidney Injury After Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Ureteral stents are thought to prevent or help identify ureteral injuries. Studies suggesting that ureteral stents increase the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury show inconsistent conclusions. The large ureteral stenting volume at our institution provided a unique opportunity for granular analysis not previously reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prophylactic ureteral stenting at colorectal surgery increases acute kidney injury. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of colorectal operations with prophylactic ureteral stents was compared to operations without stents. Adjusted analysis was performed with inverse probability treatment weighting. SETTINGS: Single institution enhanced recovery colorectal surgery service. PATIENTS: Prospective institutional database between July 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was acute kidney injury, defined as increase in creatinine ≥0. 3 mg/dL (definition 1) and 1.5-fold increase in creatinine (definition 2) within 48 hours postoperatively. RESULTS: There were 410 patients in the study population: 310 patients in the stent group and 100 in the no-stent group. There were 8 operative ureteral injuries: 4 (1.29%) in the stent group and 4 (4.0%) in the no-stent group ( p = 0.103). Unadjusted analysis revealed no significant difference in acute kidney injury between groups. After adjustment, there was still no significant difference in acute kidney injury between groups when defined as definition 1 (no-stent 23.76% vs stent 26.19%, p = 0.745) and as definition 2 (no-stent 15.86% vs stent 14.8%, p = 0.867). Subgroup analysis showed that lighted stents were associated with significantly more acute kidney injury than no-stent patients when defined as definition 1 ( p = 0.017) but not when defined as definition 2 ( p = 0.311). LIMITATIONS: Single-institution results may not be generalizable. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic ureteral stenting does not increase the risk of acute kidney injury for patients undergoing enhanced recovery colorectal surgery, although caution and further study may be warranted for lighted stents. Studies further examining contrasting roles of ureter stenting and imaging in open and minimally invasive colorectal surgery are warranted. See Video Abstract. LOS STENTS URETERALES NO AUMENTAN EL RIESGO DE LESIN RENAL AGUDA DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA COLORECTAL: ANTECEDENTES:Se cree que los stents ureterales previenen o ayudan a identificar las lesiones ureterales. Los estudios que sugieren que los stents ureterales aumentan el riesgo de lesión renal aguda post operatoria muestran conclusiones contradictorias. El gran volumen de endoprótesis ureterales en nuestra institución brindó una oportunidad única para el análisis granular que no se informó anteriormente.OBJETIVO:Determinar si la colocación de stent ureteral profiláctico en cirugía colorrectal aumenta el daño renal agudo.DISEÑO:El análisis retrospectivo de operaciones colorrectales con stents ureterales profilácticos se comparó con operaciones sin stents. El análisis ajustado se realizó con ponderación de tratamiento de probabilidad inversa.AJUSTES:Cirugía colorrectal de recuperación mejorada de una sola instituciónPACIENTES:Base de datos institucional prospectiva entre el 01/07/2018 y el 31/12/2021.MEDIDA DE RESULTADO PRINCIPAL:El resultado primario fue la lesión renal aguda definida como un aumento en la creatinina ≥ 0,3 mg/dL (Definición n.° 1) y un aumento de 1,5 veces en la creatinina (Definición n.° 2) dentro de las 48 horas posteriores a la operación.RESULTADOS:Hubo 410 pacientes en la población de estudio: 310 pacientes en el grupo Stent y 100 en el grupo No-Stent. Hubo 8 lesiones ureterales operatorias, 4 (1,29%) en el grupo Stent y 4 (4,0%) en el grupo No-Stent (p = 0,103). El análisis no ajustado no reveló diferencias significativas en la lesión renal aguda entre los grupos. Después del ajuste, todavía no hubo una diferencia significativa en la lesión renal aguda entre los grupos cuando se definió como Definición n.º 1 (sin stent 23,76 % frente a stent 26,19 %, p = 0,745) y por definición n.º 2 (sin stent 15,86 % frente a stent 14,8 %, p = 0,867). El análisis de sub grupos mostró que los stents iluminados se asociaron con una lesión renal aguda significativamente mayor que los pacientes sin stent cuando se definieron como Definición n.º 1 (p = 0,017), pero no cuando se los definió como Definición n.º 2 (p = 0,311).LIMITACIONES:Los resultados de una sola institución pueden no ser generalizables.CONCLUSIÓN:La colocación profiláctica de endoprótesis ureterales no aumenta el riesgo de lesión renal aguda en pacientes que se someten a cirugía colorrectal de recuperación mejorada, aunque es posible que se requiera precaución y estudios adicionales para las endoprótesis iluminadas. Se justifican estudios que examinen más a fondo las funciones contrastantes de la colocación de stents de uréter y las imágenes en la cirugía colorrectal abierta y mínimamente invasiva. (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Early Urinary Catheter Removal After Colectomy for Colovesical Fistula is Not Associated With Increased Postoperative Complications.

BACKGROUND: Management of the bladder defect during colectomy for colovesical fistula (CVF) and recommendations for duration of urinary catheter drainage are inconsistent. This study aimed to determine if urinary catheter drainage duration was associated with postoperative complications. METHODS: Retrospective single institution cohort study of patients undergoing resection for diverticular CVF from 2015 through 2021. Urinary catheter drainage was defined as Early (≤7 days postoperative and then subdivided into 1-2 days, 3-5 days, 6-7 days), and Late (>7 days postoperative). Primary outcome was a composite measure of postoperative bladder leak, surgical site infection-III, sepsis, reoperation, and postoperative length-of-stay ≥7 days. RESULTS: There were 73 patients-64 Early group and 9 Late group. Composite measure between groups (Early 25% vs Late 33.33%, P = .688) was not significantly different. The Late group had more patients with large bladder defects (33.3% vs 7.8%, P = .054), significantly more patients who underwent suture repair (55.6% vs 14.1%, P = .01), and significantly more patients that had an intraoperative pelvic drain (66.7% vs 15.6%, P = .003). After propensity score inverse weighting, the Late group had significantly more cystogram-detected postoperative bladder leaks (P = .002) and ileus (P = .042) than the Early group. There were no bladder leaks or ileus in those who had urinary catheter removal on postoperative days 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: Early urinary catheter removal was associated with no increase in bladder leaks and fewer postoperative complications after definitive management of CVF. Further investigation is required to determine if intraoperative bladder leak testing and postoperative cystograms are useful adjuncts in decision making.

Postoperative Pain After Enhanced Recovery Pathway Robotic Colon and Rectal Surgery: Does Specimen Extraction Site Matter?

BACKGROUND: The current opioid crisis has motivated surgeons to critically evaluate ways to balance postoperative pain while decreasing opioid use and thereby reducing opioids available for community diversion. The longest incision for robotic colorectal surgery is the specimen extraction site incision. Intracorporeal techniques allow specimen extraction to be at any location. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine whether the Pfannenstiel location is associated with less pain and opioid use than other abdominal wall specimen extraction sites. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted with a prospectively maintained colorectal surgery database (July 2018 through October 2019). PATIENTS: Patients with enhanced recovery robotic colorectal resections with specimen extraction were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Propensity score weighting was used to derive adjusted rates for numeric pain scores, inpatient opioid use, opioids prescribed at discharge, opioid refills after discharge, and other related outcomes. For comparing outcomes between groups, p values were calculated using weighted χ2, Fisher exact, and t tests. RESULTS: There were 137 cases (70.9%) with Pfannenstiel extraction site incisions and 56 (29.0%) at other locations (7 midline, 49 off-midline). There was no significant difference in transversus abdominis plane blocks and epidural analgesia use between groups. Numeric pain scores, overall benefit of analgesia scores, inpatient postoperative opioid use, opioids prescribed at discharge and taken after discharge, and opioid refills were not significantly different between groups. Nonopioid pain analgesics (acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and gabapentin) prescribed at discharge were significantly less in the Pfannenstiel group (90.19% vs 98.45%; p = 0.006). Postoperative complications and readmissions were not different between groups. LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted at a single institution. CONCLUSIONS: The Pfannenstiel incision as the specimen extraction site choice in minimally invasive surgery is associated with similar postoperative pain and opioid use as extraction sites in other locations for patients having robotic colorectal resections. Specimen extraction sites may be chosen based on patient factors other than pain and opioid use. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B495. DOLOR POSTOPERATORIO DESPUS DE VAS DE RECUPERACIN MEJORADA EN CIRUGA ROBTICA DE COLON Y RECTO IMPORTA EL LUGAR DE EXTRACCIN DE LA MUESTRA: ANTECEDENTES:La actual crisis de opioides ha motivado a los cirujanos a evaluar críticamente, formas para equilibrar el dolor postoperatorio, disminuyendo el uso de opioides y por lo tanto, disminuyendo opioides disponibles para el desvío comunitario. La incisión más amplia en cirugía colorrectal robótica, es la incisión del sitio de extracción de la muestra. Las técnicas intracorpóreas permiten que la extracción de la muestra se realice en cualquier sitio.OBJETIVO:El estudio fue diseñado para determinar si la ubicación del Pfannenstiel está asociada con menos dolor y uso de opioides, a otros sitios de extracción de la muestra en la pared abdominal.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Estudio de base de datos de cirugía colorrectal mantenida prospectivamente (7/2018 a 10/2019).PACIENTES:Se incluyeron resecciones robóticas colorrectales con recuperación mejorada y extracción de muestras.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se utilizó la ponderación del puntaje de propensión para derivar las tasas ajustadas para los puntajes numéricos de dolor, uso de opioides en pacientes hospitalizados, opioides recetados al alta, recarga de opioides después del alta y otros resultados relacionados. Para comparar los resultados entre los grupos, los valores p se calcularon utilizando chi-cuadrado ponderado, exacto de Fisher y pruebas t.RESULTADOS:Hubo 137 (70,9%) casos con incisiones en el sitio de extracción de Pfannenstiel y 56 (29,0%) en otras localizaciones (7 en la línea media, 49 fuera de la línea media). No hubo diferencias significativas en los bloqueos del plano transverso del abdomen y el uso de analgesia epidural entre los grupos. Las puntuaciones numéricas de dolor, puntuaciones de beneficio general de la analgesia, uso postoperatorio de opioides en pacientes hospitalizados, opioides recetados al alta y tomados después del alta, y las recargas de opioides, no fueron significativamente diferentes entre los grupos. Los analgésicos no opioides (acetaminofén, antiinflamatorios no esteroideos, gabapentina) prescritos al alta, fueron significativamente menores en el grupo de Pfannenstiel (90,19% frente a 98,45%, p = 0,006). Las complicaciones postoperatorias y los reingresos, no fueron diferentes entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Una sola institución.CONCLUSIÓN:La incisión de Pfannenstiel como sitio de extracción de la muestra en cirugía mínimamente invasiva, se asocia con dolor postoperatorio y uso de opioides similar, a otros sitios de extracción en pacientes sometidos a resecciones robóticas colorrectales. Sitios de extracción de la muestra, pueden elegirse en función de factores del paciente distintos al dolor y uso de opioides. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B495.).

Adaptation of an Evidence-Based Diabetes Management Intervention for Delivery in Community Settings: Findings From a Pilot Randomized Effectiveness Trial.

Objective: To adapt an evidence-based intervention targeting diabetes management in adolescents with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes for use in a community setting by community health workers (CHWs) and to conduct pilot testing of the new intervention, REACH for Control (RFC). The study was conducted as a collaboration between university researchers and a federally qualified health center. Methods In a pilot effectiveness trial, feasibility and acceptability of RFC were evaluated based on participant enrollment, treatment dose, and consumer satisfaction. RFC effects on adolescent adherence, health outcomes, and quality of life were also assessed. The trial used a parallel group design. Families were randomized to 6 months of RFC plus standard medical care (n = 26) or standard care (SC) only (n = 24). Data were collected at baseline and 7-month posttest. A mixed-methods approach was used to analyze data. Results: Qualitative analyses suggested that caregivers viewed RFC and delivery of a home-based intervention by CHWs positively. Furthermore, adolescents who received RFC had statistically significant (p = .05) and clinically meaningful improvements in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (0.7%) and reported significant improvements in quality of life from baseline to follow-up (p = .001). No significant changes were found for adolescents in standard medical care. However, while dose of primary intervention session delivered was acceptable, dose of follow-up sessions used for skills practice was low. Conclusions: Results provide preliminary support for RFC's acceptability and effectiveness to improve health status and quality of life when used in community settings serving high-risk, low-income families. Additional testing in a full-scale effectiveness trial appears warranted.