A systematic review of the role of re-laparoscopy in the management of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Systemic causes are important risk factors for failure after unscheduled colorectal revision surgery

BACKGROUND

The rates of unscheduled revision surgery (URS) after colorectal surgery and failure to rescue-surgical (FTR-s) are 2.4% and 11-17% respectively. The aim of this study was to evaluate the causes of URS lethality to reduce this rate after colorectal surgery.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2021, 337 surgeons collected 547 URS. Type of procedure, time course, diagnostic and detection means, time to decision, time to complication(s), causes of URS, delay of URS, and death were recorded and allowed for multivariate systemic analysis of risk factors for death (FTR-s) after URS. Systemic causes of delay were analyzed as assessment of urgency, communication, skills, organization of the operative program, and transport.

RESULTS

The two main causes of URS were infectious (66% of which 50% by fistula or anastomotic release) and vascular (18%). The rate of FTRs was 10%. The systemic causes rate of FTR-s were 35%. The FTRs were related to the patient (ASA score 3-4: RR: 6 [1-40]; age: RR: 1.05 [1-1.1]), to the surgical procedure (laparotomy: RR: 4.5 [1.6-12]) and to the systemic causes responsible for the delay in the realization of URS (RR: 4.1 [1.4-12]).

CONCLUSION

By avoiding systemic causes, more than one third of the deaths from FTR-s after colorectal surgery could be avoided.

Relaparoscopy in the management of post-operative complications after minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Laparoscopy has already been validated for treatment of early gastric cancer. Despite that, no data have been published about the possibility of a minimally invasive approach to surgical complications after primary laparoscopic surgery. In this multicentre study, we describe our experience in the management of complications following laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A chart review has been performed over data from 781 patients who underwent elective gastrectomy for gastric cancer between January 1996 and July 2020 in two high referral department of gastric surgery. A fully descriptive analysis was performed, considering all the demographic characteristics of patients, the type of primary procedure and the type of complication which required reoperation. Moreover, a logistic regression was designed to investigate if either the patients or the primary surgery characteristics could affect conversion rate during relaparoscopy. Fifty-one patients underwent reintervention after elective laparoscopic gastric surgery. Among patients who received a laparoscopic reintervention, 11 patients (34.3%) required a conversion to open surgery. Recovery outcomes were significantly better in patients who completed the reoperation through laparoscopy. Relaparoscopy is safe and effective for management of complications following laparoscopic gastric surgery and represent a useful tool both for re-exploration and treatment, in expert and skilled hands.

Second Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: Safety and Feasibility

BACKGROUND

As laparoscopic colorectal surgery continues increasing worldwide, the need of having a second laparoscopic colorectal resection (SLCR) might increase as well. Experience with this challenging procedure is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SLCR.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing colorectal surgery who needed an SLCR during the period 2008-2020 was performed. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. A propensity score matching with a control population undergoing a first elective colorectal resection was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1918 patients underwent colorectal surgery and 32 patients (1.7%) who required a SLCR were included for analysis; 17 (53.1%) were male, and the mean age was 71 (39 to 89) years. The median time between the first and second operations was 69 (6 to 230) months. At the second resection: The median operative time was 170 (90 to 380) minutes, there were 3 (9%) intraoperative complications and 2 (6%) conversions. Overall postoperative morbidity and major morbidity rates were 34% and 19%, respectively. Four patients (12.5%) required reoperation and 1 (3.1%) died of septic shock after an anastomotic leak. After propensity score matching, SLCR was more frequently performed by colorectal surgeons, and no differences in perioperative variables were observed compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

SLCR can be safely performed without jeopardizing perioperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm the benefits of the minimally invasive approach in colorectal second resection and to elucidate the long-term outcomes.

Development of a warning score for early detection of colorectal anastomotic leakage: Hype or hope?

BACKGROUND

Colorectal anastomotic leakage (CAL), a severe postoperative complication, is associated with high morbidity, hospital readmission, and overall healthcare costs. Early detection of CAL remains a challenge in clinical practice. However, some decision models have been developed to increase the diagnostic accuracy of this event.

AIM

To develop a score based on easily accessible variables to detect CAL early.

METHODS

Based on the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method, a predictive classification system was developed [Early ColoRectAL Leakage (E-CRALL) score] from a prospective observational, single center cohort, carried out in a colorectal division from a non-academic hospital. The score performance and CAL threshold from postoperative day (POD) 3 to POD5 were estimated. Based on a precise analytical decision model, the standard clinical practice was compared with the E-CRALL adoption on POD3, POD4, or POD5. A cost-minimization analysis was conducted, on the assumption that all alternatives delivered similar health-related effects.

RESULTS

In this study, 396 patients who underwent colorectal resection surgery with anastomosis, and 6.3% (n = 25) developed CAL. Most of the patients who developed CAL (n = 23; 92%) were diagnosed during the first hospital admission, with a median time of diagnosis of 9.0 ± 6.8 d. From POD3 to POD5, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the E-CRALL score was 0.82, 0.84, and 0.95, respectively. On POD5, if a threshold of 8.29 was chosen, 87.4% of anastomotic failures were identified with E-CRALL adoption. Additionally, score usage could anticipate CAL diagnosis in an average of 5.2 d and 4.1 d, if used on POD3 and POD5, respectively. Regardless of score adoption, episode comprehensive costs were markedly greater (up to four times) in patients who developed CAL in comparison with patients who did not develop CAL. Nonetheless, the use of the E-CRALL warning score was associated with cost savings of €421442.20, with most (92.9%) of the savings from patients who did not develop CAL.

CONCLUSION

The E-CRALL score is an accessible tool to predict CAL at an early timepoint. Additionally, E-CRALL can reduce overall healthcare costs, mainly in the reduction of hospital costs, independent of whether a patient developed CAL.

Laparoscopic Reintervention for Intraperitoneal Leaks After Colonic Surgery: Do We Need a Routine Stoma?

INTRODUCTION

No universal consensus exists on the management of intraperitoneal anastomosis leakage after colonic surgery. The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic reintervention without stoma creation for intraperitoneal leaks after colonic surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Single tertiary center study conducted from January 2010 to December 2020. 54 patients with intraperitoneal leakage were divided into 2 groups according to whether they received a stoma (n = 37) or not (n = 17) during laparoscopic reintervention. Short term outcome was analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients in the no stoma group had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = .009), lower Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score (5 vs. 10; P < .001) compared with the stoma group. Intensive care unit admission (43.2% vs. 5.8%; P = .006) and major complications (35.1% vs. 5.8%; P = .015) occurred more in the stoma group compared to the no stoma group. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, initial surgical procedure (P = .001) and APACHE II score (P = .039) were significant predictors of no stoma. The APACHE II score(P = .035) was an independent predictor of major complications. Finally, Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis showed that the cutoff value of APACHE II score for no stoma was 7.5.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, APACHE II score was an independent predictor of stoma formation and the cutoff value of APACHE II score for no stoma was 7.5. Our results need to be confirmed by larger and randomized studies. In particular, a specific APACHE II threshold to omit a stoma in this setting remains to be determined.

Transanal endoluminal repair for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection

BACKGROUND

There is still no consensus on the management of colorectal anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection. The goal was to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent transanal endoluminal repair + laparoscopic drainage ± stoma vs. drainage only ± stoma.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients sustaining anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection between January 2013 and September 2020 who required laparoscopic reoperation.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were included, 22 patients underwent combined laparoscopy and transanal endoluminal repair and 27 patients had drainage with a stoma (n = 16) or drainage alone (n = 11), without direct anastomotic repair. The overall morbidity rate was 30.6% and the mortality rate was 2%. Combined laparoscopic lavage/drainage and transanal endoluminal repair of anastomotic leakage was associated with a lower complication rate (13.6% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.03) and fewer intraabdominal infections (4.5% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.03) compared with no repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined laparoscopic lavage/drainage and transanal endoluminal repair is effective in the management of colorectal anastomosis leakage and was associated with lower morbidity-in particular intraabdominal infection-compared with no repair. However, our results need to be confirmed in larger, and ideally randomized, studies.

"Early" Reoperation to Treat Complications Following Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: The Sooner the Better

BACKGROUND

Some postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) require reoperation to be treated. However, if the timing to perform this reoperation has some influence on outcome remains elusive. The aim of this study was to analyze if the timing to perform the reoperation has some influence in postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and required a reoperation during the period 2000 to 2019 were included. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: early reoperation (ER): ≤48 hours or delayed reoperation (DR): ≥48 hours based on the interval between the suspicion of a complication and reoperation. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 1843 LCS were performed, 68 (43%) were included in ER and 91 (57%) in DR. A computed tomography scan was less frequently performed in the ER (ER: 45% vs. DR: 70%; P=0.001). The rates of re-laparoscopy (ER: 86% vs. 73%; P=0.04) and negative findings in the reoperation (ER: 13% vs. DR: 1%, P=0.001) were higher in ER. There were no statistically significant differences in overall major morbidity (ER: 9% vs. DR: 21%; P=0.06) and mortality rate (ER: 4% vs. DR: 8.7%; P=0.28) between groups. The need of intensive care unit was significantly higher and the length of stay longer for patients in the DR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a greater risk of negative findings, ER within 48 hours after the suspicion of a complication after a LCS offers higher chances of using a laparoscopic approach and it could probably provide better postoperative outcomes.

"Relaparoscopy" to treat early complications following colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has shown clear benefits that could also be useful in the emergency setting such as early reoperations after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic reintervention ("relaparoscopy") (RL) to manage postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database from 2000 to 2019. Patients who required a reoperation after undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. According to the approach used at the reoperation, the cohort was divided in laparoscopy (RL) and laparotomy (LPM). Demographics, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients underwent a reoperation after a laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 124 (78%) had RL and 35 (22%) LPM. Demographics were similar in both groups. Patients who underwent left colectomy were more frequently reoperated by laparoscopy (RL: 42.7% vs. LPM: 22.8%, p: 0.03). The most common finding at the reoperation was anastomotic leakage, which was treated more often by RL (RL: 67.7% vs. LPM: 25.7%, p: 0.0001), and the most common strategy was drainage and loop ileostomy (RL: 65.8% vs. LPM: 17.6%, p: 0.00001). Conversion was necessary in 12 patients (9.6%). Overall morbidity rate was 52.2%. Patients in the RL group had less postoperative severe complications (RL: 12.1% vs. LPM: 22.8, p: 0.01). Mortality rate was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Relaparoscopy is feasible and safe for treating early postoperative complications, particularly anastomotic leakage after left colectomy.

Intraoperative and postoperative complications in colorectal procedures: the role of continuous updating in medicine

Accepting surgical complications, especially those related to the learning curve, as unavoidable events in colorectal procedures, is like accepting to fly onboard an aircraft with a 10 to 20% chance of not arriving at final destination. Under this condition, it is very likely that the aviation industry and the concurrent reshaping of the world and of our lives would have not been possible in the absence of high reliability and reproducibility of safe flights. It's hard to imagine surgery without any intraoperative and/or postoperative complications. Nevertheless, there is a plenty of room for improvement by simply adopting what has been explicitly and scientifically demonstrated; training outside of the OR, usage of modern information technologies and application of evidence-based perioperative care protocols. Additionally, the possibility to objectively measure and monitor the technical and even non-technical skills and competencies of individual surgeons and even of OR teams through the application of structured and validated assessment tools can finally put an end to the self-referential, purely hierarchical, and indeed extremely unreliable process of being authorized or not to perform operations on patients. Last but not least, a wide range of new technologies spanning from augmented imaging modalities, virtual reality for intraoperative guidance, improved robotic manipulators, artificial intelligence to assist in preoperative patient specific risk assessment, and intraoperative decision-making has the potential to tackle several hidden roots of surgical complications.

Re-Operative Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review

Introduction: Re-operative laparoscopic colorectal surgery is becoming increasingly common. It can be a challenging procedure, but its benefits can outweigh the associated risks. Methods: A systematic review of the literature reporting re-operative laparoscopic surgery was carried out. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies and case series were included, with case reports being excluded. Results: Seventeen articles dated from 2007 to 2020 were included in the systematic review. In total, 1555 patients were identified. Five hundred and seventy-four of them had a laparoscopic procedure and 981 an open re-operation. One hundred and eighty-three women had a laparoscopic operation. The median age ranged from to 44.9 years to 68.7 years. In seven studies, the indication of the index operation was malignancy, one study regarded re-laparoscopy for excision of lateral pelvic lymph nodes, and one study looked at redo surgery of ileal J pouch anal anastomosis. There were 16 mortalities in the laparoscopic arm (2.78%) and 93 (9.4%) in the open surgery arm. One hundred and thirty-seven morbidities were recorded in the open arm and 102 in the laparoscopic arm. Thirty-nine conversions to open occurred. The median length of stay ranged from 5.8 days to 19 days in laparoscopy and 9.7 to 34 days in the open surgery arm. Conclusions: Re-operative laparoscopic colorectal surgery is safe when performed by experienced hands. The management of complications, recurrence of malignancy, and lateral pelvic floor dissection can be safely performed. The complication rate is low, with conversion to open procedures being relatively uncommon.

How to reduce failure to rescue after visceral surgery?

Mortality after visceral surgery has decreased owing to progress in surgical techniques, anesthesiology and intensive care. Mortality occurs in 5-10% of patients after major surgery and remains a topic of interest. However, the ratio of mortality after postoperative complications in relation to overall complications varies between hospitals because of failure to rescue at the time of the complication. There are multiple factors that lead to complication-related mortality: they are patient-related, disease-related, but are related, above all, to the timeliness of diagnosis of the complication, the organisational aspects of management in private or public hospitals, hospital volume that corresponds to the centralisation of initial management or to the concept of referral centre in case of complications, to the team spirit, to communication between the health care providers and to the management of the complication itself. Several organisational advances are to be considered, such as the development of shorter hospitalisations and notably ambulatory surgery, as well as enhanced recovery programs. Remote monitoring and the contribution of artificial intelligence must also be evaluated in this context. The reduction of mortality after visceral surgery rests on several tactics: prevention of potentially lethal complications, the all-important reduction of failure to rescue, and risk management before, during and after hospitalisations that are increasingly shorter.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Re-operations Within 30 Days After Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Surgery: a Retrospective Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Re-operations within 30 days after lower gastrointestinal tract surgery are associated to high morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic approach has been reported as feasible and safe in selected patients, but comparative data to laparotomy are scarce. The aim of this study was to review our experience in laparoscopic re-operations and compare it to laparotomy.

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2016, patients undergoing a re-operation within one month after lower gastrointestinal tract surgery were included and divided into laparoscopy and laparotomy groups. The primary endpoint was successful re-operation, defined as recovery without any of the following: conversion to laparotomy, need of further invasive treatments or death. Secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay and 30-day morbidity and mortality. Demographic, clinical and surgical characteristics were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 114 patients who underwent a re-operation, 71 met the inclusion criteria. Thirty (42%) patients underwent laparoscopy and 41 (58%) laparotomy. Thirty (42%) patients were male and median age was 72.0 years-old. The initial operation was elective in 24 (34%) patients, and 50% of the initial operations were colorectal resections in both groups. Multivariate analyses showed that type of approach did not affect the re-operation success rate. Laparotomy was an independent predictor of prolonged hospital stay (OR 3.582, 95%CI 1.191-10.776, p = 0.023) and mortality (OR 13.123, 95%CI 1.301-131.579, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Re-operations within 30 days after lower gastrointestinal tract surgery may be safe in selected patients, as effective as laparotomy, and associated with shorter hospital stay and lower mortality rates.

Redo-laparoscopy in the management of complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach for colorectal surgery has gradually become widely accepted for the treatment of both benign and malignant diseases thanks to its several advantages over the open approach. However, it is associated with the same potential postoperative complications. Some recent studies have analyzed the potential role of laparoscopy in early diagnosis and management of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the outcomes of redo-laparoscopy (RL) for the management of early postoperative complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery, focusing on length of stay, morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines through MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Google Scholar from January 1990 to December 2019. The main outcomes examined were conversion rate, length of hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. A meta-analysis of all eligible studies was then conducted and forest plots were generated.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies involving 1394 patients who required reoperation after laparoscopic colorectal resection were included. In 539 (38.2%) of these patients, a laparoscopic approach was adopted. The most common indication for returning to the operating theater was anastomotic leakage (64.4% of all redo-surgeries, 67.7% of RL) and the most common type of intervention performed in RL was diverting stoma with or without anastomotic repair/redo (47.1%). Nine studies were included in the pooled analysis. The mean length of stay was significantly shorter in the RL group than in the redo-open one (WMD = - 0.90; 95% CI - 1.04 to - 0.76; Z =  - 12,6; p < 0.001). A significantly lower risk of mortality was observed in the RL cohort (OR =  - 0.91; 95% CI - 1.58 to - 0.23; Z = - 2.62; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is a valid and effective approach for the treatment of complications following laparoscopic primary colorectal surgery thanks to it is well-established advantages over the open approach, which remain noticeable even in redo-surgeries.

Re-laparoscopy for the treatment of complications after laparoscopic appendectomy: is it possible to maintain the minimally invasive approach?

Despite laparoscopy is considered an adequate tool for the diagnosis and management of postoperative surgical complications, its role after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopy is useful for treating complications after laparoscopic appendectomy. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing LA, who needed a reoperation for postoperative complications during the period 2006-2020, was performed. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. A total of 2019 LA were performed, and 41 patients (2%) underwent a RL for post appendectomy complications. Twenty-three patients (56%) were male. The mean age was 32 years old (16-92 years). The majority of patients (75%) had a complicated acute appendicitis in the first operation. The most common findings at RL were generalized peritonitis (36.4%) and intraabdominal abscesses (26.8%). Five patients (12.1%) developed stump appendicitis, all of them as a late complication. The procedures were completed laparoscopically in 85% and 6 patients (15%) required conversion to an open approach. Three patients (7.3%) required a percutaneous drainage and two patients (4.9%) needed an additional surgery (laparotomy) after RL, all of them presenting with generalized peritonitis at the RL. No mortality was registered. Re-laparoscopy is feasible, safe, and highly effective for the diagnosis and treatment of post appendectomy complications. RL should be encouraged to avoid more aggressive procedures.

Re-laparoscopy in the treatment of anastomotic leak following laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak still represents the most feared surgical complication following colorectal resection and is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic reoperation for symptomatic anastomotic leak (AL) after laparoscopic right colectomy with mechanical intracorporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2019, 428 consecutive laparoscopic right colectomy with IA were performed. Overall symptomatic AL rate requiring reoperation was 5.8% (26/428). Data on patient demographics as well as operative findings, time elapsed from primary surgery and from the onset of symptoms of anastomotic leak, time and duration of re-laparoscopy, ICU stay, morbidity, mortality rate, length of hospital stay and readmission, were all retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic approach was attempted in 23 (88.4%) hemodynamically stable patients. Conversion rate was 21.4%. Reasons for conversion were gross fecal peritonitis (n = 2), colonic ischemia (n = 1), severe bowel distension (n = 2). Eighteen (78.2%) patients underwent successfully laparoscopic (LPS) reoperation. A repair of the anastomotic defect was done in 11 (61.1%) patients, while in 7 patients the intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis was refashioned. A diverting ileostomy was done in 22.2% of cases (n = 4). A second reoperation for leak persistence was necessary in two cases (11.1%). Median (range) length of postoperative hospital stay from re-laparoscopy was 15.5 (9-53) days. Overall morbidity rate was 38.7%. Mortality rate was 5.5% (n = 1) CONCLUSION: laparoscopic re-intervention for the treatment of anastomotic leak following LPS right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis in hemodynamically stable and highly selected patients in the experienced hands of dedicated laparoscopic surgeons, is a safe option with acceptable morbidity and mortality rate.

Late rectal anastomotic leakage treated with diode laser FiLaC probe. A case report of a new minimal invasive treatment

•

Anastomotic leak is a common and potentially dangerous postoperative complication in colo-rectal surgery.

•

Low anastomotic leak conservative treatment requires five months or more for a complete resolution and a complex management.

•

The FiLaC laser diode technology could be a good option to reduce the healing time and to minimize patient’s discomfort.

Introduction

Anastomotic Leakage (AL) is one of the most important early postoperative complication of the adenocarcinoma’s surgical treatment. Fistula Laser Closure (FiLaC®) is a minimal invasive technique that use diode laser energy to obtain the fistula track obliteration and it is finding large application for other affection characterized by fistula tracts presence.

Presentation of case

A 56 years old male, with no clinical history of adenocarcinoma in his family, underwent a laparoscopic low anterior resection with ileostomy for a rectal adenocarcinoma. Approximately 3 months after the procedure an anastomotic leak with an associated abscess was found. The patient underwent an endoscopic FiLaC off-label procedure on the AL and after further 4 months, he obtained a complete resolution of the anastomosis dehiscence.

Discussion

The literature is poor about the minimal invasive AL treatment and there is no paper about the management of the AL with the FiLaC® procedure. For asymptomatic patients a conservative solution is preferred, it could be considered a drain positioning for emptying abscesses and for irrigation or the use of an Endosponge to decrease the resolution time. The FiLaC® procedure could be a more feasible technique that could also reduce the healing time as well with no discomfort for the patient.

Conclusion

Considering the results and our patient healing time, we think that an off-label application of FiLaC® procedure on asymptomatic low anastomotic leak could be an opportunity for a morbidity resolution shorter than the simple wait and see strategy, and more sustainable for the patient.

[Minimally invasive interventions in emergency large bowel surgery]

The current trends in the treatment of various surgical diseases of large bowel using minimally invasive operations are reviewed in the manuscript. It is shown that laparoscopy is currently possible in most cases for urgent large bowel diseases.

Short- and long-term outcomes after colorectal anastomotic leakage is affected by surgical approach at reoperation

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is the most serious surgical complication following colorectal resection, and surgical intervention is often required. The purpose of the study was to investigate short- and long-term outcomes after reoperation for anastomotic leakage.

METHOD

Patients with a symptomatic anastomotic leakage following a laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection from January 2009 to December 2014 were identified from our local prospective database. Patients were grouped according to the management of anastomotic leaks: local, lap, or open approach. Primary outcomes were length of stay, chance of bowel continuity, and overall mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 40 months (0-82 months). Overall mortality was significantly associated with UICC stage III-VI disease (vs. UICC stage I-II disease) [adj. HR 5.35 (CI 2.32-12.4), p = 0.0001] and minimal invasive reoperation compared with open approach [local: adj. HR 0.12 (CI 0.03-0.52), p = 0.004; lap: adj. HR 0.32 (CI 0.12-0.86), p = 0.024]. Chance of bowel continuity was significantly increased in younger patients below 67 years [adj. OR 6.15 (1.76-21.5), p = 0.004] and following a local procedure [adj. OR 7.45 (1.07-51.8), p = 0.043]. Patients in the open group had significantly longer length of stay and time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with those in the lap group.

CONCLUSION

Our data confirms that minimal invasive reoperation for anastomotic leakage is a safe and feasible approach associated with short- and long-term advantages and can be chosen in selected cases.

Reoperation after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Does the laparoscopic approach have any advantages?

INTRODUCTION

The laparoscopic approach in colorectal complications is controversial because of its difficulty. However, it has been proven that it can provide advantages over open surgery. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic approach in reoperations for complications after colorectal surgery with the open approach taking into account the severity of the patient prior to reoperation.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery from January 2006 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients requiring urgent surgical procedures for complications in the postoperative period were divided in two groups: laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). To control clinical severity prior to reoperation, The Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI) was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 763 patients were studied, 40 required urgent surgery (24 OS/16 LS). More ileostomies were performed in the LS group (68.7% vs. 29.2%) and more colostomies in the OS group (37.5% vs. 6.2%), p<0.05. MPI was higher in OS group (27.31±6.47 [19-35] vs. 18.36±7.16 [11-24], p<0.001). Hospital stay after re-intervention, oral tolerance and surgical wound infection, were favorable in LS (p<0.05 in all cases). In patients with MPI score ≤26, laparoscopic approach showed shorter hospital stay after re-intervention, less stay in the critical care unit after re-intervention, earlier start of oral tolerance and less surgical wound infection (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A laparoscopic approach in re-intervention for complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery associates a faster recovery reflected in a shorter hospital stay, earlier start of oral tolerance and a lower abdominal wall complication rate in patients with low severity index.

Management of Low Colorectal Anastomotic Leakage in the Laparoscopic Era: More Than a Decade of Experience

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery increases postoperative mortality, cancer recurrence, permanent stoma formation, and poor bowel function. Anastomosis between the colon and rectum is a particularly high risk. Traditional management mandates laparotomy, disassembly of the anastomosis, and formation of an often-permanent stoma. After laparoscopic colorectal surgery it may be possible to manage anastomotic failure with laparoscopy, thus avoiding laparotomy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of the laparoscopic management of failed low colorectal anastomoses.

SETTING

This was a single-institute case series.

PATIENTS

A total of 555 laparoscopic patients undergoing anterior resection with primary anastomosis within 10 cm of the anus in the period 2000-2012 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Anastomotic failure, defined as any clinical or radiological demonstrable defect in the anastomosis; complications using the Clavien-Dindo system; mortality within 30 days; and patient demographics and risk factors, as defined by the Charlson index, were measured.

RESULTS

Leakage occurred in 44 (7.9%) of 555 patients, 16 patients with a diverting ileostomy and 28 with no diverting ileostomy. Leakage was more common in those with anastomoses <5 cm form the anus, male patients, and those with a colonic J-pouch and rectal cancer. Diverting ileostomy was not protective of anastomotic leakage. In those patients with anastomotic leakage and a primary diverting ileostomy, recourse to the peritoneal cavity was required in 4 of 16 patients versus 24 of 28 without a diverting ileostomy (p = 0.0002). In 74% of those cases, access to the peritoneal cavity was achieved through laparoscopy. Permanent stoma rates were very low, including 14 (2.5%) of 555 total patients or 8 (18.0%) of 44 patients with anastomotic leakage. Thirty-day mortality was rare (0.6%).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the lack of a cohort of open cases for comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic anterior resection is associated with low levels of complications, including anastomotic leak, postoperative mortality, and permanent stoma formation. Anastomotic leakage can be managed with laparoscopy in the majority of cases. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A353.

Management of Peritonitis After Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: Can We Stick to Laparoscopy?

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopy is becoming the standard of care for the treatment of colorectal disease, its application in case of postoperative peritonitis is still not widespread. The objective of this article is to evaluate the role of laparoscopy in the management of postoperative peritonitis after elective minimally invasive colorectal resection for malignant and benign diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April 2010 and May 2016, 536 patients received primary minimally invasive colorectal surgery at our Department. Among this series, we carried out a retrospective study of those patients who, having developed signs of peritonitis, were treated with a laparoscopic reintervention. Patient demographics, type of complication and of the main relaparoscopic treatment, and main outcomes of reoperation were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (3.7%) underwent relaparoscopy for the management of postoperative peritonitis, of which exact causes were detected by laparoscopy in 75% as follows: anastomotic leakage (n = 8, 40%), colonic ischemia (n = 2, 10%), iatrogenic bowel tear (n = 4, 20%), and other (n = 1, 5%). The median time between operations was 3.5 days (range, 2-8). The laparoscopic reintervention was tailored case by case and ranged from lavage and drainage to redo anastomosis with ostomy fashioning. Conversion rate was 10% and overall morbidity was 50%. No cases required additional surgery and 30-day mortality was nil. Three patients (15%) were admitted to intensive care unit for 24-hour surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Our experience suggests that in experienced hands and in hemodynamically stable patients, a prompt laparoscopic reoperation appears as an accurate diagnostic tool and an effective and safe option for the treatment of postoperative peritonitis after primary colorectal minimally invasive surgery.