Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago

BACKGROUND

Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA.

METHODS

This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections.

CONCLUSIONS

After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception.

Risk factors for complications in acute calculous cholecystitis. Deconstruction of the Tokyo Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To challenge the risk factors described in Tokyo Guidelines in Acute Calculous Cholecystitis.

METHODS

Retrospective single center cohort study with 963 patients with Acute Cholecystitis during a period of 5 years. Some 725 patients with a "pure" Acute Calculous Cholecystitis were selected. The analysis included 166 variables encompassing all risk factors described in Tokyo Guidelines. The Propensity Score Matching method selected two subgroups of patients with equal comorbidities, to compare the severe complications rate according to the initial treatment (Surgical vs Non-Surgical). We analyzed the Failure-to-rescue as a quality indicator in the treatment of Acute Calculous Cholecystitis.

RESULTS

the median age was 69 years (IQR 53-80). 85.1% of the patients were ASA II or III. The grade of the Acute Calculous Cholecystitis was mild in a 21%, moderate in 39% and severe in 40% of the patients. Cholecystectomy was performed in 95% of the patients. The overall complications rate was 43% and the mortality was 3.6%. The Logistic Regression model isolated 3 risk factor for severe complication: ASA > II, cancer without metastases and moderate to severe renal disease. The Failure-to-Rescue (8%) was higher in patients with non-surgical treatment (32% vs. 7%; P = 0.002). After Propensity Score Matching, the number of severe complications was similar between Surgical and Non-Surgical treatment groups (48.5% vs 62.5%; P = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

the recommended treatment for Acute Calculous Cholecystitis is the Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Only three risk factors from the Tokyo Guidelines list appeared as independent predictors of severe complications. The failure-to-rescue is higher in non-surgically treated patients.

Scientific evidence of the duration of antibiotic treatment in intra-abdominal infections with surgical focus control

A non-systematic review of the published scientific evidence has been carried out on the duration of empirical antibiotic treatment in surgical intra-abdominal infections (IIA) with effective focus control. Given the progressive increase in antibiotic resistance, it is urgent to have strategies to reduce the pressure on the microbiota. The American guidelines made by Mazuski et al. of 2017¹, as the central axis in the recommendations of the duration of empirical antibiotic treatment in intra-abdominal infections with control of the focus and a bibliographic search of all the articles that contained the keywords in Pubmed and Google Scholar is added. 21 articles referring to the duration of empirical antibiotic treatment in intra-abdominal infection with control of the focus are collected. With the American guidelines and these articles, a proposal is prepared for the duration of empirical antibiotic treatment in patients without risk factors between 24 and 72 h. And in those who present risk factors, it should be individualized with active monitoring every 24 h of fever, paralytic ileus and leukocytosis (FIL), before an early detection of complications or the need for changes in antibiotic treatment. Short treatments are just as effective as those of longer durations and are associated with fewer adverse effects, therefore, daily adjusting and reassessing the duration of empirical antibiotic treatment is essential for better practice.

Long-term follow-up of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after emergency laparotomy. A retrospective controlled study

BACKGROUND

Prevention of incisional hernias with a prophylactic mesh in emergency surgery is controversial. The present study aimed to analyze the long-term results of prophylactic mesh used for preventing incisional hernia after emergency midline laparotomies.

METHODS

This study was a registered (NCT04578561) retrospective analysis of patients who underwent an emergency midline laparotomy between January 2009 and July 2010 with a follow-up period of longer than 2 years. Long-term outcomes and risk factors for the development of incisional hernias between patients who received a prophylactic reinforcement mesh (Group M) and suture (Group S) were compared.

RESULTS

From an initial 266 emergency midline laparotomies, 187 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 64.4 months (SD 35). Both groups had similar characteristics, except for a higher rate of previous operations (62 vs. 43.2%; P = 0.01) and operation due to a revision laparotomy (32.5 vs.13%; P = 0.02) in the M group. During follow-up, 29.9% of patients developed an incisional hernia (Group S 36.6% vs. Group M 14.3%; P = 0.002). Chronic mesh infections were diagnosed in 2 patients, but no mesh explants were needed, and no patient in the M group developed chronic pain. Long-term risk factors for incisional hernia were as follows: smoking (HR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.318-4.624; P = 0.05), contaminated surgery (HR = 2.98; 95% CI 1.142-7.8; P = 0.02), surgical site infection (SSI; HR = 3.83; 95% CI 1.86-7.86; P = 0.001), and no use of prophylactic mesh (HR = 5.09; 95% CI 2.1-12.2; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Incidence of incisional hernias after emergency midline laparotomies is high and increases with time. High-risk patients, contaminated surgery, and surgical site infection (SSI) benefit from mesh reinforcement. Prophylactic mesh use is safe and feasible in emergencies with a low long-term complication rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04578561. www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Mortality risk estimation in acute calculous cholecystitis: beyond the Tokyo Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is the second most frequent surgical condition in emergency departments. The recommended treatment is the early laparoscopic cholecystectomy; however, the Tokyo Guidelines (TG) advocate for different initial treatments in some subgroups of patients without a strong evidence that all patients will benefit from them. There is no clear consensus in the literature about who is the unfit patient for surgical treatment. The primary aim of the study is to identify the risk factors for mortality in ACC and compare them with Tokyo Guidelines (TG) classification.

METHODS

Retrospective unicentric cohort study of patients emergently admitted with and ACC during 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2016. The study comprised 963 patients. Primary outcome was the mortality after the diagnosis. A propensity score method was used to avoid confounding factors comparing surgical treatment and non-surgical treatment.

RESULTS

The overall mortality was 3.6%. Mortality was associated with older age (68 + IQR 27 vs. 83 + IQR 5.5; P = 0.001) and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (3.5 + 5.3 vs. 0+2; P = 0.001). A logistic regression model isolated four mortality risk factors (ACME): chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.66 95% CI 1.7-12.8 P = 0.001), dementia (OR 4.12; 95% CI 1.34-12.7, P = 0.001), age > 80 years (OR 1.12: 95% CI 1.02-1.21, P = 0.001) and the need of preoperative vasoactive amines (OR 9.9: 95% CI 3.5-28.3, P = 0.001) which predicted the mortality in a 92% of the patients. The receiver operating characteristic curve yielded an area of 88% significantly higher that 68% (P = 0.003) from the TG classification. When comparing subgroups selected using propensity score matching with the same morbidity and severity of ACC, mortality was higher in the non-surgical treatment group. (26.2% vs. 10.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality was higher in ACC patients treated with non-surgical treatment. ACME identifies high-risk patients. The validation to ACME with a prospective multicenter study population could allow us to create a new alternative guideline to TG for treating ACC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered and recorded in Clinical Trials. NCT04744441.

Caecal volvulus and jejunostomy: challenging diagnostic

Caecal volvulus represent the 20–40% of colonic volvulus, being the second most frequent localization. It causes intestinal occlusion symptomatology (nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension). We present a case of 45-year-old women with feeding jejunostomy tube due to connatal anoxia. She arrives at A&E after 12 h of vomits and abdominal pain. The CT scan shows a small intestine dilation that suggested a small intestine volvulus. A laparotomy is performed showing a caecal volvulus, so ileo-cequectomy with primary anastomosis is performed. After several complications, she was discharged after 60 days of hospital stay. Caecal volvulus can be challenging to diagnose by clinic, because it can be hardly differenced from other intestinal occlusion causes. CT scan can be useful to reach the diagnostic and see signs of tissue suffering. In contrast with sigma volvulus, endoscopic treatment has not shown any benefit to solve it.

Incidence of Incisional Hernia After Emergency Subcostal Unilateral Laparotomy: Does Augmentation Prophylaxis Play a Role?

BACKGROUND

Few data are available about the frequency of incisional hernia in an emergency subcostal laparotomy. Our objective is to analyze the incidence of incisional hernia after emergency subcostal laparotomy and evaluate if prophylactic mesh could help prevent it.

METHODS

This study is a monocentric retrospective analysis following STROBE guideline statements of all patients who underwent an emergency subcostal laparotomy between January 2011 and July 2017 in our University Hospital. We compared complications and incidence of incisional hernia between patients who received sutures (Group S; N = 203) and patients with prophylactic onlay mesh (Group M; N = 80). A multivariate risk factor analysis of incisional hernia was performed. An incisional hernia-estimated risk calculator equation was created.

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients were analyzed. There were 80 patients in Group M and 203 in Group S. In short-term outcomes, length of surgery (213 ± 115 min vs 165 ± 73.3 min, P = 0.001) and hospital stay (16.4 ± 18.7 vs 11.6 days ± 13.4, P = 0.038) were longer in Group M. Long-term follow-up was conducted in 207 patients with a mean follow-up time of 39.3 ± 23 months. Incisional hernia was detected in 29 (19.1%) patients in Group S but in only two (3.8%) patients in Group M (P = 0.008). In the multivariate analysis, a risk factor analysis included wound infection (4.91 HR (2.12-11.4); P < 0.001), previous hernia repair (2.86 HR (1.24-6.61); P = 0.014), and shock (2.64 HR (1.01-6.93); P = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of incisional hernia after emergency subcostal laparotomy is high. Risk factors are wound infection, shock, and previous hernia surgery. The use of prophylactic mesh augmentation was safe and reduced the incidence of incisional hernia.