Brian R. Kann

The Role of Bowel Preparation in Colorectal Surgery: Results of the 2012–2015 Acs-nsqip Data

Objective: To analyze potential benefits with regards to infectious complications with combined use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and ABP in elective colorectal resections. Background: Despite recent literature suggesting that MBP does not reduce infection rate, it still is commonly used. The use of oral antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) has been practiced for decades but its use is also controversial. Methods: Patients undergoing elective colorectal resection in the 2012 to 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program cohorts were selected. Doubly robust propensity score–adjusted multivariable regression was conducted for infectious and other postoperative complications. Results: A total of 27,804 subjects were analyzed; 5471 (23.46%) received no preparation, 7617 (32.67%) received MBP only, 1374 (5.89%) received ABP only, and 8855 (37.98%) received both preparations. Compared to patients receiving no preparation, those receiving dual preparation had less surgical site infection (SSI) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.39, P < 0.001], organ space infection (OR = 0.56, P ⩽ 0.001), wound dehiscence (OR = 0.43, P = 0.001), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P < 0.001). ABP alone compared to no prep resulted in significantly lower rates of surgical site infection (OR = 0.63, P = 0.001), organ space infection (OR = 0.59, P = 0.005), anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P = 0.002). MBP showed no significant benefit to infectious complications when used as monotherapy. Conclusions: Combined MBP/ABP results in significantly lower rates of SSI, organ space infection, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leak than no preparation and a lower rate of SSI than ABP alone. Combined bowel preparation significantly reduces the rates of infectious complications in colon and rectal procedures without increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection. For patients undergoing elective colon or rectal resection we recommend bowel preparation with both mechanical agents and oral antibiotics whenever feasible.

Morbidity Following Coloanal Anastomosis: A Comparison of Colonic J-Pouch vs Straight Anastomosis

BACKGROUND: Low rectal tumors are often treated with sphincter-preserving resection followed by coloanal anastomosis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term complications following straight coloanal anastomosis vs colonic J-pouch anal anastomosis. DESIGN: Patients were identified who underwent proctectomy for rectal neoplasia followed by coloanal anastomosis in the 2008 to 2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Demographic characteristics and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between groups. SETTINGS: A national sample was extracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database. PATIENTS: Inpatients following proctectomy and coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic characteristics and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred seventy patients were included, 624 in the straight anastomosis group and 746 in the colonic J-pouch group. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups, with the exception of preoperative radiation therapy (straight anastomosis 35% vs colonic J-pouch 48%, p = 0.0004). Univariate analysis demonstrated that deep surgical site infection (3.7% vs 1.4%, p = 0.01), septic shock (2.25% vs 0.8%, p = 0.04), and return to the operating room (8.8% vs 5.0%, p = 0.0006) were more frequent in the straight anastomosis group vs the colonic J-pouch group. Major complications were also higher (23% vs 14%, p = 0.0001) and length of stay was longer in the straight anastomosis group vs the colonic J-pouch group (8.9 days vs 8.1 days, p = 0.02). After adjusting for covariates, major complications were less following colonic J-pouch vs straight anastomosis (OR, 0.57; CI, 0.38–0.84; p = 0.005). Subgroup analysis of patients who received preoperative radiation therapy demonstrated no difference in major complications between groups. LIMITATIONS: This study had those limitations inherent to a retrospective study using an inpatient database. CONCLUSION: Postoperative complications were less following colonic J-pouch anastomosis vs straight anastomosis. Patients who received preoperative radiation had similar rates of complications, regardless of the reconstructive technique used following low anterior resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A468.

Lower Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding refers to bleeding from a source distal to the ligament of Treitz. Presentation ranges from occult bleeding with anemia to frank hemorrhage with cardiovascular collapse. Management hinges on volume resuscitation and restoration of hemodynamic stability, followed by a search for the source of bleeding. Investigative measures include colonoscopy, nuclear scintigraphy, CT angiography, and mesenteric angiography. If an active source of bleeding is identified, therapeutic angiography and embolization should be attempted. Active bleeding identified during colonoscopy should be controlled endoscopically. Surgery is reserved for patients with ongoing hemorrhage and hemodynamic instability or for those who fail nonsurgical management.