Long-term outcomes after circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare long-term outcomes and quality of life in patients undergoing circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy to those who had Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: Patients who underwent Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy and circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy between 2000 and 2010 were reviewed. Long-term follow-up was assessed with questionnaires. RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen patients completed the questionnaires. Mean follow-up was longer in the Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy subgroups (7.7 ± 3.4 vs. 6.3 ± 2.9 years, p = 0.003). Long-term need for additional surgical or medical treatment was similar in the Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy and circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy groups (3 vs. 5%, p = 0.47 and 3% in both groups, p > 0.99, respectively). Eighty-one percentage of Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy and 83% of circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy patients stated that they would undergo hemorrhoid surgery again if needed (p = 0.86). The symptoms were greatly improved in the majority of patients (p = 0.06), and there was no difference between the groups as regards long-term anorectal pain (p = 0.16). The Cleveland global quality of life, fecal incontinence severity index, and fecal incontinence quality of life scores were similar (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the longest follow-up studies comparing the outcomes after circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy and Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy. Patient satisfaction, resolution of symptoms, quality of life, and functional outcome appear similar after circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy and Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy in long term.

Venous thromboembolism in colorectal surgery: skip SCIP or comply?

BACKGROUND: The Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) includes recommendations for mechanical and pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after colorectal surgery. Compliance with these recommendations is publicly reported and included in current pay for performance plans. Presently, there is limited evidence to support compliance with these recommendations. AIM: To determine the incidence of venous thromboembolic events in colorectal surgery patients who did or did not receive the recommended pharmacologic prophylaxis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively accrued data from a single-center, tertiary care, colorectal surgery department. The main outcome measure was the occurrence of venous thromboembolic events and the need for blood transfusion after surgery. RESULTS: Of 674 patients, 613(91%) received the recommended pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and 61 (9%) did not. Diagnosis, patient variables, and type of surgery performed were similar in each group while operative time was increased in the compliant group (251 vs. 194 min, p < 0.05). In the compliant and noncompliant groups, the incidence of extremity deep venous thrombosis was 2.8 and 8.2% (p = 0.04), the incidence of pulmonary embolus 1.1 and 3.3% (p = 0.19), the incidence of portomesenteric venous thrombosis 2.6 and 4.9% (p = 0.38), and the incidence of any VTE 5.4 and 13.1% (p = 0.02), respectively. The use of perioperative red blood cell transfusions in the two groups was 9.1 and 14.8%, p = 0.17. In the subgroup analysis of open cases, there were no statistical differences in the occurrence of any type or combination of VTE. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with SCIP recommendations for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis decreased the incidence of VTE after colorectal surgery with no increase in the use of perioperative transfusion. Colorectal surgeons who elect to skip these recommendations may jeopardize both the reputational score and financial reimbursement of their hospital and may put their patients at unnecessary risk for a preventable postoperative complication.

Risk of infection and hernia recurrence for patients undergoing ventral hernia repair with non-absorbable or biological mesh during open bowel procedures.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) with mesh performed concurrently with colorectal surgery is presumably associated with significant risks of infection and recurrence. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing VHR with non-absorbable mesh (NAM) or biological mesh (BM) at the same time as open colorectal surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of short- and long-term outcomes for 25 patients undergoing repair of VHR with NAM or BM at the same time as an open colorectal procedure from 1991 to 2007 was performed. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 50.8 ± 12.7 years. Fifteen patients (60 %) underwent VHR with NAM versus 10 (40 %) with BM at the time of colorectal surgery. Mean follow-up after surgery was 32.9 ± 38.2 months. Overall wound infection, mesh infection and hernia recurrence rates were 44, 36 and 36 %, respectively. There was no difference between the NAM and BM mesh repair groups in terms of operative indications (p = 0.23) and operations performed (p = 0.47). Both groups had similar gender, ASA score, age, BMI, operating time, hernia recurrence rate, wound infection and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although a proportion of patients who undergo concomitant use of mesh for VHR during colorectal resection has reasonable outcomes, there is a high associated risk of wound and mesh infection. Thus, a judicious decision regarding the use of mesh for hernia repair needs to be made on a case-by-case basis for patients undergoing open bowel surgery at the same time.