Evolución del cierre de ileostomía en una unidad de cirugía colorrectal. Análisis comparativo según la técnica / Ileostomy closure in a colorectal surgery unit. Comparative analysis of different techniques

INTRODUCCIÓN: El objetivo de este trabajo es valorar si los resultados del cierre de ileostomía en asa en términos de morbimortalidad y estancia hospitalaria se ven influidos por el tipo de anastomosis y de sutura empleada. MÉTODO: Se ha revisado el grupo de pacientes intervenidos por cierre de ileostomía en asa, y se ha realizado un análisis retrospectivo de cohortes comparando la morbimortalidad y estancia hospitalaria en función del tipo de anastomosis (TT o LL) y del tipo de sutura (manual/mecánica). RESULTADOS: Desde enero del 2003 a noviembre del 2011 se han analizado 167 procedimientos de reconstrucción del tránsito en ileostomía en asa. La distribución por grupos fue: tipo de anastomosis (TT 95; LL 72) y tipo de sutura (manual 105; mecánica 62). En el 76% de la población observada la enfermedad de base fue de origen oncológico. La mortalidad ha sido de un caso. El análisis de morbilidad estratificado por tipo de complicaciones no mostró diferencias significativas entre los grupos en cuanto a complicaciones locales (TT 7,4%; LL 8,3%; manual 6,7%; mecánica 9,7%), generales (TT 9,5%; LL 16,7%; manual 6,7%; mecánica 6,5%) y quirúrgicas (TT 15,8%; LL 19,4%; manual 17,1%; mecánica 17,7%), ni en el índice de reintervención (TT 6,3%; LL 6,9%; manual 6,7%; mecánica 6,5%) ni estancia hospitalaria expresada en días (TT 7,8; LL 8; manual 8,6; mecánica 6,7). CONCLUSIONES: La reconstrucción del tránsito intestinal en las ileostomías en asa puede realizarse independientemente del tipo de anastomosis y de sutura empleadas, con la misma tasa de morbimortalidad y estancia hospitalaria

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to assess whether the results of loop ileostomy closure in terms of morbidity and hospital stay are influenced by the type of anastomosis and suture used. METHOD: All patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure were reviewed. A retrospective cohort study comparing morbidity and hospital stay according to the type of anastomosis (TT/LL) and the type of suture (hand sewn/mechanical) was performed. RESULTS: From January 2003 to November 2011 a total of 167 loop ileostomy closures were analized. The groups were: type of anastomosis (TT 95/LL 72) and type of suture (manual 105/stapled 62). In 76% of the observed population the underlying disease was cancer. Mortality occurred in one case. The stratified morbidity analysis by type of complications showed no significant differences between the groups in terms of local (7.4% TT, LL 8.3%, 6.7% hand sewn, stapled 9.7%), general (TT 9.5%, 16.7% LL, hand sewn 6.7%, 6.5% stapled) and surgical (TT 15.8%, 19.4% LL, hand sewn 17.1%, 17.7% stapled) complications, nor in the rate of reoperations (TT 6.3%, 6.9% LL, hand sewn 6.7%, 6.5% stapled) and hospital stay in days (TT 7.8, 8 LL, hand sewn 8.6, stapled 6.7). CONCLUSIONS: Closure of loop ileostomy can be performed regardless of the type of suture or anastomosis used, with the same rate of morbidity and hospital stay

[Ileostomy closure in a colorectal surgery unit. Comparative analysis of different techniques]. / Evolución del cierre de ileostomía en una unidad de cirugía colorrectal. Análisis comparativo según la técnica.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to assess whether the results of loop ileostomy closure in terms of morbidity and hospital stay are influenced by the type of anastomosis and suture used. METHOD: All patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure were reviewed. A retrospective cohort study comparing morbidity and hospital stay according to the type of anastomosis (TT/LL) and the type of suture (hand sewn/mechanical) was performed. RESULTS: From January 2003 to November 2011 a total of 167 loop ileostomy closures were analized. The groups were: type of anastomosis (TT 95/LL 72) and type of suture (manual 105/stapled 62). In 76% of the observed population the underlying disease was cancer. Mortality occurred in one case. The stratified morbidity analysis by type of complications showed no significant differences between the groups in terms of local (7.4% TT, LL 8.3%, 6.7% hand sewn, stapled 9.7%), general (TT 9.5%, 16.7% LL, hand sewn 6.7%, 6.5% stapled) and surgical (TT 15.8%, 19.4% LL, hand sewn 17.1%, 17.7% stapled) complications, nor in the rate of reoperations (TT 6.3%, 6.9% LL, hand sewn 6.7%, 6.5% stapled) and hospital stay in days (TT 7.8, 8 LL, hand sewn 8.6, stapled 6.7) CONCLUSIONS: Closure of loop ileostomy can be performed regardless of the type of suture or anastomosis used, with the same rate of morbidity and hospital stay.

Robotic transanal endoscopic microsurgery in benign rectal tumour.

AIM: To present a case of resection of a rectal tumour by a transanal robotic approach. PATIENT: A 58-year-old woman with a 3-cm tumour located 6 cm proximal to anal verge (uT1N0). RESULTS: We describe the details of the surgical technique. A complete resection with adequate margins was accomplished. The defect was closed with a running suture. Operation time was 180 min. There were no complications and the patient was discharged 24 h after surgery. CONCLUSION: A complete resection of a rectal tumour by a robotic approach is feasible and safe. More studies are needed to clearly define the indications where this new approach can show clear advantages over other transanal resection approaches.