Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: To divert or not to divert-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of proximal diversion in patients undergoing sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with a proximal diversion in perforated diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis. METHOD: A systematic literature search on sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion for diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis was conducted in the Medline and EMBASE databases. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies reporting the primary outcome of interest (30-day mortality) were included. Secondary outcomes were major morbidity, anastomotic leak, reoperation, stoma nonreversal rates, and length of hospital stay. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies involving 544 patients (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 287 versus sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion: 257) were included. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.53-2.40, P = .76), major morbidity (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.80-2.44, P = .24), anastomotic leak (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.099-1.20, P = .10), reoperation (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.46, P = .20), and length of stay (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 12.1 vs resection and primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy: 15 days, P = .44) were similar between groups. The risk of definitive stoma was significantly lower after sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis (odds ratio 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.006-0.35, P = .003). CONCLUSION: Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with or without proximal diversion have similar postoperative outcomes in selected patients with diverticulitis and diffuse peritonitis. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

Second Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: Safety and Feasibility.

BACKGROUND: As laparoscopic colorectal surgery continues increasing worldwide, the need of having a second laparoscopic colorectal resection (SLCR) might increase as well. Experience with this challenging procedure is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SLCR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing colorectal surgery who needed an SLCR during the period 2008-2020 was performed. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. A propensity score matching with a control population undergoing a first elective colorectal resection was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1918 patients underwent colorectal surgery and 32 patients (1.7%) who required a SLCR were included for analysis; 17 (53.1%) were male, and the mean age was 71 (39 to 89) years. The median time between the first and second operations was 69 (6 to 230) months. At the second resection: The median operative time was 170 (90 to 380) minutes, there were 3 (9%) intraoperative complications and 2 (6%) conversions. Overall postoperative morbidity and major morbidity rates were 34% and 19%, respectively. Four patients (12.5%) required reoperation and 1 (3.1%) died of septic shock after an anastomotic leak. After propensity score matching, SLCR was more frequently performed by colorectal surgeons, and no differences in perioperative variables were observed compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: SLCR can be safely performed without jeopardizing perioperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm the benefits of the minimally invasive approach in colorectal second resection and to elucidate the long-term outcomes.

Re-laparoscopy to Treat Early Complications After Colorectal Surgery: Is There a Learning Curve?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy for treating complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) is still controversial. Moreover, its learning curve has not been evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to analyze whether operative outcomes were influenced by the learning curve of re-laparoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and reoperated by a laparoscopic approach during the period 2000-2019 was performed. A cumulative sum analysis was done to determine the number of operations that must be performed to achieve a stable operative time. Based on this analysis, the cohort was divided in 3 groups. Demographics and operative variables were compared between groups. RESULTS: From a total of 1911 patients undergoing LCS, 132 (7%) were included. Based on the cumulative sum analysis, the cohort was divided into the first 50 (G1), the following 52 (G2), and the last 30 (G3) patients. Less computed tomography scans were performed in G3 (G1: 72% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 43%; P=0.03). There were no differences in the type of operation performed between the groups. The conversion rate (G1: 18% vs. G2: 4% vs. G3: 3%; P=0.02) and the mean operative time (G1: 104 min vs. G2: 80 min vs. G3: 78 min; P=0.003) were higher in G1. Overall morbidity was lower in G3 (G1: 46% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 33%; P=0.01). Major morbidity, mortality, and mean length of stay remained similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 50 laparoscopic reoperations might be needed to achieve an appropriate learning curve with reduced operative time and lower conversion rates. Further research is needed to determine the learning process of re-laparoscopy for treating complications after colorectal surgery.

Consecutive Laparoscopic Colorectal Resections in a Single Workday by the Same Surgeon: Efficient or Risky?

Background: As laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) continues increasing worldwide, surgeons may need to perform more than one LCS per day to accommodate this higher demand. We aimed to determine the safety of performing consecutive LCSs by the same surgeon in a single workday. Materials and Methods: Consecutive LCSs performed by the same surgeon from 2006 to 2019 were included. The sample was divided into two groups: patients who underwent the first (G1) and those who underwent the second and the third (G2) colorectal resections in a single workday. LCSs were stratified into level I (low complexity), level II (medium complexity), and level III (high complexity). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Results: From a total of 1433 LCSs, 142 (10%) were included in G1 and 158 (11%) in G2. There was a higher rate of complexity level III LCS (G1: 23% versus G2: 6%, P < .0001) and a longer operative time (G1: 160 minutes versus G2: 139 minutes, P = .002) in G1. There were no differences in anastomotic leak, overall morbidity, or mortality rates. Mean length of hospital stay and readmission rates were similar between groups. Conclusion: Multiple consecutive laparoscopic colorectal resections can be safely performed by the same surgeon in a single workday. This efficient strategy should be encouraged at high-volume centers with experienced colorectal surgeons.

"Relaparoscopy" to treat early complications following colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has shown clear benefits that could also be useful in the emergency setting such as early reoperations after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic reintervention ("relaparoscopy") (RL) to manage postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database from 2000 to 2019. Patients who required a reoperation after undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. According to the approach used at the reoperation, the cohort was divided in laparoscopy (RL) and laparotomy (LPM). Demographics, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients underwent a reoperation after a laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 124 (78%) had RL and 35 (22%) LPM. Demographics were similar in both groups. Patients who underwent left colectomy were more frequently reoperated by laparoscopy (RL: 42.7% vs. LPM: 22.8%, p: 0.03). The most common finding at the reoperation was anastomotic leakage, which was treated more often by RL (RL: 67.7% vs. LPM: 25.7%, p: 0.0001), and the most common strategy was drainage and loop ileostomy (RL: 65.8% vs. LPM: 17.6%, p: 0.00001). Conversion was necessary in 12 patients (9.6%). Overall morbidity rate was 52.2%. Patients in the RL group had less postoperative severe complications (RL: 12.1% vs. LPM: 22.8, p: 0.01). Mortality rate was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Relaparoscopy is feasible and safe for treating early postoperative complications, particularly anastomotic leakage after left colectomy.

"Early" Reoperation to Treat Complications Following Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: The Sooner the Better.

BACKGROUND: Some postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) require reoperation to be treated. However, if the timing to perform this reoperation has some influence on outcome remains elusive. The aim of this study was to analyze if the timing to perform the reoperation has some influence in postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and required a reoperation during the period 2000 to 2019 were included. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: early reoperation (ER): ≤48 hours or delayed reoperation (DR): ≥48 hours based on the interval between the suspicion of a complication and reoperation. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 1843 LCS were performed, 68 (43%) were included in ER and 91 (57%) in DR. A computed tomography scan was less frequently performed in the ER (ER: 45% vs. DR: 70%; P=0.001). The rates of re-laparoscopy (ER: 86% vs. 73%; P=0.04) and negative findings in the reoperation (ER: 13% vs. DR: 1%, P=0.001) were higher in ER. There were no statistically significant differences in overall major morbidity (ER: 9% vs. DR: 21%; P=0.06) and mortality rate (ER: 4% vs. DR: 8.7%; P=0.28) between groups. The need of intensive care unit was significantly higher and the length of stay longer for patients in the DR group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a greater risk of negative findings, ER within 48 hours after the suspicion of a complication after a LCS offers higher chances of using a laparoscopic approach and it could probably provide better postoperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic resection and primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis: with or without loop ileostomy?

BACKGROUND: Evidence is growing about the benefits of laparoscopic resection with primary anastomosis (RPA) in perforated diverticulitis. However, the role of a diverting ileostomy in this setting is unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic RPA with or without a proximal diversion in Hinchey III diverticulitis. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated Hinchey III diverticulitis during the period 2000-2019. The sample was divided into two groups: RPA without diversion (G1) and RPA with protective ileostomy (G2). Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day overall morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), and urgent reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes of interest included operative time, readmission, and anastomotic leak rates. RESULTS: Laparoscopic RPA was performed in 94 patients: 76 without diversion (G1) and 18 with proximal loop ileostomy (G2). Mortality (G1: 1.3% vs. G2: 0%, p = 0.6), urgent reoperation (G1: 7.9% vs. G2: 5.6%, p = 0.73), and anastomotic leak rates (G1: 5.3% vs. G2: 0%, p = 0.32) were comparable between groups. Higher overall morbidity (G1: 27.6% vs. G2: 55.6%, p = 0.02) and readmission rates (G1: 1.3% vs. G2: 11.1%, p = 0.03), and longer LOS (G1: 6.3 vs. G2: 9.2 days, p = 0.02) and operative time (G1: 182.4 vs. G2: 230.2 min, p = 0.003) were found in patients with proximal diversion. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic RPA had favorable outcomes in selected patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis. The addition of a proximal ileostomy resulted in increased morbidity, readmissions, and length of stay. Further investigation is needed to establish which patients might benefit from proximal diversion.

Impacto de la subespecialización en los resultados de la sigmoidectomía laparoscópica por diverticulitis perforada Hinchey III / Outcomes of emergent laparoscopic sigmoid resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis: Does specialization matter?

Introducción: La sigmoidectomía por diverticulitis perforada es una cirugía de urgencia comúnmente realizada por cirujanos generales. Está descripta la correlación positiva entre el volumen del cirujano y los mejores resultados postoperatorios. Sin embargo, existe escasa evidencia de la influencia de la especialización en cirugía colorrectal sobre los resultados de la sigmoidectomía laparoscópica por diverticulitis perforada. Objetivo: Evaluar el impacto de la especialización en cirugía colorrectal en los resultados postoperatorios de la sigmoidectomía laparoscópica por diverticulitis Hinchey III. Diseño: Estudio retrospectivo sobre una base de datos cargada de forma prospectiva. Material y métodos: Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a sigmoidectomía laparoscópica por diverticulitis perforada Hinchey III. La muestra fue dividida en dos grupos: pacientes operados por un cirujano colorrectal (CC) y aquellos operados por un cirujano general (CG). Las variables demográficas, operatorias y postoperatorias fueron comparadas entre los grupos. El objetivo primario fue determinar si existían diferencias en la proporción de anastomosis primaria, morbilidad y mortalidad a 30 días entre los grupos. Resultados: Se incluyeron 101 pacientes en el análisis; 58 operados por CC y 43 por CG. Los pacientes operados por CC presentaron una mayor proporción de anastomosis primaria (CC: 98,3% vs. CG: 67,4%, p<0,001). Los CG realizaron más estomas (CC: 13,8% vs. CG: 46,5%, p<0,001), presentaron un mayor índice de conversión (CC: 20,6% vs. CG: 39,5%, p=0,03) y una mayor estadía hospitalaria (CC: 6,2 vs. CG: 10,8 días, p<0,001). La morbilidad global (CC: 34,4% vs. CG: 46,5%, p=0.22), dehiscencia anastomótica (CC: 3,5% vs. CG: 6,8%, p=0.48) y la mortalidad (CC: 1,7% vs. CG: 9,3 %, p=0,08) fueron similares entre ambos grupos. Conclusión: La sigmoidectomía laparoscópica de urgencia realizada por CG presenta similar morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatoria que la realizada por CC. Sin embargo, la participación del especialista se asoció a una mayor frecuencia de anastomosis primarias, menos estomas y una estadía hospitalaria más corta.

Background: Sigmoid resection for perforated diverticulitis is one of the most common emergency surgeries and often performed by general surgeons. Relationship between high-volume surgeons and improved postoperative outcomes is well established. However, the influence of colorectal specialization on outcomes after emergency laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis is not well described. Aim: Evaluate the impact of colorectal surgery training on the outcomes after emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis. Design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected database.Method: Patients undergoing emergent laparoscopic sigmoid resection for perforated (Hinchey III) diverticulitis were identified and stratified by involvement of colorectal or general surgeon. This study was conducted from 2000 to 2018 at a teaching hospital. Primary outcome measures were primary anastomosis, postoperative morbidity and mortality.Results: A total of 101 patients were identified; 58 by colorectal and 43 by general surgeons. Patients in the colorectal surgeon group had higher rates of primary anastomosis (CS: 98, 2% vs. GS: 67, 4%, p<0.001). General surgeons performed more ostomies (CS: 13, 8% vs. GS: 46, 5%, p<0.001), had a higher conversion rate (CS: 20, 6% vs. GS: 39, 5%, p=0.03) and longer mean length of hospital stay (CS: 6, 2 vs. GS: 10, 8 days, p<0.001). Overall morbidity (CS: 34, 4% vs. GS: 46, 5%, p=0.22), anastomotic leak rate (CC: 3,5% vs. CG: 6,8%, p=0.48) and mortality (CS: 1, 7% vs. GS: 9,3 %, p=0.08) were similar between groups. Conclusion: Emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection by general surgeons wasn ́t associated with higher rates of postoperative morbidity, anastomotic leakage or mortality. However, patients operated by colorectal surgeons had higher rates of primary anastomosis, lower rates of ostomy, conversion and shorter length of hospital stay.

Postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal surgery with anastomotic leak before and after hospital discharge.

Anastomotic leak (AL) is the most feared complication after colorectal surgery and time to diagnosis is variable. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patient who had an AL during or after hospital discharge. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections without proximal diversion during the period 2008-2018 was conducted. The sample was divided into two groups: patients who had AL during hospitalization (G1) and those who had AL after hospital discharge (G2). Demographics, operative variables and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. A total of 853 patients were included; AL was diagnosed in 60 (7%) patients and was more frequent during initial hospitalization than after hospital discharge (G1: 49 (82%) vs. G2: 11 (18%), p < 0.001). Demographics were similar between groups. Most patients were treated with laparoscopic lavage and diverting ileostomy in both groups (G1: 92% vs. G2: 82%, p = 0.30). Severity of peritonitis at reoperation and length of hospital stay after AL were similar between groups (G1: 11 vs. G2: 9 days, p = 0.54). Overall postoperative morbidity (G1: 57% vs. G2: 36%, p = 0.31), mortality (G1: 10% vs. G2: 27%, p = 0.15) and intestinal reconstruction rate (G1: 92% vs. G2: 100%, p = 1) were similar between groups. Outpatient onset of anastomotic leak did not increase the severity of peritonitis, had no impact on the type of treatment performed, and showed similar postoperative morbidity and mortality as compared to those having AL during hospitalization.

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.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Risk Factors for Postoperative Intraabdominal Abscess.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has obtained wide acceptance over the last two decades. However, some studies suggest that there is an increased rate of intraabdominal abscess (IAA) when is compared with open appendectomy. Since postoperative IAA is associated with high morbidity, identifying predictive factors of this complication may help to prevent it. The aim of this study was to identify preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for IAA after LA. METHODS: From January 2005 to June 2015, all charts of consecutive patients underwent to LA were revised. Demographics, clinical and intraoperative variables were analyzed. Independent risk factors for postoperative IAA were determined by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1300 LA were performed. The mean age was 34.7 (14-94) years. Two hundred and twenty-five patients (17.3%) had complicated appendicitis with perforation and peritonitis. The conversion rate was 2.3% (30 cases). The average hospital stay was 1.6 (0-27) days. There were 30 (2.3%) postoperative IAA. In the multivariate analysis, body mass index (BMI) >30 (p 0.01), leukocytosis >20,000/mm3 (p 0.02), perforated appendicitis (p < 0.001) and operative time >90 min (p 0.04) were associated with the development of postoperative IAA. There was no mortality in the series. CONCLUSION: Patients with obesity, leukocytosis >20,000/mm3, perforated appendicitis and surgical time longer than 90 min have a higher chance of having a postoperative IAA. A close postoperative follow-up would be necessary in these situations in order to prevent and identify IAA after LA.

Could an abdominal drainage be avoided in complicated acute appendicitis? Lessons learned after 1300 laparoscopic appendectomies.

INTRODUCTION: Complicated appendicitis (CA) may be a risk factor for postoperative intra-abdominal abscess formation (IAA). In addition, several publications have shown an increased risk of postoperative collection after laparoscopic appendectomy. Most surgeons prefer to place a drain to collect contaminated abdominal fluid to prevent consequent abscess formation. We aimed to evaluate the utility of placing an intra-abdominal drain in laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From January 2005 to June 2015 all charts of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for CA were revised. CA was defined as a perforated appendix with associated peritonitis. The sample was divided into two groups, G1: intra-abdominal drain and G2: no drain. Demographics, operative factors and 30-day postoperative complications were analyzed. RESULTS: In the study period 1300 laparoscopic appendectomies were performed. Laparoscopic findings showed that 17.3% of the surgeries were for complicated acute appendicitis (225 patients). Fifty-six patients (25%) were in G1 and 169 patients (75%) in G2. No significant differences in clinical presentation and demographics were found (p: NS). G1 had an increased conversion rate (G1: 19.6% vs. G2: 7.1%; p: 0.007). No differences were found in the overall morbidity (G1: 32.1% vs. G2: 21.3%, p: NS). The rate of postoperative IAA was 14.2% in G1 and 8.9% in G2 (p: NS). Length of stay was higher in G1 (G1: 5.2 days vs. G2 2.9 days, p: 0.001). There was no mortality in either group. CONCLUSION: The placement of intra-abdominal drain in complicated acute appendicitis may not present benefits and may even lengthen hospital stay. These observations suggest that there is no need of using a drain in laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis.

Laparoscopic approach in complicated diverticular disease.

AIM: To analyze the results of laparoscopic colectomy in complicated diverticular disease. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at an academic teaching hospital. Data were collected from a database established earlier, which comprise of all patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy for diverticular disease between 2000 and 2013. The series was divided into two groups that were compared: Patients with complicated disease (abscess, perforation, fistula, or stenosis) (G1) and patients undergoing surgery for recurrent diverticulitis (G2). Recurrent diverticulitis was defined as two or more episodes of diverticulitis regardless of patient age. Data regarding patient demographics, comorbidities, prior abdominal operations, history of acute diverticulitis, classification of acute diverticulitis at index admission and intra and postoperative variables were extracted. Univariate analysis was performed in both groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty patients were included: 28% (72 patients) belonged to G1 and 72% (188 patients) to G2. The mean age was 57 (27-89) years. The average number of episodes of diverticulitis before surgery was 2.1 (r 0-10); 43 patients had no previous inflammatory pathology. There were significant differences between the two groups with respect to conversion rate and hospital stay (G1 18% vs G2 3.2%, P = 0.001; G1: 4.7 d vs G2 3.3 d, P < 0.001). The anastomotic dehiscence rate was 2.3%, with no statistical difference between the groups (G1 2.7% vs G2 2.1%, P = 0.5). There were no differences in demographic data (body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology and previous abdominal surgery), operative time and intraoperative and postoperative complications between the groups. The mortality rate was 0.38% (1 patient), represented by a death secondary to septic shock in G2. CONCLUSION: The results support that the laparoscopic approach in any kind of complicated diverticular disease can be performed with low morbidity and acceptable conversion rates when compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis.

Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after colorectal surgery. Is it possible to maintain a mini-invasive approach?

Several benefits have been described in laparoscopic surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and the results of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after LCRS. Between May 2001 and March 2014, all charts of consecutive patients who underwent LCRS and developed an incisional hernia were evaluated. Patients with parastomal hernias or those with less than 6 months of follow-up were excluded. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic repair group (LR) and open repair group (OR). Demographics, surgical factors, and 30-day postoperative complications were analyzed. The incisional ventral hernia rate was 7 % (90/1290), and 82 incisional hernia repairs were performed. In 49 patients (60 %) an open approach was performed, and there were 33 laparoscopic repairs (2 converted due to small bowel injury). Mean age was 62 years. Average body mass index was 27.4 ± 5.2 kg/m2. The mean defect size was 56 (4-527) cm2, and there were no differences between the groups (LR: 49 cm2 vs OR: 63 cm2; p = NS). Average operative time was 107 (45-240) minutes (LR: 93 min vs OR: 116 min, p = 0.02). OR showed a higher rate of postoperative complications (OR: 51 % vs LR: 18 %, p = 0.003) and increased hospital stay (OR: 2.77 ± 4 days vs LR: 0.7 ± 0.4 days; p = 0.02). The recurrence rate was 15 % (12 patients, 6 each group; p = NS) after a follow-up of 48 (r: 6-141) months. Laparoscopic approach for incisional hernia repair after LCRS seems to be safe and feasible. Patients who received laparoscopic approach showed significantly less postoperative complications and shorter hospital staying. These observations suggest that mini-invasive surgery may be the initial approach in patients who develop an incisional hernia after LCRS.

Incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Is there any factor associated?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic approach is related to, among others, educing abdominal wall complications such as incisional hernia (IH). However, there are scarce data concerning laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). The aim of this study was to evaluate related factors and incidence of IH following this approach. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent colorectal surgery with laparoscopic approach in a single center was performed. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and also converted to open surgery were included. Uni- and multi-variate analyses were performed using the following variables: age; gender; type of surgery (left, right, total, or segmental colectomy); comorbidities [diabetes and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD)]; previous surgery; colorectal disease (benign and malignant); operative time; surgical site infection (SSI); and body mass index (BMI). Midline incisions (right colectomy) and off-midline incisions (left colectomies and rectal resections) were also compared. RESULTS: During a period of 12 years, 1051 laparoscopic colorectal surgeries were performed. The incidence of IH was 6% (n = 63). Univariate analysis showed that BMI > 30 kg/m(2) [p < 0.01, OR: 2.3 (1.3-4.7)], SSI [p < 0.01, OR: 6.5 (3.4-12.5)], operative time >180 min [p < 0.01, OR: 2.1 (1.2-3.6)] and conversion to open surgery (p = 0.01, OR: 2.4 [1.1-5.0]) were related to incisional hernias. BMI and SSI have a statistically significant relation with the incidence of IH in multivariate analysis (p < 0.01). No statistical difference between right and left colectomy was observed (6.6 vs. 6.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The incidence of IH after LCRS seems to be acceptable. BMI over 30 kg/m(2) and SSI are strongly associated to this complication.

Uso de prótesis biológica para el tratamiento de fístulas perianales complejas

Antecedentes: El tratamiento de la fístula anal compleja es controvertido. El empleo de tratamientos poco invasivos alternativos a la cirugía convencional disminuye el riesgo de complicaciones y secuelas. Objetivos: Evaluar la factibilidad del procedimiento y los resultados iniciales del uso de una prótesis biológica de origen porcino (PBP) en el tratamiento de la fístula anal compleja. Material y Método: Entre septiembre de 2006 y abril de 2007 se realizó un estudio observacional prospectivo del uso de PBP en pacientes con fístulas complejas. Se excluyeron los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal, fístulas simples superficiales o con procesos supurativos agudos. Todos los pacientes fueron estudiados previamente a la intervención quirúrgica mediante examen proctológico, ecografía endorrectal y manometría. El seguimiento posoperatorio temprano se hizo en el consultorio a los siete y a los quince días de la intervención y posteriormente cada treinta días. Para la evaluación de la incontinencia fecal se utilizó la escala de incontinencia de Jorge y Wexner. Resultados: Se evaluaron 13 pacientes. Siete hombres y seis mujeres. La edad promedio fue de 57 ± 16 años. Los tipos de fístulas a reparar fueron transesfinteriana en 12 (92%) casos y en herradura el restante. La longitud del trayecto fue en promedio 5.1 ± 1.2 cm. El grado de incontinencia prequirúrgica fue 7 ± 1.2 y posquirúrgica de cero. Un paciente presentó más de un trayecto. Tres (23%) fueron tratados con sedal 19 semanas antes del implante. No se registraron complicaciones durante la intervención. La morbilidad fue del 23%. Tres pacientes expulsaron espontáneamente la prótesis. No se registraron recidivas ni incontinencia en los pacientes en que la prótesis permaneció implantada. El éxito en el cierre del trayecto fue del 76.9% (10 pacientes). Conclusión: Los resultados iniciales permiten concluir que el tratamiento con PBP es seguro y eficaz, constituyendo una alternativa válida para el tratamiento de las fístulas complejas.

Background: The treatment of complex anal fístulas is controversial. Using low-invasive treatments as an alternative to conventional surgery reduces the risk of complications and sequels. Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of the procedure and the initial results of using porcine biological prosthe-ses (PBP) for treating complex anal fístulas. Materials and Method: An observational prospective study on the use of PBP in patients with complex anal fístulas was carried out between September 2006 and April 2007. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease, simple fístulas or acute suppurative processes were excluded. Before surgical intervention, all patients were subjected to a proctological examination, endorectal ultrasound and manometry. Early postoperative follow-up was performed 7 and 15 days after surgery, and from then on patients were evaluated every 30 days. The Jorge and Wexner incontinence scale was used to assess fecal continence. Results: A total of 13 patients were evaluated, seven men and six women. The average age was 57 ± 16 years. The repaired fístulas were transsphincteric in 12 cases (92 %) and 1 patient had horseshoe fístula. The mean length of the fistulous tract was 5.1 ± 1.2 cm. The incontinence score previous surgery was 7 ± 1.2, and postsurgical incontinence was zero. One patient presented more than one fistulous tract. Three patients (23%) were treated with setons 19 weeks before the PBP surgery. No complications were registered during surgery and the morbility rate was of 23%. The prosthesis was spontaneously expelled in three patients. No cases of relapse or incontinence were registered among the patients in which (whom ?) the prosthesis remained implanted. The percent of success in closing the fistulous tract was 76.9% (10 patients). ]Conclusion: These initial results allow us to conclude that treatment with PBP is safe and efficient, and is therefore a valid alternative for the treatment of complex fístulas.