Henry S. Tilney

Comparison of colonic stenting and open surgery for malignant large bowel obstruction

BackgroundColonic stents potentially offer effective palliation for those with bowel obstruction attributable to incurable malignancy, and a “bridge to surgery” for those in whom emergency surgery would necessitate a stoma. The current study compared the outcomes of stents and open surgery in the management of malignant large bowel obstruction.MethodsA literature search of the Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed to identify comparative studies reporting outcomes on colonic stenting and surgery for large bowel obstruction. Random effects meta-analytical techniques were applied to identify differences in outcomes between the two groups. Sensitivity analysis of high quality studies, those reporting on more than 35 patients, those solely concerning colorectal cancer and studies performing intention to treat analysis was undertaken to evaluate the study heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 10 studies satisfied the criteria for inclusion, with outcomes reported for 451 patients. Stent insertion was attempted for 244 patients (54.1%), and proved successful for 226 (92.6%). The length of hospital stay was shorter by 7.72 days in the stent group (p < 0.001), which also had lower mortality (p = 0.03) and fewer medical complications (p < 0.001). Stoma formation at any point during management was significantly lower than in the stent group (odds ratio, 0.02; p < 0.001), and “bridging to surgery” did not adversely influence survival.ConclusionsColonic stenting offers effective palliation for malignant bowel obstruction, with short lengths of hospital stay and a low rate for stoma formation, but data on quality of life and economic evaluation are limited. There is no evidence of differences in long-term survival between those who have stents followed by subsequent resection and those undergoing emergency bowel resection.

The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases

Background and aimsLoop ileostomies are used currently in surgical practice to reduce the consequences of distal anastomotic failure following colorectal resection. It is often assumed that reversal of a loop ileostomy is a simple and safe procedure. However, many studies have demonstrated high morbidity rates following loop ileostomy closure. The aims of this systematic review were to examine all the existing evidence in the literature on morbidity and mortality following closure of loop ileostomy.MethodA literature search of Ovid, Embase, the Cochrane database, Google Scholar™ and Medline using Pubmed as the search engine was used to identify studies reporting on the morbidity of loop ileostomy closure (latest at June 15th 2008), was performed. Outcomes of interest included demographics, the details regarding the original indication for operation, operative and hospital-related outcomes, post-operative bowel-related complications, and other surgical and medical complications.ResultsForty-eight studies from 18 countries satisfied the inclusion criteria. Outcomes of a total of 6,107 patients were analysed. Overall morbidity following closure of loop ileostomy was found to be 17.3% with a mortality rate of 0.4%. 3.7% of patients required a laparotomy at the time of ileostomy closure. The most common post-operative complications included small bowel obstruction (7.2%) and wound sepsis (5.0%).ConclusionThe consequences of anastomotic leakage following colorectal resection are severe. However, the consequences of stoma reversal are often underestimated. Surgeons should adopt a selective strategy regarding the use of defunctioning ileostomy, and counsel patients further prior to the original surgery. In this way, patients at low risk may be spared the morbidity of stoma reversal.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open ileocecal resection for Crohn’s disease: a metaanalysis

BackgroundThe role of laparoscopic surgery for patients with ileocecal Crohn’s disease is a contentious issue. This metaanalysis aimed to compare open resection with laparoscopically assisted resection for ileocecal Crohn’s disease.MethodsA literature search of the Medline, Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify comparative studies reporting outcomes for both laparoscopic and open ileocecal resection. Metaanalytical techniques were applied to identify differences in outcomes between the two groups. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to evaluate the heterogeneity of the study.ResultsOf 20 studies identified by literature review, 15 satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the study. These included outcomes for 783 patients, 338 (43.2%) of whom had undergone laparoscopic resection, with an overall conversion rate to open surgery of 6.8%. The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group, by 29.6 min (p = 0.002), although the blood loss and complications in the two groups were similar. In terms of postoperative recovery, the laparoscopic patients had a significantly shorter time for recovery of their enteric function and a shorter hospital stay, by 2.7 days (p < 0.001).ConclusionsFor selected patients with noncomplicated ileocecal Crohn’s disease, laparoscopic resection offered substantial advantages in terms of more rapid resolution of postoperative ileus and shortened hospital stay. There was no increase in complications, as compared with open surgery. The contraindications to laparoscopic approaches for Crohn’s disease remain undefined.

Comparison of Outcomes After Restorative Proctocolectomy With or Without Defunctioning Ileostomy

OBJECTIVE To evaluate postoperative adverse events and functional outcomes of patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with or without proximal diversion. DATA SOURCES The literature was searched by means of MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane databases for all studies published from 1978 through July 15, 2005. STUDY SELECTION Comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies evaluating outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy with or without ileostomy were included. DATA EXTRACTION Three authors independently extracted data by using operative variables, early and late adverse events, and functional outcomes between the 2 groups. Trials were assessed by means of the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Score. Random-effects meta-analytical techniques were used for analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS The review included 17 studies comprising 1486 patients (765 without ileostomy and 721 with ileostomy). There were no significant differences in functional outcomes between the 2 groups. The development of pouch-related leak was significantly higher in the no-ileostomy group (odds ratio, 2.37; P = .002). Small-bowel obstruction was more common in the stoma group but was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.65). The development of anastomotic stricture favored the no-stoma group (odds ratio, 0.31; P = .045). On sensitivity analysis, pelvic sepsis was significantly less common in patients whose ileostomies were defunctioned; however, this finding was not mirrored by a significant difference in ileal pouch failure in this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS Restorative proctocolectomy without a diverting ileostomy resulted in functional outcomes similar to those of surgery with proximal diversion but was associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leak. Diverting ileostomy should be omitted in carefully selected patients only.

Comparison of outcomes following ileostomy versus colostomy for defunctioning colorectal anastomoses.

The present study evaluated outcomes of patients undergoing proximal diversion using either a loop ileostomy or loop colostomy following distal colorectal resection for malignant and non-malignant disease. A literature search of the Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies published between 1966 and 2006, comparing loop ileostomy and loop colostomy to protect a distal colorectal anastomosis. A random effect meta-analytical technique was used and sensitivity analysis performed on studies published since 2000, higher quality papers, those reporting on 70 or more patients, and those reporting outcomes following colorectal cancer resections. Seven studies, including three randomised controlled trials, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Outcomes of a total of 1,204 patients were analysed, of whom 719 (59.7%) underwent defunctioning loop ileostomy. High stoma output was more common following ileostomy formation (OR = 5.39, 95% CI: 1.11, 26.12, P = 0.04), but wound infections following their reversal were significantly fewer (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.62, P = 0.004). Overall complications were less frequent for ileostomy patients in the subgroup of high quality studies (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.59, P = 0.003). The results of this meta-analysis suggest that ileostomy may be preferable to colostomy when used to defunction a distal colorectal anastomosis. Wound infections following stoma reversal were reduced, as were overall stoma-related complications and incisional hernia following stoma reversal for ileostomy patients in high quality studies.

A National Perspective on the Decline of Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer

Objective:To assess rates of abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER) for rectal cancer between centers and over time, and to evaluate the influence of patient characteristics, including social deprivation, on APER rate. Methods:Data on patients undergoing APER or anterior resection (AR) in England were extracted from a national administrative database for the years 1996 to 2004. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients presenting with rectal cancer undergoing APER. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify independent factors associated with a nonrestorative resection. Results:Data on 52,643 patients were analyzed, 13,109(24.9%) of whom underwent APER. The APER rate significantly reduced over the study period from 29.4% to 21.2% (P < 0.001). Operative mortality following AR decreased significantly during the period of study (5.1% to 4.2%, P = 0.002), while that following APER did not (P = 0.075). Male patients were more likely to undergo APER (P < 0.001), whereas those with an emergency presentation more commonly underwent AR (P < 0.001). Independent predictors of increased APER rate were male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.239, P < 0.001) and social deprivation (most vs. least deprived; OR = 1.589, P < 0.001), whereas increasing patient age (OR = 0.977, P = 0.027 per 10-year increase), year of study (2003/4 vs. 1996/7; OR = 0.646, P < 0.001) and initial presentation as an emergency (OR = 0.713, P < 0.001) were associated with lower APER rates. After accounting for case-mix, there was significant between-center variability in APER rates. Conclusion:Socially deprived patients were more likely to undergo abdominoperineal resection. Significant improvements in rates of nonrestorative resection were seen over time but although short-term outcomes following AR have improved, those following APER have not. Permanent stoma rates following rectal cancer surgery may be considered a surrogate marker of surgical quality.

Extending the horizons of restorative rectal surgery: intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer.

Objective  Radical resection of tumours of the distal rectum has generally entailed an abdominoperineal excision, but the recognition of shorter safe distal resection margins, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and the application of the technique of intersphincteric resection (ISR) have led to the prospect of restorative surgery for patients with distally situated tumours. The present study examines the indications, techniques and outcomes following ISR.

Measuring sexual and urinary outcomes in women after rectal cancer excision.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to investigate sexual and urinary dysfunction in women who underwent rectal cancer excision, and the influence of tumor and treatment variables on long-term outcomes. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on 295 women who underwent rectal cancer excision at a tertiary referral colorectal center from 1998 to 2006. Sexual and urinary function was assessed preoperatively and at intervals up to five years after surgery. Functional outcomes were assessed by using univariate and multivariate regression analysis, chi-squared test for trend, or Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 60.9 years. Anterior resection was performed in 222 patients (75.2 percent) and abdominoperineal resection in 73 patients (24.7 percent). Patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection were less sexually active (25 vs. 50 percent; P = 0.02) and had a lower frequency of intercourse than anterior resection patients at one year after surgery (anterior resection, 3 (0-5) (median interquartile range); abdominoperineal resection 0 (0-4); P = 0.029). The frequency of intercourse improved over time for abdominoperineal resection (4 months, 0 (0-0) median interquartile range; 5 years, 3 (0.25-4) median interquartile range; P = 0.028). Abdominoperineal resection was associated with increased dyspareunia (odds ratio, 5.75; 95 percent confidence interval (CI), 1.87-17.6; P = 0.002), urinary urgency (odds ratio, 8.52; 95 percent CI, 2.81-25.8; P < 0.001), incontinence (odds ratio, 2.41; 95 percent CI, 1.11-5.26; P = 0.026), poor stream (odds ratio, 5.64, 95 percent CI, 2.55-12.5; P ≤ 0.001), and urinary retention (odds ratio, 11.7; 95 percent CI, 4.15-32.9; P < 0.001). Women who underwent radiotherapy had a 4.68-fold increase in dyspareunia (95 percent CI, 1.84-11.9; P = 0.001). Intra-abdominal sepsis was associated with decreased ability to achieve arousal (odds ratio, 0.085; 95 percent CI, 0.008-0.958; P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Abdominoperineal resection, radiotherapy, intra-abdominal sepsis, and age 65 years or older are associated with significant impairments in female urinary and sexual outcomes after rectal cancer excision. Sexual and urinary outcomes should be considered when planning treatment for patients with rectal cancer.

Meta-analysis of short-term and long-term outcomes of J, W and S ileal reservoirs for restorative proctocolectomy

Objective  The choice of ileal pouch reservoir has been a contentious subject with no consensus as to which technique provides better function. This study aimed to compare short‐ and long‐term outcomes of three ileal reservoir designs.

Meta-analysis of randomized studies evaluating chewing gum to enhance postoperative recovery following colectomy.

OBJECTIVE To compare outcomes following abdominal surgery with or without the use of chewing gum in the early postoperative period. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane databases. STUDY SELECTION Randomized controlled trials reporting 1 or more outcomes related to functional postoperative recovery. Study quality was assessed using a validated scale. DATA EXTRACTION Time to the first passage of flatus, time to first bowel movement, and length of postoperative stay. DATA SYNTHESIS Five trials (158 patients) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Time (in days) for the patient to pass flatus (weighted mean difference [WMD], - 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 1.11 to - 0.20; P = .005) and the time until the first bowel movement (WMD, - 1.10; 95% CI, - 1.79 to - 0.42; P = .002) were significantly reduced in the chewing gum group compared with controls. However, both of these results demonstrated significant heterogeneity. Postoperative length of stay was also reduced in the chewing gum group by longer than 1 day (WMD, - 1.25; 95% CI, - 3.27 to 0.77; P = .23); however, this result was not statistically significant. This result was significant when studies that explicitly included patients with stomas being formed during the surgery were excluded (WMD, - 2.46; 95% CI, - 3.14 to - 1.79; P < .001), with no significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS Chewing gum may enhance intestinal recovery following colectomy and reduce the length of hospital stay. Owing to the potential for substantial cost savings, larger-scale, blinded, randomized controlled trials with placebo arms are warranted.