Loss of seton in patients with complex anal fistula: a retrospective comparison of conventional knotted loose seton and knot-free seton.

BACKGROUND: Loose setons are often utilized. Replacements after seton loss are frequent, but the exact incidence of this loss of seton (LOS) in patients is unknown. The aim of the present study was to assess the incidence of LOS in a population with complex anal fistula, comparing the knot-free loose seton with the conventional knotted loose seton. METHODS: All consecutive patients treated with a loose seton for complex anal fistula in two large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2017 and December 2019 were included in the present study. The incidence of loss of a conventional knotted loose seton was compared with the loss of commercially available knot-free setons. RESULTS: There were 212 patients. Fifty-two patients were included in the knotted loose group and 160 patients were included in the knot-free seton group. Sixteen patients who were treated with both a knotted and a knot-free loose seton were included in both groups. The incidence of LOS was 12% in the knotted seton group and 28% in the knot-free loose seton group (p = 0.02). Median time to LOS was 36 days for the knotted loose seton and 89 days for the knot-free loose seton (p = 0.36). Sex (p = 0.61), age at the time of seton placement (p = 0.60), and presence of inflammatory bowel disease (p = 0.28) were not significantly associated with LOS. CONCLUSIONS: LOS occurs frequently in patients treated for complex anal fistulas. The incidence of LOS is significantly higher in patients treated with a knot-free loose seton. Further developments in seton manufacturing should be focussed on optimisation of the closure mechanism.

Routine colonoscopy is not required in uncomplicated diverticulitis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is generally accepted that patients following an episode of diverticulitis should have additional colonoscopy screening to rule out a colorectal malignancy. We aimed to investigate the rate of CRC found by colonoscopy after an attack of uncomplicated diverticulitis. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched systematically for clinical trials or observational studies on colonic evaluation by colonoscopy after the initial diagnosis of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis, followed by hand-searching of reference lists. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and included a total number of 2,490 patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis. Subsequent colonoscopy after an episode of uncomplicated diverticulitis was performed in 1,468 patients (59%). Seventeen patients were diagnosed with CRC, having a prevalence of 1.16% (95% confidence interval 0.72-1.9% for CRC). Hyperplastic polyps were seen in 156 patients (10.6%), low-grade adenoma in 90 patients (6.1%), and advanced adenoma was reported in 32 patients (2.2%). CONCLUSION: Unless colonoscopy is regarded for screening in individuals aged 50 years and older, routine colonoscopy in the absence of other clinical signs of CRC is not required.

Implementation of the small bites closure of abdominal midline incisions in clinical practice is correlated with a reduction in surgical site infections.

BACKGROUND: Small steps wound closure of midline laparotomy has been reported to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia development in two randomized controlled trials. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of implementing the small steps wound closure technique in clinical practice with regards to the development of incisional ventral hernia (IVH) and surgical site infections (SSI) in clinical practice. METHODS: Implementation of the small steps wound closure technique using the small tissue bites technique as the standard closure technique for abdominal midline incisions in our clinical practice was done in March 2015. For this study, all patients from June 2013 until June 2016 with a midline laparotomy, either long or small in case of specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery, in either elective or emergency setting were included. Conventional large bite wound closure was compared to small steps wound closure with regards to the development of SSI, IVH as well as burst abdomen. RESULTS: A total of 327 patients were included. The small steps suture technique was used in 136 (42%) of the patients, whereas the conventional large bites suture technique was used in 191 patients (58%). A total of 54 patients in the large bites group developed SSI (28%) compared to 23 (17%) patients in the small steps group (p = 0.02). A total number of 10 patients (7%) developed IVH in the small steps group compared to 27 patients (14%) in the large bites group (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Implementation of small bites wound closure of abdominal midline incisions in clinical practice was correlated with a reduction in surgical site infections.