Luca Boschi

Endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy as treatment for anastomotic leak after ileal pouch–anal anastomosis: a pilot study

AbstractBackgroundAnastomotic leak after ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) could lead to poor functional results and failure of the pouch. The aim of the present study was to analyze the outcomes of the vacuum-assisted closure therapy as the unique treatment for anastomotic leaks following IPAA without any additional surgical operations. MethodsConsecutive patients with anastomotic leak after IPAA treated at our institution between March 2016 and March 2017 were prospectively enrolled. After diagnosis, the Endosponge® device was positioned in the gap and replaced until the cavity was reduced in size and covered by granulating tissue. A pouchoscopy was performed every week for the first month and monthly subsequently. No additional procedures were performed.ResultsEight patients were included in the study. The leak was diagnosed at a median of 14 (6–35) days after surgery. At the time of diagnosis, seven patients had a defunctioning ileostomy performed as routine at the time of pouch formation, while one patient was diagnosed after ileostomy closure and underwent emergency diversion ileostomy. The Endosponge® treatment started after a median of 6.5 (1–158) days after the diagnosis of the leakage and was carried on for a median of 12 (3–42) days. The device was replaced a median of 3 (1–10) times. The median length of hospital stay after the first application of the treatment was 15.5 (6–48) days. The complete healing of the leak was documented in all patients, after a median of 60 (24–90) days from the first treatment. All patients but one had their ileostomy reversed at a median of 2.5 (1–6) months from the confirmation of the complete closure.ConclusionsEndosponge® is effective as the only treatment after IPAA leak. Based on the results of our prospective pilot study, application of Endosponge® should be the treatment of choice in selected pouch anastomotic leaks not requiring immediate surgery. These results will have to be confirmed by future prospective studies including a larger number of patients.

Transabdominal salvage surgery after pouch failure in a tertiary center: A case-matched study ☆

BACKGROUND Salvage surgery after failure of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) could be offered to selected patients. However, the results vary widely in different centers. AIMS To assess the outcomes of salvage surgery by comparison with a control group matched for confounding variables. METHODS From a prospective database of 1286 IPAA, patients undergoing transabdominal salvage surgery were compared for perioperative and functional outcomes and quality of life (QOL) to a 1:3 control group of primary IPAA cases. RESULTS Salvage surgery patients (30) had a higher rate of hand-sewn anastomoses (80 vs 20%, p <0.0001) and reoperations (10 vs 2.2%, p 0.02) than control group (90). A higher number of daytime and nighttime bowel movements (7.4 vs 4.1, p <0.0001, and 2.6 vs 1.8, p=0.002), a lower median CGQL score (0.7 vs 0.8, p=0.0001) and a higher rate of pouch fistulae (13.3 vs 1.1%, p=0.003) were reported after salvage surgery. Pouch failure rate after salvage surgery was 10.1%, 18.7% and 26.8% at 1, 5 and 10 years (vs 0%, 3.5% and 8.4% in control group, p=0.0085). CONCLUSIONS Although worse functional outcomes and decreased QOL have to be expected, salvage surgery after pouch failure is associated with acceptable outcomes when performed in a referral center.

Splenic Artery Aneurysms: Favorable Outcome After Two Different Types of Rupture—Case Reports

Splenic artery aneurysms are rare lesions and their main complications are rupture and embolization. Two cases of rupture with a favorable outcome are reported. In one patient, the splenic artery aneurysm ruptured into the renal vein, and in the other, it ruptured into the abdominal cavity, causing massive hemoperitoneum.

Outcomes of pelvic exenteration for recurrent and primary locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND Pelvic exenteration is the only radical treatment for locally advanced (ARC) or recurrent (RRC) rectal cancers. The long-term results of the procedure are variably reported in the literature, with recent series suggesting similar survival between ARC and RRC. The study aimed to analyze and compare the long-term survival and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for ARC and RRC in a tertiary center. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Comparison of variables was performed using Chi-square, Fishers exact or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate. The Kaplan Meier method was used to analyze the disease-free survival (DFS) and the log-rank test to compare the two groups. RESULTS Since 2002, 46 patients underwent pelvic exenteration for ARC (28, 60.9%) and RRC (18, 39.1%). The groups had comparable characteristics, perioperative results, including postoperative complications, and rate of adjuvant chemotherapy. A R0 resection was obtained in 71.4% and 55.6% (p 0.41) and a T4 stage was diagnosed in 75% and 94.4% (p 0.22) of ARC and RRC patients, respectively. After a median follow-up time of 32.5 and 56.6 months (p 0.01), the 5-year DFS was significantly lower in the RRC group (23.6 vs 46.2%, p 0.006), even after exclusion of R1 cases (30 vs 54.5%, p 0.044). CONCLUSION The long-term disease free survival of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is significantly worse when the procedure is performed for RRC, regardless of the tumor involvement of the resection margins.