Outcome of emergency surgery for severe neuroleptic-induced colitis: results of a prospective cohort.

AIM: The study evaluated the outcome of severe acute antipsychotic (neuroleptic) drug related colitis requiring emergency surgery. METHOD: From 2009 to 2014, 20 patients underwent emergency surgery for acute and severe neuroleptic-related ischaemic colitis. Neuroleptic-induced colitis was defined as another cause besides inflammatory, infectious or ischaemic colitis with a relationship to treatment by antipsychotic drugs. RESULTS: The main drugs involved were cyamemazine (n = 9, 45%), loxapine (n = 5, 25%), haloperidol (n = 4, 20%) and alimemazine (n = 4, 20%). Most (n = 14, 70%) patients presented with haemodynamic instability requiring massive resuscitation and vasopressive drugs. CT signs of digestive impairment were found in 13 (65%) patients having emergency surgery. The lesions were pancolonic in 40%; transparietal necrosis was found in 45% and 15% had colonic perforation. Twelve (60%) patients had total or subtotal colectomy and eight (40%) a segmental colectomy with colostomy or ileostomy in all cases. The postoperative mortality was 15% and morbidity was 70%, necessitating surgical reintervention in two (10%) patients. Of the 17 surviving patients, 11 (64.7%) had restoration of intestinal continuity after a median delay of 103 days, with a postoperative morbidity rate of 36.3%. In the intent-to-treat population, the permanent stoma rate was 30%. CONCLUSION: The morbidity and mortality of surgery for neuroleptic-drug-induced colitis is higher than for colitis due to other causes. A better knowledge of this condition should lead to early diagnosis.

Evaluation of selective defunctioning stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage is a major concern after resection for low rectal cancer. Therefore, the use of a defunctioning stoma (DS) has been suggested, but limited data exist to clearly determine the necessity of a routine diversion. In our department, the indication of DS was evaluated subjectively by the operating surgeon. The aim of this study was to evaluate the selective use of fecal diversion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent low anterior resection for carcinoma was performed. The incidence and consequences of clinical leaks were determined in these patients who were considered in two groups: defunctioning stoma and no defunctioning stoma. RESULTS: From 1995 to 2005, 132 consecutive patients underwent low anterior resection; a DS was performed in 42 patients (31.8%). Median level of anastomosis was 4 cm in both groups. Overall clinical leakage rate was 9.8%: 7.1% (n = 3) with a DS and 11% (n = 10) without a stoma. Mortality rate was 1.5% (n = 2), both in the unprotected group. No patient in the diversion group required a permanent stoma, contrasting with four unprotected patients in which continuity could not be restored after break down of the anastomosis. CONCLUSION: Finding lower clinical leakage rate in a probable higher risk group and better outcome when a leak occurs in our study constituted strong evidence of the effectiveness of a DS. Selective use of a DS based on subjective assessment at the time of surgery could not allow experienced surgeons to perform single-stage procedure safely. Construction of a DS seems useful for patients with distal rectal cancer.