Incisional hernia following colorectal cancer surgery according to suture technique: Hughes Abdominal Repair Randomized Trial (HART)

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernias cause morbidity and may require further surgery. HART (Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial) assessed the effect of an alternative suture method on the incidence of incisional hernia following colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A pragmatic multicentre single-blind RCT allocated patients undergoing midline incision for colorectal cancer to either Hughes closure (double far-near-near-far sutures of 1 nylon suture at 2-cm intervals along the fascia combined with conventional mass closure) or the surgeon's standard closure. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia at 1 year assessed by clinical examination. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Between August 2014 and February 2018, 802 patients were randomized to either Hughes closure (401) or the standard mass closure group (401). At 1 year after surgery, 672 patients (83.7 per cent) were included in the primary outcome analysis; 50 of 339 patients (14.8 per cent) in the Hughes group and 57 of 333 (17.1 per cent) in the standard closure group had incisional hernia (OR 0.84, 95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 1.27; P = 0.402). At 2 years, 78 patients (28.7 per cent) in the Hughes repair group and 84 (31.8 per cent) in the standard closure group had incisional hernia (OR 0.86, 0.59 to 1.25; P = 0.429). Adverse events were similar in the two groups, apart from the rate of surgical-site infection, which was higher in the Hughes group (13.2 versus 7.7 per cent; OR 1.82, 1.14 to 2.91; P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of incisional hernia after colorectal cancer surgery is high. There was no statistical difference in incidence between Hughes closure and mass closure at 1 or 2 years.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN25616490 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

BACKGROUND

Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC).

FINDINGS

In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683-0·717]).

INTERPRETATION

In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required.

FUNDING

British Journal of Surgery Society.

An audit of process and outcome for emergency colectomy in England and Wales

AIM

The aim of this work was to describe process and outcome for patients undergoing emergency colectomy for colitis in England and Wales.

METHOD

The National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) is a national audit including patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and laparoscopic resectional procedures. Data from adult patients under 65 years of age who underwent emergency subtotal colectomy or panproctocolectomy for colitis between 2013 and 2016 were analysed.

RESULTS

In total 1204 patients were included. Although approximately a third of patients underwent a colectomy within 5 days of admission [37% (440/1204)], 32% (383/1204) were admitted for more than 10 days prior to surgery. Colorectal surgeons were present at operation in 72% (869/1204) of cases and consultant surgeons attended 94% (1137/1204) of procedures. Laparoscopy was attempted in 32% (390/1204) of operations with wide institutional variation in its use (0-100% of cases). The overall 30-day inpatient mortality was 2.9% (35/1204). On multivariable regression analysis, age > 55 years [OR 3.59 (1.05-12.21), P = 0.041], female gender [OR 2.88 (1.27-6.52), P = 0.011] and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 5 [OR 37.43 (2.72-514.52), P = 0.007] were associated with increased mortality.

CONCLUSION

There is a consultant-driven service that is largely delivered by specialist colorectal surgeons. Laparoscopy rates were high although there was wide variation in use across institutions. Preoperative delays were evident, and further work is necessary to determine the underlying reasons for these.

Perioperative intravenous contrast administration and the incidence of acute kidney injury after major gastrointestinal surgery: prospective, multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the impact of preoperative exposure to intravenous contrast for CT and the risk of developing postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

This prospective, multicentre cohort study included adults undergoing gastrointestinal resection, stoma reversal or liver resection. Both elective and emergency procedures were included. Preoperative exposure to intravenous contrast was defined as exposure to contrast administered for the purposes of CT up to 7 days before surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of AKI within 7 days. Propensity score-matched models were adjusted for patient, disease and operative variables. In a sensitivity analysis, a propensity score-matched model explored the association between preoperative exposure to contrast and AKI in the first 48 h after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 5378 patients were included across 173 centres. Overall, 1249 patients (23·2 per cent) received intravenous contrast. The overall rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery was 13·4 per cent (718 of 5378). In the propensity score-matched model, preoperative exposure to contrast was not associated with AKI within 7 days (odds ratio (OR) 0·95, 95 per cent c.i. 0·73 to 1·21; P = 0·669). The sensitivity analysis showed no association between preoperative contrast administration and AKI within 48 h after operation (OR 1·09, 0·84 to 1·41; P = 0·498).

CONCLUSION

There was no association between preoperative intravenous contrast administered for CT up to 7 days before surgery and postoperative AKI. Risk of contrast-induced nephropathy should not be used as a reason to avoid contrast-enhanced CT.

Restorative surgery after colectomy for ulcerative colitis in England and Sweden: observations from a comparison of nationwide cohorts

AIM

A longstanding disparity exists between the approaches to restorative surgery after colectomy for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in England and Sweden. This study aims to compare rates of colectomy and restorative surgery in comparable national cohorts.

METHOD

The English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Swedish National Patient Register (NPR) were interrogated between 2002 and April 2012. Patients with two diagnostic episodes for UC (age ≥ 15 years) were included. Patients were excluded if they had an episode of inflammatory bowel disease or colectomy before 2002. The cumulative incidences of colectomy and restorative surgery were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 98 691 patients were included in the study, 76 129 in England and 22 562 in Sweden. The 5-year cumulative incidence of all restorative surgery after colectomy in England was 33% vs 46% in Sweden (P-value < 0.001). Of the patients undergoing restorative surgery, 92.3% of English patients had a pouch vs 38.8% in Sweden and 7.7% vs 59.1% respectively had an ileorectal anastomosis (IRA). The 5-year cumulative incidence of colectomy in this study cohort was 13% in England and 6% in Sweden (P-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Following colectomy for UC only one-third of English patients and half of Swedish patients underwent restorative surgery. In England nearly all these patients underwent pouches, in Sweden a less significant majority underwent IRAs. It is surprising to demonstrate this discrepancy in a comparable cohort of patients from similar healthcare systems. The causes and consequences of this international variation in management are not fully understood and require further investigation.

The impact of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis on graft survival following liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is the only life-extending intervention for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). Given the co-existence with colitis, patients may also require colectomy; a factor potentially conferring improved post-transplant outcomes.

AIM

To determine the impact of restorative surgery via ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) vs retaining an end ileostomy on liver-related outcomes post-transplantation.

METHODS

Graft survival was evaluated across a prospectively accrued transplant database, stratified according to colectomy status and type.

RESULTS

Between 1990 and 2016, 240 individuals with PSC/colitis underwent transplantation (cumulative 1870 patient-years until first graft loss or last follow-up date), of whom 75 also required colectomy. A heightened incidence of graft loss was observed for the IPAA group vs those retaining an end ileostomy (2.8 vs 0.4 per 100 patient-years, log-rank P = 0.005), whereas rates between IPAA vs no colectomy groups were not significantly different (2.8 vs 1.7, P = 0.1). In addition, the ileostomy group experienced significantly lower graft loss rates vs. patients retaining an intact colon (P = 0.044). The risks conferred by IPAA persisted when taking into account timing of colectomy as related to liver transplantation via time-dependent Cox regression analysis. Hepatic artery thrombosis and biliary strictures were the principal aetiologies of graft loss overall. Incidence rates for both were not significantly different between IPAA and no colectomy groups (P = 0.092 and P = 0.358); however, end ileostomy appeared protective (P = 0.007 and 0.031, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In PSC, liver transplantation, colectomy + IPAA is associated with similar incidence rates of hepatic artery thrombosis, recurrent biliary strictures and re-transplantation compared with no colectomy. Colectomy + end ileostomy confers more favourable graft outcomes.

Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure

Background

Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterize the stage of innovation for biological mesh devices used during complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence.

Methods

A systematic review was performed of published and ongoing studies between January 2000 and September 2017. Eligible studies were those where a biological mesh was used to support fascial closure, either prophylactically after midline laparotomy, or for reinforcement after repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the GRADE criteria for study quality.

Results

Thirty‐five studies including 2681 patients were included. Four studies considered mesh prophylaxis, 23 considered hernia repair, and eight reported on both. There was one published randomized trial (IDEAL stage 3), none of which was of high quality; the others were non‐randomized studies (IDEAL stage 2a). A detailed description of surgical technique was provided in most studies (27 of 35); however, no study reported outcomes according to the European Hernia Society consensus statement and only two described quality control of surgical technique during the study. From 21 ongoing randomized trials and observational studies, 11 considered repair of incisional hernia and 10 considered prophylaxis (seven in elective settings).

Conclusion

The evidence base for biological mesh is limited, and better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although results of ongoing trials over the next decade will improve the evidence base, further study is required in the emergency and contaminated settings.

Influence of day of surgery on mortality following elective colorectal resections

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the increased mortality previously identified for surgery performed on Fridays was apparent following major elective colorectal resections and how this might be affected by case mix.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective colorectal resections in England from 2001 to 2011 were identified using Hospital Episode Statistics. Propensity scores were used to match patients having operations on a Friday in a 1 : 1 ratio with those undergoing surgery on other weekdays. Multivariable analyses were used to investigate overall deaths within 1 year of operation.

RESULTS

A total of 204,669 records were extracted for patients undergoing major elective colorectal resections. Patients who had surgery on Fridays were more deprived (4780 (17.1 per cent) of 27,920 versus 28,317 (16.0 per cent) of 176,749; P < 0.001), a greater proportion had had an emergency admission in the 3 previous months (7870 (28.2 per cent) of 27,920 versus 48,623 (27.5 per cent) of 176,749; P = 0.019), underwent minimal access surgery (4565 (16.4 per cent) of 27,920 versus 23,783 (13.5 per cent) of 176,749; P < 0.001) and had surgery for benign diagnoses (6502 (23.3 per cent) of 27,920 versus 38,725 (21.9 per cent) of 176,749; P < 0.001) than those who had surgery on Mondays to Thursdays. In a matched analysis the odds ratio for 30-day mortality after colorectal resections performed on Fridays compared with other weekdays was 1.25 (95 per cent c.i. 1.13 to 1.37); odds ratios for 90-day and 1-year mortality were 1.16 (1.07 to 1.25) and 1.10 (1.04 to 1.16) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients selected for colorectal resections on Fridays had a higher mortality rate than patients operated on from Monday to Thursday and had different characteristics, suggesting that increased mortality may reflect patient factors rather than hospital variables alone.

Reinforcement of closure of stoma site using a biological mesh

Incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure is an under-reported problem, having been recently shown to occur in up to 30 % of patients. This technical note describes a technique for the placement of intraperitoneal biological mesh to prophylactically reinforce stoma closure sites. Seven consecutive patients underwent mesh placement as part of a pilot study. Following closure of the stoma through a trephine incision, 6 anchoring sutures were placed between the peritoneum/deep fascia and the edges of the mesh circumferentially. The mesh was delivered into the peritoneal cavity and parachuted up against the abdominal wall, and the sutures tied. If closure was performed through a midline laparotomy, the anchoring sutures were placed in a similar fashion through the midline incision. The fascia above the mesh and soft tissues was then closed. The mesh was successfully placed in all 7 patients. Follow-up at 30 days showed one superficial wound infection. An ultrasound scan of this patient revealed that the mesh was still in place and that the infection did not breach the fascia. No other early adverse events occurred. Prophylactic biological mesh reinforcement of stoma closure sites is technically feasible and safe in the short term. Longer-term results from a prospective randomised trial are needed, including clinical and radiological assessment for hernia rates, to establish what if any are the realisable benefits of this technique.