Intracorporeal anastomosis could be associated with a higher lymph node yield in right colon cancer surgery: Results of the ICA-LATAM study, a retrospective, multicentre, comparative analysis in Latin America.

AIM: The aim of this work was to compare lymph node (LN) yield in patients operated on for right colon cancer (RCC) using a laparoscopic approach between those receiving an intracorporeal (ICA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA). METHOD: This is a retrospective multicentre study involving patients operated on for RCC in nine tertiary referral centres in Latin America during a 2-year period. The main comparative outcome between groups was the number of LNs harvested between groups. RESULTS: The study included 416 patients, 261 (62.7%) in the ECA group and 155 (37.3%) in the ICA group. Patients in the ECA group were elderly (66 vs. 61 years, p < 0.001). Patients receiving an ICA achieved a significantly higher LN yield than those receiving an ECA (24 vs. 18, p < 0.001). This group also had a lower percentage of patients achieving a substandard LN yield (<12 LNs) (10% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.001) and more patients achieving a high number of harvested LNs (>32 LNs) (15.5% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.039). In the multivariate analysis, ICA was independently related to the primary outcome (LN yield) (OR 3.28, p = 0.027, 95% CI 1.14-9.38). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, patients operated on for RCC who received an ICA achieved a higher LN yield. Further studies are needed to reconfirm these findings, and also to find an explanation for these results.

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL). BACKGROUND: AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma. METHODS: This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated. RESULTS: This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies.

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. METHODS: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2 : 1). RESULTS: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). CONCLUSION: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding.

"Relaparoscopy" to treat early complications following colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has shown clear benefits that could also be useful in the emergency setting such as early reoperations after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic reintervention ("relaparoscopy") (RL) to manage postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database from 2000 to 2019. Patients who required a reoperation after undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. According to the approach used at the reoperation, the cohort was divided in laparoscopy (RL) and laparotomy (LPM). Demographics, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients underwent a reoperation after a laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 124 (78%) had RL and 35 (22%) LPM. Demographics were similar in both groups. Patients who underwent left colectomy were more frequently reoperated by laparoscopy (RL: 42.7% vs. LPM: 22.8%, p: 0.03). The most common finding at the reoperation was anastomotic leakage, which was treated more often by RL (RL: 67.7% vs. LPM: 25.7%, p: 0.0001), and the most common strategy was drainage and loop ileostomy (RL: 65.8% vs. LPM: 17.6%, p: 0.00001). Conversion was necessary in 12 patients (9.6%). Overall morbidity rate was 52.2%. Patients in the RL group had less postoperative severe complications (RL: 12.1% vs. LPM: 22.8, p: 0.01). Mortality rate was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Relaparoscopy is feasible and safe for treating early postoperative complications, particularly anastomotic leakage after left colectomy.

Treatment of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection: The TENTACLE-Rectum study.

AIM: Anastomotic leakage is a severe complication after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer and occurs in up to 20% of patients. Most research focuses on reducing its incidence and finding predictive factors for anastomotic leakage. There are no robust data on severity and treatment strategies with associated outcomes. The aims of this work were (1) to investigate the factors that contribute to severity of anastomotic leakage and to compose an anastomotic leakage severity score and (2) to evaluate the effects of different treatment approaches on prespecified outcome parameters, stratified for severity score and other leakage characteristics. METHOD: TENTACLE-Rectum is an international multicentre retrospective cohort study. Patients with anastomotic leakage after LAR for primary rectal cancer between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 will be included by each centre. We aim to include 1246 patients in this study. The primary outcome is 1-year stoma-free survival (i.e. patients alive at 1 year without a stoma). Secondary outcomes include number of reinterventions and unplanned readmissions within 1 year, total length of hospital stay, total time with a stoma, the type of stoma present at 1 year (defunctioning, permanent), complications related to secondary leakage and mortality. For aim (1) regression models will be used to create an anastomotic leakage severity score. For aim (2) the effectiveness of different treatment strategies for leakage will be tested after correction for severity score and leakage characteristics, in addition to other potential related confounders. CONCLUSION: TENTACLE-Rectum will be an important step towards drawing up evidence-based recommendations and improving outcomes for patients who experience severe treatment-related morbidity.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic sigmoid resection without diversion in perforated diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic primary anastomosis (PA) without diversion for diverticulitis has historically been confined to the elective setting. Hartmann's procedure is associated with high morbidity rates that might be reduced with less invasive and one-step approaches. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of laparoscopic PA without diversion in Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all patients who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease during the period 2000-2018. The sample was divided in two groups: elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for recurrent diverticulitis (G1) and emergent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for Hinchey III diverticulitis (G2). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 415 patients underwent laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease. PA without diversion was performed in 351 patients; 278 (79.2%) belonged to G1 (recurrent diverticulitis) and 73 (20.8%) to G2 (perforated diverticulitis). Median age, gender, and BMI score were similar in both groups. Patients with ASA III score were more frequent in G2 (p: 0.02). Conversion rate (G1: 4% vs. G2: 18%, p < 0.001), operative time (G1: 157 min vs. G2: 183 min, p < 0.001), and median length of hospital stay (G1: 3 days vs. G2: 5 days, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in G2. Overall postoperative morbidity (G1: 22.3% vs. G2: 28.7%, p = 0.27) and anastomotic leak rate (G1: 5.7% vs. G2: 5.4%, p = 0.92) were similar between groups. There was no mortality in G1 and one patient (1.3%) died in G2 (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic sigmoid resection without diversion is feasible and safe in patients with perforated diverticulitis. In centers with vast experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, patients undergoing this procedure have similar morbidity and mortality to those undergoing elective sigmoidectomy.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Risk Factors for Postoperative Intraabdominal Abscess.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has obtained wide acceptance over the last two decades. However, some studies suggest that there is an increased rate of intraabdominal abscess (IAA) when is compared with open appendectomy. Since postoperative IAA is associated with high morbidity, identifying predictive factors of this complication may help to prevent it. The aim of this study was to identify preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for IAA after LA. METHODS: From January 2005 to June 2015, all charts of consecutive patients underwent to LA were revised. Demographics, clinical and intraoperative variables were analyzed. Independent risk factors for postoperative IAA were determined by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1300 LA were performed. The mean age was 34.7 (14-94) years. Two hundred and twenty-five patients (17.3%) had complicated appendicitis with perforation and peritonitis. The conversion rate was 2.3% (30 cases). The average hospital stay was 1.6 (0-27) days. There were 30 (2.3%) postoperative IAA. In the multivariate analysis, body mass index (BMI) >30 (p 0.01), leukocytosis >20,000/mm3 (p 0.02), perforated appendicitis (p < 0.001) and operative time >90 min (p 0.04) were associated with the development of postoperative IAA. There was no mortality in the series. CONCLUSION: Patients with obesity, leukocytosis >20,000/mm3, perforated appendicitis and surgical time longer than 90 min have a higher chance of having a postoperative IAA. A close postoperative follow-up would be necessary in these situations in order to prevent and identify IAA after LA.

Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after colorectal surgery. Is it possible to maintain a mini-invasive approach?

Several benefits have been described in laparoscopic surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and the results of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after LCRS. Between May 2001 and March 2014, all charts of consecutive patients who underwent LCRS and developed an incisional hernia were evaluated. Patients with parastomal hernias or those with less than 6 months of follow-up were excluded. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic repair group (LR) and open repair group (OR). Demographics, surgical factors, and 30-day postoperative complications were analyzed. The incisional ventral hernia rate was 7 % (90/1290), and 82 incisional hernia repairs were performed. In 49 patients (60 %) an open approach was performed, and there were 33 laparoscopic repairs (2 converted due to small bowel injury). Mean age was 62 years. Average body mass index was 27.4 ± 5.2 kg/m2. The mean defect size was 56 (4-527) cm2, and there were no differences between the groups (LR: 49 cm2 vs OR: 63 cm2; p = NS). Average operative time was 107 (45-240) minutes (LR: 93 min vs OR: 116 min, p = 0.02). OR showed a higher rate of postoperative complications (OR: 51 % vs LR: 18 %, p = 0.003) and increased hospital stay (OR: 2.77 ± 4 days vs LR: 0.7 ± 0.4 days; p = 0.02). The recurrence rate was 15 % (12 patients, 6 each group; p = NS) after a follow-up of 48 (r: 6-141) months. Laparoscopic approach for incisional hernia repair after LCRS seems to be safe and feasible. Patients who received laparoscopic approach showed significantly less postoperative complications and shorter hospital staying. These observations suggest that mini-invasive surgery may be the initial approach in patients who develop an incisional hernia after LCRS.

Incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Is there any factor associated?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic approach is related to, among others, educing abdominal wall complications such as incisional hernia (IH). However, there are scarce data concerning laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). The aim of this study was to evaluate related factors and incidence of IH following this approach. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent colorectal surgery with laparoscopic approach in a single center was performed. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and also converted to open surgery were included. Uni- and multi-variate analyses were performed using the following variables: age; gender; type of surgery (left, right, total, or segmental colectomy); comorbidities [diabetes and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD)]; previous surgery; colorectal disease (benign and malignant); operative time; surgical site infection (SSI); and body mass index (BMI). Midline incisions (right colectomy) and off-midline incisions (left colectomies and rectal resections) were also compared. RESULTS: During a period of 12 years, 1051 laparoscopic colorectal surgeries were performed. The incidence of IH was 6% (n = 63). Univariate analysis showed that BMI > 30 kg/m(2) [p < 0.01, OR: 2.3 (1.3-4.7)], SSI [p < 0.01, OR: 6.5 (3.4-12.5)], operative time >180 min [p < 0.01, OR: 2.1 (1.2-3.6)] and conversion to open surgery (p = 0.01, OR: 2.4 [1.1-5.0]) were related to incisional hernias. BMI and SSI have a statistically significant relation with the incidence of IH in multivariate analysis (p < 0.01). No statistical difference between right and left colectomy was observed (6.6 vs. 6.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The incidence of IH after LCRS seems to be acceptable. BMI over 30 kg/m(2) and SSI are strongly associated to this complication.

Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: To divert or not to divert-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of proximal diversion in patients undergoing sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with a proximal diversion in perforated diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis. METHOD: A systematic literature search on sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion for diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis was conducted in the Medline and EMBASE databases. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies reporting the primary outcome of interest (30-day mortality) were included. Secondary outcomes were major morbidity, anastomotic leak, reoperation, stoma nonreversal rates, and length of hospital stay. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies involving 544 patients (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 287 versus sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion: 257) were included. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.53-2.40, P = .76), major morbidity (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.80-2.44, P = .24), anastomotic leak (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.099-1.20, P = .10), reoperation (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.46, P = .20), and length of stay (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 12.1 vs resection and primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy: 15 days, P = .44) were similar between groups. The risk of definitive stoma was significantly lower after sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis (odds ratio 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.006-0.35, P = .003). CONCLUSION: Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with or without proximal diversion have similar postoperative outcomes in selected patients with diverticulitis and diffuse peritonitis. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

Risk factors for major complications after surgical treatment of primary ileocecal Crohn's disease. A multicentric Latin American experience.

INTRODUCTION: Complications after ileocecal resection for Crohn's disease (CD) are frequent. The aim of this study was to analyze risk factors for postoperative complications after these procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated surgically for Crohn's disease limited to the ileocecal region during an 8-year period at 10 medical centers specialized in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Latin America. Patients were allocated into 2 groups: those who presented major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo > II), the "postoperative complication" (POC) group; and those who did not, the "no postoperative complication" (NPOC) group. Preoperative characteristics and intraoperative variables were analyzed to identify possible factors for POC. RESULTS: In total, 337 patients were included, with 51 (15.13%) in the POC cohort. Smoking was more prevalent among the POC patients (31.37 vs. 17.83; P = .026), who presented more preoperative anemia (33.33 vs. 17.48%; P = .009), required more urgent care (37.25 vs. 22.38; P = .023), and had lower albumin levels. Complicated disease was associated with higher postoperative morbidity. POC patients had a longer operative time (188.77 vs. 143.86 min; P = .005), more intraoperative complications (17.65 vs. 4.55%; P < .001), and lower rates of primary anastomosis. In the multivariate analysis, both smoking and intraoperative complications were independently associated with the occurrence of major postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: This study shows that risk factors for complications after primary ileocecal resections for Crohn's disease in Latin America are similar to those reported elsewhere. Future efforts in the region should be aimed at improving these outcomes by controlling some of the identified factors.

Re-laparoscopy to Treat Early Complications After Colorectal Surgery: Is There a Learning Curve?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy for treating complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) is still controversial. Moreover, its learning curve has not been evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to analyze whether operative outcomes were influenced by the learning curve of re-laparoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and reoperated by a laparoscopic approach during the period 2000-2019 was performed. A cumulative sum analysis was done to determine the number of operations that must be performed to achieve a stable operative time. Based on this analysis, the cohort was divided in 3 groups. Demographics and operative variables were compared between groups. RESULTS: From a total of 1911 patients undergoing LCS, 132 (7%) were included. Based on the cumulative sum analysis, the cohort was divided into the first 50 (G1), the following 52 (G2), and the last 30 (G3) patients. Less computed tomography scans were performed in G3 (G1: 72% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 43%; P=0.03). There were no differences in the type of operation performed between the groups. The conversion rate (G1: 18% vs. G2: 4% vs. G3: 3%; P=0.02) and the mean operative time (G1: 104 min vs. G2: 80 min vs. G3: 78 min; P=0.003) were higher in G1. Overall morbidity was lower in G3 (G1: 46% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 33%; P=0.01). Major morbidity, mortality, and mean length of stay remained similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 50 laparoscopic reoperations might be needed to achieve an appropriate learning curve with reduced operative time and lower conversion rates. Further research is needed to determine the learning process of re-laparoscopy for treating complications after colorectal surgery.

Consecutive Laparoscopic Colorectal Resections in a Single Workday by the Same Surgeon: Efficient or Risky?

Background: As laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) continues increasing worldwide, surgeons may need to perform more than one LCS per day to accommodate this higher demand. We aimed to determine the safety of performing consecutive LCSs by the same surgeon in a single workday. Materials and Methods: Consecutive LCSs performed by the same surgeon from 2006 to 2019 were included. The sample was divided into two groups: patients who underwent the first (G1) and those who underwent the second and the third (G2) colorectal resections in a single workday. LCSs were stratified into level I (low complexity), level II (medium complexity), and level III (high complexity). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Results: From a total of 1433 LCSs, 142 (10%) were included in G1 and 158 (11%) in G2. There was a higher rate of complexity level III LCS (G1: 23% versus G2: 6%, P < .0001) and a longer operative time (G1: 160 minutes versus G2: 139 minutes, P = .002) in G1. There were no differences in anastomotic leak, overall morbidity, or mortality rates. Mean length of hospital stay and readmission rates were similar between groups. Conclusion: Multiple consecutive laparoscopic colorectal resections can be safely performed by the same surgeon in a single workday. This efficient strategy should be encouraged at high-volume centers with experienced colorectal surgeons.

Second Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: Safety and Feasibility.

BACKGROUND: As laparoscopic colorectal surgery continues increasing worldwide, the need of having a second laparoscopic colorectal resection (SLCR) might increase as well. Experience with this challenging procedure is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SLCR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing colorectal surgery who needed an SLCR during the period 2008-2020 was performed. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. A propensity score matching with a control population undergoing a first elective colorectal resection was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1918 patients underwent colorectal surgery and 32 patients (1.7%) who required a SLCR were included for analysis; 17 (53.1%) were male, and the mean age was 71 (39 to 89) years. The median time between the first and second operations was 69 (6 to 230) months. At the second resection: The median operative time was 170 (90 to 380) minutes, there were 3 (9%) intraoperative complications and 2 (6%) conversions. Overall postoperative morbidity and major morbidity rates were 34% and 19%, respectively. Four patients (12.5%) required reoperation and 1 (3.1%) died of septic shock after an anastomotic leak. After propensity score matching, SLCR was more frequently performed by colorectal surgeons, and no differences in perioperative variables were observed compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: SLCR can be safely performed without jeopardizing perioperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm the benefits of the minimally invasive approach in colorectal second resection and to elucidate the long-term outcomes.

[Surveillance colonoscopy before scheduled: is it worthwhile?]. / Vigilancia colonoscópica antes de Lo estipulado: tiene alguna utilidad?

OBJECTIVE: To determine de incidence of colonic polyps in colonoscopies performed before scheduled and to identifY the clinical and endoscopic features that predicted this finding. METHODS: All patients who underwent at least two complete colonoscopies less than three years apart were retrospectively identified in our computerized database. We excluded patients with high risk of colonic neoplasm requiring a new colonoscopy in less than three years. We analyzed the incidence of polyps before the first and third year after the first study, and the clinical and endoscopic features related to this finding by means of multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: 378 paired colonoscopies fulfilled criteria, 129 were performed less than one year apart (group 1), and 249 less than three years apart (group 2). Regarding surveillance colonoscopies, 19% of patients presented adenomas and 1.5% high grade dysplasia (HGD) in group 1, and 21% presented adenomas and 2% HGD in group 2. In group 1 fair preparation (P = 0.03), and prolonged colonoscopy (P = 0.02) on the first study were independent predictors to find any polyp on the second study before scheduled. In group 2 fair cleansing (P = 0.04), history of sessile polyps (P = 0.01) and 3 or more polyps in the first study (P = 0.01) were independent predictors to find any polyp, while more than 5 polyps in the first study predicate adenomas. CONCLUSION: During the first year incident polyps related to difficult procedures (missed polyps?) while at 3 years the history of previous polyps was also important.

Laparoscopic resection and primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis: with or without loop ileostomy?

BACKGROUND: Evidence is growing about the benefits of laparoscopic resection with primary anastomosis (RPA) in perforated diverticulitis. However, the role of a diverting ileostomy in this setting is unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic RPA with or without a proximal diversion in Hinchey III diverticulitis. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated Hinchey III diverticulitis during the period 2000-2019. The sample was divided into two groups: RPA without diversion (G1) and RPA with protective ileostomy (G2). Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day overall morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), and urgent reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes of interest included operative time, readmission, and anastomotic leak rates. RESULTS: Laparoscopic RPA was performed in 94 patients: 76 without diversion (G1) and 18 with proximal loop ileostomy (G2). Mortality (G1: 1.3% vs. G2: 0%, p = 0.6), urgent reoperation (G1: 7.9% vs. G2: 5.6%, p = 0.73), and anastomotic leak rates (G1: 5.3% vs. G2: 0%, p = 0.32) were comparable between groups. Higher overall morbidity (G1: 27.6% vs. G2: 55.6%, p = 0.02) and readmission rates (G1: 1.3% vs. G2: 11.1%, p = 0.03), and longer LOS (G1: 6.3 vs. G2: 9.2 days, p = 0.02) and operative time (G1: 182.4 vs. G2: 230.2 min, p = 0.003) were found in patients with proximal diversion. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic RPA had favorable outcomes in selected patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis. The addition of a proximal ileostomy resulted in increased morbidity, readmissions, and length of stay. Further investigation is needed to establish which patients might benefit from proximal diversion.

"Early" Reoperation to Treat Complications Following Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: The Sooner the Better.

BACKGROUND: Some postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) require reoperation to be treated. However, if the timing to perform this reoperation has some influence on outcome remains elusive. The aim of this study was to analyze if the timing to perform the reoperation has some influence in postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and required a reoperation during the period 2000 to 2019 were included. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: early reoperation (ER): ≤48 hours or delayed reoperation (DR): ≥48 hours based on the interval between the suspicion of a complication and reoperation. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 1843 LCS were performed, 68 (43%) were included in ER and 91 (57%) in DR. A computed tomography scan was less frequently performed in the ER (ER: 45% vs. DR: 70%; P=0.001). The rates of re-laparoscopy (ER: 86% vs. 73%; P=0.04) and negative findings in the reoperation (ER: 13% vs. DR: 1%, P=0.001) were higher in ER. There were no statistically significant differences in overall major morbidity (ER: 9% vs. DR: 21%; P=0.06) and mortality rate (ER: 4% vs. DR: 8.7%; P=0.28) between groups. The need of intensive care unit was significantly higher and the length of stay longer for patients in the DR group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a greater risk of negative findings, ER within 48 hours after the suspicion of a complication after a LCS offers higher chances of using a laparoscopic approach and it could probably provide better postoperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic approach to colonic perforation due to colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic perforation due to colonoscopy is the most serious complication of this procedure. Usually, resolution of this event requires segmental resection. The laparoscopic approach could be an option to minimize the outcome of this complication. The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of the laparoscopic approach in treating colonic perforations due to colonoscopy. METHODS: Between July 1997 and November 2008 data were collected retrospectively on all patients who underwent colonoscopy and had a perforation caused by the procedure. Patients with other complications after colonoscopy as well as other colonic perforations were excluded. According to the method employed for the approach, the series was divided in two groups: those treated by the laparoscopic approach (group I; GI) and those treated via laparotomy (group II; GII). Morbidity and recovery parameters were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test and the chi square test. RESULTS: A total of 14,713 colonoscopies were performed during the study period. Of these, 10,299 (73 %) were diagnostics and 4,414 (27%) were therapeutics. There were 20 (0.13%) iatrogenic perforations (GI = 14 versus GII = 6). The mean age of the patients was 62 +/- 12.1 years. There were no differences in patient demographics, co-morbidities, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades between the groups. Seventeen patients had segmental colectomy with primary anastomosis (GI: 13 versus GII: 4). One patient in each group had simple suture with diverting ileostomy, and one patient from GII underwent a Hartmann's procedure. Patients from GI had a shorter hospital stay (GI: 4.2 +/- 2.06 days versus GII 11.5 +/- 8.8 days; P = 0.007) and there were no differences in complication rate compared with GII (GI: 3 versus GII: 5; P = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colectomy is effective in resolving colonic perforation due to colonoscopy, and it might offer benefits over the open approach.