Category Archives: Colorectal Surgery

Laparoscopic entry techniques

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week involved laparoscopic entry techniques.

Reference: Ahmad G, et al. Laparoscopic entry techniques. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2019 Jan 18;1:CD006583. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub5

Summary: In their updated systematic review on the topic, Ahmed et al (2019) included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques.

Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.

Open-entry vs closed-entry: Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for:

  • vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n=915; I²=N/A)
  • visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n=915: I²=0%)
  • failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n=865; I²=63%)

Direct trocar vs Veress needle entry: Trial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (Peto OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; n=3185; I²=45%; moderate-quality evidence).

Direct vision entry vs Veress needle entry: Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of:

  • vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n=186)
  • visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n=380; I²=N/A)

Direct vision entry vs open entry: Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of:

  • visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n=392; I²=N/A)
  • solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n=60)
  • failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n=60)

Radially expanding (STEP) trocars vs non-expanding trocars: Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of:

  • vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n=331; I²=0%)
  • visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n=331)
  • solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n=244)

(Ahmed et al, 2019, p.2)

PROSPER trial: A comparison of treatments for rectal prolapse

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week involved the PROSPER trial of treatment for rectal prolapse.

References: Senapati A, et al. PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse. Colorectal Disease. 2013 Jul;15(7):858-868. doi:10.1111/codi.12177

Summary: The PROSPER randomised control trial is a pragmatic, factorial (2 × 2) design trial in which 293 patients were randomised between abdominal and perineal surgery (i) (n=49), suture vs resection rectopexy for those receiving an abdominal procedure (ii) (n=78), or Altemeier’s vs Delorme’s for those receiving a perineal procedure (iii) (n=213). Primary outcome measures were recurrence of the prolapse, incontinence, bowel function and quality of life scores measured up to 3 years.

Recurrence rates were not significant in any comparisons:

  • abdominal vs perineal surgery: 20% vs 26%
  • suture vs resection rectopexy: 13% vs 26%
  • Altemeier’s vs Delorme’s: 24% vs 31%

It was noted that substantial improvements from baseline in quality of life following all procedures. Additionally, Vaizey, bowel thermometer and EQ-5D scores were not significantly different in any of the comparisons (Senapati et al, 2013).

Additional Reading: Bordeianou L, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. 2017 Nov;60(11):1121-1131. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000889

Surgical management of Crohn’s Disease

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week involved the surgical management of Crohn’s Disease.

Reference: Strong S, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the surgical management of Crohn’s Disease. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. 2015 Nov;58(11):1021-1036. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000450

Summary: The authors state “these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient” (p.1021).

OPERATIVE INDICATIONS

Failed Medical Therapy

  1. Patients who demonstrate an inadequate response to, develop complications from, or are noncompliant with medical therapy should be considered for surgery. Grade of Recommendation: Strong  based on low-or very low-quality evidence, 1C.
  2. Patients receiving therapy with anti-TNFs, high-dose glucocorticoids and/or cyclosporine may warrant staged procedures because of concerns about postoperative complications; however, decisions should be individualized based on the patient’s risk stratification, overall clinical status, and surgeon judgment. Grady of Recommendation: Weak based on low- or very low-quality evidence, 2C.

Inflammation

  1. Patient with acute colitis who have symptoms or signs of impending or actual perforation should typically undergo surgery. Grade of Recommendation: Strong based on low- or very low-quality evidence, 1C.

Stricture

  1. Endoscopic dilation may be considered for patients with symptomatic small-bowel or anastomotic strictures that are not amenable to medical therapy. Grade of Recommendation: Strong based on low- or very low-quality evidence, 1C.
  2. Surgery is indicated for patients with symptomatic small-bowel or anastomotic strictures that are not amenable to medical therapy and/or dilation. Grade of Recommendation: Strong based on low- or very low-quality evidence, 1C.
  3. Patients with strictures of the colon that cannot be adequately surveyed endoscopically should be considered for resection. Grade of Recommendation: Strong based on low- or very-low quality evidence, 1C.

Penetrating Disease

  1. Patients with a free perforation should undergo surgery. Grade of Recommendation: Strong based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.
  2. Patients with enteroparietal, interloop, intramesenteric, or retroperitoneal abscesses may be managed by antibiotics with or without percutaneous drainage. Surgical drainage with or without resection should be considered when this is not successful. Grade of Recommendation: Weak based on moderate-quality evidence, 2B.
  3. Patients with enteric fistulas and symptoms or signs of localized or systemic sepsis that persist despite appropriate medical therapy should be considered for surgery. Grade of Recommendation: Strong based on low- or very low-quality evidence, 1C.

Hemorrhage

  1. Stable patients with significant GI heomrrhage may be evaluated and treated by endoscopic and/or interventional radiological techniques. Unstable patients should typically undergo operative exploration. Grade of Recommendation: STrong based on low- or very low-quality evidence, 1C.

Growth Retardation

  1. Prepubertal patients with significant growth retardation despite appropriate medical therapy should be considered for surgery. Grade of Recommendation: STrong based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

Neoplasia

  1. Patients with long-standing Crohn’s disease of the ileocolic region or colon should have endoscopic surveillance of the large bowel. Grade of Recommendation: Strong based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.
  2. Total proctocolectomy should be considered for patients with carcinoma, a nonadenoma-like dysplasi-associated lesion or mass (DALM), high-grade dysplasia, or multifocal low-grade dysplasia of the colon or rectum. Grade of Recommendation: Strong based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.
  3. Suspicious lesions (mass, ulcer) identified in patients with Crohn’s should typically be biopsied, especially when considering a small-bowel strictureplasty. Grade of Recommendation: Strong based on low- or very low-quality evidence.

For complete guidelines (site-specific operations, technical considerations), methodologies, and definition of GRADE system-grading recommendations, see full text article.

Simultaneous vs staged colorectal and hepatic resections

Posted on by
1

One discussion this week involved the comparison of simultaneous and staged resections of colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCRLM).

Reference: Reddy SK, et al. Simultaneous resections of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: a multi-institutional analysis. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2007 Dec;14(12):3481-3491. doi:10.1245/s10434-007-9522-5

Summary: In a retrospective study of 610 patients at three institutions between 1985 and 2006, the authors compared postoperative morbidity and mortality after simultaneous and staged resections of colorectal cancer and SCRLM.

Continue reading →

Lynch Syndrome: Surgical Management

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included the surgical management of lynch syndrome.

Reference: DynaMed Plus [Internet]. Ipswich (MA): EBSCO Information Services. 1995 – . Record No. 115317, Lynch syndrome – Surgery and procedures; [updated 2018 Sept 26, cited 2018 Nov 16];. Emory login required. (Click on link and search for “lynch syndrome”).

Summary: Surgery considerations for Lynch syndrome patients with colorectal cancer (DynaMed Plus, 2018):

  • full colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis recommended rather than segmental/partial colonic resection due to increased risk for metachronous cancers
  • National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends considering segmental vs. extended colectomy for colorectal adenocarcinoma based on clinical scenario, individual considerations, and discussion of risk
  • European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommends discussing option of extended colectomy vs. intensive surveillance after standard surgery at time of colorectal cancer diagnosis, particularly in young patients
  • American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recommends
    • colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis as preferred treatment option for Lynch syndrome patients with colon cancer or colonic neoplasia not controllable by endoscopy
    • segmental colectomy with regular surveillance after surgery as an option in patients not suitable for total colectomy
  • United States Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer recommends colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis for Lynch syndrome patients with colon cancer or colorectal neoplasia not removable by endoscopy
  • segmental colectomy may increase risk of metachronous colorectal cancer compared to extended colectomy in patients with Lynch syndrome
    • based on systematic review of observational studies
    • systematic review of 6 observational studies comparing segmental vs. extended colectomy in 871 patients with Lynch syndrome being treated for colorectal cancer
    • 705 patients (81%) had segmental colectomy and 166 patients (19%) had extended colectomy
    • mean follow-up 91 months
    • 161 patients (22.8%) receiving segmental colectomy and 10 patients (6%) receiving extended colectomy had metachronous colorectal cancer during mean follow-up of 91 months
    • compared to extended colectomy, segmental colectomy associated with increased metachronous colorectal cancer in analysis of 5 studies with 792 patients
      • odds ratio 4.02, 95% CI 2.01-8.04
      • NNH 3-18 with metachronous colorectal cancer in 6% of extended colectomy group
    • adverse events not reported

What is the operative management of diverticulitis?

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included the operative management of diverticulitis.

Reference: Nally DM and Kavanagh DO. Current controversies in the management of diverticulitis: a review. Digestive Surgery. 2018 Apr 19. doi:10.1159/000488216.

Summary: A treatment algorithm is illustrated below (Nally and Kavanagh, 2018, p.7).

fig2

Laparoscopic Lavage

Nally and Kavanagh highlight three RCTs comparing laparoscopic lavage and resection (Table 4, p.8): SCANDIV (2015), LOLA (2015), and DILALA (2016).  The main differences in the RCTs were the re-intervention rate, which varied according to when results were reports (prior to the time of expected stoma closure) or if stoma closure is specifically excluded. Surgical reinterventions accounted for a majority of adverse events.

table4

Surgical Resection

Originally a 3-stage operation, it was condensed into a 2-stage Harman’s procuedure in which the diseased segment was removed during initial laparotomy. This became the standard of care, yet the mortality rate is cited as 15% according to the SCANDIV study. Additionally, a Hartman’s procedure is limited by the morbidity and mortality of colostomy reversal or lifestyle implications of a permanent stoma for up to 60% of patients (p.8). A one-stage resection with restoration of continuity avoids some challenges but also creates concern about performing an anastomosis in a contaminated environment for a critically unwell patient.

A 2004 systematic review found an overall mortality rate of 9.9% for primary anastomosis  (n=568) and 18.8% for Hartman’s (n=1,051), with overall anastomotic leak rate for a primary anastomosis of 13.9% (p.8).

Elective Surgery for Diverticulitis

Approximately 15-30% of patients have recurrent episodes of diverticulities. Up to 30% have ongoing pain. There are 2 indications for elective surgery:

  1. Prophylaxis against recurrent attacks and complications
  2. Surgery for ongoing symptoms that impact quality of life.

Guidelines from the American Society of Surgeons of Colon and Rectal surgeons from 2000 recommended an elective resection after one or two episodes of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (p.9). Currently, professional bodies included the AGA advise again routine resection and instead propose an individualized approach (p.9). Morbidity and mortality of elective procedures for diverticulitis can be significant.

Conversely, elective surgery to improve quality of life is coming more to the fore (p.9). A systematic review of 21 studies and more than 1,800 patients and an RCT – the DIRECT trial – with 109 patients seem to provide evidence in favor of resection. It must be noted that the RCT was terminated early.

Nally and Kavanagh (2018) conclude that diverticulitis is a common yet challenging topic that demands clinicians to provide an individualized yet evidence-based approach (p.1).

Sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week involved small bowel obstruction and sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (SEP).

Reference: Liberale G, Sugarbaker PH. Sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis as a potential complication of cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC: clinical features and results of treatment in 4 patients. Surgical Oncology. 2018 Dec;27(4):657-662.

Summary: Liberale and Sugarbaker (2018) define SEP as “a rare entity characterized by encapsulation of the small bowel and/or the colon by fibrous tissue forming a shell” (p.657). It is iatrogenic, idiopathic, or secondardy, and its pathophysiology is uncertain. The most common symptoms are abdominal pain, discomfort, and partial or complete obstruction.

In this article, the authors present 4 cases of SEP, all of which required additional surgery to alleviate recurrent episodes of small bowel obstruction.

In discussion, they provide some advice (p.661):

  • An adverse event to avoid is small bowel fistula following surgery.
  • The prevention of fistulization which results in enteric contamination of the peritoneal space is of utmost importance in reoperative surgery.
  • Careful marking of seromuscular tears and their repair prior to closing the abdomen is important.
  • A major problem that may occur in follow-up is the difficulty of distinguishing recurrence of peritoneal metastases from benign causes of bowel obstruction.

There are two types of SEP (p.661):

  • Type I: a fibrous membrane sheathing the bowel loops together without a clearly separated dissection plane. Surgery is challenging and the surgeon needs to open the plane between bowel loops while avoiding causing serosal tears.
  • Type II: a fibrous membrane forming an enterocele or ‘pseudocyst-like’ structure. These are easier to manage as, once the pouch is open, the small bowel can be dissected and separated easily from the surrounding sheath.