-
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 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2020Stomal metastases from a primary rectal adenocarcinoma are rare, therefore, clear guidelines on treatment options are limited. We performed a systematic review including...
BACKGROUND/AIM
Stomal metastases from a primary rectal adenocarcinoma are rare, therefore, clear guidelines on treatment options are limited. We performed a systematic review including a case report on this subject with the primary objective of identifying the total number of cases in the literature. The secondary objective was to assess median survival.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A 59-year-old woman presented to our institution with anal incontinence to mucus leakage. Flexible sigmoidoscopy identified a carpet adenoma from the dentate line to the rectosigmoid junction. An abdomino-perineal resection (APR) was performed using the transanal total mesorectal excision technique (TaTME). No adjuvant chemotherapy was offered. Twenty-one months following the operation a stomal recurrence was identified. Palliative radiotherapy was commenced and the patient is alive 6 months later with no visible recurrence at the site of the stoma. A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified 19 individual cases of either metachronous or true metastatic recurrence, including our own case. Median survival was 30 months in the 8 cases where further treatment was offered and accepted.
CONCLUSION
Stomal metastases or metachronous colorectal cancer is uncommon. The causes for this pattern of spread are not clear. Long-term survival from cutaneous recurrence is generally poor. For carefully selected patients, redo surgery is an option with satisfactory results.
Topics: Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Surgical Stomas
PubMed: 32871741
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12029 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Dec 2020Evidence on the effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on anastomotic leak (AL) rate after colorectal surgery is conflicting. Effects of NSAIDs might... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in colorectal cancer surgery does not increase anastomotic leak rate; A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Evidence on the effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on anastomotic leak (AL) rate after colorectal surgery is conflicting. Effects of NSAIDs might depend on the underlying disease. This meta-analysis aimed to review the effect of NSAIDs on AL rate in a homogeneous colorectal cancer patient population.
METHODS
A systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE database was performed for studies with AL as primary outcome comparing NSAID use in the early postoperative phase with no NSAID administration in colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgical resection.
RESULTS
Nine studies including 10,868 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority, 7689 patients (70.7%) underwent low anterior resection and 3050 patients (28.1%) underwent colonic resection. The pooled incidence of AL was 8.6% (95%CI 7.0-10.0). Overall AL rate after colorectal cancer surgery was not increased in patients using NSAIDs for postoperative analgesia compared to non-users (p = 0.34, RR 1.23; 95%CI 0.81-1.86). This effect remained non-significant after stratification for low anterior resections (p = 0.07). Stratification for colonic resections could not be performed because AL results for this subgroup were not reported separately. Neither non-selective NSAID use nor COX-2 selective NSAID use caused an increased AL rate (p = 0.19, p = 0.26). The results were robust throughout sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION
Use of NSAIDs in cohorts with patients undergoing surgical resection for colorectal cancer does not increase overall AL rate. Since results were robust throughout several subgroup and sensitivity analyses, prescription of NSAIDs after colorectal cancer surgery seems safe.
Topics: Anastomotic Leak; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colectomy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Care; Proctectomy
PubMed: 32792221
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.07.017 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Jan 2021Approximately 20%-30% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) will undergo surgery during their disease course, the vast majority being elective due to chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Approximately 20%-30% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) will undergo surgery during their disease course, the vast majority being elective due to chronic refractory disease. The risks of elective surgery are reported variably. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the outcomes after elective surgery for UC.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted that analysed studies reporting outcomes for elective surgery in the modern era (>2002). It was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (ref: CRD42018115513). Searches were performed of Embase and MEDLINE on 15 January 2019. Outcomes were split by operation performed. Primary outcome was quality of life; secondary outcomes were early, late and functional outcomes after surgery. Outcomes reported in five or more studies underwent a meta-analysis of incidence using random effects. Heterogeneity is reported with I , and publication bias was assessed using Doi plots and the Luis Furuya-Kanamori index.
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies were included (11 774 patients). Quality of life was reported in 12 studies, with variable and contrasting results. Thirteen outcomes (eight early surgical complications, five functional outcomes) were included in the formal meta-analysis, all of which were outcomes for ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). A further 71 outcomes were reported (50 IPAA, 21 end ileostomy). Only 14 of 84 outcomes received formal definitions, with high inter-study variation of definitions.
CONCLUSION
Outcomes after elective surgery for UC are variably defined. This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the range of reported incidences and provides practical information that facilitates shared decision making in clinical practice.
Topics: Colitis, Ulcerative; Colonic Pouches; Humans; Ileostomy; Postoperative Complications; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32777171
DOI: 10.1111/codi.15301 -
PloS One 2020To analyze pathologic and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic vs. open resections for rectal cancer performed over the last 10 years. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To analyze pathologic and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic vs. open resections for rectal cancer performed over the last 10 years.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of the following databases was conducted: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and Scopus. Only articles published in English from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018 (i.e. the last 10 years), which met inclusion criteria were considered. The review only included articles which compared Laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and Open Rectal Resection (ORR) for rectal cancer and reported at least one of the outcomes of interest. The analyses followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement checklist. Only prospective randomized studies were considered. The body of evidence emerging from this study was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Outcome measures (mean and median values, standard deviations, and interquartile ranges) were extracted for each surgical treatment. Pooled estimates of the mean differences were calculated using random effects models to consider potential inter-study heterogeneity and to adopt a more conservative approach. The pooled effect was considered significant if p <0.05.
RESULTS
Five clinical trials were found eligible for the analyses. A positive involvement of CRM was found in 49 LRRs (8.5%) out of 574 patients and in 30 ORRs out of 557 patients (5.4%) RR was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.99-2.41; p = 0.05) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Incorrect mesorectal excision was observed in 56 out of 507 (11%) patients who underwent LRR and in 41 (8.4%) out of 484 patients who underwent ORR; RR was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.89-1.91; p = 0.18) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Regarding other pathologic outcomes, no significant difference between LRR and ORR was observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested or concerning the distance to the distal margin. As expected, a significant difference was found in the operating time for ORR with a mean difference of 41.99 (95% CI, 24.18, 59.81; p <0.00001; heterogeneity: I2 = 25%). However, no difference was found for blood loss. Additionally, no significant differences were found in postoperative outcomes such as postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as high.
CONCLUSION
Despite the spread of laparoscopy with dedicated surgeons and the development of even more precise surgical tools and technologies, the pathological results of laparoscopic surgery are still comparable to those of open ones. Additionally, concerning the pathological data (and particularly CRM), open surgery guarantees better results as compared to laparoscopic surgery. These results must be a starting point for future evaluations which consider the association between ''successful resection" and long-term oncologic outcomes. The introduction of other minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer surgery, such as robotic resection or transanal TME (taTME), has revealed new scenarios and made open and even laparoscopic surgery obsolete.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 32722694
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235887 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Oct 2020Restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is performed for patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). This operation is performed in 2 or 3 stages and involves forming a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is performed for patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). This operation is performed in 2 or 3 stages and involves forming a diverting loop ileostomy thought to protect patients from complications related to anastomotic leak. However, some advocate for a modified 2-stage approach, consisting of subtotal colectomy followed by completion proctectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative complication rates between modified 2-stage and traditional RPC with ileal pouch anal anastomosis.
METHODS
Records were sourced from PubMed/Embase databases. Studies comparing postoperative complications following RPC for ulcerative colitis (UC) were selected according to PRISMA guidelines comparing modified 2-stage (exposure), classic 2-stage, and 3-stage approaches (comparators). The primary outcome measure was safety as measured by postoperative complication rates. We employed random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We included ten observational studies including 1727 patients (38% modified 2-stage). Among pediatric patients, modified 2-stage approaches had higher rates of anastomotic leak than 3-stage approaches (p = 0.03). Among adult cohorts with lower preoperative biologic use rates, modified 2-stage approaches had lower leak rates than classic 2-stage approaches (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The modified 2-stage approach may be safe for adult patients who otherwise require a 3-stage approach while reducing costs and length of stay. Pediatric patients may benefit from lower leak rates when receiving 3-stage compared with modified 2-stage approaches, especially when on biologics. The modified 2-stage approach may be safer than the classic 2-stage approach for adult patients with lower biologic exposure.
Topics: Adult; Anastomosis, Surgical; Child; Colitis, Ulcerative; Colonic Pouches; Humans; Ileostomy; Postoperative Complications; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32715346
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03696-7 -
International Journal of Surgery... Aug 2020Short-term outcomes of robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer resection seem comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic mesorectal excision. However, the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Short-term outcomes of robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer resection seem comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic mesorectal excision. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of robot mesorectal excision require further investigation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from the date of database inception to March 31, 2019 for all available trials; the results of robotic and laparoscopic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer surgery were compared. Survival parameters, including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), were independently extracted by two investigators. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models. The presence of heterogeneity was assessed using Q test, and the extent of heterogeneity was quantified by I index. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software, version 5.3.
RESULTS
A total of seven studies including 2593 patients (1362 treated by robotic mesorectal excision and 1231 by laparoscopic mesorectal excision) were included. Pooled analyses showed no significant difference in OS (HR = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 1.39, P = 0.75) or DFS (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.10, P = 0.85) between the robotic and laparoscopic mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer.
CONCLUSION
Regarding long-term survival, robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is comparable to laparoscopic mesorectal excision. More prospective, multicenter randomized trials with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing robotic mesorectal excision.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Proctectomy; Prospective Studies; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32251720
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.03.009 -
The British Journal of Surgery Apr 2020Total mesorectal excision (TME) gives excellent oncological results in rectal cancer treatment, but patients may experience functional problems. A novel approach to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Total mesorectal excision (TME) gives excellent oncological results in rectal cancer treatment, but patients may experience functional problems. A novel approach to performing TME is by single-port transanal minimally invasive surgery. This systematic review evaluated the functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal and laparoscopic TME.
METHODS
A comprehensive search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and the trial registers was conducted in May 2019. PRISMA guidelines were used. Data for meta-analysis were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 11 660 studies were identified, from which 14 studies and six conference abstracts involving 846 patients (599 transanal TME, 247 laparoscopic TME) were included. A substantial number of patients experienced functional problems consistent with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Meta-analysis found no significant difference in major LARS between the two approaches (risk ratio 1·13, 95 per cent c.i. 0·94 to 1·35; P = 0·18). However, major heterogeneity was present in the studies together with poor reporting of functional baseline assessment.
CONCLUSION
No differences in function were observed between transanal and laparoscopic TME.
Topics: Fecal Incontinence; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32154594
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11566 -
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 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jan 2021Surgical resection is crucial for curative treatment of rectal cancer. Through multidisciplinary treatment, including radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Surgical resection is crucial for curative treatment of rectal cancer. Through multidisciplinary treatment, including radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision, survival has improved substantially. Consequently, more patients have to deal with side effects of treatment. The most recently introduced surgical technique is robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) which seems equally effective in terms of oncological control compared to laparoscopy. However, RAS enables further advantages which maximize the precision of surgery, thus providing better functional outcomes such as sexual function or contience without compromising oncological results. This review was done according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-II guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018104519). The search was planned with PICO criteria and conducted on Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL. All screening steps were performed by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were original, comparative studies for laparoscopy vs. RAS for rectal cancer and reporting of functional outcomes. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The search retrieved 9703 hits, of which 51 studies with 24,319 patients were included. There was a lower rate of urinary retention (non-RCTs: Odds ratio (OR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] 0.65 [0.46, 0.92]; RCTs: OR[CI] 1.29[0.08, 21.47]), ileus (non-RCTs: OR[CI] 0.86[0.75, 0.98]; RCTs: OR[CI] 0.80[0.33, 1.93]), less urinary symptoms (non-RCTs mean difference (MD) [CI] - 0.60 [- 1.17, - 0.03]; RCTs: - 1.37 [- 4.18, 1.44]), and higher quality of life for RAS (only non-RCTs: MD[CI]: 2.99 [2.02, 3.95]). No significant differences were found for sexual function (non-RCTs: standardized MD[CI]: 0.46[- 0.13, 1.04]; RCTs: SMD[CI]: 0.09[- 0.14, 0.31]). The current meta-analysis suggests potential benefits for RAS over laparoscopy in terms of functional outcomes after rectal cancer resection. The current evidence is limited due to non-randomized controlled trials and reporting of functional outcomes as secondary endpoints.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Databases, Factual; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32025924
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07361-1