-
Current Problems in Surgery Oct 2020For a disease process that affects so many, we continue to struggle to define optimal care for patients with diverticular disease. Part of this stems from the fact that... (Review)
Review
For a disease process that affects so many, we continue to struggle to define optimal care for patients with diverticular disease. Part of this stems from the fact that diverticular disease requires different treatment strategies across the natural history- acute, chronic and recurrent. To understand where we are currently, it is worth understanding how treatment of diverticular disease has evolved. Diverticular disease was rarely described in the literature prior to the 1900’s. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, Painter and Burkitt popularized the theory that diverticulosis is a disease of Western civilization based on the observation that diverticulosis was rare in rural Africa but common in economically developed countries. Previous surgical guidelines focused on early operative intervention to avoid potential complicated episodes of recurrent complicated diverticulitis (e.g., with free perforation) that might necessitate emergent surgery and stoma formation. More recent data has challenged prior concerns about decreasing effectiveness of medical management with repeat episodes and the notion that the natural history of diverticulitis is progressive. It has also permitted more accurate grading of the severity of disease and permitted less invasive management options to attempt conversion of urgent operations into the elective setting, or even avoid an operation altogether. The role of diet in preventing diverticular disease has long been debated. A high fiber diet appears to decrease the likelihood of symptomatic diverticulitis. The myth of avoid eating nuts, corn, popcorn, and seeds to prevent episodes of diverticulitis has been debunked with modern data. Overall, the recommendations for “diverticulitis diets” mirror those made for overall healthy lifestyle – high fiber, with a focus on whole grains, fruits and vegetables. Diverticulosis is one of the most common incidental findings on colonoscopy and the eighth most common outpatient diagnosis in the United States. Over 50% of people over the age of 60 and over 60% of people over age 80 have colonic diverticula. Of those with diverticulosis, the lifetime risk of developing diverticulitis is estimated at 10–25%, although more recent studies estimate a 5% rate of progression to diverticulitis. Diverticulitis accounts for an estimated 371,000 emergency department visits and 200,000 inpatient admissions per year with annual cost of 2.1–2.6 billion dollars per year in the United States. The estimated total medical expenditure (inpatient and outpatient) for diverticulosis and diverticulitis in 2015 was over 5.4 billion dollars. The incidence of diverticulitis is increasing. Besides increasing age, other risk factors for diverticular disease include use of NSAIDS, aspirin, steroids, opioids, smoking and sedentary lifestyle. Diverticula most commonly occur along the mesenteric side of the antimesenteric taeniae resulting in parallel rows. These spots are thought to be relatively weak as this is the location where vasa recta penetrate the muscle to supply the mucosa. The exact mechanism that leads to diverticulitis from diverticulosis is not definitively known. The most common presenting complaint is of left lower quadrant abdominal pain with symptoms of systemic unwellness including fever and malaise, however the presentation may vary widely. The gold standard cross-sectional imaging is multi-detector CT. It is minimally invasive and has sensitivity between 98% and specificity up to 99% for diagnosing acute diverticulitis. Uncomplicated acute diverticulitis may be safely managed as an out-patient in carefully selected patients. Hospitalization is usually necessary for patients with immunosuppression, intolerance to oral intake, signs of severe sepsis, lack of social support and increased comorbidities. The role of antibiotics has been questioned in a number of randomized controlled trials and it is likely that we will see more patients with uncomplicated disease treated with observation in the future Acute diverticulitis can be further sub classified into complicated and uncomplicated presentations. Uncomplicated diverticulitis is characterized by inflammation limited to colonic wall and surrounding tissue. The management of uncomplicated diverticulitis is changing. Use of antibiotics has been questioned as it appears that antibiotic use can be avoided in select groups of patients. Surgical intervention appears to improve patient’s quality of life. The decision to proceed with surgery is recommended in an individualized manner. Complicated diverticulitis is defined as diverticulitis associated with localized or generalized perforation, localized or distant abscess, fistula, stricture or obstruction. Abscesses can be treated with percutaneous drainage if the abscess is large enough. The optimal long-term strategy for patients who undergo successful non-operative management of their diverticular abscess remains controversial. There are clearly patients who would do well with an elective colectomy and a subset who could avoid an operation all together however, the challenge is appropriate risk-stratification and patient selection. Management of patients with perforation depends greatly on the presence of feculent or purulent peritonitis, the extent of contamination and hemodynamic status and associated comorbidities. Fistulas and strictures are almost always treated with segmental colectomy. After an episode of acute diverticulitis, routine colonoscopy has been recommended by a number of societies to exclude the presence of colorectal cancer or presence of alternative diagnosis like ischemic colitis or inflammatory bowel disease for the clinical presentation. Endoscopic evaluation of the colon is normally delayed by about 6 weeks from the acute episode to reduce the risk associated with colonoscopy. Further study has questioned the need for endoscopic evaluation for every patient with acute diverticulitis. Colonoscopy should be routinely performed after complicated diverticulitis cases, when the clinical presentation is atypical or if there are any diagnostic ambiguity, or patient has other indications for colonoscopy like rectal bleeding or is above 50 years of age without recent colonoscopy. For patients in whom elective colectomy is indicated, it is imperative to identify a wide range of modifiable patient co-morbidities. Every attempt should be made to improve a patient’s chance of successful surgery. This includes optimization of patient risk factors as well as tailoring the surgical approach and perioperative management. A positive outcome depends greatly on thoughtful attention to what makes a complicated patient “complicated”. Operative management remains complex and depends on multiple factors including patient age, comorbidities, nutritional state, severity of disease, and surgeon preference and experience. Importantly, the status of surgery, elective versus urgent or emergent operation, is pivotal in decision-making, and treatment algorithms are divergent based on the acuteness of surgery. Resection of diseased bowel to healthy proximal colon and rectal margins remains a fundamental principle of treatment although the operative approach may vary. For acute diverticulitis, a number of surgical approaches exist, including loop colostomy, sigmoidectomy with colostomy (Hartmann’s procedure) and sigmoidectomy with primary colorectal anastomosis. Overall, data suggest that primary anastomosis is preferable to a Hartman’s procedure in select patients with acute diverticulitis. Patients with hemodynamic instability, immunocompromised state, feculent peritonitis, severely edematous or ischemic bowel, or significant malnutrition are poor candidates. The decision to divert after colorectal anastomosis is at the discretion of the operating surgeon. Patient factors including severity of disease, tissue quality, and comorbidities should be considered. Technical considerations for elective cases include appropriate bowel preparation, the use of a laparoscopic approach, the decision to perform a primary anastomosis, and the selected use of ureteral stents. Management of the patient with an end colostomy after a Hartmann’s procedure for acute diverticulitis can be a challenging clinical scenario. Between 20 – 50% of patients treated with sigmoid resection and an end colostomy after an initial severe bout of diverticulitis will never be reversed to their normal anatomy. The reasons for high rates of permanent colostomies are multifactorial. The debate on the best timing for a colostomy takedown continues. Six months is generally chosen as the safest time to proceed when adhesions may be at their softest allowing for a more favorable dissection. The surgical approach will be a personal decision by the operating surgeon based on his or her experience. Colostomy takedown operations are challenging surgeries. The surgeon should anticipate and appropriately plan for a long and difficult operation. The patient should undergo a full antibiotic bowel preparation. Preoperative planning is critical; review the initial operative note and defining the anatomy prior to reversal. When a complex abdominal wall closure is necessary, consider consultation with a hernia specialist. Open surgery is the preferred surgical approach for the majority of colostomy takedown operations. Finally, consider ureteral catheters, diverting loop ileostomy, and be prepared for all anastomotic options in advance. Since its inception in the late 90’s, laparoscopic lavage has been recognized as a novel treatment modality in the management of complicated diverticulitis; specifically, Hinchey III (purulent) diverticulitis. Over the last decade, it has been the subject of several randomized controlled trials, retrospective studies, systematic reviews as well as cost-efficiency analyses. Despite being the subject of much debate and controversy, there is a clear role for laparoscopic lavage in the management of acute diverticulitis with the caveat that patient selection is key. Segmental colitis associated with diverticulitis (SCAD) is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon in segments that are also affected by diverticulosis, namely, the sigmoid colon. While SCAD is considered a separate clinical entity, it is frequently confused with diverticulitis or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). SCAD affects approximately 1.4% of the general population and 1.15 to 11.4% of those with diverticulosis and most commonly affects those in their 6th decade of life. The exact pathogenesis of SCAD is unknown, but proposed mechanisms include mucosal redundancy and prolapse occurring in diverticular segments, fecal stasis, and localized ischemia. Most case of SCAD resolve with a high-fiber diet and antibiotics, with salicylates reserved for more severe cases. Relapse is uncommon and immunosuppression with steroids is rarely needed. A relapsing clinical course may suggest a diagnosis of IBD and treatment as such should be initiated. Surgery is extremely uncommon and reserved for severe refractory disease. While sigmoid colon involvement is considered the most common site of colonic diverticulitis in Western countries, diverticular disease can be problematic in other areas of the colon. In Asian countries, right-sided diverticulitis outnumbers the left. This difference seems to be secondary to dietary and genetic factors. Differential diagnosis might be difficult because of similarity with appendicitis. However accurate imaging studies allow a precise preoperative diagnosis and management planning. Transverse colonic diverticulitis is very rare accounting for less than 1% of colonic diverticulitis with a perforation rate that has been estimated to be even more rare. Rectal diverticula are mostly asymptomatic and diagnosed incidentally in the majority of patients and rarely require treatment. Giant colonic diverticula (GCD) is a rare presentation of diverticular disease of the colon and it is defined as an air-filled cystic diverticulum larger than 4 cm in diameter. The pathogenesis of GCD is not well defined. Overall, the management of diverticular disease depends greatly on patient, disease and surgeon factors. Only by tailoring treatment to the patient in front of us can we achieve optimal outcomes.
Topics: Age Factors; Colonoscopy; Diagnostic Imaging; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Disease Management; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33077029
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpsurg.2020.100862 -
Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery May 2022Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO) is a functional disorder of the large intestine distinguished by colonic dysmotility resulting in colonic distension in the... (Review)
Review
Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO) is a functional disorder of the large intestine distinguished by colonic dysmotility resulting in colonic distension in the absence of mechanical obstruction. The underlying pathophysiology of ACPO remains unclear despite technological advances in understanding the physiology of colonic motility, such as spatio-temporal mapping and high-resolution manometry. In many ways, the management of ACPO has remained relatively unchanged for 40 years. Patients with perforation or suspected ischemia undergo operative intervention, while patients without undergo initial conservative management with bowel rest, correction of electrolyte disturbances, and mobilization. Patients who fail conservative management or have prominent cecal dilatation undergo decompression with either neostigmine or colonoscopy. A subset of patients with ACPO will have recurrent symptoms despite endoscopic and medical management. For these patients who are difficult to manage, an underlying colonic functional disorder, such as slow-transit dysmotility or chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction may be considered. The following review of ACPO aims to provide a concise update of the causes, diagnosis, and management of this emergency surgical condition.
PubMed: 35966377
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740044 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022Peristomal skin complications (PSCs) are the most common skin problems seen after ostomy surgery. They have a considerable impact on a patient's quality of life and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peristomal skin complications (PSCs) are the most common skin problems seen after ostomy surgery. They have a considerable impact on a patient's quality of life and contribute to a higher cost of care.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted, querying three databases. The analysis was performed on international studies focused on the clinical-epidemiological burden of PSCs in adult patients with ileostomy/colostomy.
RESULTS
Overall, 23 studies were considered. The main diseases associated with ostomy surgery were rectal, colon and gynecological cancers, inflammatory bowel diseases, diverticulitis, bowel obstruction and intestinal perforation. Erythema, papules, skin erosions, ulcers and vesicles were the most common PSCs for patients with an ostomy (or stoma). A PSCs incidence ranging from 36.3% to 73.4% was described. Skin complications increased length of stay (LOS) and rates of readmission within 120 days of surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
PSCs data are still limited. A knowledge of their burden is essential to support health personnel and decision-makers in identifying the most appropriate responses to patients' needs. Proper management of these complications plays a fundamental role in improving the patient's quality of life. A multidisciplinary approach, as well as increased patient education and their empowerment, are priority measures to be implemented to foster a value-based healthcare.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Colostomy; Ileostomy; Quality of Life; Public Health; Erythema
PubMed: 36612395
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010079 -
Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery Sep 2020The majority of patients with colorectal tumors will present via the elective route. However, one-fifth of patients will present as an emergency. The most common cause... (Review)
Review
The majority of patients with colorectal tumors will present via the elective route. However, one-fifth of patients will present as an emergency. The most common cause of emergency presentation of colorectal cancer is obstruction followed by perforation, and in many cases, patients will present with both. We discuss the management of the patient presenting with a perforated colorectal tumor covering the acute presentation and also how to deal with consequences of a perforated tumor, namely, the management of colorectal peritoneal metastasis (CPM). CPM used to be considered a terminal condition; however, a strategy of early detection of CPM, careful patient selection for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, leads to much improved outcomes and even cure, in some patient compared with systemic chemotherapy alone.
PubMed: 32968359
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713741 -
ESMO Open Dec 2021Inhibitors of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene mutation are highly effective treatments for ALK-positive lung cancer. We conducted this pharmacovigilance...
BACKGROUND
Inhibitors of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene mutation are highly effective treatments for ALK-positive lung cancer. We conducted this pharmacovigilance analysis using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
FAERS files from 2012 to 2020 were used. Reports for crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib were filtered. We used the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA version 22.1). Further, we searched for adverse events on the preferred term (PT) level based on case reports in the literature. After filtering duplicate reports, disproportionality analysis was used to detect safety signals by calculating proportional reporting ratios (PRRs), reporting odds ratios (RORs), empirical Bayesian geometric mean, and information component. Reports were considered statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval did not contain the null value.
RESULTS
Within the system organ classes, significant safety signals were found, including those for crizotinib [eye disorders (PRR 2.09, ROR 2.12)], ceritinib [gastrointestinal disorders (PRR 2.19, ROR 2.41), hepatobiliary disorders (PRR 4.4, ROR 4.52), respiratory disorders (PRR 1.96, ROR 2.08)], alectinib [hepatobiliary disorders (PRR 2.60, ROR 2.63)], brigatinib [respiratory disorders (PRR 2.15, ROR 2.31)], and lorlatinib [metabolism disorders (PRR 3.34, ROR 3.53)]. For adverse events on the PT level, we found several significant signals, including pneumothorax with crizotinib (PRR 3.29, ROR 3.29), ceritinib (PRR 3.13, ROR 3.13), and alectinib (PRR 4.88, ROR 4.89); myasthenia gravis with lorlatinib (PRR 6.05, ROR 6.05); photosensitivity reactions with crizotinib (PRR 2.20, ROR 2.20), ceritinib (PRR 4.30, ROR 4.31), alectinib (PRR 20.43, ROR 20.51), and brigatinib (PRR 20.97, ROR 21.05); pulmonary arterial hypertension with brigatinib (PRR 2.92, ROR 2.92) and lorlatinib (PRR 9.2, ROR 9.24); and rectal perforation with crizotinib (PRR 7.83, ROR 7.83). All the detected safety signals were confirmed using Bayesian methods.
CONCLUSION
ALK inhibitors differed in their safety profile reports. We found several significant safety signals that matched previously published case reports, including pulmonary arterial hypertension, rectal perforation, myasthenia gravis, and photosensitivity. These signals require further regulatory investigation to determine their significance and potentially update the product labels to inform patients and clinicians.
Topics: Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Bayes Theorem; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Product Surveillance, Postmarketing; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 34864500
DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100315 -
Military Medical Research Apr 2022Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an...
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an important global burden of disease. Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate (TUPKP) is one of the foremost surgical procedures for the treatment of BPH. It has become well established in clinical practice with good efficacy and safety. In 2018, we issued the guideline "2018 Standard Edition". However much new direct evidence has now emerged and this may change some of previous recommendations. The time is ripe to develop new evidence-based guidelines, so we formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members posed 31 questions relevant to the management of TUPKP for BPH covering the following areas: questions relevant to the perioperative period (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) of TUPKP in the treatment of BPH, postoperative complications and the level of surgeons' surgical skill. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of TUPKP for BPH, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the grade criteria by the European Association of Urology. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of an ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 36 statements. Among them, 23 carried strong recommendations, and 13 carried weak recommendations for the stated procedure. They covered questions relevant to the aforementioned three areas. The preoperative period for TUPKP in the treatment of BPH included indications and contraindications for TUPKP, precautions for preoperative preparation in patients with renal impairment and urinary tract infection due to urinary retention, and preoperative prophylactic use of antibiotics. Questions relevant to the intraoperative period incorporated surgical operation techniques and prevention and management of bladder explosion. The application to different populations incorporating the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in the treatment of normal volume (< 80 ml) and large-volume (≥ 80 ml) BPH compared with transurethral urethral resection prostate, transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate and open prostatectomy; the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in high-risk populations and among people taking anticoagulant (antithrombotic) drugs. Questions relevant to the postoperative period incorporated the time and speed of flushing, the time indwelling catheters are needed, principles of postoperative therapeutic use of antibiotics, follow-up time and follow-up content. Questions related to complications incorporated types of complications and their incidence, postoperative leukocyturia, the treatment measures for the perforation and extravasation of the capsule, transurethral resection syndrome, postoperative bleeding, urinary catheter blockage, bladder spasm, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, urethral stricture, rectal injury during surgery, postoperative erectile dysfunction and retrograde ejaculation. Final questions were related to surgeons' skills when performing TUPKP for the treatment of BPH. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for patients having TUPKP for the treatment of BPH.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Male; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Urethral Stricture
PubMed: 35361280
DOI: 10.1186/s40779-022-00371-6 -
European Urology Open Science Oct 2022Rectal perforations during pelvic surgery are rare but serious complications. The occurrence of rectal involvement is generally lower than that of the involvement of...
UNLABELLED
Rectal perforations during pelvic surgery are rare but serious complications. The occurrence of rectal involvement is generally lower than that of the involvement of other portions of the bowel. The urologic field is responsible for the majority of iatrogenic rectal injuries from pelvic surgery; general and gynecologic surgeries are prone to the occurrence as well, the latter especially in the case of rectal shaving for deep infiltrating endometriosis. Attention should be posed to the prevention of rectal injuries, especially in case of challenging or salvage procedures; some tricks may be recommended to avoid thermal and mechanical damages and to realize a safe dissection. Intraoperative detection of rectal injuries is of paramount importance; once confirmed, immediate management with the closure of the defect is recommended. In general, rectal injuries diagnosed after surgery are liable to significantly worse outcomes than those detected and managed intraoperatively.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Rectal perforation is a rare but possible complication of pelvic surgeries. The more challenging the procedure (ie, surgery for locally advanced tumors or after radiation therapy), the higher the risk of rectal lesion. Intraoperative management of the injury should be attempted, with direct repair of the defect with or without fecal diversion.
PubMed: 36093319
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.04.006 -
JAMA Surgery Dec 2021Preventing anastomotic leakage (AL) is crucial for colorectal surgery. Some studies have suggested a positive role of transanal drainage tubes (TDTs) in AL prevention... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Preventing anastomotic leakage (AL) is crucial for colorectal surgery. Some studies have suggested a positive role of transanal drainage tubes (TDTs) in AL prevention after low anterior resection, but this finding is controversial.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effect of TDTs in AL prevention after laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This multicenter randomized clinical trial with parallel groups (TDT vs non-TDT) was performed from February 26, 2016, to September 30, 2020. Participants included patients from 7 different hospitals in China who were undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection with the double-stapling technique for mid-low rectal cancer; 576 patients were initially enrolled in this study, and 16 were later excluded. Ultimately, 560 patients were randomly divided between the TDT and non-TDT groups.
INTERVENTIONS
A silicone tube was inserted through the anus, and the tip of the tube was placed approximately 5 cm above the anastomosis under laparoscopy at the conclusion of surgery. The tube was fixed with a skin suture and connected to a drainage bag. The TDT was scheduled for removal 3 to 7 days after surgery.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was the postoperative AL rate within 30 days.
RESULTS
In total, 576 patients were initially enrolled in this study; 16 of these patients were excluded. Ultimately, 560 patients were randomly divided between the TDT group (n = 280; median age, 61.5 years [IQR, 54.0-68.8 years]; 177 men [63.2%]) and the non-TDT group (n = 280; median age, 62.0 years [IQR, 52.0-69.0 years]; 169 men [60.4%]). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference between the TDT and non-TDT groups in AL rates (18 [6.4%] vs 19 [6.8%]; relative risk, 0.947; 95% CI, 0.508-1.766; P = .87) or AL grades (grade B, 14 [5.0%] and grade C, 4 [1.4%] vs grade B, 11 [3.9%] and grade C, 8 [2.9%]; P = .43). In the stratified analysis based on diverting stomas, there was no significant difference in the AL rate between the groups, regardless of whether a diverting stoma was present (without stoma, 12 [5.8%] vs 15 [7.9%], P = .41; and with stoma, 6 [8.3%] vs 4 [4.5%], P = .50). Anal pain was the most common complaint from patients in the TDT group (130 of 280, 46.4%). Accidental early TDT removal occurred in 20 patients (7.1%), and no bleeding or iatrogenic colonic perforations were detected.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results from this randomized clinical trial indicated that TDTs may not confer any benefit for AL prevention in patients who undergo laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid-low rectal cancer without preoperative radiotherapy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02686567.
Topics: Aged; Anastomotic Leak; China; Drainage; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 34613330
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.4568