A retrospective analysis of perioperative complications of lateral approach lumbar interbody fusion in patients with prior abdominal surgery or a history of colonic inflammatory disease.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lateral approaches for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) allow for access to the lumbar spine and disk space by passing through a retroperitoneal corridor either pre- or trans-psoas. A contraindication for this approach is the presence of retroperitoneal scarring that may occur from prior surgical intervention in the retroperitoneal space or from inflammatory conditions with fibrotic changes and pose challenges for the mobilization and visualization needed in this approach. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the prevalence of surgical complications following lateral fusion surgery in patients with a history of abdominal surgery. PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study is to describe the association between surgical complications following lateral interbody fusion surgery and prior abdominal surgical. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients over the age of 18 who underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion at a large, tertiary care center between 2011 and 2019 were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome included medical, surgical, and thigh-related complications either in the intraoperative or 90-day postoperative periods. Additional outcome metrics included readmission rates, length of stay, and operative duration. METHODS: The electronic health records of 250 patients were reviewed for demographic information, surgical data, complications, and readmission following surgery. The association of patient and surgical factors to complication rate was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software (R, Vienna, Austria). RESULTS: Of 250 lateral interbody fusion patients, 62.8% had a prior abdominal surgery and 13.8% had a history of colonic disease. The most common perioperative complication was transient thigh or groin pain/sensory changes (n=62, 24.8%). A multivariable logistic regression considering prior abdominal surgery, age, BMI, history of colonic disease, multilevel surgery, and the approach relative to psoas found no significant association between surgical complication rates and colonic disease (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.02-2.22) or a history of prior abdominal surgeries (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.20-1.55). Further, the invasiveness of prior abdominal surgeries showed no association with overall spine complication rate, lateral-specific complications, or readmission rates (p>.05). CONCLUSION: Though retroperitoneal scarring is an important consideration for lateral approaches to the lumbar spine, this study found no association between lateral lumbar approach complication rates and prior abdominal surgery. Further study is needed to determine the impact of inflammatory colonic disease on lateral approach spine surgery.

Impact of Prior Abdominal Procedures on Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Outcomes: Findings From the North American Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Registry.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: A history of prior abdominal procedures may influence the likelihood of referral for peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion. To guide clinical decision making in this population, this study examined the association between prior abdominal procedures and outcomes in patients undergoing PD catheter insertion. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing their first PD catheter insertion between November 1, 2011, and November 1, 2020, at 11 institutions in Canada and the United States participating in the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis North American Catheter Registry. EXPOSURE: Prior abdominal procedure(s) defined as any procedure that enters the peritoneal cavity. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was time to the first of (1) abandonment of the PD catheter or (2) interruption/termination of PD. Secondary outcomes were rates of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and procedures. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Cumulative incidence curves were used to describe the risk over time, and an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between the exposure and primary outcome. Models for count data were used to estimate the associations between the exposure and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 855 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 31% had a history of a prior abdominal procedure and 20% experienced at least 1 PD catheter-related complication that led to the primary outcome. Prior abdominal procedures were not associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.84). Upper-abdominal procedures were associated with a higher adjusted hazard of the primary outcome, but there was no dose-response relationship concerning the number of procedures. There was no association between prior abdominal procedures and other secondary outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Observational study and cohort limited to a sample of patients believed to be potential candidates for PD catheter insertion. CONCLUSION: A history of prior abdominal procedure(s) does not appear to influence catheter outcomes following PD catheter insertion. Such a history should not be a contraindication to PD. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a life-saving therapy for individuals with kidney failure that can be done at home. PD requires the placement of a tube, or catheter, into the abdomen to allow the exchange of dialysis fluid during treatment. There is concern that individuals who have undergone prior abdominal procedures and are referred for a catheter might have scarring that could affect catheter function. In some institutions, they might not even be offered PD therapy as an option. In this study, we found that a history of prior abdominal procedures did not increase the risk of PD catheter complications and should not dissuade patients from choosing PD or providers from recommending it.

Impact of prior abdominal surgery on short-term outcomes following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether laparoscopic surgery after prior abdominal surgery (PAS) is safe and feasible for colorectal cancer (CRC) remains controversial. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of PAS on short-term outcomes following laparoscopic CRC surgery. METHODS: We performed retrospective analysis used propensity score-matched analysis to reduce the possibility of selection bias. Participants comprised 1284 consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic CRC surgery between 2010 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups according to PAS. Patients with PAS were then matched to patients without these conditions. Short-term outcomes were evaluated between groups in the overall cohort and matched cohort, and risk factors for conversion to laparotomy and severe postoperative complications were analyzed. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, we enrolled 762 patients (n = 381 in each group). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in sex, age, primary tumor site, pathological (p) T stage, and type of procedure. No significant difference was found between groups in terms of rate of conversion to laparotomy, estimated blood loss, rate of extended resection, length of postoperative stay, and postoperative complications. After matching, estimated operative time was significantly longer in the PAS group (p = 0.01). Significant differences were found between groups in terms of reason for conversion to laparotomy. Multivariate analyses identified significant risk factors for conversion to laparotomy as pT stage ≥ 3 (odds ratio [OR] 2.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-5.26) and body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2 (OR 3.56; 95% CI 1.07-11.7). Multivariate analyses identified rectum in the primary tumor site as the only significant risk factor for severe postoperative complications (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.08-5.20). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic CRC surgery after PAS showed acceptable short-term outcomes compared to Non-PAS. The laparoscopic approach appears safe and feasible for CRC regardless of whether the patient has a history of PAS.

Neobladder creation is still a conduit to peritoneal dialysis - Successful use of peritoneal dialysis after invasive bladder cancer.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is as safe and more cost-effective than haemodialysis (HD). It also allows patients to undergo renal replacement therapy (RRT) from home. However, PD remains underutilised in many parts of the world. This is true in part because of many perceived relative contraindications to PD, including a history of prior major abdominal surgery. Prior major abdominal surgery is a concern for standard bedside or surgical catheter placement since these patients are at risk of having adhesions, which can complicate catheter placement. However, with laparoscopic advancements, prior major abdominal surgery is no longer even a relative contraindication to PD for skilled and experienced surgeons. We report the case of a male in his 70s with a history of cystoprostatectomy which was curative for a muscle invasive bladder carcinoma 5 years prior to his RRT. The patient had longstanding chronic kidney disease which worsened gradually. After receiving RRT education, the patient favoured PD. The catheter was placed despite the surgeon noting abdominal adhesions and the patient successfully underwent 12 months of PD which had a positive impact on his quality of life. He transferred to HD after contracting a complex PD-associated peritonitis. Thus, new research should be conducted to better understand the real impact of prior abdominal surgeries as a contraindication to PD, especially in centres where the surgeons have experience with advanced laparoscopy.

The Influence of Prior Abdominal Surgery on Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the influence of prior abdominal surgery on perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in initial Japanese series. METHODS: We reviewed patients with small renal tumors who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy from October 2011 to September 2020 at our institution. Patients with prior abdominal surgery were compared with those without prior surgery based on perioperative outcomes. The chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analyses of variables. RESULTS: Of 156 patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, 90 (58%) had no prior abdominal surgery, whereas 66 patients (42%) underwent prior abdominal surgery. No significant differences in perioperative outcomes were observed between with and without prior abdominal surgery groups. In transperitoneal approach robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, 31 patients (80.4%) had prior abdominal surgery. Trocar insertion time in the with prior abdominal surgery group took longer than the without prior abdominal surgery group (32 vs. 28.5 min, P = 0.031). No significant difference was observed in the conversion rate between the two groups (P = 0.556). CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy appears to be a safe approach for patients with prior abdominal surgery. In transperitoneal approach robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with prior abdominal surgery, trocar insertion time was longer, but no significant differences were found in other outcomes. Transperitoneal approach robot-assisted partial nephrectomy is thus considered a safe procedure for patients with prior abdominal surgery.

Exploring perioperative complications of anterior lumber interbody fusion in patients with a history of prior abdominal surgery: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) exposes the anterior aspect of the spine through a retroperitoneal approach. Access to the anterior spine requires mobilization of intra-abdominal viscera/vasculature, which can become complicated as scarring and/or adhesions develop from prior abdominal surgical interventions, increasing risk of intraoperative complications. The literature suggests that "significant prior abdominal surgery" is a relative contraindication of ALIF surgery; however, there is no consensus within the literature as to what defines "major/significant" abdominal surgeries. Additionally, the association between the number of prior abdominal surgeries and perioperative complications in ALIF surgery has not been explored within the literature. PURPOSE: This study seeks to explore the association between perioperative complications of ALIF surgery and the type (major and/or minor) and number of prior abdominal surgeries. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed to examine perioperative complications in ALIF patients with or without prior history of abdominal surgery. PATIENT SAMPLE: All consecutive patients undergoing ALIF with or without a history of prior abdominal surgery from 2008 to 2018 at a single tertiary center were evaluated. Patients under the age of 18, patients with spinal malignancy, or patients who had ALIF above L3 were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative complications included intraoperative complications during ALIF surgery and postoperative complications within 90 days of ALIF surgery. Intraoperative complications include vascular injury, ureter injury, retroperitoneal hematoma, etc. Postoperative complications include urinary tract infection, revision of abdominal scar, ileus, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, etc. Other outcome measures include readmission within 90 days, length of ALIF surgery, and length of hospital stay. METHODS: Electronic medical records of 660 patients who underwent ALIF between 2008 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI), level of fusion, past abdominal surgical history, use of access surgeon during exposure, intraoperative, and postoperative complications were collected. Predictors of intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed using simple and multivariable logistic regression. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP 14.0 (SAS, Cary, NC, USA) software. RESULTS: After controlling for age, length of ALIF, gender, multilevel ALIF, and the use of an access surgeon, there was no significant association between the type of prior abdominal surgery (major and/or minor) and intraoperative complications on multivariable logistic regression analysis (Minor: odds ratio [OR]=1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-4.86 & Major: OR=1.99; 95% CI: 0.80-4.91). On multivariable logistic regression, the odds of developing an intraoperative complication increases by 52% for each additional prior abdominal surgery after adjusting for age, length of ALIF, gender, multilevel ALIF, and the use of an access surgeon (OR=1.52, 95% CI: 1.10-2.11). Iliac vein laceration was the most common intraoperative complication (n=27, 4%). Neither the type (major and/or minor) nor the number of prior abdominal surgeries were significant predictors of postoperative complications (Minor: OR=1.29; 95% CI: .72-2.31, Major: OR=1.24; 95% CI: 0.77-2.00, & Number: OR=1.03; 95% CI: .84-1.26). CONCLUSION: With each additional prior abdominal surgery, accumulation of scarring and adhesions can likely obscure anatomical landmarks and increase the risk of developing an intraoperative complication. Therefore, the number of prior abdominal surgeries should be taken into consideration during planning and operative exposure of the anterior spine via a retroperitoneal approach.

Impact of prior abdominal surgery on postoperative prolonged ileus after ileostomy repair.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Postoperative ileus (POI) is one of the most common reasons for sustained hospital stays after ileostomy repair. Although many factors have been investigated as POI risk factors, the investigation of the impact of prior abdominal surgery (PAS) before rectal cancer surgery has been limited. This study aimed to identify the impact of PAS as a risk factor for POI after ileostomy repair. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 220 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent ileostomy repair were enrolled. The patients were divided into PAS-positive and PAS-negative groups according to the history of PAS before rectal cancer surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the clinicopathological factors associated with POI. RESULTS: The PAS-positive group had a longer operation time (111 min vs. 93.4 min, p=0.029) and a greater length of hospital stay (10 days vs. 7.8 days, p=0.003) compared with the PAS-negative group. POI was more frequent in the PAS-positive group (23.1% vs. 6.2%, p=0.011). The POI rate in the entire cohort was 8.1%. The repair method (stapled side-to-side vs. hand-sewn end-to-end, odds ratio OR=3.6, 95% confidence interval CI=1.2-11.1, p=0.022) and PAS (odds ratio=4.0, 95% confidence interval=1.2-12.8, p=0.017) were significant predictors of POI in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that PAS before rectal cancer surgery is associated with POI after ileostomy repair.

Multicentre outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy after major open abdominal surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy RAPN after major prior abdominal surgery (PAS) using a large multicentre database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 1 686 RAPN from five academic centres between 2006 and 2014. In all, 216 patients had previously undergone major PAS, defined as having an open upper midline/ipsilateral incision. Perioperative outcomes were compared with those 1 470 patients who had had no major PAS. The chi-squared test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in Charlson comorbidity index, tumour size, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score or preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the groups. Age and body mass index were higher in patients with PAS. The PAS group had a higher estimated blood loss (EBL) but this did not lead to a higher transfusion rate. A retroperitoneal approach was used more often in patients with major PAS (11.2 vs 5.4%), although this group did not have a higher percentage of posterior tumours (38.8 vs 43.3%, P = 0.286). Operative time, warm ischaemia time, length of stay, positive surgical margin, percentage change in eGFR, and perioperative complications were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: RAPN in patients with major PAS is safe and feasible, with increased EBL but no increased rate of transfusion. Patients with major PAS had almost twice the likelihood of having a retroperitoneal approach.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in an initial Japanese series: the impact of prior abdominal surgery on surgical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of prior abdominal surgery on surgical outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in an early single center experience in Japan. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy from October 2010 to September 2013 at Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago, Tottori, Japan. Patients with prior abdominal surgery were compared with those with no prior surgery with respect to total operative time, port-insertion time, console time, positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rate. Furthermore, the number of patients requiring minimal adhesion lysis was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Of 150 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, 94 (63%) had no prior abdominal surgery, whereas 56 patients (37%) did. The mean total operative time was 329 and 333 min (P = 0.340), mean port insertion time was 40 and 34.5 min (P = 0.003), mean console time was 255 and 238 min (P = 0.145), a positive surgical margin was observed in 17.9% and 17.0% patients (P = 0.896), and the incidence of perioperative complications was 25% and 23.4% (P = 0.825), respectively, in those with and without prior abdominal surgery. In the prior abdominal surgery group, 48 patients (80.4%) required adhesion lysis at the time of trocar placement or while operating the robotic console. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy appears to be a safe approach for patients with prior abdominal surgery without increasing total operative time, robotic console time, positive surgical margin or the incidence of perioperative complications.

Effect of Previous Abdominal or Pelvic Surgery on Colonoscopy / 대한소화기내시경학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A number of studies have reported wide variability in the colonoscope insertion time among patients who had prior abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of abdominal surgery on colonoscope insertion time. METHODS: The subjects were 192 patients with prior abdominal surgery, among 3,600 patients who underwent a colonoscopy at Samsung Changwon Hospital from May 2008 to May 2010. We collected the following data: insertion time, age, gender, height, weight, BMI, waist circumference, method of abdominal surgery, and the degree of bowel cleanliness. Previous abdominal operations were divided into colectomy, non-colectomy abdominal surgery, pelvic surgery, and laparoscopic surgery groups. RESULTS: The average colonoscope insertion time in patients with prior abdominal surgery (7.73+/-5.95 min) was longer than that of the non-surgery group (6.4+/-3.88 min). Patients in the colectomy groups were older and had a shorter insertion time (5.11+/-3.32 min) than patients in the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of a colonoscope in patients with previous abdominal surgery was more difficult than that in the control group, except the colectomy group.

Comparison study on results of LAVH according to prior abdominal surgery / 대한산부인과학회지

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the result of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) according to history of prior abdominal surgery. METHODS: From January, 2003 to June, 2005, a total of 504 patients were performed LAVH at our Hospital. The patients were divided into 2 groups: Group of non prior abdominal surgery (Op. Hx(-) group) included 262 cases and group of prior abdominal surgery (Op. Hx(+) group) had 242 cases. We reviewed medical records and analyzed these cases regarding age, parity, weight, height, operation indication, operation outcome, duration of hospitalization and complication. RESULTS: There were no differences in terms of patients' mean age, parity, weight and height, and indications for surgery between the two groups. Mean operation time of Op. Hx(+) group (86.9+/-28.2 min) was longer than Op. Hx(-) group (80.7+/-20.0 min). There was no statistical difference on mean postoperative hemoglobin drop and mean uterine weight between the 2 groups. Mean hospital stay of Op. Hx(+) group (4.6+/-1.7 days) was longer than Op. Hx(-) group (4.3+/-0.9 days). The incidence of major surgical complications was higher in Op. Hx(+) group (10 cases - 4.1%) than Op. Hx(-) group (3 cases - 1.2%). In case of blader injury, Op. Hx(+) group (5 cases) was higher than Op. Hx(-) group (0 case). Op. Hx(+) group had 2 ureteral injuries and 1 rectal injury but there were no statistical differences. In case of trocar site bleeding, both group had 2 cases trocar site bleeding respectively. Op. Hx(-) group had 1 inferior vena cava injury but there was no statistical difference. CONCLUSION: At the time of LAVH, the incidence of bladder injury was higher in group of patients with history of prior abdominal surgery. So special attention should be paid to prevent bladder injury.

Comparison study on results of LAVH according to prior abdominal surgery / 대한산부인과학회지

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the result of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) according to history of prior abdominal surgery. METHODS: From January, 2003 to June, 2005, a total of 504 patients were performed LAVH at our Hospital. The patients were divided into 2 groups: Group of non prior abdominal surgery (Op. Hx(-) group) included 262 cases and group of prior abdominal surgery (Op. Hx(+) group) had 242 cases. We reviewed medical records and analyzed these cases regarding age, parity, weight, height, operation indication, operation outcome, duration of hospitalization and complication. RESULTS: There were no differences in terms of patients' mean age, parity, weight and height, and indications for surgery between the two groups. Mean operation time of Op. Hx(+) group (86.9+/-28.2 min) was longer than Op. Hx(-) group (80.7+/-20.0 min). There was no statistical difference on mean postoperative hemoglobin drop and mean uterine weight between the 2 groups. Mean hospital stay of Op. Hx(+) group (4.6+/-1.7 days) was longer than Op. Hx(-) group (4.3+/-0.9 days). The incidence of major surgical complications was higher in Op. Hx(+) group (10 cases - 4.1%) than Op. Hx(-) group (3 cases - 1.2%). In case of blader injury, Op. Hx(+) group (5 cases) was higher than Op. Hx(-) group (0 case). Op. Hx(+) group had 2 ureteral injuries and 1 rectal injury but there were no statistical differences. In case of trocar site bleeding, both group had 2 cases trocar site bleeding respectively. Op. Hx(-) group had 1 inferior vena cava injury but there was no statistical difference. CONCLUSION: At the time of LAVH, the incidence of bladder injury was higher in group of patients with history of prior abdominal surgery. So special attention should be paid to prevent bladder injury.