Sharon L. Stein

Single-incision vs straight laparoscopic segmental colectomy: a case-controlled study.

PURPOSE: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is gaining momentum in general surgery but it is essentially unstudied for laparoscopic colectomy. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy with laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy were prospectively entered into an institutional review board-approved database. Those that underwent single-incision laparoscopic colectomy were case matched for sex, age, disease, surgery, body mass index, previous surgeries, and surgeon with patients undergoing LAC. RESULTS: Twenty-nine single-incision laparoscopic segmental colectomies were performed for polyps (4), adenocarcinoma (12), diverticulitis (6), and Crohns disease (7) and were case matched to laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for the same indications. Mean body mass index was 28.8 ± 3 kg/m2. Operative time was longer for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (134.4 ± 40 vs 103.8 ± 54 min; P = .0002). Four single-incision laparoscopic colectomies were converted to LAC requiring either one extra port (2) or 2 extra ports (2), and there was one conversion to laparotomy. Extraction scar length (millimeters) was similar (38 ± 6.0 vs 45 ± 6.2; P = .746). Postoperative morbidity (5/29 vs 7/29; P = .284) and length of stay (day) (3.7 ± 1.1 vs 3.9 ± 1.1; P = .445) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy is feasible and safe but takes more time than laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Although results approximate those for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, an additional learning curve is involved, and extra incisions are sometimes required. Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy requires further prospective validation so that the cost of the device can be justified by an improved clinical outcome.

Sexual function after treatment for rectal cancer: a review.

Sexual function is one element of QOL that may be significantly altered following treatment for rectal cancer, but the incidence and contributing risk factors are generally poorly understood. Nevertheless, the impact of rectal cancer therapy on sexual function should be conveyed to patients preoperatively. In addition to helping patients evolve realistic expectations, it will help clinicians identify those for whom interventions may be appropriate. In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the number of studies reporting sexual dysfunction following rectal cancer treatment. However, these studies are difficult to interpret collectively for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, sexual dysfunction lacks a standardized definition, which leads to poor comparability between studies. The best inclusive definitions describe sexual dysfunction as a collection of distinct symptoms, which differ for men and women. The absence of sexual activity is sometimes used as a surrogate for sexual dysfunction, but this is confounded by an individuals desire and opportunity for sexual activity, and may not be an accurate reflection of physiologic functionality. Additional factors complicating assimilation of studies include the absence of baseline data, missing data, small sample sizes, and heterogeneity in use of validated and nonvalidated instruments. The purpose of this article is to systematically review the contemporary literature reporting sexual function after rectal surgery to determine the overall risk of sexual dysfunction, evaluate possible contributing factors, and identify questions that should be addressed in future studies.

Discharge within 24 to 72 Hours of Colorectal Surgery Is Associated with Low Readmission Rates when Using Enhanced Recovery Pathways

BACKGROUND Enhanced Recovery Pathways (ERPs) have demonstrated reduced hospital length of stay and improved outcomes after colorectal surgery. Concerns exist about increases in readmission rates. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an ERP can permit earlier discharge without compromising safety or increasing readmission rates. STUDY DESIGN A review of a prospective database was performed for major elective colorectal procedures by a single surgeon. All patients followed a standardized ERP and discharge criteria. Patients were categorized by approach and day of discharge (DoD) of ≤ 1, ≤ 2, ≤ 3, ≤ 7, and >7 days. Main outcomes measures were length of stay and 30-day readmission rates in each group. RESULTS Eight hundred and six cases (609 laparoscopic, 197 open) were identified during a 64-month period. Mean age was similar for the laparoscopic (59.1 years) and open (58.3 years) groups. Mean overall DoD was at 5 days (± 4.8 days); by approach, the mean laparoscopic DoD was at 3.9 days and open DoD was at 8.4 days. Twenty-nine percent were discharged within 48 hours (38% laparoscopic and 8% open) and 50% were discharged within 72 hours (62% laparoscopic and 19% open). Only 8.9% of all patients (n = 72) were readmitted (7.2% laparoscopic, 14.2% open). The cumulative readmission rate for laparoscopic patients in early DoD groups postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 were 0.2%, 1.6%, and 3.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Combining laparoscopy with an ERP optimizes patient care in colorectal surgery. The combination permits early discharge; 38% were discharged within 2 days and 62% within 3 days of surgery, with low readmission rates. These results support that early DoD is possible without compromising patient safety or increasing readmission rates. This might be a marker for low readmission rate, and suggests that readmission rate alone might not be an adequate marker of quality.

Differing risk factors for incisional and organ/space surgical site infections following abdominal colorectal surgery

OBJECTIVE: Surgical site infections are a major source of morbidity after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to explore differences between incisional and organ/space surgical site infection types by evaluating risk factors, National Nosocomial Risk Index Scores, and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A random sample of adults undergoing abdominal colorectal surgery between June 2001 and July 2008 was extracted from a colorectal surgery practice database. Patient factors, comorbidities, intraoperative factors, postoperative factors, and infection were collected; risk score (from −1 to 3 points) was calculated. Variables associated with surgical site infection by univariate analysis were incorporated in a multivariable model to identify risk factors by infection type. Infection risk by risk score was evaluated by logistic regression. Length of stay, readmission, and mortality were examined by infection type. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty subjects were identified: 312 were male, age was 59.8 (SD 17.8) years. Common preoperative diagnoses included colorectal cancer (36.9%) and inflammatory bowel disease (21.7%). Forty-five cases were emergencies, and 171 included rectal resections. Eighty-two patients developed incisional and 64 developed organ/space surgical site infections. Body mass index was associated with incisional infection (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00–1.09), whereas previous radiation (OR 4.49, 95% CI 1.53–13.18), postoperative hyperglycemia (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.41–6.34), preoperative [albumin] (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36–0.76), and case length (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08–1.47) were associated with organ/space infection. A risk score of 2 and above, compared with a score of <2, predicted organ/space (OR 5.92, 95% CI 3.16–11.09) but not incisional infection (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.41–2.16). Organ/space infections were associated with longer length of stay (P = .006) and higher readmission rates (P < .001) than incisional infections. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors for surgical site infections differ by type of infection. Clinical outcomes and value of the risk index score are different by infection type. It may be prudent to consider incisional and organ/space surgical site infections as different entities for patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Antibiotic Regimen and the Timing of Prophylaxis Are Important for Reducing Surgical Site Infection after Elective Abdominal Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND Surgical site infections (SSIs) cause morbidity after elective colorectal surgery, and antibiotic prophylaxis can decrease SSIs. The aim of this study was to determine compliance with an antibiotic administration protocol, including regimen, initial dose timing, and re-dosing, and determine the risk of SSI associated with each. We hypothesized that appropriate antibiotic administration reduces the risk of SSI. METHODS Retrospective review from a prospective database of a random sample of patients undergoing elective abdominal colorectal procedures with anastomosis. Antibiotic regimens, initial dose timing (IDT), and re-dosing were evaluated. Appropriate regimens covered gram-positive cocci, gram-negative bacilli, and anaerobes. The IDT was considered proper if completed within 30 min prior to incision; re-dosing parameters were determined pharmacokinetically for each agent. The main outcome was SSI. Sequential logistic models were generated: Model 1 assessed antibiotic administration factors, whereas Model 2 controlled for patient and clinical factors, including disease process, patient characteristics, intra-operative factors, and post-operative factors. RESULTS Six hundred five patients (mean age 59.7 [standard deviation 17.8] years, 42.8% male) were included. The most common diagnoses were cancer (38.8%) and inflammatory bowel disease (22.0%). Seventy-six patients (12.6%) had superficial or deep incisional SSI, and 54 (8.9%) had organ/space SSI. Regimens included cefazolin + metronidazole for 219 patients (36.2%), cefoxitin for 214 (35.4%), and levofloxacin + metronidazole for 48 (7.9%). One hundred fourteen patients (18.8%) received other/nonstandard regimens, and ten had no documented antibiotic prophylaxis. Fifty-five patients (9.1%) received insufficient coverage, whereas 361 patients (59.7%) had proper IDT, and 401 regimens (66.3%) were re-dosed properly. In Model 1, the use of other/nonstandard regimens (odds ratio [OR] 2.069; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.078-1.868) and early administration of the initial prophylaxis dose (OR 1.725; 95% CI 1.147-2.596) were associated with greater odds of SSI. After adding clinical factors in Model 2, both of these factors remained significant (OR 2.505; 95% CI 1.066-5.886 and OR 1.733; 95% CI 1.017-2.954, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Appropriate antibiotic selection and timing of administration for prophylaxis are crucial to reduce the likelihood of SSI after elective colorectal surgery with intestinal anastomosis.

The effect of alvimopan on recovery after laparoscopic segmental colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Alvimopan, a peripherally acting &mgr;-opioid receptor antagonist, was recently approved for the reduction of postoperative ileus after open colectomy. No data are available regarding the use of alvimopan following laparoscopic segmental colectomy. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of alvimopan in patients undergoing laparoscopic segmental colectomy. DESIGN: A retrospective review of segmental laparoscopic colectomy was conducted in a population of patients using an accelerated postcolectomy care pathway. Patients that received alvimopan were identified from an institutional review board-approved database and matched with nonalvimopan patients for age, sex, procedure, and diagnosis. Patients with a diverting ileostomy or with contraindications for alvimopam were excluded. RESULTS: One hundred patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy received alvimopan perioperatively and were matched with a similar group of nonalvimopan patients. Although patients on alvimopan were significantly less likely to develop postoperative ileus (4% vs 12%; P = .04), there was no difference in length of hospital stay (3.63 days in the alvimopan group vs 3.78 in the nonalvimopan group; P = .84) or 30-day readmission rate (4.0% vs 4.2%; P = .95). CONCLUSIONS: As the cost of providing health care continues to increase, reductions in perioperative complications and hospital stay are important to hospital efficiency and patient care. Alvimopan effectively reduces the incidence of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing open colectomy; however, hospital stay and readmission rates were not altered in this laparoscopic group. Further study is required before alvimopan can be routinely used in patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy.

The Effect of Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks on Postoperative Pain in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

BACKGROUND:Superior early pain control has been suggested with transversus abdominis plane blocks, but evidence-based recommendations for transversus abdominis plane blocks and their effects on patient outcomes are lacking. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine whether transversus abdominis plane blocks improve early postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection already on an optimized enhanced recovery pathway. DESIGN:This study is based on a prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial. SETTINGS:The trial was conducted at a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS:Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection were selected. INTERVENTIONS(S):Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a transversus abdominis plane block or a placebo placed intraoperatively under laparoscopic guidance. All followed a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. Patient demographics, perioperative procedures, and postoperative outcomes were collected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Postoperative pain and nausea/vomiting scores in the postanesthesia care unit and department, opioid use, length of stay, and 30-day readmission rates were measured. RESULTS:The trial randomly assigned 41 patients to the transversus abdominis plane block group and 38 patients to the control group. Demographic, clinical, and procedural data were not significantly different. In the postanesthesia care unit, the transversus abdominis plane block group had significantly lower pain scores (p < 0.01) and used fewer opioids (p < 0.01) than the control group; postoperative nausea/vomiting scores were comparable (p = 0.99). The transversus abdominis plane group had significantly lower pain scores on postoperative day 1 (p = 0.04) and throughout the study period (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between groups in postoperative opioid use (p = 0.65) or nausea/vomiting (p = 0.79). The length of stay (median, 2 days experimental, 3 days control; p = 0.50) and readmission rate (7% experimental, 5% control, p = 0.99) was similar across cohorts. LIMITATIONS:This study was conducted a single center. CONCLUSIONS:Transversus abdominis plane blocks improved immediate short-term opioid use and pain outcomes. Pain improvement was durable throughout the hospital stay. However, the blocks did not translate into less overall narcotic use, shorter length of stay, or lower readmission rates.

Immediate versus tailored prophylaxis to prevent symptomatic recurrences after surgery for ileocecal Crohn's disease?

BACKGROUND Studies have not established the optimal role for prophylaxis after surgery for Crohns disease. Some suggest treatment should be initiated within the first month after surgery, whereas others advocate targeted treatment after endoscopic recurrence. In the present study, we compared the efficacy of these competing approaches. METHODS One hundred and ninety-nine Crohns disease patients who underwent ileocecectomy between September 1993 and April 2008 were retrospectively divided into 3 groups based on treatment timing: immediate, tailored, and none. Groups were compared for differences in demographics, pathology, and surgical technique (Chi-square, ANOVA). Rate of symptomatic recurrence (Chi-square), and time to symptomatic recurrence were analyzed (log rank, multivariate Cox proportional hazards). RESULTS Sixty-nine (34.7%) received immediate prophylaxis, 32 (16.1%) received tailored prophylaxis, and 98 (49.3%) did not receive any prophylaxis. The groups were similar, though patients receiving immediate prophylaxis were younger and less likely to be lost to follow-up. At 5 years, 62 (31.2%) patients had endoscopic, 46 (23.1%) had symptomatic, and 22 (11%) had surgical recurrences. On simple univariate analysis, patients treated in a tailored fashion at time of endoscopic recurrence appeared more likely than patients treated with immediate prophylaxis to have symptomatic recurrence (43.7% vs 28.9%; P = .02), However, when censored for length of follow-up on multivariate analysis, the only enduring predictor of symptomatic recurrence was Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = .048). Timing of treatment, medicine used for immunoprophylaxis, age, history of prior resection, presence of active disease, and type of anastomosis were not predictive of symptomatic recurrence. CONCLUSION Patients offered prophylaxis tailored to endoscopic recurrence have a similar time to symptomatic recurrence as those offered prophylaxis immediately. This suggests that a tailored treatment within a strict protocol of preemptive endoscopic surveillance may be reasonable.

Radiographic and endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of enterocutaneous fistulas

The management of enterocutaneous fistulas continues to be a challenging postoperative complication. Understanding the anatomy of the fistula optimizes its evaluation and management. Diagnostic radiology has always played an important role in this task. The use of plain radiography with contrasted studies and fistulograms is well documented in the earliest investigations of fistulas and they continue to be helpful techniques. The imaging techniques have evolved rapidly over the past 15 years with the introduction of cross-sectional imaging, ultrasound and endoscopy. The purpose of this chapter is to review both the diagnostic and therapeutic roles of fistulograms, small bowel follow-through, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, and endoscopy in the setting of acquired enterocutaneous fistulas.

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing trend to use laparoscopy for rectal cancer surgery. Although laparoscopic and open rectal resections appear oncologically equivalent, there is little information on the cost of different surgical approaches. With the current health care crisis and the importance of optimizing health care resources and patient outcomes, the cost of care is an important factor. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy in rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was a case-matched study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing elective rectal cancer resection between 2007 and 2012 were selected. METHODS: A review of a prospective database for elective laparoscopic rectal cancer resections was performed. Laparoscopic cases were matched to open cases based on age, BMI, operative procedure, and diagnostic-related group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the cost of care, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, readmission, postoperative complications, and mortality rates. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four matched cases were included in the analysis: 125 laparoscopic (49%) and 129 open (51%). The cTNM stage (p = 0.39), tumor distance from the anal verge (p = 0.07), and rate of neoadjuvant therapy received between the laparoscopic and open groups were similar (p = 0.12). Operating time (p< 0.01) and cost per operating room minute (p = 0.04) were significantly higher in the open group. The groups were oncologically equivalent, based on circumferential resection margin (p = 0.15). The laparoscopic group had a significantly shorter length of stay (p < 0.01) and lower total hospital cost (p < 0.01). Postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates were similar. However, significantly more patients undergoing open resection required intensive care unit care (p = 0.03), skilled nursing (p = 0.03), or home care services (p < 0.01) at discharge. LIMITATIONS: This investigation was conducted at a single institution and it is a retrospective study with potential bias. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is cost-effective for rectal cancer surgery, improving both health care expenditures and patient outcomes. For selected patients, laparoscopic rectal cancer resection can reduce length of stay, operating time, and resource utilization.