Laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis in the LapLav study: population-based registry study.

BACKGROUND: The standard treatment for Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis was resection with or without a stoma, but recent trials have shown that laparoscopic lavage is a reasonable alternative. This registry-based Swedish study investigated results at a national level to assess safety in real-world scenarios. METHODS: Patients in Sweden who underwent emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis between 2016 and 2018 were studied. Inverse probability weighting by propensity score was used to adjust for confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 499 patients were included in this study. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with a significantly lower 90-day Comprehensive Complication Index (20.9 versus 32.0; odds ratio 0.77, 95 per cent compatibility interval (c.i.) 0.61 to 0.97) and overall duration of hospital stay (9 versus 15 days; ratio of means 0.84, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.96) compared with resection. Patients had 82 (95 per cent c.i. 39 to 140) per cent more readmissions following lavage than resection (27.2 versus 21.0 per cent), but similar reoperation rates. More co-morbidity was noted among patients who underwent resection than those who had laparoscopic lavage. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic lavage is safe in routine care beyond trial evaluations.

Diverticulitis comprises inflammation in pouches (diverticula) of the large intestine. In the most severe instances, this inflammation can cause perforation of the bowel with purulent or faecal peritonitis. If this happens, surgery is needed. The traditional method has been resection of the inflamed bowel with a stoma. A new technique has been proposed whereby the abdomen is rinsed with saline laparoscopically and a drain is placed (laparoscopic lavage). This study aimed to compare these two methods in terms of clinical short-term outcomes, with a focus on complications. It was found that laparoscopic lavage had fewer complications than resectional surgery and a shorter hospital stay. The new method was safe when used in Swedish routine care.

Functional outcomes from a randomized trial of early closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal excision for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) has a significant impact on postoperative quality of life. Although early closure of an ileostomy is safe in selected patients, functional outcomes have not been investigated. The aim was to compare bowel function and the prevalence of LARS in patients who underwent early or late closure of an ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer. METHODS: Early closure (8-13 days) was compared with late closure (after 12 weeks) of the ileostomy following rectal cancer surgery in a multicentre RCT. Exclusion criteria were: signs of anastomotic leakage, diabetes mellitus, steroid treatment and postoperative complications. Bowel function was evaluated using the LARS score and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function Instrument (BFI). RESULTS: Following index surgery, 112 participants were randomized (55 early closure, 57 late closure). Bowel function was evaluated at a median of 49 months after stoma closure. Eighty-two of 93 eligible participants responded (12 had died and 7 had a permanent stoma). Rates of bowel dysfunction were higher in the late closure group, but this did not reach statistical significance (major LARS in 29 of 40 participants in late group and 25 of 42 in early group, P = 0·250; median BFI score 63 versus 71 respectively, P = 0·207). Participants in the late closure group had worse scores on the urgency/soiling subscale of the BFI (14 versus 17; P = 0·017). One participant in the early group and six in the late group had a permanent stoma (P = 0·054). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing early stoma closure had fewer problems with soiling and fewer had a permanent stoma, although reduced LARS was not demonstrated in this cohort. Dedicated prospective studies are required to evaluate definitively the association between temporary ileostomy, LARS and timing of closure.

Quality of life in a randomized trial of early closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial).

BACKGROUND: A temporary ileostomy may reduce symptoms from anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection. Earlier results of the EASY trial showed that early closure of the temporary ileostomy was associated with significantly fewer postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following early versus late closure of a temporary ileostomy. METHODS: Early closure of a temporary ileostomy (at 8-13 days) was compared with late closure (at more than 12 weeks) in a multicentre RCT (EASY) that included patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer. Inclusion of participants was made after index surgery. Exclusion criteria were signs of anastomotic leakage, diabetes mellitus, steroid treatment, and signs of postoperative complications at clinical evaluation 1-4 days after rectal resection. HRQOL was evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months after resection using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 and Short Form 36 (SF-36®). RESULTS: There were 112 patients available for analysis. Response rates of the questionnaires were 82-95 per cent, except for EORTC QLQ-C30 at 12 months, to which only 54-55 per cent of the patients responded owing to an error in questionnaire distribution. There were no clinically significant differences in any questionnaire scores between the groups at 3, 6 or 12 months. CONCLUSION: Although the randomized study found that early closure of the temporary ileostomy was associated with significantly fewer complications, this clinical advantage had no effect on the patients' HRQOL. Registration number: NCT01287637 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Ostomy function after abdominoperineal resection--a clinical and patient evaluation.

PURPOSE: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer results in a permanent colostomy. As a consequence of a recent change in operative technique from standard (S-APR) to extralevator resection (E-APR), the perineal part of the procedure is now performed with the patient in a prone jackknife position. The impact of this change on stoma function is unknown. The aim was to determine stoma-related complications and the individual patient experience of a stoma. METHODS: Consecutive patients with rectal cancer operated on with APR in one institution in 2004 to 2009 were included. Recurrent cancer, palliative procedures, pre-existing stoma and patients not alive at the start of the study were excluded. Data were collected from hospital records and the national colorectal cancer registry. A questionnaire was sent out to patients. The median follow-up was 44 months (13-84) after primary surgery. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were alive in February 2011. Seventy seven agreed to participate. Sixty-nine patients (90 %) returned the questionnaire. Stoma necrosis was more common for E-APR, 34 % vs. 10 %, but bandaging problems and low stoma height were more common for S-APR. There were no differences in the patients' experience of stoma function. In all, 35 % of the patients felt dirty and unclean, but 90 % felt that they had a full life and could engage in leisure activities of their choice. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study indicates no difference in stoma function after 1 year between S-APR and E-APR. Over 90 % of the patients accept their stoma, but our study indicates that more information and support for patients are warranted.