Healing of the perineal wound after proctectomy in Crohn's disease patients: only preoperative perineal sepsis predicts poor outcome.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to assess perineal wound healing in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who undergo proctectomy or proctocolectomy with end ileostomy and to evaluate the influence of various factors including types of perineal dissection on eventual wound healing. METHODS: Data for patients with CD who underwent proctectomy or total proctocolectomy with end ileostomy from 1995 to 2012 were reviewed. The relationship between perineal wound healing and demographics, patient characteristics, and other factors was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The perineal wound healed by 12 weeks in 72 (52.9%) out of 136 patients (63.2% female, mean age 41 ± 13 years); delayed healing occurred in 35 patients (25.7%), and in 29 patients (21.3%), there was non-healing. On multivariate analysis, the only factor associated with delayed healing and non-healing was preoperative perineal sepsis (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After proctectomy or proctocolectomy for CD, perineal wound healing is poor and poses a particular challenge for patients with preoperative perineal sepsis. These findings support a preoperative discussion regarding CD patients that examines potential outcomes and the consideration of measures such as the initial creation of defunctioning ostomy or control/drainage of local sepsis prior to proctectomy.

Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier.

PURPOSE: Data comparing surgical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) following perineal repair of rectal prolapse are limited. The aim of our study was to compare the short-term outcome and QOL of two perineal procedures in patients with rectal prolapse. METHODS: All patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse admitted to our institution and undergoing Delorme and Altemeier procedures from 2005 to 2013 were identified using an institutional, IRB-approved rectal prolapse database. Short-term outcomes and QOL were compared. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients (93% female) underwent rectal prolapse surgery: 22 Altemeier and 53 Delorme, mean age 72 ± 15 years. Sixty-six percentage of patients were ASA grade III or IV (Table 1). The median hospital stay was longer in Altemeier's group [4 (1­44) days vs. 3 (0­14) days; p = 0.01]. After a median follow-up of 13 (1­88) months, the rate of recurrent prolapse was 14% (n = 11) [Altemeier 2 (9%) vs. Delorme 9 (16%) p = 0.071]. Postoperative complication rate was 12% (n = 9) [Altemeier 5 (22%) vs. Delorme 4 (7%), p = 0.04]. There was no mortality. The Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores in each group were 0.6 ± 0.2 and 0.5 ± 0.3, respectively (p = 0.59), and were not changed by the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In patients where abdominal repair of rectal prolapse is judged to be unwise, a Delorme procedure offers short-term control of the prolapse with low risk of complications and with reasonable function. In addition, patients that recur after a Delorme procedure can undergo another similar transanal procedure without compromising the vascular supply of the rectum.

Antibiotics alone instead of percutaneous drainage as initial treatment of large diverticular abscess.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data assessing the effectiveness of antibiotics as sole initial therapy in patients with large diverticular abscess. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes of selected patients treated with initial antibiotics alone versus percutaneous drainage. METHODS: All patients with diverticular abscess ≥3 cm in diameter treated in our institution in 1994-2012 with percutaneous drainage or antibiotics alone followed by surgery were identified from an institutional diverticular disease database. Groups were compared based on patient and disease characteristics, treatment failures and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were treated with antibiotics alone because of either technically impossible percutaneous drainage (n = 15) or surgeon preference (n = 17) while 114 underwent percutaneous drainage. Failure of initial treatment required urgent surgery in 8 patients with persistent symptoms during treatment with antibiotics alone (25 %) and in 21 patients (18 %) after initial percutaneous drainage (p = 0.21). Reasons for urgent surgery after percutaneous drainage were persistent symptoms (n = 16), technical failure of percutaneous drainage (n = 4) and small bowel injury (n = 1). Patients treated with antibiotics had a significantly smaller abscess diameter (5.9 vs. 7.1 cm, p = 0.001) and shorter interval from initial treatment to sigmoidectomy (mean 50 vs. 80 days, p = 0.02). The Charlson comorbidity index, initial treatment failure rates, postoperative mortality, overall morbidity, length of hospital stay during treatments, and overall and permanent stoma rates were comparable in the two groups. Postoperative complications following antibiotics alone were significantly less severe than after percutaneous drainage based on the Clavien-Dindo classification (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients with diverticular abscess can be initially treated with antibiotics without adverse consequences on their outcomes.