Minimally invasive step-up approach for the management of postoperative intraabdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative intraabdominal abscess (IAA) is the most feared complication after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). We aimed to evaluate the management of this complication in a large cohort of patients undergoing LA in order to design a treatment algorithm. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of patients undergoing LA for acute appendicitis from January 2008 to December 2018. The cohort of patients with postoperative IAA was divided into three groups based on the implemented treatments: G1: antibiotics only, G2: CT-guided drainage, and G3: laparoscopic lavage. Characteristics of the fluid collections and outcomes were analyzed in the three groups. RESULTS: A total of 1668 LA were performed; the rate of IAA was 2.2% (36 patients). There were 12 (33%) patients who received antibiotics only (G1), 8 (22%) underwent CT-guided percutaneous drainage (G2), and 16 (45%) underwent laparoscopic lavage (G3). The median size of the abscesses was 2.7 (1.2-4) cm in G1, 6.2 (4.5-8) cm in G2, and 9.6 (8-11.4) cm in G3 (p < 0.04). Patients with two or more fluid collections underwent a laparoscopic lavage in all cases. Treatment failure occurred in 16% (2/12), 12.5% (1/8) and 12.5% (2/16) of the patients in G1, G2, and G3, respectively. None of the patients in the entire cohort required open surgery to resolve the postoperative IAA. CONCLUSIONS: A minimally invasive step-up approach based on the size and number of fluid collections is associated with excellent outcomes. A treatment algorithm for post-appendectomy IAA is proposed.

Manejo laparoscópico de la dehiscencia anastomótica en cirugía colorrectal / Laparoscopic management of anastomotic dehiscence in colorectal surgery

Introducción: En los últimos años ha habido una gran difusión de la cirugía laparoscópica para el manejo de la patología colorrectal. La dehiscencia anastomótica es una de las complicaciones más graves, con una elevada morbi-mortalidad. La reoperación por vía laparoscópica podría ser una opción válida para tratar esta complicación, manteniendo ciertos beneficios del abordaje miniinvasivo. Objetivos: Evaluar la factibilidad y seguridad del abordaje laparoscópico en el manejo de la dehiscencia anastomótica en cirugía colorrectal y en forma secundaria comparar los resultados con la reoperación por vía convencional. Materiales y Método: Se analizó una serie retrospectiva, completada en forma prospectiva, se incluyeron 1693 pacientes (junio 2000 - septiembre 2018). Los pacientes que fueron reoperados por dehiscencia anastomótica se dividieron en dos grupos según el abordaje de la reoperación: laparoscópico (Grupo 1, G1) y laparotómico (Grupo 2, G2). Se compararon ambos grupos teniendo en cuenta factores demográficos, estadía hospitalaria, complicaciones, morbilidad y mortalidad. Las complicaciones se estratificaron según la clasificación de Dindo y Clavien, y se tuvieron en cuenta las más graves (categorías 3, 4 y 5). Para el análisis estadístico se utilizó el T student y chi cuadrado. Resultados: Ciento seis (6,26%) pacientes fueron reoperados por dehiscencia anastomótica. Ochenta y cinco (80%) fueron incluidos en el grupo 1 y 21 (20%) en el grupo 2. La única diferencia demográfica entre ambos grupos fue una mayor cantidad de pacientes obesos en el grupo laparoscópico (G1: 17 (20%) vs. G2: 0, p: 0,02). Hubo una tendencia hacia un intervalo menor entre la cirugía inicial y la reexploración, pero sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas (5,18 días vs. 6,23 días, p: 0,22). En 84 (79%) la conducta quirúrgica fue lavado y confección de ostomía proximal de protección (G1: 74 vs. G2: 10, p: 0,001). El desmonte de la anastomosis y la confección de ostomía terminal debió realizarse en 8 pacientes (G1: 4 vs G2: 4, p: 0,02). Nueve pacientes en G1 y 3 pacientes en G2 requirieron más de una cirugía (p: 0,63). Las complicaciones fueron similares entre ambos grupos, sólo se incluyeron los grados 3, 4 y 5 (G1: 21,2% vs G2: 28,6% p: 0,34). El promedio de estadía hospitalaria disminuyó con el abordaje laparoscópico (10,71 días vs. 11,57 días, p: 0,66), a pesar de que no hubo diferencia estadística entre ambos grupos. Conclusiones: La reintervención laparoscópica es un tratamiento válido y seguro para el manejo de la dehiscencia anastomótica en cirugía laparoscópica colorrectal. (AU)

Introduction: In recent years there has been a great diffusion of laparoscopic surgery for the management of colorectal pathology. Anastomotic dehiscence is one of the most serious complications, with high morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic reoperation could be a valid option to treat this complication, maintaining certain benefits of the minimally invasive approach. Objectives: To evaluate the viability and safety of the laparoscopic approach in the management of anastomotic dehiscence in colorectal surgery and as a secondary end point to compare the results with those of reoperation by conventional approach. Material and Methods: A series of 1693 patients that underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery was analyzed, from a prospective database (June 2000 - September 2018). Patients were divided into two groups according to the approach performed in the reoperative surgery: laparoscopy (G 1) or laparotomy (G 2). Demographic data, hospital stay, type of complication, morbidity and mortality were analyzed. Dindo-Clavien classification was used to stratify postoperative complications and only categories 3, 4 and 5 were included. Data were statistically analyzed with Student ́s t test and chi-square test.Results: A hundred six patients (6.26%) were reoperated because of AL, 85 (80%) by laparoscopy and 21 (20%) by conventional surgery. The only demographic difference between both groups was that more obese patients were included in G1 (G1: 17, 20% vs. G2: 0, p=0.02). Interval of time between surgeries was lower in G1 without statistical difference (5.18 vs. 6.23 days, p=0.22). In 84 patients (79%) abdominal lavage and loop ostomy was performed (G1: 74 vs. G2: 10, p=0.001). Anastomosis takedown was required in 8 patients (G1: 4 vs. G2: 4, p=0.02). 9 patients in G1 and 3 in G2 needed more than one reexploration (p= 0.63). Postoperative complications were similar in both groups, grades 3, 4 and 5 were included (G1: 21, 2% vs. G2: 28.6%, p= 0.34). In average hospital stay was decreased in G1 (10.7 vs. 11.6 days, p=0.66), without statistical difference. Conclusion: Laparoscopic reintervention can be a safe treatment for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. (AU)

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic sigmoid resection without diversion in perforated diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic primary anastomosis (PA) without diversion for diverticulitis has historically been confined to the elective setting. Hartmann's procedure is associated with high morbidity rates that might be reduced with less invasive and one-step approaches. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of laparoscopic PA without diversion in Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all patients who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease during the period 2000-2018. The sample was divided in two groups: elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for recurrent diverticulitis (G1) and emergent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for Hinchey III diverticulitis (G2). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 415 patients underwent laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease. PA without diversion was performed in 351 patients; 278 (79.2%) belonged to G1 (recurrent diverticulitis) and 73 (20.8%) to G2 (perforated diverticulitis). Median age, gender, and BMI score were similar in both groups. Patients with ASA III score were more frequent in G2 (p: 0.02). Conversion rate (G1: 4% vs. G2: 18%, p < 0.001), operative time (G1: 157 min vs. G2: 183 min, p < 0.001), and median length of hospital stay (G1: 3 days vs. G2: 5 days, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in G2. Overall postoperative morbidity (G1: 22.3% vs. G2: 28.7%, p = 0.27) and anastomotic leak rate (G1: 5.7% vs. G2: 5.4%, p = 0.92) were similar between groups. There was no mortality in G1 and one patient (1.3%) died in G2 (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic sigmoid resection without diversion is feasible and safe in patients with perforated diverticulitis. In centers with vast experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, patients undergoing this procedure have similar morbidity and mortality to those undergoing elective sigmoidectomy.

Tratamiento conservador en perforaciones postpolipectomía colonica / Conservative treatment in colon postpolypectomy perforations

Introduccion: La videocolonoscopía es el principal método de diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento en patologías colorectales. La perforación colónica en endoscopía terapeútica es una complicación infrecuente pero debe ser evaluada y tratada rapidamente cuando aparece ya que puede presentar una morbimortalidad elevada. Objetivo: Valorar resultado de tratamiento conservador no quirúrgico en perforaciones colónicas post polipectomía endoscópica. Materiales y Métodos: Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo observacional descriptivo sobre base de datos prospectiva en el Sanatorio del Salvador y en el centro privado Unidad Digestiva Baistrocchi de la ciudad de Córdoba, desde enero del año 2012 a diciembre del 2017. Resultados: Sobre un total de 1606 procedimientos intervencionistas, se presentaron 9 perforaciones. El síntoma más frecuente fue el dolor abdominal, seguido de distensión, defensa muscular, reacción peritoneal y fiebre. Se realizaron radiografía de abdomen y tomografía computada a todos los casos con diagnóstico presuntivo para corroborar los hallazgos clínicos. Se realizó internación, reposo gástrico, control estricto de parámetros clínicos y antibioticoterapia para flora colónica. Se analizó diariamente evolución decidiendo conducta a seguir. El tratamiento conservador fue satisfactorio en un 87% de los casos. Conclusión: La perforación colónica postpolipectomía es una complicación inevitable, de menor incidencia en especialistas entrenados. Conociendo los síntomas de presentación, realizando un correcto examen físico y seguimiento clínico puede realizarse tratamiento conservador exitoso en aquellos pacientes clínicamente estables y de riesgo moderado. (AU)

Background: Videocolonoscopy has become the main tool for diagnostic and treatment of colorrectal diseases. Perforation after therapeutic colonoscopy is an uncommon complication but it must be treated quickly beacause of it´s high rate of morbidity and mortality. Aims: To evaluate rate of success of non quirurgical treatment in postpolipectomy perforations. Methods: A retrospective observational study was performed over a prospective database of 11062 colonoscopy fulfilled between january 2012 and december 2017. Results: We had 9 perforations. The most common symptom was abdominal pain, followed by distension, peritonism and fever. All pacients with presumpitve diagnoses were studied with computed tomography and plain chest radiography. The management was conservative in all cases. The standard treatment was endovenous antibiotics, nil-by-mouth regimen, fluids and hospitalization in common floor. Conservative treatment was successful in 87% of our cases. Conclusions: postpolipectomy perforation is inevitable, nevertheless, has lower incidence in specialized physicians. Knowledge about symptoms and having a close follow up of potencial patients may allow us to improve rates of success in conservative management. (AU)