Post-operative abdominal drainage following major upper gastrointestinal surgery: single drain versus two drains.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, surgeons have resorted to placing drains following major gastrointestinal surgery. In recent years, the value of routine drainage has been questioned, especially in the light of their role in post-operative pain, infection, and prolonged hospital stay. The aim of this study was to compare the peri-operative outcomes following the use of a single versus two drains for gastric and pancreatic resections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing resections for gastric and pancreatic malignancies were included in the study. Patients were subdivided into two groups depending on the number of drains placed, viz. one drain (Group 1) or two drains (Group 2). Clinico-pathologic outcomes were recorded and compared. RESULTS: Of the 285 patients included in the analysis, group 1 consisted of 226 patients while group 2 included 59 patients. Overall, drains alerted the surgeon to existence of complications in 62% of patients - 70% in group 1 and 44.4% in group 2 (P < 0.19). The morbidity and mortality rates in groups 1 and 2 were 25.2% and 3.9%, and 23.7% and 0%, respectively (P < 0.61 and P < 0.12). There were no drain-related complications. Median hospital stay was significantly lower in group 1 (11 vs. 14 days) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The insertion of drains did aid in the detection of complications following gastric and pancreatic surgery. Two drains offer no further advantage over one drain in terms of detection of complications. While the number of drains did not contribute to, or reduce, the morbidity and mortality in the two groups, the use of one drain significantly reduced hospital stay. Taken together, these findings support the prophylactic insertion of a single intra-abdominal drain following gastric and pancreatic resections.

Perioperative outcomes after ultra low anterior resection in the era of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Data on perioperative outcomes of sphincter preserving ultra low anterior resections (ULAR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NA-CTRT) is sparsely reported in literature. METHODS: Prospective data of 68 patients was reviewed retrospectively. Patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CTRT, Group A, n = 45) were compared with those who were operated upfront (Group B, n = 23). RESULTS: Overall, mean distance of the tumor from anal verge was 5.1 cm (range 3-8). In Groups A and B, it was 5.2 and 5.1 cm, respectively. In Group A, 3 patients had complete response, 40 had partial response and 2 had progressive disease. Overall, the mean distance of the anastomosis performed from the anal verge was 2.8 cm (range 1-4). In Groups A and B, it was 2.7 and 2.9 cm, respectively (NS). Mean blood loss in Groups A and B was 510.5 (range 200-2,200) and 345 mL (range 50-800), respectively (p = 0.037). Two patients in Group A required blood transfusion (range 1-2) compared to none in Group B. The overall complication rate was 26.5 % (18/68); in Groups A and B, it was 22.2 % and 34.8 %, respectively. There was no postoperative mortality. Postoperative stay for Groups A and B was 8 and 9.5 days (p = 0.009), respectively. In Group A, 23/45 patients, earlier planned for abdominoperineal resection, ultimately received sphincter-preserving ULAR. CONCLUSION: ULAR can be performed safely without added morbidity or mortality after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. In some cases, earlier deemed to be suitable for APR, the neoadjuvant approach improved chances of sphincter conservation.

Complications as indicators of quality assurance after 401 consecutive colorectal cancer resections: the importance of surgeon volume in developing colorectal cancer units in India.

BACKGROUND: The low incidence of colorectal cancer in India, coupled with absence of specialized units, contribute to lack of relevant data arising from the subcontinent. We evaluated the data of the senior author to better define the requirements that would enable development of specialized units in a country where colorectal cancer burden is increasing. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of 401 consecutive colorectal resections from a prospective database of the senior author. In addition to patient demographics and types of resections, perioperative data like intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgery, complications, re-operation rates and hospital stay were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: The median age was 52 years (10-86 years). 279 were males and 122 were females. The average duration of surgery was 220.32 minutes (range 50-480 min). The overall complication rate was 12.2% (49/401) with a 1.2% (5/401) mortality rate. The patients having complications had an increase in their median hospital stay (from 10.5 days to 23.4 days) and the re-operation rate in them was 51%. The major complications were anastomotic leaks (2.5%) and stoma related complications (2.7%). CONCLUSIONS: This largest ever series from India compares favorably with global standards. In a nation where colorectal cancer is on the rise, it is imperative that high volume centers develop specialized units to train future specialist colorectal surgeons. This would ensure improved quality assurance and delivery of health care even to outreach, low volume centers.

Superior mesenteric artery first combined with uncinate process approach versus uncinate process first approach in pancreatoduodenectomy: a comparative study evaluating perioperative outcomes.

PURPOSE: During pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), two techniques have been described to dissect the head of pancreas, viz. the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) approach by dissecting the uncinate process and the uncinate process first approach. METHODS: Forty-four consecutive patients, who underwent PD between June 2009 and April 2010, were analyzed. Thirty patients underwent the SMA first approach along with uncinate dissection (group 1), while 14 patients underwent the uncinate process first approach (group 2). RESULTS: There were 30 male and 14 female patients. The median age was 51 years (range 19-76 years). Median intraoperative blood loss in group 1 was 800 ml, while that in group 2 was 600 ml. A mean of 0.52 units of blood were transfused in group 1 (range 0-3) compared to 0.2 units in group 2 (range 0-1). The median operative time in group 1 was 457.5 min and the median operative time was 450 min in group 2. Complication rate was 40% and 14.3% in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Median duration of hospital stay was 14 days in group 1 and 12.5 days in group 2. Median nodes resected in group 1 were 8 (range 0-26), while in group 2 they were 9 (range 2-14). Resection margins were positive in two cases (one in each group). There were two mortalities in group 1 and no mortalities in group 2. None of the above differences were significant. CONCLUSIONS: SMA first is a safe technique. It compares well with the uncinate first approach in terms of operative time, blood loss, number of lymph nodes retrieved, margin positivity and operative morbidity. Both techniques may be useful in situations such as a large uncinate process tumor or when superior mesenteric vein/portal vein/superior mesenteric artery involvement is suspected or present. Further studies, evaluating data related to specific predefined uncinate tumors, would be the next logical step in further defining the precise role of these techniques.