Two-stage resection for malignant colonic obstructions: the timing of early resection and possible predictive factors.

AIM: To study potential predictive factors for early radical resection in two-stage resection for left malignant colonic obstruction. METHODS: Thirty-eight cases of left-sided obstructive colon cancer undergoing two-stage operations were reviewed between January 1998 and August 2008. Patients were classified into two groups (n = 19 each): early radical resection (interval ≤ 10 d) and late radical resection (interval > 10 d). Baseline demographics, post-diversion outcome, perioperative data, tumor characteristics, outcome and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: The baseline demographics revealed no differences except for less pre-diversion sepsis in the early group (P < 0.001) and more obstruction days in the late group (P = 0.009). The mean intervals of early and late radical resections were 7.9 ± 1.3 d and 17.8 ± 5.5 d, respectively (P < 0.001). After diversion, the presence of bowel sounds, flatus, removal of the nasogastric tube and the resumption of oral feeding occurred earlier in the early group. The operation time and duration of hospital stay were both significant reduced in the early group. Complication rates did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: The earlier recovery of bowel function seems to be predictive of early radical resection. In contrast, pre-diversion sepsis and more obstruction days were predictive of delayed radical resection.

Iatrogenic colonic perforation by colonoscopy: a fatal complication for patients with a high anesthetic risk.

PURPOSE: Colonoscopy is currently a standard and widespread technique used in screening for colorectal cancer. Iatrogenic colonic perforation during colonoscopy is an unfortunate complication that can induce significant morbidity and even death. Here, we reviewed the clinical results of iatrogenic colonoscopic perforation in our hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 35,186 colonoscopies performed in the Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan from January 1998 to December 2007. Patient demographic data, indications, comorbidities, operative history, perforation site, time of diagnosis, management, complications, hospital stay, and outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: In this 10-year period, 23 cases of iatrogenic colonic perforation were recorded (0.065%) affecting 11 men and 12 women. The mean age was 71.2 years. There were 13 patients in American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classifications 1 or 2 (low anesthetic risk, group A), and ten patients in ASA classes 3 or 4 (high anesthetic risk, group B). The mean hospital stay was 12 days in group A versus 23.5 days in group B (P = 0.002). Moreover, four patients in group B died (17%; P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy-related perforation can progress to peritonitis and sepsis, resulting in serious morbidity or death. High-anesthetic risk patients with colonic perforation have a longer hospital stay and a poor prognosis. Hence, patients need to be informed of the complications of colonoscopy, and clinicians must be cautioned about the potential problems for patients with a high-anesthetic risk when performing the procedure.

Efficacy and safety of transnasal butorphanol for pain relief after anal surgery.

AIM: To compare the analgesic properties and efficacy of transnasal butorphanol with intramuscular meperidine after anal surgery. METHODS: Sixty patients who underwent fistulectomy were enrolled in the study from January 2006 to December 2007. They were randomly divided into transnasal butorphanol (n = 30) or intramuscular meperidine (n = 30) treatment groups. Assessment of postoperative pain was made using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The VAS score was recorded 6 h after the completion of surgery, before receiving the first dose of analgesic, 60 min after analgesia and the next morning. Any adverse clinical effects such as somnolence, dizziness, nausea or vomiting were recorded. Satisfaction with narcotic efficacy, desire to use the particular analgesic in the future and any complaints were recorded by patients using questionnaires before being discharged. RESULTS: Forty-two men and eighteen women were included in the study. There were no significant differences in VAS scores between the groups within 24 h. Length of hospital stay and the incidence of adverse effects between the groups were similar. In addition, most patients were satisfied with butorphanol nasal spray and wished to receive this analgesic in the future, if needed. CONCLUSION: Butorphanol nasal spray is effective for the relief of pain after fistulectomy. However, it offered patients more convenient usage and would be suitable for outpatients.

Comparison of clinical effects between warm water spray and sitz bath in post-hemorrhoidectomy period.

BACKGROUND: Warm water sitz bath is advised for a variety of anorectal disorders. However, preparation of the sitz bath is sometimes difficult for patients. As an alternative to the sitz bath, we have adapted a water spray method. A randomized, controlled study was conducted to determine if the water spray method has similar effects to the sitz bath in the post-hemorrhoidectomy period and it is easy to carry out. METHODS: A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to water spray or sitz bath groups. All patients received analgesics and a fiber-rich diet after hemorrhoidectomy. Clinical parameters including pain, irritation (burning or itching sensations), hygiene, convenience, and overall satisfaction were evaluated by a visual analog scale to assess treatment outcome in both groups. RESULTS: There was no obvious difference in age, gender distribution, body mass index, or duration of disease between groups. There were no significant difference in scores for postoperative pain (p = 0.23), irritation (p = 0.48), or hygiene (p = 0.725) between groups. However, the water spray group reported significantly greater convenience (p < 0.05) and higher overall satisfaction (p < 0.05) compared with the sitz bath group. At the end of the 4-week postoperative follow-up period, 90% of patients in the watery spray group and 93% of patients in the sitz bath group showed complete wound healing. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between groups. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the water spray method could provide a safe and reliable alternative to the sitz bath for post-hemorrhoidectomy care. Furthermore, the water spray method could be used instead of the sitz bath as a more convenient and satisfactory form of treatment.