Transanal Tube Drainage as a Conservative Treatment for Anastomotic Leakage Following a Rectal Resection

PURPOSE: We evaluate the role of transanal tube drainage (TD) as a conservative treatment for patients with anastomotic leakage (AL). METHODS: Patients treated for AL who had undergone a low or an ultralow anterior resection with colorectal or coloanal anastomosis for the treatment of rectal cancer between January 2013 and January 2017 were enrolled in this study. The data were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcomes were the diagnosis and the management of AL. RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen consecutive patients, 122 males and 91 females, were included. The mean age was 66.91 ± 11.15 years, and the median body mass index was 24 kg/m2 (range, 20–35 kg/m2). The median tumor distance from the anal verge was 8 cm (range, 4–12 cm). Ninety-three patients (44%) received neoadjuvant therapy for nodal disease and/or locally advanced rectal cancer. Only 13 patients (6%) developed AL. Six patients developed subclinical AL as they had a defunctioning ileostomy at the time of the initial procedure. They were treated conservatively with TD under endoscopic guidance in the endoscopy unit and received intravenous antibiotics. Six weeks after discharge, these 6 patients underwent follow-up flexible sigmoidoscopy which showed a completely healed anastomotic defect with no residual stenosis. Seven patients developed a clinically significant AL and required reoperation with pelvic abscess drainage and Hartmann colostomy formation. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that TD for management of patients with AL is safe, cheap, and effective. Salvaging the anastomosis will help decrease the need for Hartmann colostomy formation. Proper patient selection is important.

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE: This review reports the incidence of mesh-related erosion after ventral mesh rectopexy to determine whether any difference exists in the erosion rate between synthetic and biological mesh. METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE and the Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2004 and 2015. The search strategy capture terms were laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy, robotic ventral rectopexy, and robotic anterior rectopexy. RESULTS: Eight studies (3,956 patients) were included in this review. Of those patients, 3,517 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) using synthetic mesh and 439 using biological mesh. Sixty-six erosions were observed with synthetic mesh (26 rectal, 32 vaginal, 8 recto-vaginal fistulae) and one (perineal erosion) with biological mesh. The synthetic and the biological mesh-related erosion rates were 1.87% and 0.22%, respectively. The time between rectopexy and diagnosis of mesh erosion ranged from 1.7 to 124 months. No mesh-related mortalities were reported. CONCLUSION: The incidence of mesh-related erosion after LVR is low and is more common after the placement of synthetic mesh. The use of biological mesh for LVR seems to be a safer option; however, large, multicenter, randomized, control trials with long follow-ups are required if a definitive answer is to be obtained.

Corrigendum: Correction of the Fourth Author's Affiliation. Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

The fourth author's affiliation should be corrected.

Corrigendum: Correction of the First Author's Affiliation. Outcome of Colorectal Surgery in Elderly Populations

The first author's affiliation should be corrected.

Erratum: Author Name Correction: Outcome of Colorectal Surgery in Elderly Populations

In this article, the sixth author's name was misprinted unintentionally. The sixth author's name should be corrected.

Outcome of Colorectal Surgery in Elderly Populations

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of age on short-term outcomes after colorectal surgery in terms of the 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. METHODS: The subjects for the study were patients who had undergone colorectal surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to age; groups A and B patients were ≥80 and <80 years old of age, respectively. Both groups were manually matched for body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Charlson Comorbidity Index and procedure performed. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients, 91 men (45.5%) and 109 women (54.5%), were included in this retrospective study. These patients were equally divided into 2 groups. The mean ages were 85 years in group A (range, 80 to 104 years) and 55.3 years in group B (range, 13 to 79 years). The overall 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 1% of total 200 patients; both of these 2 patients were in group A. However, this observation had no statistical significance. No intraoperative complications were encountered in either group. The overall 30-day postoperative morbidity rate was 27% (54 of 200) for both groups. The 30-day postoperative morbidity rates in groups A and B were 28% (28 of 100) and 26% (26 of 100), respectively. However, these differences between the groups had no statistical significance importance. CONCLUSION: Age alone should not be considered to be more of a contraindication or a worse predictor than other factors for the outcome after colorectal surgery on elderly patients.