Charles B. Whitlow

Treatment of colorectal and ileoanal anastomotic sinuses

PURPOSE: This study is designed to describe a technique and report results for treating low anastomotic sinuses. METHODS: Restorative proctocolectomy and complicated low anterior resections were protected with diverting loop ileostomy. Contrast enemas identified anastomotic problems before ileostomy closure. Pouch-anal or colorectal anastomotic sinuses that failed to resolve with observation were treated before intestinal continuity was restored. With the patient receiving regional or general anesthesia, a rigid proctoscope or anoscope was used to identify the sinus opening. The common wall between the sinus and the bowel lumen was divided under direct vision with laparoscopic cautery scissors, and the sinus cavity was debrided with a suction cautery wand placed through the scope. RESULTS: Six patients with anastomotic sinuses have received outpatient treatment in the described manner during the past two years. Four patients had restorative proctocolectomies for ulcerative colitis, and two had low anastomosis for rectal cancer. Three patients presented with pelvic sepsis before the contrast study; the remainder were asymptomatic. Division of anastomotic sinus was performed one to eight months after diagnosis of the sinus. Following division, anastomotic cavities resolved in five patients by 1 month and in one patient by 12 months. In these six patients, there was one dilatable anastomotic stricture but no other anastomotic complications at follow-up 5 to 16 (mean, 9.2) months after sinus division. CONCLUSION: When used in conjunction with fecal diversion, sinus unroofing by division of the common wall between the sinus and bowel lumen treats low pelvic sinuses.

Continent Ileostomy: Current Experience

PURPOSEThis study was designed to review our recent experience with continent ileostomies and evaluate patient outcomes.METHODSRetrospective chart reviews and phone interviews of patients who underwent a continent ileostomy operation from 1993 to 2003 at the Ochsner Clinic Foundation were performed.RESULTSTwenty-four patients (19 females; age range, 22–73 years) had construction of continent ileostomies (modified Kock pouch). There were no intraoperative mortalities or stoma-related deaths. The mean operating room time for primary construction was 3.9 ± 0.57 hours with a mean length of stay of 7 ± 2 days. The average follow-up period was 66 (range, 6–134) months. The most common underlying indication for the construction of a continent ileostomy was ulcerative colitis (71 percent). Thirteen patients had a continent ileostomy created for conversion of a Brooke ileostomy and seven for a failed ileoanal pouch. Other indications included colonic inertia and incontinence in three patients and one patient who had failed multiple operations for Hirschsprung’s disease. A total of 28 revisions were performed in 14 patients (58 percent). Six patients required multiple procedures. Operative revisions included 12 skin level revision for stenosis, 11 operations for valve repairs, and 1 each for peristomal hernia repair, stomal relocation, and pouch repair for fistulas. Two patients had their pouches removed (Crohn’s disease and inability to manage pouch). The need for revision by 12 months was 29 percent, and the average time period before the first revision was 24 months (range, 4 days to 109 months). The overall failure rate (converted to conventional ileostomy) was only 8.3 percent. Ninety percent of the patients have continent pouches and are satisfied with their pouch function.CONCLUSIONSContinent ileostomies continue to have a high rate of reoperations, reasonable functional results, and are a viable option for failed ileal pouch-anal pouch patients. Surgeons electing to perform continent ileostomies must carefully select their patients and advise them of the high potential for reoperations. Despite a high reoperation rate, patients are pleased with their continent ileostomies.

Timing of colonoscopy after resection for colorectal cancer: are we looking too soon?

BACKGROUND: Based on current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, colonoscopic surveillance after colorectal cancer resection should begin at 1 year. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the incidence of cancer or advanced polyp detection rate was high enough to justify colonoscopy at 1 year. DESIGN: The Ochsner Clinic Tumor Registry Database was queried for patients who underwent a segmental colectomy or proctectomy between 2002 and 2010. Patients who had a preoperative colonoscopy and at least 1 documented postoperative colonoscopy were included. We considered new cancer or polyps of ≥1 cm as missed on the preoperative colonoscopy. Patients with an identified genetic trait causing a predisposition to colorectal cancer were excluded. RESULTS: Five hundred twelve patients underwent resection, and 155 met our inclusion criteria. The average age was 64 years, and 53% patients were male. There were 32.9% with stage I disease, 35% with stage II disease, 27.1% with stage III disease, and 5.2% with stage IV disease. Of these patients, 52.2% had a right colectomy, 7.1% had a left colectomy, 16.8% had a sigmoid colectomy, 22% had a low anterior resection, and 1.3% had a transanal resection. The average time to first postoperative colonoscopy was 478 days (SD ±283 days). Twenty-four patients had adenomatous polyps detected on their first surveillance colonoscopy, but only 5 (3.2%) polyps were ≥1 cm, and there was no correlation between stage of cancer and finding a polyp. No new cancers were detected, but 3 (1.9%) had an anastomotic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of surveillance colonoscopy at 1 year resulted in the detection of only 5 missed polyps ≥1 cm and no metachronous cancers. Anastomotic recurrences were rare, and the majority were in patients who had rectal cancer that could be evaluated by in-office flexible sigmoidoscopy. Extending the time to first colonoscopy appears to be safe and would help conserve valuable resources, including physician and facility time, which is imperative in the current health care climate.

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.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Colonoscopy

Abstract Colonoscopy is the most commonly performed procedure for colorectal cancer screening, removal of polyps, and evaluation of lower gastrointestinal symptoms. This chapter reviews the periprocedural care of patients undergoing colonoscopy, including bowel preparation, management of anticoagulation, and procedural sedation. Additionally it addresses the technique of the procedure, the technical aspects of polyp detection and removal, and the treatment of the most common complications of the procedure.

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.

Interval Colorectal Cancers at Ochsner Medical Center: Where Do We Stand?

Background An interval colorectal cancer is a cancer diagnosed prior to the recommended follow-up time from a previously negative colonoscopy. These cancers are thought to arise from a rapidly growing cancer, missed cancer, or incompletely resected adenomas. Our study aimed to identify interval cancers diagnosed during a 4-year period and to identify any potential risk factors associated with these cancers. Secondly, we compared our interval colorectal cancer rate with other published rates. Methods Our population included all patients who underwent colonoscopy for any indication between August 1, 2010 and July 31, 2014 (n=28,794), excluding individuals <18 years and patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease, previously diagnosed colorectal cancer, or known hereditary cancer syndrome. Using a retrospective review of our institutions electronic medical record and data from the Louisiana Tumor Registry, we identified patients who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. From these individuals, we reviewed and selected those who met the criteria for interval cancers. Results We identified 20 interval cancers during the 4-year study period. Based on the total number of index colonoscopies performed during the time period, our overall incidence rate was 0.07%. Approximately 1 interval cancer was diagnosed per 1,400 colonoscopy examinations. Our occurrence rate of 0.28 cases per 1,000 person-years of observation was less than or similar to the rates reported in other studies. Conclusion Our study demonstrated that our institution has a low incidence of interval cancers, supporting the effectiveness of our cancer screening program. To further minimize interval colorectal cancers, we recommend the documentation and reporting of endoscopy quality measures, as well as close follow-up intervals or alternate examinations for patients who have poor bowel preparation or incomplete/difficult examinations.

Current State of Colorectal Surgery Training: A Survey of Program Directors, Current and Recently Matched Colorectal Residents, and Recent Colorectal Graduates.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal residency has become one of the more competitive postgraduate training opportunities; however, little information is available to guide potential applicants in gauging their competitiveness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the current trends colorectal residency training and to identify what factors are considered most important in ranking a candidate highly. We hypothesized that there was a difference in what program directors, current and recently matched colorectal residents, and recent graduates consider most important in making a candidate competitive for a colorectal residency position. DESIGN: Three 10-question anonymous surveys were sent to 59 program directors, 87 current and recently matched colorectal residents, and 119 recent graduates in March 2015. SETTINGS: The study was conducted as an anonymous internet survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current trends in applying for a colorectal residency, competitiveness of recent colorectal residents, factors considered most important in ranking a candidate highly, and what future colorectal surgeons can expect after finishing their training were measured. RESULTS: The study had an overall response rate of 43%, with 28 (47%) of 59 program directors, 46 (53%) of 87 current and recently matched colorectal residents, and 39 (33%) of 119 recent graduates responding. The majority of program directors felt that a candidate’s performance during the interview process was the most important factor in making a candidate competitive, followed by contact from a colleague, letters of recommendation, American Board of Surgery In-Training Exam scores, and number of publications/presentations. The majority of current and recently matched colorectal residents felt that a recommendation/telephone call from a colleague was the most important factor, whereas the majority of recent graduates favored letters of recommendation as the most important factor in ranking a candidate highly. LIMITATIONS: Limitations to the study include its small sample size, selection bias, responder bias, and misclassification bias. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in what program directors and current/recent residents consider most important in making an applicant competitive for colorectal residency.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

There are over 25 diseases primarily spread by sexual means with an annual incidence of approximately 15 million cases in the USA. Site and route of infection determine the symptoms caused by STDs. Infections of the distal anal canal, anoderm, and perianal skin are similar to lesions in other parts of the genitalia and perineum caused by the same organisms. These infections are typically the result of anal receptive intercourse. Proctitis from sexually transmitted organisms is almost always acquired from anal intercourse. Current estimates are that less than 2 % of adult males regularly practice anal receptive intercourse while between 2 and 10 % participate in homosexual activity at some point in their life. Between 5 and 10 % of females engage in anal receptive intercourse “with some degree of regularity,” and females appear to be more likely than men to have unprotected anal intercourse.