-
The Permanente Journal 2020Abdominoperineal resection is associated with a high rate of wound complications. A high degree of wound tension, a common contributor to wound breakdown and...
INTRODUCTION
Abdominoperineal resection is associated with a high rate of wound complications. A high degree of wound tension, a common contributor to wound breakdown and complications, may be mitigated by incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT). Although NPWT has been shown to reduce complications associated with open and complex wounds, there is a paucity of data regarding its prophylactic use for incisional wounds.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effect of NPWT use on surgical wound complications of abdominoperineal resection for malignancy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review by querying the PubMed database for studies from 1990 to 2019 and included English-language studies that used incisional NPWT for closed wounds from abdominoperineal resection in malignancy cases.
RESULTS
Five studies with a total of 76 patients were included. Their findings showed reduced rates of surgical site complications with the use of incisional NPWT. Another 2 studies describing the use of prophylactic NPWT to expedite secondary closure of the surgical wound followed by incisional wound therapy were separately categorized and included 8 patients, none of whom experienced wound wound complications.
DISCUSSION
Additional, prospective research is needed to confirm the benefit of prophylactic incisional NPWT.
Topics: Age Factors; Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Proctectomy; Prospective Studies; Rectal Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Severity of Illness Index; Sex Factors; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 32069209
DOI: 10.7812/TPP/19.173 -
International Journal of Colorectal... May 2021Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for rectal cancer leaves a greater perineal defect which might result in significant perineal morbidity, and how to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of perineal morbidity between biologic mesh reconstruction and primary closure following extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
AIM
Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for rectal cancer leaves a greater perineal defect which might result in significant perineal morbidity, and how to effectively close perineal defects remains a challenge for surgeons. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the perineal-related complications of biologic mesh reconstruction and primary closure following ELAPE.
METHOD
The electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched to screen out all eligible studies, which compared biologic mesh reconstruction with primary closure for perineal-related complications following ELAPE. Pooled data of perineal-related complications including overall wound complications, hernia, infection, dehiscence, chronic sinus, and chronic pain (12 months after surgery) were analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of four studies (one randomized controlled trial and three cohort studies) involving 544 patients (346 biologic mesh vs 198 primary closure) were included. With a median follow-up of 18.5 months (range, 2-71.5 months). Analysis of the pooled data indicated that the perineal hernia rate was significantly lower in biologic mesh reconstruction as compared to primary closure (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22-0.69; P = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of total perineal wound complications rate (P = 0.70), as well as rates of perineal wound infection (P = 0.97), wound dehiscence (P = 0.43), chronic sinus (P = 0.28), and chronic pain (12 months after surgery; P = 0.75).
CONCLUSION
Biologic mesh reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision appears to have a lower hernia rate, with no differences in perineal wound complications.
Topics: Abdomen; Biological Products; Humans; Morbidity; Perineum; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Neoplasms; Surgical Mesh
PubMed: 33409565
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03820-7 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Jun 2024Anastomotic leakage (AL) represents a major complication after rectal low anterior resection (LAR). Transanal drainage tube (TDT) placement offers a potential strategy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Updated evidence of the effectiveness and safety of transanal drainage tube for the prevention of anastomotic leakage after rectal low anterior resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUNDS
Anastomotic leakage (AL) represents a major complication after rectal low anterior resection (LAR). Transanal drainage tube (TDT) placement offers a potential strategy for AL prevention; however, its efficacy and safety remain contentious.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were used to evaluate the influence of TDT subsequent to LAR as part of the revision of the surgical site infection prevention guidelines of the Japanese Society of Surgical Infectious Diseases (PROSPERO registration; CRD42023476655). We searched each database, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBSs) comparing TDT and non-TDT outcomes. The main outcome was AL. Data were independently extracted by three authors and random-effects models were implemented.
RESULTS
A total of three RCTs and 18 OBSs were included. RCTs reported no significant difference in AL rate between the TDT and non-TDT groups [relative risk (RR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-1.15]. OBSs reported that TDT reduced AL risk [odds ratio (OR): 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.64]. In the subgroup excluding diverting stoma (DS), TDT significantly lowered the AL rate in RCTs (RR: 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.99) and OBSs (OR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.62). Reoperation rates were significantly lower in the TDT without DS groups in both RCTs (RR: 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.94) and OBSs (OR: 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.66). TDT groups exhibited a higher anastomotic bleeding rate only in RCTs (RR: 4.28, 95% CI 2.14-8.54), while shorter hospital stays were observed in RCTs [standard mean difference (SMD): -0.44, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.23] and OBSs (SMD: -0.54, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.11) compared with the non-TDT group.
CONCLUSIONS
A universal TDT placement cannot be recommended for all rectal LAR patients. Some patients may benefit from TDT, such as patients without DS creation. Further investigation is necessary to identify the specific beneficiaries.
Topics: Humans; Anastomotic Leak; Drainage; Proctectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectum; Anal Canal; Rectal Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Female; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Middle Aged
PubMed: 38916755
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-024-02942-2 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Sep 2021The continent ileostomy allows evacuation of an ileal reservoir at a time convenient to the patient. It is a surgical option for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC)... (Review)
Review
AIM
The continent ileostomy allows evacuation of an ileal reservoir at a time convenient to the patient. It is a surgical option for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) when a restorative option is not suitable or has not succeeded and the patient does not want a conventional end ileostomy. Continent ileostomy types include the Kock pouch, Barnett continent intestinal reservoir and T-pouch. All of the published evidence on the long-term outcome and quality of life after continent ileostomy for UC was systematically reviewed.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies published between 1990 and 2020 were included. A descriptive synthesis was used due to the clinical heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The search returned 1655 abstracts and after screening of abstracts and full text review, 19 were included in the final review, involving 1602 patients. Operative mortality is low (0%-3.6%) after all types of continent ileostomy but reoperation rates are high (20.8%-65%) because of valve mechanism failures. Rates of fistulae (0%-25.5%) and stomal stenosis (0%-25%) can be relatively high postoperatively. Quality of life scores improve for most patients undergoing continent ileostomy, especially for patients converted from ileal pouch anal anastomosis. Overall, continent ileostomy retention is high in the long-term.
DISCUSSION
In the long-term, patients report high satisfaction and a good quality of life with continent ileostomy, despite high reoperation rates and complications. Newer technologies may reinvigorate interest in the continent ileostomy for this population.
Topics: Colitis, Ulcerative; Colonic Pouches; Humans; Ileostomy; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34166559
DOI: 10.1111/codi.15788 -
The British Journal of Surgery Jan 2020Postoperative pain management after colorectal surgery remains challenging. Systemic opiates delivered on demand or via a patient-controlled pump have traditionally been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain management after colorectal surgery remains challenging. Systemic opiates delivered on demand or via a patient-controlled pump have traditionally been the mainstay of treatment. Opiate analgesia is associated with slower gastrointestinal recovery and unpleasant side-effects; many regional and local analgesic techniques have been developed as alternatives.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched systematically for RCTs comparing analgesic techniques after major colorectal resection. A network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian random-effects framework with a non-informative prior. Primary outcomes included pain at rest and cumulative opiate consumption 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included pain at rest and cumulative opiate consumption at 48 h, pain on movement and cough at 24 and 48 h, time to first stool, time to tolerance of oral diet, duration of hospital stay, nausea and vomiting, and postoperative complications.
RESULTS
Seventy-four RCTs, including 5101 patients and 11 different techniques, were included. Some inconsistency and heterogeneity was found. SUCRA scores showed that spinal analgesia was the best intervention for postoperative pain and opiate reduction at 24 h. Transversus abdominus plane blocks were effective in reducing pain and opiate consumption 24 h after surgery. Subgroup analysis showed similar results for open versus minimally invasive surgical approaches, and enhanced recovery after surgery programmes.
CONCLUSION
Spinal analgesia and transversus abdominus plane blocks best balanced pain control and opiate minimization in the immediate postoperative phase following colorectal resection. Multimodal analgesia reduces pain, minimizes systemic opiate use and optimizes postoperative recovery.
Topics: Analgesia; Colectomy; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Opiate Alkaloids; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Proctocolectomy, Restorative
PubMed: 31903601
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11425 -
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Feb 2024Patients with medically-refractory ulcerative colitis or advanced neoplasia are often offered an ileal-pouch-anal anastomosis to restore bowel continuity. However, up to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with medically-refractory ulcerative colitis or advanced neoplasia are often offered an ileal-pouch-anal anastomosis to restore bowel continuity. However, up to 50% of patients can suffer from inflammatory conditions of the pouch, some of which require biological therapy to treat. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of each biological agent for the treatment of inflammatory conditions of the pouch.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed in the major databases from inception through February 11, 2020, for studies assessing the efficacy of biologics in chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis (CARP) and Crohn's disease (CD) of the pouch. Both prospective and retrospective studies were included. The primary outcomes of interest were complete and partial responses were defined within each study. χ 2 test was used to compare variables.
RESULTS
Thirty-four studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Sixteen studies (N=247) evaluated the use of infliximab (IFX), showing complete response in 50.7% and partial response in 28.1% for CARP, and complete response in 66.7% and partial response in 20% for CD of the pouch. Seven studies (n=107) assessed the efficacy of adalimumab. For CARP, 33.3% of patients had a complete response, and 38.1% had a partial response, whereas for CD of the pouch, 47.7% experienced a complete response, and 24.6% had a partial response. Three studies (n=78) reported outcomes with the use of ustekinumab, showing 50% complete response and 3.8% partial response for CARP. For the CD of the pouch, 5.8% had a complete response and 78.8% had a partial response. Seven studies (n=151) reported the efficacy of vedolizumab, showing 28.4% complete response and 43.2% partial response in patients with CARP, whereas 63% of patients experienced partial response in CD of the pouch. IFX had higher rates of complete response in CARP compared with adalimumab ( P =0.04) and compared with vedolizumab ( P =0.005), but not compared with ustekinumab ( P =0.95). There were no new safety signals reported in any of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Biologics are safe and efficacious in the treatment of chronic, refractory inflammatory conditions of the pouch. IFX seems to be more efficacious than adalimumab and vedolizumab for CARP. Further prospective, head-to-head evaluations are needed to compare biological therapies in the treatment of CARP and CD of the pouch.
Topics: Humans; Adalimumab; Biological Products; Colitis, Ulcerative; Crohn Disease; Infliximab; Pathologic Complete Response; Pouchitis; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Retrospective Studies; Ustekinumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal
PubMed: 36753457
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001828 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Mar 2022To assess the efficacy of extraperitoneal colostomy (EPC) in preventing stoma-related complications. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To assess the efficacy of extraperitoneal colostomy (EPC) in preventing stoma-related complications.
BACKGROUND
Transperitoneal colostomy (TPC) is a widely used surgical approach. However, TPCs have been reported to have increased risks of stoma-related complications, such as parastomal hernias, stomal retraction, and stomal prolapse. The purpose of EPC is to reduce these complications. However, there is still a lack of evidence-based studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, MOOSE, PubMed, Google Scholar, Baidu Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis with RCTs. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.4 software.
RESULTS
This study included 5 eligible RCTs. Compared with the TPC group, the EPC group had lower incidence rates of parastomal hernias (RR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.52, P = 0.003, I = 0%) and stomatal prolapse (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.95, P = 0.04, I = 0%), but a higher rate of defecation sensation (RR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.47-5.0, P < 0.00001, I = 37%). No statistically significant differences were observed in stoma retraction, colostomy construction time, stoma ischemia, or stoma necrosis.
CONCLUSION
Extraperitoneal colostomies are associated with lower rates of postoperative complications than transperitoneal colostomies. A randomized controlled trial meta-analysis found that permanent colostomies after abdominoperineal resection resulted in better outcomes.
Topics: Colostomy; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Software; Surgical Stomas
PubMed: 35279174
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-022-02547-9 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Jan 2021Closed perineal wounds often fail to heal by primary intention after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and are often complicated by surgical site infection (SSI) and/or... (Review)
Review
The role of perineal application of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy for prevention of wound-related complications after abdomino-perineal resection: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Closed perineal wounds often fail to heal by primary intention after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and are often complicated by surgical site infection (SSI) and/or wound dehiscence. Recent evidence showed encouraging results of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) for prevention of wound-related complications in surgery. Our objective was to gather and discuss the early existing literature regarding the use of pNPWT to prevent wound-related complications on perineal wounds after APR.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for original publications and congress abstracts reporting the use of pNPWT after APR on closed perineal wounds.
RESULTS
Seven publications were included for analysis. Two publications reported significantly lower incidence of SSI in pNPWT patients than in controls with a risk reduction of about 25-30%. Two other publications described similar incidences of SSI between the two groups of patients but described SSI in pNPWT patients to be less severe. One study reported significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence in pNPWT patients than in controls.
CONCLUSION
The largest non-randomized studies investigating the effect of pNPWT on the prevention of wound-related complications after APR showed encouraging results in terms of reduction of SSI and wound dehiscence that deserve further investigation and confirmation.
Topics: Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Perineum; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32886194
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03732-6 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Jul 2023Anastomotic leakage (AL) as a result of creation of a colorectal/anal anastomosis still represents a frequent complication of colorectal surgery, with short- and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Diagnostic accuracy of water-soluble contrast enema, contrast-enema computed tomography and endoscopy in detecting anastomotic leakage after (Colo) proctectomy: A meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Anastomotic leakage (AL) as a result of creation of a colorectal/anal anastomosis still represents a frequent complication of colorectal surgery, with short- and long-term consequences on postoperative morbidity, quality of life and oncological outcomes. However, early diagnosis of AL may result in improved outcomes. The aims of this study were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of water-soluble contrast enema (WSCE), contrast enema computed tomography (CECT) and endoscopy in identifying AL and to identify the diagnostic procedure that is most accurate.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies accounting for a total of 25 tests reporting diagnostic accuracy estimates was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines up to June 2021. For the diagnostic tests we evaluated the pooled estimates and conducted pairwise comparisons.
RESULTS
For WSCE, the pooled sensitivity was 0.50, the pooled specificity was 0.99 and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.91. For endoscopy, the pooled sensitivity was 0.69, specificity was 1.00 and AUC was 0.99. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for CECT were 0.89 and 1.00, respectively; the AUC was 0.99. The comparison between CECT and WSCE highlighted a significantly greater sensitivity (p = 0.04) for CECT, whereas no difference was found for specificity. Compared with CECT, endoscopy was not significantly more accurate in terms of either sensitivity or specificity. Endoscopy was found to be significantly more specific than WSCE (p = 0.031) but no difference was found for sensitivity.
CONCLUSION
Water-soluble contrast enema, endoscopy and CECT have an elevated diagnostic accuracy. However, WSCE is less accurate than either endoscopy or CECT. Although greater sensitivity was demonstrated for CECT compared with endoscopy, this was not significant.
Topics: Humans; Anastomotic Leak; Contrast Media; Quality of Life; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Proctectomy; Sensitivity and Specificity; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Enema; Water
PubMed: 37264714
DOI: 10.1111/codi.16591 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Aug 2020Anorectal melanoma (ARM) is a rare disease with a poor prognosis. There is no consensus as to the optimal primary surgical treatment for ARM, with advocates for both... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Anorectal melanoma (ARM) is a rare disease with a poor prognosis. There is no consensus as to the optimal primary surgical treatment for ARM, with advocates for both radical (abdominoperineal resection [APR]) and conservative strategies (wide local excision [WLE]). Here, we report a systematic review of studies comparing outcomes between these strategies.
METHODS
Studies comparing APR with WLE in patients with ARM were included, and a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was performed. Outcomes deemed critical included overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence and quality of life.
RESULTS
Forty studies were identified, of which 27 were suitable for inclusion. Twenty-three studies compared overall survival between WLE and APR, with no difference in outcomes noted (risk ratio [RR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-1.07, p = 0.13). Seven studies compared disease-free survival, with no difference in outcomes noted (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.61-1.91, p = 0.79). A total of 19 studies compared local recurrence rates, with again no significant difference in outcomes noted (RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.44-1.14, p = 0.16). None of the studies identified reported quality of life-related outcomes.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence to suggest that a radical primary surgical strategy improves outcomes in ARM. Therefore, given the well-documented morbidity associated with APR, WLE with regular surveillance for local recurrence should be the primary strategy in most patients.
Topics: Anus Neoplasms; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Disease Progression; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Melanoma; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Quality of Life; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 32563895
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.04.041