RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background and study aims The adherence to and knowledge of physicians about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance guidelines is still suboptimal, threatening the effectiveness of CRC screening. This study assessed the usefulness of a mobile decision support system (MDSS) to improve physician ability to recommend proper timing of and intervals for CRC screening and surveillance. Patients and methods This was a binational, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial including gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons from Argentina and Uruguay. The specialists were invited to respond to a questionnaire with 10 CRC screening and surveillance clinical scenarios, randomized into two groups, with and without access to a dedicated app (CaPtyVa). The main outcome measure was the proportion of physicians correctly solving at least 60 % of the clinical cases according to local guidelines. Results A total of 213 physicians were included. The proportion of physicians responding correctly at least 60 % of the vignettes was higher in the app group as compared to the control group (90 % versus 56 %) (relative risk [RR] 1.6 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.34-1.91). The performance was also higher in the app group for both vignette categories: CRC screening (93 % vs 75 % RR 1.24, 95 %CI 1.01-1.40) and surveillance (85 % vs 47 % RR 1.81 95 %CI 1.46-2.22), respectively. Physicians considered the app easy to use and of great utility in daily practice. Conclusions A MDSS was shown to be a useful tool that improved specialist performance in solving CRC screening and surveillance clinical scenarios. Its implementation in daily practice may facilitate the adherence of physicians to CRC screening and surveillance guidelines.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introducción: El cáncer colorrectal (CCR) es la segunda causa de muerte por cáncer en Argentina. Debido a su alta prevalencia es fundamental normatizar un programa de pesquisa para la prevención y detección temprana. La precisión del test de sangre oculta en materia fecal inmunológico (SOMFi) para pesquisa de CCR en población de riesgo promedio ha demostrado ser adecuada según la bibliografía internacional, no habiendo, sin embargo, información a nivel local. El objetivo es evaluar en nuestro medio la precisión diagnóstica del test de SOMFi en una única ronda para la pesquisa de CCR en pacientes de riesgo promedio. Diseño: Prospectivo de precisión diagnóstica. Material y Método: Se incluyeron pacientes con riesgo promedio que consultaron para realizar una videocolonoscopía (VCC) por pesquisa de CCR en el Hospital Alemán de Buenos Aires, entre el 1 de junio del 2015 y 31 diciembre de 2017. Se excluyeron todos los pacientes con riesgo incrementado para CCR. Todos los pacientes realizaron el test de SOMFi y posteriormente la VCC. Los endoscopistas estaban ciegos para el resultado del test al momento de realizar la VCC. Se evaluó la precisión diagnóstica del test SOMFi para detectar lesiones neoplásicas avanzadas (LNA) calculando la sensibilidad (S), especificidad (E), valor predictivo positivo (VVP) y negativo (VVN), coeficiente de probabilidad positivo (CP+) y negativo (CP-). Se evaluó también la precisión para la detección de adenomas de bajo riesgo, pólipos aserrados y CCR. Resultados: Se incluyeron un total de 300 pacientes; 273 (91%) entregaron la muestra de materia fecal para realizar el test de SOMFi y completaron la VCC. La edad media de los pacientes fue de 56.9 (40-85) años y 54% fueron hombres. Del total de pacientes que realizaron ambos estudios (273), 53 pacientes (19%) presentaron al menos un adenoma de bajo riesgo, en 18 pacientes (6,59%) observamos al menos un adenoma aserrado sésil y en 21 pacientes (7,7%) al menos una lesión neoplásica avanzada (LNA). Solo 4 pacientes (1.5%) presentaron CCR. En cuanto a la precisión diagnóstica del test de SOMFi en una única ronda para detectar LNA observamos una S de 30%, E de 84%, VPP de 13% y un VPN de 94%. Para adenomas de bajo riesgo observamos una S de 13%, E de 84%, VPP de 17%, VPN de 79%. Para adenomas aserrados sésiles observamos una S de 16.7%, E de 87%, VPP de 11% y de VPN 91%. La precisión para el CCR fue la siguiente, S de 75%, E de 83%, VPP 6%, VPN 99%. No se observaron complicaciones post procedimientos. Conclusiones: La precisión diagnóstica del test de SOMFi en nuestro medio es comparable a los resultados internacionales. Sin embargo, la baja precisión observada en una única ronda realza la necesidad de realizarlo de forma anual o bianual para poder optimizar su precisión y lograr programas de pesquisa efectivos.(AU)

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in Argentina. Due to its high prevalence, it is essential to standardize a screening program for prevention and early detection. According to international literature, the accuracy of the immunochemical fecal occult blood test (FIT) for CRC screening in an average-risk population has proven to be adequate, but there is no information at the local level. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the FIT test in a single round for CRC screening in average-risk patients in our setting. Design: Diagnostic accuracy prospective study. Material and Methods: Average-risk patients who consulted for a CRC screening video colonoscopy (VCC) at the Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, between June 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017 were included. All patients with increased risk for CRC were excluded. All patients performed FIT and subsequently VCC. The endoscopists were blind to FIT result at the time of VCC. The diagnostic accuracy of FIT to detect advanced neoplastic lesions (ANL) was evaluated by calculating sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-). The accuracy for the detection of low-risk adenomas, serrated polyps and CRC was also evaluated. Results: A total of 300 patients were included; 273 (91%) submitted the stool sample to perform FIT and completed VCC. The mean age of patients was 56.9 (40-85) years and 54% were men. Of the total number of patients who carried out both studies (273), 53 (19%) patients had at least one low-risk adenoma, 18 (6.59%) patients had at least one sessile serrated adenoma and 21 (7.7%) patients had at least one ANL. Only 4 (1.5%) patients presented CRC. The diagnostic accuracy of FIT in a single round to detect ANL was: S 30%, Sp 84%, PPV 13%, NPV 94%; for low-risk adenomas: S 13%, Sp 84%, PPV 17%, NPV 79%; for sessile serrated adenomas: S 16.7%, Sp 87%, PPV 11%, NPV 91% and for CRC: S 75%, Sp 83%, PPV 6%, NPV 99%. No post-procedure complications were observed. Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of FIT in our setting is comparable to international results. However, the low precision observed in a single round highlights the need to do it annually or biannually in order to optimize its accuracy and achieve effective screening programs. (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introducción: En los últimos años ha habido una gran difusión de la cirugía laparoscópica para el manejo de la patología colorrectal. La dehiscencia anastomótica es una de las complicaciones más graves, con una elevada morbi-mortalidad. La reoperación por vía laparoscópica podría ser una opción válida para tratar esta complicación, manteniendo ciertos beneficios del abordaje miniinvasivo. Objetivos: Evaluar la factibilidad y seguridad del abordaje laparoscópico en el manejo de la dehiscencia anastomótica en cirugía colorrectal y en forma secundaria comparar los resultados con la reoperación por vía convencional. Materiales y Método: Se analizó una serie retrospectiva, completada en forma prospectiva, se incluyeron 1693 pacientes (junio 2000 - septiembre 2018). Los pacientes que fueron reoperados por dehiscencia anastomótica se dividieron en dos grupos según el abordaje de la reoperación: laparoscópico (Grupo 1, G1) y laparotómico (Grupo 2, G2). Se compararon ambos grupos teniendo en cuenta factores demográficos, estadía hospitalaria, complicaciones, morbilidad y mortalidad. Las complicaciones se estratificaron según la clasificación de Dindo y Clavien, y se tuvieron en cuenta las más graves (categorías 3, 4 y 5). Para el análisis estadístico se utilizó el T student y chi cuadrado. Resultados: Ciento seis (6,26%) pacientes fueron reoperados por dehiscencia anastomótica. Ochenta y cinco (80%) fueron incluidos en el grupo 1 y 21 (20%) en el grupo 2. La única diferencia demográfica entre ambos grupos fue una mayor cantidad de pacientes obesos en el grupo laparoscópico (G1: 17 (20%) vs. G2: 0, p: 0,02). Hubo una tendencia hacia un intervalo menor entre la cirugía inicial y la reexploración, pero sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas (5,18 días vs. 6,23 días, p: 0,22). En 84 (79%) la conducta quirúrgica fue lavado y confección de ostomía proximal de protección (G1: 74 vs. G2: 10, p: 0,001). El desmonte de la anastomosis y la confección de ostomía terminal debió realizarse en 8 pacientes (G1: 4 vs G2: 4, p: 0,02). Nueve pacientes en G1 y 3 pacientes en G2 requirieron más de una cirugía (p: 0,63). Las complicaciones fueron similares entre ambos grupos, sólo se incluyeron los grados 3, 4 y 5 (G1: 21,2% vs G2: 28,6% p: 0,34). El promedio de estadía hospitalaria disminuyó con el abordaje laparoscópico (10,71 días vs. 11,57 días, p: 0,66), a pesar de que no hubo diferencia estadística entre ambos grupos. Conclusiones: La reintervención laparoscópica es un tratamiento válido y seguro para el manejo de la dehiscencia anastomótica en cirugía laparoscópica colorrectal. (AU)

Introduction: In recent years there has been a great diffusion of laparoscopic surgery for the management of colorectal pathology. Anastomotic dehiscence is one of the most serious complications, with high morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic reoperation could be a valid option to treat this complication, maintaining certain benefits of the minimally invasive approach. Objectives: To evaluate the viability and safety of the laparoscopic approach in the management of anastomotic dehiscence in colorectal surgery and as a secondary end point to compare the results with those of reoperation by conventional approach. Material and Methods: A series of 1693 patients that underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery was analyzed, from a prospective database (June 2000 - September 2018). Patients were divided into two groups according to the approach performed in the reoperative surgery: laparoscopy (G 1) or laparotomy (G 2). Demographic data, hospital stay, type of complication, morbidity and mortality were analyzed. Dindo-Clavien classification was used to stratify postoperative complications and only categories 3, 4 and 5 were included. Data were statistically analyzed with Student ́s t test and chi-square test.Results: A hundred six patients (6.26%) were reoperated because of AL, 85 (80%) by laparoscopy and 21 (20%) by conventional surgery. The only demographic difference between both groups was that more obese patients were included in G1 (G1: 17, 20% vs. G2: 0, p=0.02). Interval of time between surgeries was lower in G1 without statistical difference (5.18 vs. 6.23 days, p=0.22). In 84 patients (79%) abdominal lavage and loop ostomy was performed (G1: 74 vs. G2: 10, p=0.001). Anastomosis takedown was required in 8 patients (G1: 4 vs. G2: 4, p=0.02). 9 patients in G1 and 3 in G2 needed more than one reexploration (p= 0.63). Postoperative complications were similar in both groups, grades 3, 4 and 5 were included (G1: 21, 2% vs. G2: 28.6%, p= 0.34). In average hospital stay was decreased in G1 (10.7 vs. 11.6 days, p=0.66), without statistical difference. Conclusion: Laparoscopic reintervention can be a safe treatment for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. (AU)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introducción: La sigmoidectomía por diverticulitis perforada es una cirugía de urgencia comúnmente realizada por cirujanos generales. Está descripta la correlación positiva entre el volumen del cirujano y los mejores resultados postoperatorios. Sin embargo, existe escasa evidencia de la influencia de la especialización en cirugía colorrectal sobre los resultados de la sigmoidectomía laparoscópica por diverticulitis perforada. Objetivo: Evaluar el impacto de la especialización en cirugía colorrectal en los resultados postoperatorios de la sigmoidectomía laparoscópica por diverticulitis Hinchey III. Diseño: Estudio retrospectivo sobre una base de datos cargada de forma prospectiva. Material y métodos: Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a sigmoidectomía laparoscópica por diverticulitis perforada Hinchey III. La muestra fue dividida en dos grupos: pacientes operados por un cirujano colorrectal (CC) y aquellos operados por un cirujano general (CG). Las variables demográficas, operatorias y postoperatorias fueron comparadas entre los grupos. El objetivo primario fue determinar si existían diferencias en la proporción de anastomosis primaria, morbilidad y mortalidad a 30 días entre los grupos. Resultados: Se incluyeron 101 pacientes en el análisis; 58 operados por CC y 43 por CG. Los pacientes operados por CC presentaron una mayor proporción de anastomosis primaria (CC: 98,3% vs. CG: 67,4%, p<0,001). Los CG realizaron más estomas (CC: 13,8% vs. CG: 46,5%, p<0,001), presentaron un mayor índice de conversión (CC: 20,6% vs. CG: 39,5%, p=0,03) y una mayor estadía hospitalaria (CC: 6,2 vs. CG: 10,8 días, p<0,001). La morbilidad global (CC: 34,4% vs. CG: 46,5%, p=0.22), dehiscencia anastomótica (CC: 3,5% vs. CG: 6,8%, p=0.48) y la mortalidad (CC: 1,7% vs. CG: 9,3 %, p=0,08) fueron similares entre ambos grupos. Conclusión: La sigmoidectomía laparoscópica de urgencia realizada por CG presenta similar morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatoria que la realizada por CC. Sin embargo, la participación del especialista se asoció a una mayor frecuencia de anastomosis primarias, menos estomas y una estadía hospitalaria más corta.

Background: Sigmoid resection for perforated diverticulitis is one of the most common emergency surgeries and often performed by general surgeons. Relationship between high-volume surgeons and improved postoperative outcomes is well established. However, the influence of colorectal specialization on outcomes after emergency laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis is not well described. Aim: Evaluate the impact of colorectal surgery training on the outcomes after emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis. Design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected database.Method: Patients undergoing emergent laparoscopic sigmoid resection for perforated (Hinchey III) diverticulitis were identified and stratified by involvement of colorectal or general surgeon. This study was conducted from 2000 to 2018 at a teaching hospital. Primary outcome measures were primary anastomosis, postoperative morbidity and mortality.Results: A total of 101 patients were identified; 58 by colorectal and 43 by general surgeons. Patients in the colorectal surgeon group had higher rates of primary anastomosis (CS: 98, 2% vs. GS: 67, 4%, p<0.001). General surgeons performed more ostomies (CS: 13, 8% vs. GS: 46, 5%, p<0.001), had a higher conversion rate (CS: 20, 6% vs. GS: 39, 5%, p=0.03) and longer mean length of hospital stay (CS: 6, 2 vs. GS: 10, 8 days, p<0.001). Overall morbidity (CS: 34, 4% vs. GS: 46, 5%, p=0.22), anastomotic leak rate (CC: 3,5% vs. CG: 6,8%, p=0.48) and mortality (CS: 1, 7% vs. GS: 9,3 %, p=0.08) were similar between groups. Conclusion: Emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection by general surgeons wasn ́t associated with higher rates of postoperative morbidity, anastomotic leakage or mortality. However, patients operated by colorectal surgeons had higher rates of primary anastomosis, lower rates of ostomy, conversion and shorter length of hospital stay.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: To analyze the results of laparoscopic colectomy in complicated diverticular disease. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at an academic teaching hospital. Data were collected from a database established earlier, which comprise of all patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy for diverticular disease between 2000 and 2013. The series was divided into two groups that were compared: Patients with complicated disease (abscess, perforation, fistula, or stenosis) (G1) and patients undergoing surgery for recurrent diverticulitis (G2). Recurrent diverticulitis was defined as two or more episodes of diverticulitis regardless of patient age. Data regarding patient demographics, comorbidities, prior abdominal operations, history of acute diverticulitis, classification of acute diverticulitis at index admission and intra and postoperative variables were extracted. Univariate analysis was performed in both groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty patients were included: 28% (72 patients) belonged to G1 and 72% (188 patients) to G2. The mean age was 57 (27-89) years. The average number of episodes of diverticulitis before surgery was 2.1 (r 0-10); 43 patients had no previous inflammatory pathology. There were significant differences between the two groups with respect to conversion rate and hospital stay (G1 18% vs G2 3.2%, P = 0.001; G1: 4.7 d vs G2 3.3 d, P < 0.001). The anastomotic dehiscence rate was 2.3%, with no statistical difference between the groups (G1 2.7% vs G2 2.1%, P = 0.5). There were no differences in demographic data (body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology and previous abdominal surgery), operative time and intraoperative and postoperative complications between the groups. The mortality rate was 0.38% (1 patient), represented by a death secondary to septic shock in G2. CONCLUSION: The results support that the laparoscopic approach in any kind of complicated diverticular disease can be performed with low morbidity and acceptable conversion rates when compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The risk of developing metachronous advanced neoplastic lesions (ANLs) during surveillance after resection of sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs) has not been quantified. METHODS: Patients with sporadic SSAs resected between 1 April 2007 and 31 December 2009 who underwent surveillance colonoscopy in our institution were prospectively evaluated. Patients with low-risk adenomas (LRAs), high-risk adenomas (HRAs), and negative index colonoscopy (NIC) during the same period were identified using the pathology database and electronic medical records, and were also included as a comparison cohort. The primary outcome was the comparison of the study groups with regard to incidence of metachronous ANLs during surveillance colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients had SSAs, of whom 75 with 101 resected polyps were finally included. The comparison cohort consisted of 564 patients: 140 LRAs (160 polyps), 87 HRAs (478 polyps), and 337 NICs. The overall mean colonoscopy follow-up was for 54.5 months (±s.d. 14). SSA patients with synchronous HRA on index colonoscopy presented a higher incidence rate of metachronous ANL (12.96 per 1,000 person-months) compared with patients with HRA (5.07 per 1,000 person-months), whereas those with synchronous LRA and without synchronous adenoma on index colonoscopy presented a low incidence rate of metachronous ANL (0 and 1.41 per 1,000 person-months, respectively) similar to LRA (1.47 per 1,000 person-months). Among patients with SSA the 3- and 5-year ANL free-cumulative probability was 64.3 and 32.1% in those with synchronous HRA, 100 and 100% in those with synchronous LRA, and 95.1 and 91.7% if no synchronous adenoma was found. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resected sporadic SSAs the risk of developing metachronous ANL is influenced by the presence of synchronous HRA on index colonoscopy. Patients with SSAs and synchronous HRA on index colonoscopy require closer surveillance, whereas those with synchronous LRA and those without synchronous adenomas may be followed up in the same way as those with LRAs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)