Clinical management of high-output stoma: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

High output is a common complication after stoma formation. Although the management of high output is described in the literature, there is a lack of consensus on definitions and treatment. Our aim was to review and summarise the current best evidence.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from 1 Jan 2000 to 31 Dec 2021 for relevant articles on adult patients with a high-output stoma. Patients with enteroatmospheric fistulas and case series/reports were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 and MINORS. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021226621).

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 1095 articles, of which 32 studies with 768 patients met the inclusion criteria. These studies comprised 15 randomised controlled trials, 13 non-randomised prospective trials, and 4 retrospective cohort studies. Eighteen different interventions were assessed. In the meta-analysis, there was no difference in stoma output between controls and somatostatin analogues (g - 1.72, 95% CI - 4.09 to 0.65, p = 0.11, I2 = 88%, t2 = 3.09), loperamide (g - 0.34, 95% CI - 0.69 to 0.01, p = 0.05, I2 = 0%, t2 = 0) and omeprazole (g - 0.31, 95% CI  - 2.46 to 1.84, p = 0.32, I2 = 0%, t2 = 0). Thirteen randomised trials showed high concern of bias, one some concern, and one low concern. The non-randomised/retrospective trials had a median MINORS score of 12 out of 24 (range 7-17).

CONCLUSION

There is limited high-quality evidence favouring any specific widely used drug over the others in the management of high-output stoma. Evidence, however, is weak due to inconsistent definitions, risk of bias and poor methodology in the existing studies. We recommend the development of validated core descriptor and outcomes sets, as well as patient-reported outcome measures.

Physical activity recommendations pre and post abdominal wall reconstruction: a scoping review of the evidence

PURPOSE

There are no universally agreed guidelines regarding which types of physical activity are safe and/or recommended in the perioperative period for patients undergoing ventral hernia repair or abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). This study is intended to identify and summarise the literature on this topic.

METHODS

Database searches of PubMed, CINAHL, Allied & Complementary medicine database, PEDro and Web of Science were performed followed by a snowballing search using two papers identified by the database search and four hand-selected papers of the authors' choosing. Inclusion-cohort studies, randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective. Studies concerning complex incisional hernia repairs and AWRs including a "prehabilitation" and/or "rehabilitation" program targeting the abdominal wall muscles in which the interventions were of a physical exercise nature. RoB2 and Robins-I were used to assess risk of bias. Prospero CRD42021236745. No external funding. Data from the included studies were extracted using a table based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's data extraction template.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 5423 records. After screening two titles were selected for inclusion in our study. The snowballing search identified 49 records. After screening one title was selected for inclusion in our study. Three total papers were included-two randomised studies and one cohort study (combined 423 patients). All three studies subjected their patients to varying types of physical activity preoperatively, one study also prescribed these activities postoperatively. The outcomes differed between the studies therefore meta-analysis was impossible-two studies measured hernia recurrence, one measured peak torque. All three studies showed improved outcomes in their study groups compared to controls however significant methodological flaws and confounding factors existed in all three studies. No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature supporting the advice given to patients regarding recommended physical activity levels in the perioperative period for AWR patients is sparse. Further research is urgently required on this subject.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery

AIM

There is a requirement for an expansive and up to date review of the management of emergency colorectal conditions seen in adults. The primary objective is to provide detailed evidence-based guidelines for the target audience of general and colorectal surgeons who are responsible for an adult population and who practise in Great Britain and Ireland.

METHODS

Surgeons who are elected members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Emergency Surgery Subcommittee were invited to contribute various sections to the guidelines. They were directed to produce a pathology-based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence-based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after two votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of care (excluding abdominal trauma) for emergency colorectal conditions have been included along with 122 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence-based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of emergency colorectal conditions and should serve as practical text for clinicians managing colorectal conditions in the emergency setting.

Open versus laparoscopic mesh repair of primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

One standard repair technique for groin hernias does not exist. The objective of this study is to perform an update meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to investigate if there is a difference in terms of recurrence between laparoscopic and open primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

The reporting methodology conforms to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Randomised controlled trials only were included. The intervention was laparoscopic mesh repair (transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP)). The control group was Lichtenstein repair. The primary outcome was recurrence rate and secondary outcomes were acute and chronic post-operative pain, morbidity and quality of life.

RESULTS

This study included 12 randomised controlled trials with 3966 patients randomised to Lichtenstein repair (n = 1926) or laparoscopic repair (n = 2040). There were no significant differences in recurrence rates between the laparoscopic and open groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.51-2.55, p = 0.76). Laparoscopic repair was associated with reduced rate of acute pain compared to open repair (mean difference 1.19, CI - 1.86, - 0.51, p ≤ 0.0006) and reduced odds of chronic pain compared to open (OR 0.41, CI 0.30-0.56, p ≤ 0.00001). The included trials were, however, of variable methodological quality. Trial sequential analysis reported that further studies are unlikely to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis report no difference in recurrence rates between laparoscopic and open primary unilateral inguinal hernia repairs. Rates of acute and chronic pain are significantly less in the laparoscopic group.