Laparoscopic delayed coloanal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy for low rectal cancer surgery: 85 consecutive patients from a single institution.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment for low rectal cancer septic complications often requires an ileostomy for fecal diversion. Delayed coloanal anastomosis (CAA) has been performed for several years to reduce septic complications and to avoid ileostomy. The aim of this study was to report the technical, functional and oncological results of delayed CAA in patients operated on for low rectal cancer focusing on pelvic septic complications. METHODS: All consecutive patients operated on for low rectal cancer suitable for total mesorectal excision and two-step delayed CAA at a single institution between May 2000 and September 2013 were included in the study. Patients' characteristics, operative and postoperative outcomes, long-term technical, functional and oncological results from a prospectively maintained database, were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 85 consecutive patients (69 men), of median age 63 years (range 42-83 years) were included. Median delay between the first and the second step of the operation was 6 days (range 2-13 days). Twenty-one patients (25%) developed pelvic sepsis, nine of them (10.6%) developed an anastomotic leak. Twenty-three patients had a definitive stoma at the end of follow-up. Seventeen patients (29%) experienced a poor functional result. Thirty-three patients (38%) presented with recurrence at a median follow-up of 59 months (range 12-135 months). Seven (8.2%) developed a local recurrence, 18 a distant metastasis (21.1%) and 8 (9.4%) both a local and distant recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In our series, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with delayed coloanal anastomosis was associated with septic complications and oncologic results similar to those reported after total mesorectal excision with conventional anastomosis and ileostomy, nearly one-third of patients experience a poor functional result. A randomized trial comparing these two options for low rectal cancer is under way.

Early experience with ambulatory robotic ventral rectopexy.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: Ventral rectopexy can be performed robotically with only limited trauma for the patient, making its performance in an ambulatory setting potentially interesting. The aim of this study is to report our preliminary experience with ambulatory robotic ventral rectopexy in consecutive patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten consecutive patients underwent robotic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse (n=8) or symptomatic enterocele (n=2) between February 2014 and April 2015. Patients were selected for outpatient treatment based on criteria of patient motivation, favorable social conditions, and satisfactory general condition. Patient characteristics, technical results and cost were reported. RESULTS: The mean operating time was 94minutes (range: 78-150). The average operating room occupancy time was 254minutes (222-339). There were no operative complications, conversion to laparotomy, or postoperative complication. The average duration of hospital stay was 11 (8-32) hours. Two patients required hospitalization: one for persistent pain and the other for urinary retention. The average maximum pain score recorded on postoperative day 1 was 2/10 on a visual analog scale (range: 0-5/10). Estimated average cost (excluding amortization of the purchase of the robot) was €9088 per procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory management of robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe.

Day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Ventral rectopexy to the promontory has become one of the most strongly advocated surgical treatments for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and deep enterocele. Despite its challenges, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with or without robotic assistance for selected patients can be performed with relatively minimal patient trauma thus creating the potential for same-day discharge. The aim of this prospective case-controlled study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and cost of day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with routine day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. METHODS: Between February 28, 2014 and March 3, 2015, 20 consecutive patients underwent day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse or deep enterocele at Michallon University Hospital, Grenoble. Patients were selected for day case surgery on the basis of motivation, favorable social circumstances, and general fitness. One out of every two patients underwent the robotic procedure (n = 10). Demographics, technical results, and costs were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Patients from both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and technical results. Patients operated on with the robot had significantly less pain (p = 0.045). Robotic rectopexy was associated with longer median operative time (94 vs 52.5 min, p < 0.001) and higher costs (9088 vs 3729 euros per procedure, p < 0.001) than laparoscopic rectopexy. CONCLUSIONS: Day case robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe, but results in longer operative time and higher costs than classical laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse and enterocele.

Management of penetrating abdominal and thoraco-abdominal wounds: A retrospective study of 186 patients.

This is a single center retrospective review of abdominal or abdomino-thoracic penetrating wounds treated between 2004 and 2013 in the gastrointestinal and emergency unit of the university hospital of Grenoble, France. This study did not include patients who sustained blunt trauma or non-traumatic wounds, as well as patients with penetrating head and neck injury, limb injury, ano-perineal injury, or isolated thoracic injury above the fifth costal interspace. In addition, we also included cases that were reviewed in emergency department morbidity and mortality conferences during the same period. Mortality was 5.9% (11/186 patients). Mean age was 36 years (range: 13-87). Seventy-eight percent (145 patients) suffered stab wounds. Most patients were hemodynamically stable or stabilized upon arrival at the hospital (163 patients: 87.6%). Six resuscitative thoracotomies were performed, five for gunshot wounds, one for a stab wound. When abdominal exploration was necessary, laparotomy was chosen most often (78/186: 41.9%), while laparoscopy was performed in 46 cases (24.7%), with conversion to laparotomy in nine cases. Abdominal penetration was found in 103 cases (55.4%) and thoracic penetration in 44 patients (23.7%). Twenty-nine patients (15.6%) had both thoracic and abdominal penetration (with 16 diaphragmatic wounds). Suicide attempts were recorded in 43 patients (23.1%), 31 (72.1%) with peritoneal penetration. Two patients (1.1%) required operation for delayed peritonitis, one who had had a laparotomy qualified as "negative", and another who had undergone surgical exploration of his wound under general anesthesia. In conclusion, management of clear-cut or suspected penetrating injury represents a medico-surgical challenge and requires effective management protocols.