-
International Journal of Colorectal... Apr 2022To evaluate comparative outcomes of straight (end-to-end) anastomosis versus colonic J-pouch anastomosis following anterior resection. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
To evaluate comparative outcomes of straight (end-to-end) anastomosis versus colonic J-pouch anastomosis following anterior resection.
METHODS
A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing straight (end-to-end) anastomosis versus J-pouch anastomosis were included. Anastomotic complications, post-operative complications, re-operation, mortality, and functional outcomes were the evaluated outcome parameters. Revman 5.3 was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies reporting a total number of 3293 patients who underwent straight anastomosis (n = 1581) or J-pouch (n = 1712) were included. Anastomotic leak and re-operation rates were significantly higher in the straight group compared to the J-pouch group [RD 0.03, P = 0.03] and [OR 1.87, P = 0.003], respectively. Stool frequency per 24 h at 6 months and 12 months was lower in the J-pouch group than the straight group [MD 2.13, P = 0.003] and [MD 1.44, P = 0.00001], respectively. In addition, the use of anti-diarrheal medication is lower at 12 months in the J-pouch group [MD 3.85, P = 0.03]. Moreover, the two groups showed comparable results regarding SSI, sepsis, paralytic ileus, anastomotic stricture formation, anastomotic bleeding, and mortality.
CONCLUSION
J-pouch anastomosis showed lower risk for anastomotic leak and re-operation. Furthermore, better functional outcomes such as stool frequency were achieved using the colonic J-pouch reconstruction over the conventional straight end-to-end anastomosis.
Topics: Anal Canal; Anastomosis, Surgical; Colon; Colonic Pouches; Humans; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Rectal Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35306586
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04130-w -
Irish Journal of Medical Science Mar 2024Perianal wound healing and/or complications are common following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Although primary closure is commonly undertaken, myocutaneous flap... (Review)
Review
Primary closure versus vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap closure of perineal wound following abdominoperineal resection-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE/AIM
Perianal wound healing and/or complications are common following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Although primary closure is commonly undertaken, myocutaneous flap closure such as vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAM) is thought to improve wound healing process and outcome. A comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes of primary closure versus VRAM flap closure of perineal wound following APR.
METHODS
PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched until the 8th of August 2023. Included studies underwent meta-analysis to compare outcomes of primary closure versus VRAM flap closure of perineal wound following APR. The primary outcome of interest was perineal wound complications, and the secondary outcomes were abdominal wound complications, dehiscence, wound healing time, length of hospital stay, and mortality.
RESULTS
Ten studies with 1141 patients were included. Overall, 853 patients underwent primary closure (74.8%) and 288 patients underwent VRAM (25.2%). Eight studies reported on perineal wound complications after APR: 38.2% (n = 263/688) in the primary closure group versus 32.8% (n = 80/244) in the VRAM group. Perineal complication rates were statistically significantly lower in the VRAM group versus primary closure ((M-H OR, 1.61; 95% CI 1.04-2.49;
CONCLUSION
We highlight the advantage of VRAM flap closure over primary closure for perineal wounds following APR. However, tailoring operative strategy based on patient and disease factors remains important in optimising outcomes.
PubMed: 38532236
DOI: 10.1007/s11845-024-03651-3 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Dec 2023To mitigate pelvic wound issues following perineal excision of rectal or anal cancer, a number of techniques have been suggested as an alternative to primary closure.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To mitigate pelvic wound issues following perineal excision of rectal or anal cancer, a number of techniques have been suggested as an alternative to primary closure. These methods include the use of a biological/dual mesh, omentoplasty, muscle flap, and/or pelvic peritoneum closure. The aim of this network analysis was to compare all the available surgical techniques used in the attempt to mitigate issues associated with an empty pelvis.
METHODS
An electronic systematic search using MEDLINE databases (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed (Last date of research was March 15th, 2023). Studies comparing at least two of the aforementioned surgical techniques for perineal wound reconstruction during abdominoperineal resection, pelvic exenteration, or extra levator abdominoperineal excision were included. The incidence of primary healing, complication, and/or reintervention for perineal wound were evaluated. In addition, the overall incidence of perineal hernia was assessed.
RESULTS
Forty-five observational studies and five randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion reporting on 146,398 patients. All the surgical techniques had a comparable risk ratio (RR) in terms of primary outcomes. The pooled network analysis showed a lower RR for perineal wound infection when comparing primary closure (RR 0.53; Crl 0.33, 0.89) to muscle flap. The perineal wound dehiscence RR was lower when comparing both omentoplasty (RR 0.59; Crl 0.38, 0.95) and primary closure (RR 0.58; Crl 0.46, 0.77) to muscle flap.
CONCLUSIONS
Surgical options for perineal wound closure have evolved significantly over the last few decades. There remains no clear consensus on the "best" option, and tailoring to the individual remains a critical factor.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Perineum; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 37843643
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02868-1 -
Surgery Aug 2021Numerous randomized controlled trials comparing end-to-end and end-to-side anastomoses after low anterior resection have been performed. Rates of anastomotic leakage and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Numerous randomized controlled trials comparing end-to-end and end-to-side anastomoses after low anterior resection have been performed. Rates of anastomotic leakage and overall postoperative morbidity, as well as reported quality of postoperative bowel function, vary across individual studies. As such, this study meta-analyzes pooled data comparing end-to-end and end-to-side anastomosis after low anterior resection in terms of anastomotic leak rate and postoperative bowel function.
METHODS
A search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Articles were included if they were randomized controlled trials that compared end-to-end and end-to-side anastomosis after low anterior resection for benign or malignant disease. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak rate. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects.
RESULTS
From 1,452 citations, 6 randomized controlled trials with 270 patients undergoing end-to-end anastomosis (45.9% female, mean age: 63.5 years) and 268 patients undergoing end-to-side anastomosis (52.4% female, mean age: 64.0 years) met inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing end-to-side anastomosis had a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leak (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15-0.93, P = .04, I=0%). There were no differences in rate of anastomotic stenosis (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.21-5.19, P = .97) or overall postoperative morbidity (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.33-1.07, P = .08). Narrative review of postoperative bowel function demonstrated evidence of improved Wexner scores for 6 months postoperatively in patients undergoing end-to-side anastomosis.
CONCLUSION
End-to-side anastomosis significantly reduces the risk of anastomotic leak after low anterior resection. Additional prospective trials are warranted to confirm the findings of this review and to contribute to the growing evidence-base aimed at optimization of bowel function after low anterior resection.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Anastomotic Leak; Humans; Proctectomy
PubMed: 33541747
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.030 -
Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt... 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes between stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and hand-sewn IPAA with mucosectomy in cases of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Stapled Anastomosis Versus Hand-Sewn Anastomosis With Mucosectomy for Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Postoperative Outcomes, Functional Outcomes, and Oncological Safety.
PURPOSE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes between stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and hand-sewn IPAA with mucosectomy in cases of ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis) guidelines 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) guidelines. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Subgroup analysis was performed according to the indication for surgery.
RESULTS
The bibliographic research yielded 31 trials: 3 RCTs, 5 prospective clinical trials, and 24 CCTs including 8872 patients: 4871 patients in the stapled group and 4038 in the hand-sewn group. Regarding postoperative outcomes, the stapled group had a lower rate of anastomotic stricture, small bowel obstruction, and ileal pouch failure. There were no differences between the 2 groups in terms of operative time, anastomotic leak, pelvic sepsis, pouchitis, or hospital stay. For functional outcomes, the stapled group was associated with greater outcomes in terms of seepage per day and by night, pad use, night incontinence, resting pressure, and squeeze pressure. There were no differences in stool Frequency per 24h, stool frequency at night, antidiarrheal medication, sexual impotence, or length of the high-pressure zone. There was no difference between the 2 groups in terms of dysplasia and neoplasia.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to hand-sewn anastomosis, stapled ileoanal anastomosis leads to a large reduction in anastomotic stricture, small bowel obstruction, ileal pouch failure, seepage by day and night, pad use, and night incontinence. This may ensure a higher resting pressure and squeeze pressure in manometry evaluation.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
The protocol was registered at PROSPERO under CRD 42022379880.
Topics: Male; Humans; Constriction, Pathologic; Surgical Stapling; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Anastomosis, Surgical; Colonic Pouches; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38410083
DOI: 10.1177/10732748241236338 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Sep 2021The impact of transanal local excision (TAE) of early rectal cancer (ERC) on subsequent completion rectal resection (CRR) for unfavorable histology or margin involvement... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The impact of transanal local excision (TAE) of early rectal cancer (ERC) on subsequent completion rectal resection (CRR) for unfavorable histology or margin involvement is unclear. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on the impact of TAE on CRR in patients without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature up to March 2020. Medline and Cochrane libraries were searched for studies reporting outcomes of CRR after TAE for ERC. We excluded patients who had neoadjuvant CRT and endoscopic local excision. Surgical, functional, pathological and oncological outcomes were assessed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies involving 353 patients were included. Pathology following TAE was as follows T0 = 2 (0.5%); T1 = 154 (44.7%); T2 = 142 (41.2%); T3 = 43 (12.5%); Tx = 3 (0.8%); T not reported = 9. Fifty-three percent were > T1. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) was performed in 80 (23.2%) patients. Postoperative major morbidity and mortality occurred in 22 (11.4%) and 3 (1.1%), patients, respectively. An incomplete mesorectal fascia resulting in defects of the mesorectum was reported in 30 (24.6%) cases. Thirteen (12%) patients developed recurrence: 8 (3.1%) local, 19 (7.3%) distant, 4 (1.5%) local and distant. The 5-year cancer-specific survival was 92%. Only 1 study assessed anal function reporting no continence disorders in 11 patients. In the meta-analysis, CRR after TAE showed an increased APR rate (OR 5.25; 95% CI 1.27-21.8; p 0.020) and incomplete mesorectum rate (OR 3.48; 95% CI 1.32-9.19; p 0.010) compared to primary total mesorectal excision (TME). Two case matched studies reported no difference in recurrence rate and disease free survival respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The data are incomplete and of low quality. There was a tendency towards an increased risk of APR and poor specimen quality. It is necessary to improve the accuracy of preoperative staging of malignant rectal tumors in patients scheduled for TAE.
Topics: Humans; Mesocolon; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34173121
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-020-02401-8 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Jun 2022Crohn's disease (CD) of the pouch and chronic pouchitis represent the most common long-term complications of total proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis... (Review)
Review
Crohn's disease (CD) of the pouch and chronic pouchitis represent the most common long-term complications of total proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) for refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). These conditions are treated with multiple agents, including antibiotics, immunomodulators, and biologics. Among the latter, ustekinumab is approved for both CD and UC. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of this anti-IL12/23 in CD of the pouch and chronic refractory pouchitis. Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched to identify studies published until August 2020 investigating the use of ustekinumab for these conditions. Eighty-six eligible patients with IPAA-51 with CD of the pouch, 35 with chronic pouchitis-were identified from 2 retrospective studies and 5 case reports. Reported clinical response to ustekinumab was 63 and 85% in chronic pouchitis and CD of the pouch after 4-12 and 4-16 weeks, respectively. Clinical remission was reported in 10% of patients with chronic pouchitis and 27% of patients with CD of the pouch after 8-52 and 4-52 weeks of treatment, respectively. Endoscopic response was reported in 60% and 67% of patients with chronic pouchitis and CD of the pouch after 24-32 and 8-24 weeks of treatment respectively. Small sample sizes and large heterogeneity of therapy protocols/outcome definitions were significant studies limitations. In conclusion, there is a limited and inconclusive body of evidence suggesting that ustekinumab may be a therapeutic option for patients with chronic pouchitis and CD of the pouch refractory to other therapies.
Topics: Colitis, Ulcerative; Colonic Pouches; Crohn Disease; Humans; Pouchitis; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Retrospective Studies; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 34097166
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-021-07002-5 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Jul 2021Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a curative and cancer preventative procedure in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a curative and cancer preventative procedure in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). It can be technically difficult laparoscopically, and hence the robotic platform has been suggested as a way to enable minimally invasive surgery in more patients. This systematic review examines robotic proctectomy or proctocolectomy with IPAA. A limited meta-analysis was performed on data comparing the robotic approach to laparoscopy.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for case series of robotic IPAA procedures and studies comparing the robotic to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data examined includes operating time, conversion to open, length of stay, complications, blood loss, return of bowel function, reoperation rate and functional outcomes.
RESULTS
Five non-randomised studies compared robotic to laparoscopic techniques; one compared robotic to open surgery and three case series are included. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic cases. Estimated blood loss was significantly less in three of four studies which reported this; hospital stay was significantly less in two. There were nonsignificant reductions in complications and readmission rates. Pooled analysis of four papers with adequate data showed a nonstatistically significant trend to less complications in robotic procedures. Three studies assessed functional and quality of life outcomes, with little difference between the platforms.
CONCLUSIONS
Available data suggests that the robotic platform is safe to use for IPAA procedures. There is minimal evidence for clinical advantages, but with little data to base decisions and significant potential for improvements in technique and cost-effectiveness, further use of the platform for this operation is warranted. It is vital that this occurs within an evaluation framework.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Colitis, Ulcerative; Colonic Pouches; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33611619
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-03868-z -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Aug 2021The optimal restorative surgical management of patients with concomitant diagnoses of primary sclerosing cholangitis and ulcerative colitis [PSC-UC] who require... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The optimal restorative surgical management of patients with concomitant diagnoses of primary sclerosing cholangitis and ulcerative colitis [PSC-UC] who require colectomy is controversial, given that patients may have an increased risk for pouchitis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA]. We aimed to compare rates of pouchitis and pouch failure among patients with and without PSC by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic search performed through August 18, 2020, identified 12 studies that compared the rates of pouchitis [n = 11] and/or pouch failure [n = 6] among patients with PSC-UC and UC alone. We then performed a meta-analysis using random effects modelling to estimate the odds of developing any episodes of pouchitis or pouch failure.
RESULTS
A total of 4108 patients underwent an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis after proctocolectomy for UC. Of these, 3799 [92%] were performed for UC alone and 309 [8%] were performed for PSC-UC. In a meta-analysis of 11 studies, patients with PSC-UC compared with UC alone were significantly more likely to develop any pouchitis (63% vs 30%, odds ratio [OR] 4.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.86-6.18), chronic pouchitis [47% vs 15%, OR 6.37, 95% CI 3.41-11.9], and pouch failure [10% vs 7%, OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08-3.17].
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with PSC-UC were more likely to experience pouchitis and pouch failure than patients with UC alone. The risks of inflammatory complications after IPAA must be weighed against the potential complications with other surgical procedures, and future studies comparing outcomes among these procedures may inform decision making in this population.
Topics: Cholangitis, Sclerosing; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Pouchitis; Proctocolectomy, Restorative
PubMed: 33544128
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab025 -
PloS One 2023Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This...
OBJECTIVES
Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria.
RESULTS
12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used.
CONCLUSION
Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.
Topics: Humans; Robotics; Rectal Neoplasms; Proctectomy; Laparoscopy; Hospitalization; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Rectum; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37506122
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289090