What is the effect of stoma construction on surgical site infection after colorectal surgery?

Multidisciplinary strategies for managing acute watery diarrhea in children with congenital anorectal malformation and colostomy: A case study

Congenital anorectal malformation (ARM) is a diverse group of anomalies affecting the development of the anal and rectal regions, with an estimated incidence of one in every 5000 live births. The colostomy is commonly performed as part of the staged management of children with ARM to prevent complications. However, the presence of acute watery diarrhea in children with ARM and colostomy poses significant management challenges due to the altered anatomy and physiology affecting stool regulation and absorption, exacerbated by various factors including infections, dietary issues, medication side effects, and underlying gastrointestinal complications.This case study explores the complexities involved in managing acute watery diarrhea in children with congenital ARM and colostomy. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to examine the existing evidence on the subject. The study highlights the multidisciplinary approach required, involving pediatricians, surgeons, and other specialists, to provide comprehensive care and support for these children. Effective management of acute watery diarrhea in children with congenital ARM and colostomy necessitates collaboration between pediatricians and surgeons. Pediatricians play a crucial role in assessing hydration status, monitoring electrolyte balance, and providing appropriate fluid and nutritional management. Surgeons address the surgical aspects of care and coordinate interventions with the management of acute diarrhea. The study underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to deliver comprehensive care, optimize outcomes, and improve the quality of life for affected children. The management of acute watery diarrhea in children with congenital ARM and colostomy presents significant challenges due to the complex interplay of anatomical, physiological, and clinical factors. A multidisciplinary approach involving pediatricians, surgeons, and other specialists is vital for providing comprehensive care and support. This case study emphasizes the need for further research, guidelines, and collaborative efforts to enhance the management strategies for this vulnerable population.

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers

BACKGROUND

The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique.

DESIGN

This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis.

SETTINGS

The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals.

PATIENTS

Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin.

RESULTS

A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group.

LIMITATIONS

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS.

ANTECEDENTES

No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica.

OBJETIVO

Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica.

DISEO

Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión.

AJUSTES

El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados.

PACIENTES

Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017.

INTERVENCIONES

Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO

El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo.

RESULTADOS

Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo.

LIMITACIONES

Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación.

CONCLUSIONES

La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Effect of Changing Surgical Instruments Before Wound Closure to Prevent Wound Infection in Lower GI Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection is a major surgical complication and has been studied extensively. However, the efficacy of changing surgical instruments before wound closure remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of changing surgical instruments to prevent incisional surgical site infection during lower GI surgery.

DESIGN

This was a randomized controlled trial.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at the Hyogo College of Medicine in Japan.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing elective lower GI surgery with open laparotomy were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. In group A, the surgeon changed surgical instruments before wound closure, and in group B, the patients underwent conventional closure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was the incidence of incisional surgical site infection. The secondary end point was the incidence of surgical site infection restricted to clean-contaminated surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 453 patients were eligible for this trial. The incidence of incisional surgical site infection was not significantly different between group A (18/213; 8.5%) and group B (24/224; 10.7%; p = 0.78). In the clean-contaminated surgery group, the incidence of incisional surgical site infection was 13 (6.8%) of 191 in group A and 9 (4.7%) of 190 in group B (p = 0.51).

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center study.

CONCLUSIONS

Changing surgical instruments did not decrease the rate of incisional surgical site infection in patients undergoing lower GI surgery in either all wound classes or clean-contaminated conditions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B701.

EFECTO DE REALIZAR CAMBIO DE LOS INSTRUMENTOS QUIRRGICOS ANTES DEL CIERRE DE LA INCISIN EN LA INFECCIN DE LA HERIDA DEL SITIO QUIRRGICO EN CIRUGA DEL TUBO DIGESTIVO BAJO ESTUDIO ALEATORIO CONTROLADO

ANTECEDENTES:La infección del sitio quirúrgico es una complicación importante y se ha estudiado ampliamente. Sin embargo, la eficacia de cambiar los instrumentos quirúrgicos antes del cierre de la herida sigue sin estar clara.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio es investigar la eficacia de cambiar el instrumental quirúrgico en la prevención de la infección del sitio quirúrgico en cirugía gastrointestinal inferior.DISEÑO:Estudio aleatorio controlado.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en la Facultad de Medicina de Hyogo en Japón.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a cirugía electiva de tubo digestivo bajo con laparotomía abierta.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente a uno de dos grupos. En el grupo A, el cirujano cambió el instrumental quirúrgico antes del cierre de la herida, y en el grupo B, los pacientes se sometieron a un cierre convencional.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El criterio de valoración principal fue la incidencia de infección del sitio quirúrgico de la incisión. El criterio de valoración secundario fue la incidencia de infección del sitio quirúrgico restringida a la cirugía limpia contaminada.RESULTADOS:Un total de 453 pacientes fueron elegibles para este ensayo. La incidencia de infección del sitio quirúrgico no fue significativamente diferente entre el grupo A (18/213; 8,5%) y el grupo B (24/224; 10,7%) (p = 0,78). En el grupo de cirugía limpia-contaminada, la incidencia de infección del sitio quirúrgico incisional fue 13/191 (6,8%) en el grupo A y 9/190 (4,7%) en el grupo B (p = 0,51).LIMITACIÓN:Estudio de un solo centro.CONCLUSIÓNES:El cambio de instrumentos quirúrgicos no disminuyó la tasa de infección del sitio quirúrgico en todas las clases de heridas o condiciones limpias-contaminadas. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B701.

The use of an implemented infection prevention bundle reduces the incidence of surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: a retrospective single center analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical-site infections (SSIs) represent the most common complications after colorectal surgery (CS). Role of preoperative administration of oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), alone or in combination, in the prevention of SSIs after CS is debated. Aim of this study was to assess the effect of the introduction of an Implemented Infection Prevention Bundle (IIPB) in preventing SSIs in CS.

METHODS

A group of 251 patients (Group 1) who underwent CS receiving only preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) was compared to a Group of 107 patients (Group 2) who also received the IIPB. The IIPB consisted of the combination of oral administrations of three doses of Rifaximin 400 mg and MBP the day before surgery and in the administration of a cleansing enema the day of the surgical procedure.

RESULTS

At the univariate analysis, Group 2 showed significant lower rates of wound infection (WI) (2.8% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.021) and anastomotic leakage (AL) (2.8% vs. 14.7%; p = 0.001) with shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; p < 0.0001). The probability of postoperative AL was lower in Group 2; patients in this Group resulted protected from AL; a statistically significant Odds ratio of 0.16 (CI 0.05-0.55 p = 0.0034) was found. In diabetic patients, that were at higher risk of WI (OR 3.53, CI 1.49-8.35 p = 0.002), despite having any impact on anastomotic dehiscence, the use of IIPB significantly reduced the rate of WI (0% vs 28.1%; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The use of an IIPB significantly reduces rates of SSIs and post-operative hospital stay after CS.

Risk factors for surgical site infection in patients undergoing colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the second most prevalent hospital-based infection and affects the surgical therapeutic outcomes. However, the factors of SSI are not uniform. The main purpose of this study was to understand the risk factors for the different types of SSI in patients undergoing colorectal surgery (CRS).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the relevant search terms. The data extraction was independently performed by two investigators using a standardized format, following the pre-agreed criteria. Meta-analysis for the risk factors of SSI in CRS patients was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan 5.3) and Stata 15.1 software. The quality of evidence was evaluated using total sample size, Egger's P-value, and intergroup heterogeneity, which contained three levels: high-quality (Class I), moderate-quality (Class II/III), and low-quality (Class IV). The publication bias of the included studies was assessed using funnel plots, Begg's test, and Egger's test.

RESULTS

Of the 2660 potentially eligible studies, a total of 31 studies (22 retrospective and 9 prospective cohort studies) were included in the final analysis. Eventually, the high-quality evidence confirmed that SSI was correlated with obesity (RR = 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.47-1.74), ASA score ≥3 (RR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.19-1.51), and emergent surgery (RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.19-1.55). The moderate-quality evidence showed the correlation of SSI with male sex (RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.14-1.49), diabetes mellitus (RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.24-2.20), inflammatory bowel disease (RR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.24-3.61), wound classification >2 (RR = 2.65, 95% CI: 1.52-4.61), surgery duration ≥180 min (RR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.49-2.36), cigarette smoking (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.14-1.67), open surgery (RR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.57-2.10), stoma formation (RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.28-2.78), and blood transfusion (RR = 2.03, 95% CI:1.34-3.06). Moderate-quality evidence suggested no association with respiratory comorbidity (RR = 2.62, 95% CI:0.84-8.13) and neoplasm (RR = 1.24, 95% CI:0.58-2.26). Meanwhile, the moderate-quality evidence showed that the obesity (RR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.24-1.32) and blood transfusion (RR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.26-4.29) were independent risk factors for organ/space SSI (OS-SSI). The high-quality evidence showed that no correlation of OS-SSI with ASA score ≥3 and stoma formation. Furthermore, the moderate-quality evidence showed that no association of OS-SSI with open surgery (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.62-3.04). The high-quality evidence demonstrated that I-SSI was correlated with stoma formation (RR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.87-3.47). There were some certain publication bias in 2 parameters based on asymmetric graphs, including diabetes mellitus and wound classification >2. The situation was corrected using the trim and fill method.

CONCLUSIONS

The understanding of these factors might make it possible to detect and treat the different types of SSI more effectively in the earlier phase and might even improve the patient's clinical prognosis. Evidence should be continuously followed up and updated, eliminating the potential publication bias. In the future, additional high-level evidence is required to verify these findings.

Effect of Perioperative High Oxygen Concentration on Postoperative SSI in Elective Colorectal Surgery-A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

This study was carried out to investigate the effect of perioperative high oxygen concentration on surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective, parallel arm, double-blind, superiority randomized controlled trial. All patients more than 18 years of age undergoing elective colorectal surgery were included as per the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomized at the time of induction of anesthesia into high concentration and standard concentration oxygen group based on the concentration of oxygen. Incidence of SSI, day of the detection of SSI, grade of SSI, incidence of anastomotic leak, postoperative day of return of bowel functions, day of starting oral feeds, day of ambulation, and length of hospitalization were studied in both the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 94 patients were included in the study, 47 patients each in high concentration oxygen group and standard concentration oxygen group respectively. The SSI rates were comparable between the two groups [55.3% (95% CI-4.012-69.83) vs. 40.4% (95% CI-26.37-55.73); p = 0.215]. There was no significant difference found with respect to mean day of detection of SSI [4.5(IQR-3.0-7.5) vs. 6.0 (IQR-3.0-9.0; p = 0.602], postoperative day of return of bowel functions (2.20 ± 0.542 vs. 2.13 ± 0.582; p = 0.540), oral feeds (3.62 ± 0.945 vs. 3.46 ± 1.048; p = 0.544), ambulation (4.17 ± 0.868 vs. 4.17 ± 1.270; p = 0.987), and the length of hospitalization [15(IQR-10-19) vs. 15(IQR-10.75-18.25); p = 0.862] between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the rate of SSI with the use of perioperative high oxygen concentration in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Predictive factors for early- and late-onset surgical site infections in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. A multicentre, prospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the leading cause of healthcare-associated infections in acute care hospitals in Europe. However, the risk factors for the development of early-onset (EO) and late-onset (LO) SSI have not been elucidated.

AIM

This study investigated the predictive factors for EO-SSI and LO-SSI in a large cohort of patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We prospectively followed-up adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery in 10 hospitals (2011-2014). Patients were divided into three groups: EO-SSI, LO-SSI, or no infection (no-SSI). The cut-off defining EO-SSI and LO-SSI was seven days (median time to SSI development). Different predictive factors for EO-SSI and LO-SSI were analysed, comparing each group with the no-SSI patients.

FINDINGS

Of 3701 patients, 320 (8.6%) and 349 (9.4%) developed EO-SSI and LO-SSI, respectively. The rest had no-SSI. Patients with EO-SSI were mostly males, had colon surgery and developed organ-space SSI whereas LO-SSI patients frequently received chemotherapy or radiotherapy and had incisional SSI. Male sex (odds ratio (OR): 1.92; P < 0.001), American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status >2 (OR: 1.51; P = 0.01), administration of mechanical bowel preparation (OR: 0.7; P = 0.03) and stoma creation (OR: 1.95; P < 0.001) predicted EO-SSI whereas rectal surgery (OR: 1.43; P = 0.03), prolonged surgery (OR: 1.4; P = 0.03) and previous chemotherapy (OR: 1.8; P = 0.03) predicted LO-SSI.

CONCLUSION

We found distinctive predictive factors for the development of SSI before and after seven days following elective colorectal surgery. These factors could help establish specific preventive measures in each group.

The preventive surgical site infection bundle in patients with colorectal perforation

Background

Incisional surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most frequent complications that occur after colorectal surgery. Surgery for colorectal perforation carries an especially high risk of incisional SSI because fecal ascites contaminates the incision intraoperatively, and in patients who underwent stoma creation, the incision is located near the infective origin and is subject to infection postoperatively. Although effectiveness of the preventive SSI bundle of elective colorectal surgery has been reported, no study has focused exclusively on emergency surgery for colorectal perforation.

Methods

Patients with colorectal perforation who underwent emergency surgery and stoma creation from 2010 to 2015 at our center were consecutively enrolled in the study. In March 2013, we developed the preventive incisional SSI bundle for patients with colorectal perforation undergoing stoma creation. The effectiveness of the bundle in these patients was determined and the rates of incisional SSI between before and after March 2013 were compared.

Results

We enrolled 108 patients with colorectal perforation who underwent emergency operation during the study period. Thirteen patients were excluded because they died within 30 days after surgery, and 23 patients without stoma were excluded; thus, 72 patients were analyzed. There were 47 patients in the pre-implementation group and 25 patients in the post-implementation group. The rate of incisional SSI was significantly lower after implementation of preventive incisional SSI bundle (43 % vs. 20 %, p = 0.049). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter after implementation of the bundle (27 vs. 18 days respectively; p = 0.008).

Conclusions

The preventive incisional SSI bundle was effective in preventing incisional SSI in patients with colorectal perforation undergoing emergency surgery with stoma creation.