Is ICG essential in all colorectal surgery? A 3-year experience in a single center: a cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Indocyanine green (ICG) was introduced as a promising diagnostic tool to provide real-time assessment of intestinal vascularization. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether ICG could reduce the rate of postoperative AL. The objective of this study is to assess its usefulness and to determine in which patients is most useful and would benefit the most from the use of ICG for intraoperative assessment of colon perfusion. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a single center, including all patients who underwent colorectal surgery with intestinal anastomosis between January 2017 and December 2020. The results of patients in whom ICG was used prior to bowel transection were compared with the results of the patients in whom this technique was not used. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to compare groups with and without ICG. RESULTS: A total of 785 patients who underwent colorectal surgery were included. The operations performed were right colectomies (35.0%), left colectomies (48.3%), and rectal resections (16.7%). ICG was used in 280 patients. The mean time since the infusion of ICG until detection of fluorescence in the colon wall was 26.9 ± 1.2 s. The section line was modified in 4 cases (1.4%) after ICG due to a lack of perfusion in the chosen section line. Globally, a non-statistically significant increase in anastomotic leak rate was observed in the group without ICG (9.3% vs. 7.5%; p = 0.38). The result of the PSM was a coefficient of 0.026 (CI - 0.014 to 0.065, p = 0.207). CONCLUSIONS: ICG is a safe and useful tool to assess the perfusion of the colon prior to performing the anastomosis in colorectal surgery. However, in our experience, it did not significantly lower the anastomotic leakage rate.

Stent as bridge to surgery decreases postoperative complications without worsening oncological outcomes: retrospective unicentric cohort study and stent placement protocol.

BACKGROUND: Even if the use of stent as bridge to surgery (BTS) for obstructive colon cancer was described long ago, there is still much controversy on their use. Patient recovery before surgery and colonic desobstruction are just some of the reasons to defend this management that can be found in several available articles. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study, including patients with obstructive colon cancer treated between 2010 and 2020. The primary aim of this study is to compare medium-term oncological outcomes (overall survival, disease-free survival) between stent as BTS and ES groups. The secondary aims are to compare perioperative results (in terms of approach, morbidity and mortality, and rate of anastomosis/stomas) between both groups and, within the BTS group, analyze whether there are any factors that may influence oncological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 251 patients were included. Patients belonging to the BTS cohort presented a higher rate of laparoscopic approach, required less intensive care management, less reintervention, and less permanent stoma rate, when comparing with patients who underwent urgent surgery (US). There were not significant differences in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival between the two groups. Lymphovascular invasion negatively affected oncological results but was not related with stent placement. CONCLUSION: The stent as a bridge to surgery is a good alternative to urgent surgery, which leads to a decrease in postoperative morbidity and mortality without significantly worsening oncological outcomes.

Evolución de la cirugía urgente en un servicio de cirugía general durante la pandemia de COVID-19 y comparación con una cohorte histórica.

BACKGROUND: Acute care surgery decreased during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To study the evolution of acute care surgery and its relationship with the pandemic severity. METHOD: Retrospective cohort study which compared patients who underwent acute care surgery during the pandemic to a control group. RESULTS: A total of 660 patients were included (253 in the control group, 67 in the first-wave, 193 in the valley, and 147 in the second wave). The median daily number of acute care surgery procedures was 2 during the control period. This activity decreased during the first wave (1/day), increased during the valley (2/day), and didn't change in the second wave (2/day). Serious complications were more common during the first wave (22.4%). A negative linear correlation was found between the daily number of acute care surgery procedures, number of patients being admitted to the hospital each day and daily number of patients dying because of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care surgery was reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, increased during the valley, and returned to the pre-pandemic level during the second wave. Thus, acute care surgery was related to pandemic severity, with fewer surgeries being performed when the pandemic was more severe.

ANTECEDENTES: La cirugía urgente disminuyó durante la primera ola de la pandemia de COVID-19. OBJETIVO: Estudiar la evolución de la cirugía urgente y su relación con la gravedad de la pandemia. MÉTODO: Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo que compara los pacientes intervenidos de forma urgente durante la pandemia con un grupo control. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 660 pacientes (253 en el grupo control, 67 en primera ola de la pandemia, 193 en el periodo valle y 147 en la segunda ola). La mediana del número de cirugías urgentes fue de 2 (intervalo intercuartílico: 1-3) durante el periodo control, disminuyó durante la primera ola (1/día), aumentó durante el valle (2/día) y no se modificó en la segunda ola (2/día). Las complicaciones mayores fueron más comunes durante la primera ola (22.4%). Se encontró una correlación lineal negativa entre el número de procedimientos quirúrgicos urgentes diarios y el número de ingresos hospitalarios y fallecimientos diarios por COVID-19. CONCLUSIONES: La cirugía urgente se redujo durante la primera ola, aumentó durante el periodo valle y volvió a niveles prepandémicos durante la segunda ola. Además, la cirugía urgente se relaciona con la gravedad de la pandemia, ya que se realizaron menos cirugías urgentes durante el periodo de mayor gravedad de la pandemia.

[Presacral haemorrhage during rectal cancer resection: morphological and hydrodynamic considerations]. / Hemorragia presacra durante la resección rectal por cáncer. Consideraciones morfológicas e hidrodinámicas.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim is to identify the location and size of the anterior foramina of sacral vertebral bodies and analyse the haemodynamic variables that could influence the haemorrhagic severity of the injury of the presacral venous plexus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using computed axial tomography the morphological data of 70 sacral bones in 67 patients with rectal cancer were recorded, as well as measuring the height between the vena cava and S5. After transfemoral catheterisation the inferior vena cava pressure was recorded in 10 patients with rectal cancer. Hydrodynamic principles, according to Bernoulli's Law, were applied to calculate sacral venous plexus pressure, and the flow rate according to the calibre of a hypothetical venous injury. RESULTS: The maximum diameter ranged from 0.5mm to 4mm in 22% of the cases. All foramina of 2 or more millimetres were located in the S4-S5 region. Sacral plexus venous pressure in lithotomy was almost double the inferior vena cava pressure in normal position. Blood flow ranged from 498 to 1,994 ml/min for injuries of sizes between 2 and 4mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Larger calibre foramina are found in vertebral bodies of S4-S5. Venous injury at these levels can reach a flow rate of 2 l/min.

Ischemic colitis. Does right colon location mean worst prognosis?

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with ischemic colitis have a favourable evolution; nevertheless, the location in the right colon has been associated with a worse prognosis. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical presentation and results of right colon ischemic colitis (CICD) with ischemic colitis of other colonic segments (non-CIDC). METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of patients admitted to our hospital with ischemic colitis between 1993 and 2014, identified through a computerized search of ICD9 codes. They were divided into 2 groups: CICD and non-CICD. Comorbidities, clinical presentation, need for surgery, and mortality were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for age and sex. Statistical significance was established at a value of P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were identified, 61 (30%) with CICD; 61% of CICD patients required surgery compared to 22% of non-CICD patients (P < 0.001). Differences in post-surgical mortality (32% vs 55%) and overall mortality (20% vs 15%) were not statistically significant. CICD patients had more commonly unfavourable outcomes than non-CICD patients (61% vs 25%, P < 0.001). The odds ratio (OR) for surgery was 5.28 and 4.47 for unfavourable outcomes for patients with CICD. CONCLUSIONS: CICD patients have a worse prognosis than non-CICD patients, 5 times more likely to need surgery and 4 times more likely to have unfavourable outcomes.

Ischemic colitis. Does right colon location mean worst prognosis? / Colitis isquémica. ¿La localización en el colon derecho tiene peor pronóstico?

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with ischemic colitis have a favourable evolution; nevertheless, the location in the right colon has been associated with a worse prognosis. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical presentation and results of right colon ischemic colitis (CICD) with ischemic colitis of other colonic segments (non-CIDC). METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of patients admitted to our hospital with ischemic colitis between 1993 and 2014, identified through a computerized search of the ICD9 codes. They were divided into 2groups: CICD and non-CICD. Comorbidities, clinical presentation, need for surgery, and mortality were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for age and sex. Statistical significance was established at a value of P <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were identified, 61 (30%) with CICD; 61% of CICD patients required surgery compared to 22% of non-CICD patients (P <0.001). Post-surgical mortality (32 vs. 55%) and overall mortality (20 vs. 15%) differences were not statistically significant. CICD patients had more commonly unfavourable outcomes than non-CICD patients (61 vs. 25%, P <0.001). The odds ratio (OR) for surgery was 5.28 and 4.47 for unfavourable outcomes for patients with CICD. CONCLUSIONS: CICD patients have a worse prognosis than non-CICD patients, 5 times more likely to need surgery and 4 times more likely to have unfavourable outcomes.