Intracorporeal anastomosis could be associated with a higher lymph node yield in right colon cancer surgery: Results of the ICA-LATAM study, a retrospective, multicentre, comparative analysis in Latin America.

AIM: The aim of this work was to compare lymph node (LN) yield in patients operated on for right colon cancer (RCC) using a laparoscopic approach between those receiving an intracorporeal (ICA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA). METHOD: This is a retrospective multicentre study involving patients operated on for RCC in nine tertiary referral centres in Latin America during a 2-year period. The main comparative outcome between groups was the number of LNs harvested between groups. RESULTS: The study included 416 patients, 261 (62.7%) in the ECA group and 155 (37.3%) in the ICA group. Patients in the ECA group were elderly (66 vs. 61 years, p < 0.001). Patients receiving an ICA achieved a significantly higher LN yield than those receiving an ECA (24 vs. 18, p < 0.001). This group also had a lower percentage of patients achieving a substandard LN yield (<12 LNs) (10% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.001) and more patients achieving a high number of harvested LNs (>32 LNs) (15.5% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.039). In the multivariate analysis, ICA was independently related to the primary outcome (LN yield) (OR 3.28, p = 0.027, 95% CI 1.14-9.38). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, patients operated on for RCC who received an ICA achieved a higher LN yield. Further studies are needed to reconfirm these findings, and also to find an explanation for these results.

Risk factors for major complications after surgical treatment of primary ileocecal Crohn's disease. A multicenter Latin American experience / Factores de riesgo para complicaciones mayores posteriores al tratamiento quirúrgico de la enfermedad de Crohn con afectación ileocecal. Trabajo retrospectivo, multicéntrico en América Latina

Introduction: Complications after ileocecal resection for Crohn's disease (CD) are frequent. The aim of this study was to analyze risk factors for postoperative complications after these procedures. Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated surgically for Crohn's disease limited to the ileocecal region during an 8-year period at 10 medical centers specialized in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Latin America. Patients were allocated into 2 groups: those who presented major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo>II), the “postoperative complication” (POC) group; and those who did not, the “no postoperative complication” (NPOC) group. Preoperative characteristics and intraoperative variables were analyzed to identify possible factors for POC. Results: In total, 337 patients were included, with 51 (15.13%) in the POC cohort. Smoking was more prevalent among the POC patients (31.37 vs 17.83; p=0.026), who presented more preoperative anemia (33.33 vs 17.48%; p=0.009), required more urgent care (37.25 vs 22.38; p=0.023), and had lower albumin levels. Complicated disease was associated with higher postoperative morbidity. POC patients had a longer operative time (188.77 vs 143.86min; p=0.005), more intraoperative complications (17.65 vs 4.55%; p<0.001), and lower rates of primary anastomosis. In the multivariate analysis, both smoking and intraoperative complications were independently associated with the occurrence of major postoperative complications. (AU)

Introducción: Las complicaciones posteriores a resección ileocecal por enfermedad de Crohn (EC) son frecuentes. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar los factores de riesgo para presentar complicaciones postoperatorias después de estos procedimientos. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un análisis retrospectivo de los pacientes operados por EC limitada a la región ileocecal durante un período de 8 años en 10 centros especializados en enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) de América Latina. Los pacientes fueron divididos en 2 grupos, los que presentaron complicaciones postoperatorias mayores (Clavien-Dindo>II) (denominado grupo de complicaciones postoperatorias [POC]) y los que no (grupo sin complicaciones postoperatorias [NPOC]). Se analizaron las características preoperatorias y las variables intraoperatorias para identificar posibles factores relacionados con las POC. Resultados: Se incluyeron 337 pacientes, 51 (15,13%) en el grupo con POC. El grupo POC presentó mayor índice de tabaquismo (31,37 vs. 17,83; p=0,026), quienes presentaron más anemia preoperatoria (33,33 vs. 17,48%; p=0,009), urgencias (37,25 vs. 22,38; p=0,023) y menores niveles de albúmina. Los procedimientos por enfermedad complicada se asociaron con una mayor morbilidad postoperatoria. Los pacientes con POC tuvieron un tiempo operatorio más largo (188,77 vs. 143,86min; p=0,005), más complicaciones intraoperatorias (17,65 vs. 4,55%; p<0,001) y menores tasas de anastomosis primaria. En el análisis multivariado, tanto tabaquismo como complicaciones intraoperatorias se asociaron de forma independiente con la aparición de complicaciones mayores postoperatorias. (AU)

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. METHODS: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2 : 1). RESULTS: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). CONCLUSION: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding.

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL). BACKGROUND: AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma. METHODS: This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated. RESULTS: This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies.

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.

Risk factors for major complications after surgical treatment of primary ileocecal Crohn's disease. A multicentric Latin American experience.

INTRODUCTION: Complications after ileocecal resection for Crohn's disease (CD) are frequent. The aim of this study was to analyze risk factors for postoperative complications after these procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated surgically for Crohn's disease limited to the ileocecal region during an 8-year period at 10 medical centers specialized in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Latin America. Patients were allocated into 2 groups: those who presented major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo > II), the "postoperative complication" (POC) group; and those who did not, the "no postoperative complication" (NPOC) group. Preoperative characteristics and intraoperative variables were analyzed to identify possible factors for POC. RESULTS: In total, 337 patients were included, with 51 (15.13%) in the POC cohort. Smoking was more prevalent among the POC patients (31.37 vs. 17.83; P = .026), who presented more preoperative anemia (33.33 vs. 17.48%; P = .009), required more urgent care (37.25 vs. 22.38; P = .023), and had lower albumin levels. Complicated disease was associated with higher postoperative morbidity. POC patients had a longer operative time (188.77 vs. 143.86 min; P = .005), more intraoperative complications (17.65 vs. 4.55%; P < .001), and lower rates of primary anastomosis. In the multivariate analysis, both smoking and intraoperative complications were independently associated with the occurrence of major postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: This study shows that risk factors for complications after primary ileocecal resections for Crohn's disease in Latin America are similar to those reported elsewhere. Future efforts in the region should be aimed at improving these outcomes by controlling some of the identified factors.

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.

Treatment of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection: The TENTACLE-Rectum study.

AIM: Anastomotic leakage is a severe complication after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer and occurs in up to 20% of patients. Most research focuses on reducing its incidence and finding predictive factors for anastomotic leakage. There are no robust data on severity and treatment strategies with associated outcomes. The aims of this work were (1) to investigate the factors that contribute to severity of anastomotic leakage and to compose an anastomotic leakage severity score and (2) to evaluate the effects of different treatment approaches on prespecified outcome parameters, stratified for severity score and other leakage characteristics. METHOD: TENTACLE-Rectum is an international multicentre retrospective cohort study. Patients with anastomotic leakage after LAR for primary rectal cancer between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 will be included by each centre. We aim to include 1246 patients in this study. The primary outcome is 1-year stoma-free survival (i.e. patients alive at 1 year without a stoma). Secondary outcomes include number of reinterventions and unplanned readmissions within 1 year, total length of hospital stay, total time with a stoma, the type of stoma present at 1 year (defunctioning, permanent), complications related to secondary leakage and mortality. For aim (1) regression models will be used to create an anastomotic leakage severity score. For aim (2) the effectiveness of different treatment strategies for leakage will be tested after correction for severity score and leakage characteristics, in addition to other potential related confounders. CONCLUSION: TENTACLE-Rectum will be an important step towards drawing up evidence-based recommendations and improving outcomes for patients who experience severe treatment-related morbidity.

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)

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.