Systematic review of intraoperative colonic irrigation vs. manual decompression in obstructed left-sided colorectal emergencies

Danish guidelines for treating acute colonic obstruction caused by colorectal cancer-a review

Acute onset of colonic obstruction caused by colorectal cancer occurs in approximately 14% of Danish patients with colon cancer(1). Given that colorectal cancer is a common cancer with about 4,500 new cases annually, acute onset will occur in a reasonably large number of patients in Danish emergency departments, and all surgeons should be familiar with the treatment principles. A revised guideline from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group is currently underway, and this status article reviews the latest knowledge and recommendations.

Surgical tactics in peritonitis, caused by complicated course of colorectal cancer

Objective. To improve surgical tactics in peritonitis, caused by complicated course of colorectal cancer. Materials and methods. Through the 2017 - 2020 yrs period in Department of Surgery in Brovary Multidisciplinary Clinical Hospital 18 patients with colorectal cancer, complicated by peritonitis, were operated. Among them there were 14 (77.8%) men and 4 (22.2%) women, ageing in spectrum 42 – 83 yrs old. In 12 (66.7%) patients the cancer of Stage III was diagnosed, while in 6 (33.3%) – Stage ІV. Results. The right-sided hemicolectomy was performed in 22.2% of the patients, resection of transverse colon – in 3 (16.7%), a left-sided hemicolectomy – 1 (5.6%), Hartmann operation – 9 (50.0%), subtotal colectomy – 1 (5.6%). All the operations were performed without formation of primary anastomoses, and with stoma construction in proximal part of intestine. Reoperation were performed in 4 (22.2%) patients. There were 3 (16.7%) postoperative deaths – in patients with the cancer Stage IV, peritonitis in a terminal stage – due to development of the polyorgan insufficiency syndrome. Conclusion. Formation of primary interintestinal anastomoses while doing surgical intervention for colorectal cancer, complicated by peritonitis, is contraindicated because of high risk of the sutures insufficiency presence.

Presepsin (soluble CD14 subtype) as a risk factor for the development of infectious and inflammatory complications in operated colorectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

In this pilot study the dynamic of presepsin (soluble CD14 subtype, sCD14-ST) in blood serum was assessed as a possible risk factor for the development of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and infectious and inflammatory complications in operated colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

To determine sCD14-ST by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method venous blood was taken 1 hour before surgery and 72 hours after it (3rd day). The presence of SIRS and organ dysfunctions (ODs) according to the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scale were assessed.

RESULTS

Thiry-six patients with colorectal cancer were enrolled in the study. sCD14-ST level before surgery was 269.8±103.1 pg/mL (interquartile range [IQR], 196.7-327.1 pg/mL). Despite the presepsin level on the 3rd day being higher (291.1±136.5 pg/mL; IQR, 181.2-395.5 pg/mL), there was no statistical significance in its dynamics (P=0.437). sCD14-ST value both before surgery and on the 3rd day after it was significantly higher in patients with bowel obstruction (P=0.038 and P=0.007). sCD14-ST level before surgery above 330 pg/mL showed an increase in the probability of complications, SIRS, and OD (odds ratio [OR], 5.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-28.2; OR, 7.0; 95% CI, 1.3-36.7; and OR, 13.0; 95% CI, 1.1-147.8; respectively). Patients with OD had higher levels on the 3rd day after surgery (P=0.049).

CONCLUSION

sCD14-ST level in operated colorectal cancer patients was much higher if they were admitted with complication like bowel obstruction. Higher preoperative levels of sCD14-ST increase the probability of postoperative complications, SIRS, and OD. Therefore, further studies with large sample size are needed.

Early surgery after bridge-to-surgery stenting for malignant bowel obstruction is associated with better oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Placement of self-expanding metal stents has been increasingly adopted as a bridge to surgery in patients presenting with obstructed left-sided colorectal cancers. The optimal bridging time has yet to be widely established, hence this retrospective study aims to determine the optimal bridging time to elective surgery post endoluminal stenting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent colorectal stenting for large bowel obstruction in a single, tertiary hospital in Singapore between January 2003 and December 2017 were retrospectively identified. Patients' baseline demographics, tumour characteristics, stent-related complications, intra-operative details, post-operative complications and oncological outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

Of the 53 patients who successfully underwent colonic stenting for malignant left sided obstruction, 33.96% of patients underwent surgery within two weeks of stent placement while 66.04% of patients underwent surgery after 2 weeks of stent placement. Univariate analysis between both groups did not demonstrate significant differences in postoperative complications and stoma formation. Significant differences were observed between both groups for stent complications (38.89% vs 8.57%, p = 0.022), on-table decompression (38.89% vs 2.86%, p = 0.001) and systemic recurrence (11.11% vs 40.00%, p = 0.030). Increased bridging interval to surgery (OR 13.16, CI 1.37-126.96, p = 0.026) was a significant risk factor for systemic recurrence on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing definitive surgery within 2 weeks of colonic stenting may have better oncological outcomes without compromising on postoperative outcomes. Further prospective studies are required to compare outcomes between emergency surgery and different bridging intervals.

Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein as a risk factor for development of infectious and inflammatory postsurgical complications in colorectal cancer paients

Aim of the study

In this pilot study lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) levels were assessed as a possible risk factor for development of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and infectious and inflammatory complications in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after surgery.

Material and methods

For LBP determination venous blood was taken 1 hour before the surgery and 72 hours after it. All patients were stratified by the presence or absence of acute bowel obstruction (ABO), SIRS and complications.

Results

36 patients with CRC participated in the study. The LBP level before surgery was 879.8 ± 221.8 ng/ml (interquartile range (IQR) 749.3-1028.8); on the 3^rd day it was 766.5 ± 159.4 ng/ml (IQR 669.5-847.6), which was a statistically significant decrease (p = 0.004). A decrease in LBP level by more than 280 ng/ml increases the probability of SIRS and complications in operated CRC patients (OR 6.6, 95% CI: 1.1-40.9 and OR 12.0, 95% CI: 1.8-80.4, respectively). In patients with ABO in the presence of SIRS, the LBP value decreased more than in those without SIRS (p = 0.046).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the LBP level in the operated CRC patients tends to decrease on the 3^rd day after surgery. A bigger decrease in LBP level increases the probability of SIRS and postoperative infectious and inflammatory complications. Therefore, further studies with larger numbers of patients are required.

Malignant Large Bowel Obstruction

Large bowel obstruction is a serious and potentially life-threatening surgical emergency which is associated with high morbidity and mortality rate. The most common etiology is colorectal cancer which accounts for over 60% of all large bowel obstructions. Proper assessment, thoughtful decision-making and prompt treatment is necessary to decrease the high morbidity and mortality which is associated with this entity. Knowledge of the key elements regarding the presentation of a patient with a large bowel obstruction will help the surgeon in formulating an appropriate treatment plan for the patient. Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the various treatment options available is necessary when caring for these patients. This chapter will review the presentation of patients with malignant large bowel obstruction, discuss the various diagnostic modalities available, as well as discuss treatment options and the various clinical scenarios in which they are most appropriately utilized.

Is colonic lavage a suitable alternative for left-sided colonic emergencies?

BACKGROUND

The use of intra-operative colonic lavage (IOCL) with primary anastomosis remains controversial in the emergency left-sided large bowel pathologies, with alternatives including Hartmann’s procedure, manual decompression and subtotal colectomy.

AIM

To compare the peri-operative outcomes of IOCL to other procedures.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for articles employing IOCL from inception till July 13, 2020. Odds ratio and weighted mean differences (WMD) were estimated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes respectively. Single-arm meta-analysis was conducted using DerSimonian and Laird random effects.

RESULTS

Of 28 studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 1142 undergoing IOCL, and 634 other interventions. IOCL leads to comparable rates of wound infection when compared to Hartmann’s procedure, and anastomotic leak and wound infection when compared to manual decompression. There was a decreased length of hospital stay (WMD = -7.750; 95%CI: -13.504 to -1.996; P = 0.008) compared to manual decompression and an increased operating time. Single-arm meta-analysis found that overall mortality rates with IOCL was 4% (CI: 0.03-0.05). Rates of anastomotic leak and wound infection were 3% (CI: 0.02-0.04) and 12% (CI: 0.09-0.16) respectively.

CONCLUSION

IOCL leads to similar rates of post-operative complications compared to other procedures. More extensive studies are needed to assess the outcomes of IOCL for emergency left-sided colonic surgeries.

2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation

ᅟ

Obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC).

METHODS

The literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017.

RESULTS

CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann's procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted.With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value.Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required.Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation.

CONCLUSIONS

The current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Colon Cancer

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than to dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery

BACKGROUND

The evidence for treatment decision-making in emergency general surgery has not been summarized previously. The aim of this overview was to review the quantity and quality of systematic review evidence for the most common emergency surgical conditions.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of the most common conditions requiring unplanned admission and treatment managed by general surgeons were eligible for inclusion. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched to April 2014. The number and type (randomized or non-randomized) of included studies and patients were extracted and summarized. The total number of unique studies was recorded for each condition. The nature of the interventions (surgical, non-surgical invasive or non-invasive) was documented. The quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist.

RESULTS

The 106 included reviews focused mainly on bowel conditions (42), appendicitis (40) and gallstone disease (17). Fifty-one (48·1 per cent) included RCTs alone, 79 (74·5 per cent) included at least one RCT and 25 (23·6 per cent) summarized non-randomized evidence alone. Reviews included 727 unique studies, of which 30·3 per cent were RCTs. Sixty-five reviews compared different types of surgical intervention and 27 summarized trials of surgical versus non-surgical interventions. Fifty-seven reviews (53·8 per cent) were rated as low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

This overview of reviews highlights the need for more and better research in this field.

Reviewing the Management of Obstructive Left Colon Cancer: Assessing the Feasibility of the One-stage Resection and Anastomosis After Intraoperative Colonic Irrigation

BACKGROUND

The management of obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) remains debatable with the single-stage procedure of primary colonic anastomosis after cancer resection and on-table intracolonic lavage now being supported.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with acute OLCC who were admitted between January 2008 and January 2015 were distributed into 5 different groups. Group ICI underwent emergency laparotomy for primary anastomosis following colonic resection and intraoperative colonic lavage; Group HP underwent emergency Hartmann's Procedure; Group CON consisted of patients treated by conservative management with subsequent elective open cancer resection; Group COL were colostomy patients; and Group INT consisted of patients who had interventional radiology followed by open elective colon cancer resection. The demographics of the patients and comorbidity, intraoperative data, and postoperative data were collected, with P < .05 as significant.

RESULTS

There were 4 deaths in 138 cases (2.90%). There was only 1 patient who had anastomotic leakage (5.56%) in Group ICI, compared with none in Group HP and Group COL, 1 case in Group INT (7.69%), and 2 cases in Group CON (6.06%) (P > .05). Group INT and Group CON, when compared to the three surgical groups, Groups ICI, Group COL, and Group HP, individually, were statistically significant for the duration of surgery (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary anastomosis following colonic resection after irrigation can be safely performed in selected patients, with the necessary surgical expertise, with no increased risk in mortality, anastomotic leakage, and other postoperative complications.

[Long-term results of obstructing colonic cancer]

AIM

to compare long-term results after 2 types of stage management of obstructing colonic cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Main group included 105 patients after staged treatment with decompressive colostomy followed by radical surgery at the second stage. Control group consisted of 115 patients after obstructive colonic resection with colostomy as radical intervention at the first stage; the second stage included reconstructive intervention colostomy removal.

RESULTS

Local recurrences were observed in 5.1% and 13.7% in the main and control groups respectively. Distant metastases occurred in 7.1% and 13.7% in both groups respectively. 5-year overall survival was 69.4% and 50.9% in the main and control groups respectively. Recurrence-free sirvival was 65.3% and 48.1% in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Decompressive colostomy and delayed radical surgery with intestinal integrity restoration improve long-term outcomes compared with emergency radical interventions.

Intraoperative colonoscopy in patients with colorectal cancer: Review of recent developments

The use of intraoperative colonoscopy has increased alongside progress in the development of colonoscopy-associated devices and techniques, including the colonoscope itself. In the present review, we focus on four circumstances in which intraoperative colonoscopy is beneficial to colorectal surgery: (i) intraoperative determination of a tumor's location; (ii) observation of the proximal colon in cases of obstructive colorectal cancer; (iii) confirmation of the integrity of anastomosis; and (iv) novel surgical techniques that combine laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery. In light of the findings of our review, a combination of colonoscopy and surgery-especially laparoscopic surgery-is expected to facilitate the optimal handling of a variety of colorectal tumors, ranging from benign cases to advanced and obstructive cases.

One-Stage Colectomy with Intraoperative Colonic Irrigation for Acute Left-Sided Malignant Colonic Obstruction

BACKGROUND

One-stage colectomy with intraoperative colonic irrigation (OCICI) may be useful in early resolution of acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction (ALMCO). However, the clinical benefit of this technique has not been fully investigated.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and July 2014, 451 patients underwent left hemicolectomy or sigmoidectomy for colon cancer, of whom 25 underwent OCICI for ALMCO. The medical records of the patients who underwent OCICI for ALMCO were compared to 174 medical records of a control population (without ALMCO) who were matched for tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in regard to age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status, location of tumor, preoperative CEA levels, and previous abdominal surgeries. The OCICI for ALMCO group was associated with a longer operation time (153 ± 33 vs. 111 ± 47 min, p < 0.001). However, no significant differences were found in patient morbidity, the duration of the postoperative hospital stay, or the tumor pathology between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that OCICI for ALMCO did not increase the risk of postoperative morbidity in patients with left-sided colon cancer.

CONCLUSION

OCICI for ALMCO did not increase the rate of morbidity or prolong the hospital stay duration compared to treatment of a control population.

Comparative study of postoperative complications in patients with and without an obstruction who had left-sided colorectal cancer and underwent a single-stage operation after mechanical bowel preparation

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare postoperative complications for single-stage surgery after mechanical bowel preparation in patients who experienced obstruction and those who did not.

Methods

From 2000 to 2011, 1,224 patients underwent a single-stage operation for left colorectal cancer after bowel preparation. Nonobstruction (NOB) and obstruction (OB) colorectal cancer patients were 1,053 (86.0%) and 171 (14.0%), respectively. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were compared between groups.

Results

The OB group had poor preoperative conditions (age, white blood cell, hemoglobin, albumin level, and advanced tumor stage) compared with the NOB group (P < 0.05). Mean on-table lavage time for the OB group was 17.5 minutes (range, 14-60 minutes). Mean operation time for the OB group was statistically longer than that of the NOB group (OB: 210 minutes; range, 120-480 minutes vs. NOB: 180 minutes; range, 60-420 minutes; P < 0.001). Overall morbidity was similar between groups (NOB: 19.7% vs. OB: 23.4%, P = 0.259). Major morbidity was more common in the OB group than in the NOB group, but the difference was without significance (OB: 11.7% vs. NOB: 7.6%, P = 0.070). Postoperative death occurred in 16 patients (1.3%), and death in the OB group (n = 7) was significantly higher than it was in the NOB group (n = 9) (4.1% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.001). Twelve patients had surgical complications, which were the leading cause of postoperative death: postoperative bleeding in five patients and leakage in seven patients.

Conclusion

Postoperative morbidity for a single-stage operation for obstructive left colorectal cancer is comparable to that for NOB, regardless of poor conditions of the patient.

Outcome of emergency one-stage resection and anastomosis procedure for patients with obstructed colorectal cancer

PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to verify the outcome of the emergency one stage resection and anastomosis procedure for patients with obstructed colorectal cancer.

METHODS

An emergency one stage resection and anastomosis procedure was performed for 40 patients with obstructive colorectal cancer. The outcome was verified and compared dividing into two groups. 17 patients under the age of 70 in (Group A), 23 patients 70 years and over in (Group B).

RESULTS

The operative mortality rate in both groups was 0%. As a result, postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups. The overall survival rate after a 5-year period in both groups was 41.8%, regarding all patients and the survival curves for the two groups, was not significantly different. The 5 year survival rate in stage II or III showed no differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The one-stage resection and anastomosis of the large bowel could be applied safely to emergency patients, which in turn allows for excellent short-term operative results in both groups mentioned. This particular procedure should be positively enforced, even in elderly patients in their 70's.

Acute inflammatory surgical disease

Infectious and inflammatory diseases comprise some of the most common gastrointestinal disorders resulting in hospitalization in the United States. Accordingly, they occupy a significant proportion of the workload of the acute care surgeon. This article discusses the diagnosis, management, and treatment of appendicitis, acute cholecystitis/cholangitis, acute pancreatitis, diverticulitis, and Clostridium difficile colitis.

Position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis

Over the last three decades, emergency surgery for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis has evolved dramatically but remains controversial. Diverticulitis is categorized as uncomplicated (amenable to outpatient treatment) versus complicated (requiring hospitalization). Patients with complicated diverticulitis undergo computerized tomography (CT) scanning and the CT findings are used categorize the severity of disease. Treatment of stage I (phlegmon with or without small abscess) and stage II (phlegmon with large abscess) diverticulitis (which includes bowel rest, intravenous antibiotics and percutaneous drainage (PCD) of the larger abscesses) has not changed much over last two decades. On the other hand, treatment of stage III (purulent peritonitis) and stage IV (feculent peritonitis) diverticulitis has evolved dramatically and remains morbid. In the 1980s a two stage procedure (1st - segmental sigmoid resection with end colostomy and 2nd - colostomy closure after three to six months) was standard of care for most general surgeons. However, it was recognized that half of these patients never had their colostomy reversed and that colostomy closure was a morbid procedure. As a result starting in the 1990s colorectal surgical specialists increasing performed a one stage primary resection anastomosis (PRA) and demonstrated similar outcomes to the two stage procedure. In the mid 2000s, the colorectal surgeons promoted this as standard of care. But unfortunately despite advances in perioperative care and their excellent surgical skills, PRA for stage III/IV diverticulitis continued to have a high mortality (10-15%). The survivors require prolonged hospital stays and often do not fully recover. Recent case series indicate that a substantial portion of the patients who previously were subjected to emergency sigmoid colectomy can be successfully treated with less invasive nonoperative management with salvage PCD and/or laparoscopic lavage and drainage. These patients experience a surprisingly lower mortality and more rapid recovery. They are also spared the need for a colostomy and do not appear to benefit from a delayed elective sigmoid colectomy. While we await the final results ongoing prospective randomized clinical trials testing these less invasive alternatives, we have proposed (based primarily on case series and our expert opinions) what we believe safe and rationale management strategy.

Surgical management of obstructed and perforated colorectal cancer: still debating and unresolved issues

SUMMARY Emergency surgery for obstruction and perforation from colorectal cancer (CRC) predicts poorer outcomes compared with elective surgery. For obstructed cancers, the evidence suggests significantly poorer outcomes with multistaged procedures compared with single-stage procedures in this group. Stenting remains an attractive option as a ‘bridge-to-surgery’, with multiple single-center studies demonstrating excellent short-term outcomes. However, contradictory evidence from three randomized trials casts doubts on stenting as the preferred modality for initial management of all curative obstructed CRCs. Results from a UK multicenter randomized controlled trial are still awaited. Palliative stenting shows predominantly positive results and is a valuable option for nonresectable or incurable CRCs. All authors agree on emergency surgery as the primary modality of treatment for perforated malignancies. Short-term outcomes are markedly poorer than the elective surgery group and correlate with the degree of peritoneal contamination. Long-term outcomes are comparable to elective surgery when perioperative deaths are excluded.

Current management of acute malignant large bowel obstruction: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The management of colonic obstruction has changed in recent years. In distal obstruction, optimal treatment remains controversial, particularly after the appearance and use of colonic endoluminal stents. The purpose of this study was to review the current treatment of acute malignant large bowel obstruction according to the level of evidence of the available literature.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar for articles published through January 2013 to identify studies of large bowel obstruction and colorectal cancer. Included studies were randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

After a literature search of 1,768 titles and abstracts, 218 were selected for full-text assessment; 59 studies were ultimately included. Twenty-five studies of the diagnosis and treatment of obstruction and 34 studies of the use of stents were assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the various alternatives and the lack of high-grade evidence, the treatment of distal colonic obstruction should be individually tailored to each patient.

Guidelines of diagnostics and treatment of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis (ACD) is increasing in the Western world. To improve the quality of patient care, a guideline for diagnosis and treatment of diverticulitis is needed.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary working group, representing experts of relevant specialties, was involved in the guideline development. A systematic literature search was conducted to collect scientific evidence on epidemiology, classification, diagnostics and treatment of diverticulitis. Literature was assessed using the classification system according to an evidence-based guideline development method, and levels of evidence of the conclusions were assigned to each topic. Final recommendations were given, taking into account the level of evidence of the conclusions and other relevant considerations such as patient preferences, costs and availability of facilities.

RESULTS

The natural history of diverticulitis is usually mild and treatment is mostly conservative. Although younger patients have a higher risk of recurrent disease, a higher risk of complications compared to older patients was not found. In general, the clinical diagnosis of ACD is not accurate enough and therefore imaging is indicated. The triad of pain in the lower left abdomen on physical examination, the absence of vomiting and a C-reactive protein >50 mg/l has a high predictive value to diagnose ACD. If this triad is present and there are no signs of complicated disease, patients may be withheld from further imaging. If imaging is indicated, conditional computed tomography, only after a negative or inconclusive ultrasound, gives the best results. There is no indication for routine endoscopic examination after an episode of diverticulitis. There is no evidence for the routine administration of antibiotics in patients with clinically mild uncomplicated diverticulitis. Treatment of pericolic or pelvic abscesses can initially be treated with antibiotic therapy or combined with percutaneous drainage. If this treatment fails, surgical drainage is required. Patients with a perforated ACD resulting in peritonitis should undergo an emergency operation. There is an ongoing debate about the optimal surgical strategy.

CONCLUSION

Scientific evidence is scarce for some aspects of ACD treatment (e.g. natural history of ACD, ACD in special patient groups, prevention of ACD, treatment of uncomplicated ACD and medical treatment of recurrent ACD), leading to treatment being guided by the surgeon's personal preference. Other aspects of the management of patients with ACD have been more thoroughly researched (e.g. imaging techniques, treatment of complicated ACD and elective surgery of ACD). This guideline of the diagnostics and treatment of ACD can be used as a reference for clinicians who treat patients with ACD.

Resection and primary anastomosis without diverting ileostomy for left colon emergencies: is it a safe procedure?

INTRODUCTION

Large-bowel obstruction and perforation are still frequently occurring entities for the acute care surgeon. In these cases, Hartmann's procedure is the most commonly used surgical technique. However, recent papers demonstrate that colon resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) in the emergency setting is a safe and feasible procedure. We present our series of left colon resection and primary anastomosis procedures from Torrevieja Hospital (Alicante, Spain), performed without bowel irrigation or a diverting ileostomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two RPA procedures were performed in emergency settings for perforation or obstruction, or both, during an 18-month period. The following data were prospectively collected: age, gender, nationality, diagnoses, ASA score, body mass index (BMI), POSSUM score (Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and morbidity), and the score according to the Hinchey classification. Furthermore, duration of the operation, length of postoperative hospital stay, and mortality and morbidity data were recorded.

RESULTS

Sixteen of these patients were diagnosed with acute diverticulitis, 14 patients with neoplasm (of which 9 cases had obstruction, 2 cases had perforation, and 3 cases had both), and foreign body perforation in the remaining 2 cases. The mean hospital stay was 7.8 (range, 4-10) days. The physiological POSSUM score was 24.4 (range, 15-39), and the surgical POSSUM score was 19.8 (range, 16-24). None of the patients died (0% mortality). Seven patients developed some kind of complication (21.9%), all of which were managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that RPA for left colon obstruction and perforation in emergency settings can be safely performed in certain surgical conditions.

Current management of diverticular disease complications

Diverticular disease is a common problem in the western population and sometimes leads to serious complications such as hemorrhage, bowel stenosis, obstruction, abscesses, fistulae, bowel perforation, and peritonitis. The severity of these complications can differ, and it is not always clear which procedure is indicated in each case and what measures should be followed before bringing the patient into the operating room. Certain operations have high rates of morbidity and mortality, especially in compromised patients. Along with advancements in imaging and minimally invasive techniques, the indications for surgery have currently being adapted to "damage limitation" or "down-staging" protocols, which seem to offer improved results. There are still some questions to be solved in the following years by prospective studies, such as the usefulness of laparoscopic lavage in purulent peritonitis or of Hartmann's procedure in fecal peritonitis. These indications, based on current literature, are systematically discussed in the present review.

Guidelenines in the management of obstructing cancer of the left colon: consensus conference of the world society of emergency surgery (WSES) and peritoneum and surgery (PnS) society

BACKGROUND

Obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) is a challenging matter in terms of obstruction release as well of oncological issues. Several options are available and no guidelines are established. The paper aims to generate evidenced based recommendations on management of OLCC.

METHODS

The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were queried for publications focusing on OLCC published prior to April 2010. A extensive retrieval, analyses, and grading of the literature was undertaken. The findings of the research were presented and largely discussed among panellist and audience at the Consensus Conference of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and Peritoneum and Surgery (PnS) Society held in Bologna July 2010. Comparisons of techniques are presented and final committee recommendation are enounced.

RESULTS

Hartmann's procedure should be preferred to loop colostomy (Grade 2B). Hartmann's procedure offers no survival benefit compared to segmental colonic resection with primary anastomosis (Grade 2C+); Hartmann's procedure should be considered in patients with high surgical risk (Grade 2C). Total colectomy and segmental colectomy with intraoperative colonic irrigation are associated with same mortality/morbidity, however total colectomy is associated with higher rates impaired bowel function (Grade 1A). Segmental resection and primary anastomosis either with manual decompression or intraoperative colonic irrigation are associated with same mortality/morbidity rate (Grade 1A). In palliation stent placement is associated with similar mortality/morbidity rates and shorter hospital stay (Grade 2B). Stents as a bridge to surgery seems associated with lower mortality rate, shorter hospital stay, and a lower colostomy formation rate (Grade 1B).

CONCLUSIONS

Loop colostomy and staged procedure should be adopted in case of dramatic scenario, when neoadjuvant therapy could be expected. Hartmann's procedure should be performed in case of high risk of anastomotic dehiscence. Subtotal and total colectomy should be attempted when cecal perforation or in case of synchronous colonic neoplasm. Primary resection and anastomosis with manual decompression seems the procedure of choice. Colonic stents represent the best option when skills are available. The literature power is relatively poor and the existing RCT are often not sufficiently robust in design thus, among 6 possible treatment modalities, only 2 reached the Grade A.

Guidelenines in the management of obstructing cancer of the left colon: consensus conference of the world society of emergency surgery (WSES) and peritoneum and surgery (PnS) society

BACKGROUND

Obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) is a challenging matter in terms of obstruction release as well of oncological issues. Several options are available and no guidelines are established. The paper aims to generate evidenced based recommendations on management of OLCC.

METHODS

The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were queried for publications focusing on OLCC published prior to April 2010. A extensive retrieval, analyses, and grading of the literature was undertaken. The findings of the research were presented and largely discussed among panellist and audience at the Consensus Conference of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and Peritoneum and Surgery (PnS) Society held in Bologna July 2010. Comparisons of techniques are presented and final committee recommendation are enounced.

RESULTS

Hartmann's procedure should be preferred to loop colostomy (Grade 2B). Hartmann's procedure offers no survival benefit compared to segmental colonic resection with primary anastomosis (Grade 2C+); Hartmann's procedure should be considered in patients with high surgical risk (Grade 2C). Total colectomy and segmental colectomy with intraoperative colonic irrigation are associated with same mortality/morbidity, however total colectomy is associated with higher rates impaired bowel function (Grade 1A). Segmental resection and primary anastomosis either with manual decompression or intraoperative colonic irrigation are associated with same mortality/morbidity rate (Grade 1A). In palliation stent placement is associated with similar mortality/morbidity rates and shorter hospital stay (Grade 2B). Stents as a bridge to surgery seems associated with lower mortality rate, shorter hospital stay, and a lower colostomy formation rate (Grade 1B).

CONCLUSIONS

Loop colostomy and staged procedure should be adopted in case of dramatic scenario, when neoadjuvant therapy could be expected. Hartmann's procedure should be performed in case of high risk of anastomotic dehiscence. Subtotal and total colectomy should be attempted when cecal perforation or in case of synchronous colonic neoplasm. Primary resection and anastomosis with manual decompression seems the procedure of choice. Colonic stents represent the best option when skills are available. The literature power is relatively poor and the existing RCT are often not sufficiently robust in design thus, among 6 possible treatment modalities, only 2 reached the Grade A.

A novel method for intra-operative colonic decompression without contamination

The need for intra-operative colonic decompression is commonplace within general surgical theatre. However, cases are usually complex, present late and the risk of perforation with subsequent contamination is high. We describe a novel technique for closed decompression using a laparoscopic trocar and standard pool sucker in a 78-year-old gentleman with an obstructing sigmoid tumour.