Early vs late drain removal after pancreatectomy

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included early vs late drain removal in pancreatectomy.

References: Beane JD, et al. Variation of drain management after pancreatoduodenectomy: early versus delayed removal. Annals of Surgery. 2017 Oct. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002570

Deminski J, et al. Early removal of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy in patients without postoperative fistula at POD3: results of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Visceral Surgery. 2019 Jan 31. pii: S1878-7886(18)30084-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2018.06.006

Summary:  Early drain removal after pancreatoduodenectomy, when guided by postoperative day (POD) 1 drain fluid amylase (DFA-1), is associated with reduced rates of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF).

Continue reading →

Readmission rates following parathyroidectomy for renal disease

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included readmission rates following parathyroidectomy.

References: Ferrandino R, et al. Unplanned 30-day readmissions after parathyroidectomy in patients with chronic kidney disease: a nationwide analysis. Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery. 2017 Dec;157(6):955-965. doi:10.1177/0194599817721154.

Summary: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the 2013 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). In a total of 2756 parathyroidectomies performed in patients with chronic kidney disease, 17.2%  had at least one unplanned readmission rate within the first 30-days, and 2.4% had more than one readmission. Overall, readmission rates for chronic kidney disease patients are nearly 5-times that of the general population (Ferrandino et al, 2017).

Hypocalcemia/hungry bone syndrome accounted for 40% of readmissions. While readmissions occurred uniformly throughout the 30 days after discharge, those for hypocalcemia/hungry bone syndrome peaked in the first 10 days and decreased over time.

Weight loss/malnutrition at time of parathyroidectomy and length of stay of 5-6 days conferred increased risk of readmission with adjusted odds ratios of 3.31 and 1.87, respectively. Relative to primary hyperparathyroidism, parathyroidectomies performed for secondary hyperparathyroidism were associated with higher risk of readmission.

The authors conclude: “While there are few patient-specific predictors of readmission, we note that the bulk of these readmissions can be attributed to hypocalcemia. To improve readmission rates after parathyroidectomy in CKD patients, we propose focusing on accurate, appropriate medication reconciliation, and optimizing communication and transitions of care to outside facilities (skilled nursing, dialysis, etc.) to facilitate the comprehensive care of this high-risk patient population” (Ferrandino et al, p.964).

Additional Reading: Sharma J, et al. Improved long-term survival of dialysis patients after near-total parathyroidectomy. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2012 Apr;214(4):400-407. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.046.

Westerdahl J, et al. Risk factors for postoperative hypocalcemia after surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism. Archives of Surgery. 2000 Feb;135(2):142-147.

What is the composition of seroma fluid?

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included the composition of post-surgical seroma fluid.

Reference: Valeta-Magara A, et al. Pro-oncogenic cytokines and growth factors are differently expressed in the post-surgical wound fluid from malignant compared to benign breast lesions. SpringerPlus. 2015 Sep 5;4:483. doi:10.1186/s40064-015-1260-8.

Summary: Post-operative accumulation of seroma in the surgical cavity following breast cancer surgery varies in incidence from 2.5 to 51 % of patients. Analysis of seroma has shown that it is an inflammatory exudate, classically seen in the first phase of wound repair. Given that seroma is derived from the wound-healing response of tumor-adjacent stroma, Valeta-Magara et al (2015) explored “whether seroma derived from the excision of benign tumors differs from that of malignant tumors, as malignant and benign tumors may activate or influence the adjacent stroma and infiltrating immune cells differently.”

Post-surgical seroma fluids from 59 patients who had undergone either lumpectomy or mastectomy breast surgery were collected at week 1 or 2 post-surgery by percutaneous aspiration.

It was found that surgical cavity seroma from breast cancer patients has ahigher expression of certain tumorpromoting cytokines, including GRO, ENA-78/CXCL5 and TIMP-2, and lower expression of tumor-inhibiting cytokines IGFBP-1, IL-16, IFN-γ, IL-3 and FGF-9, when compared to seroma from non-cancer patients (p.2). Patients with high body mass index also had higher levels of leptin regardless of malignancy.

In conclusion, breast post-surgical tumor cavity contains factors that are pro-inflammatory regardless of malignant or benign disease, but in malignant disease there is significant enrichment of additional pro-oncogenic chemokines, cytokines and growth factors, and reduction in tumor-inhibiting factors. These results are consistent with tumor conditioning of surrounding normal stromal tissue and creation of a pro-oncogenic environment that persists long after surgical removal of the tumor.

The authors also note that a differential expression of the eight factors between benign and malignant seroma fluid offers research hypotheses to be explored further to determine their role in breast tumor progression, local recurrence and metastasis.

 

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

Perioperative fluid management: restrictive vs liberal regimens

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included restrictive vs liberal perioperative fluid management on the development of perioperative acute kidney injury.

References: Brandstrup B, et al. Effects of intravenous fluid restriction on postoperative complications: comparison of two perioperative fluid regimens: a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial. Annals of Surgery. 2003 Nov;238(5):641-648.

Myles PS, et al. Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery. NEJM. 2018 Jun 14;378:2263-2274. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1801601

Summary: Traditional intravenous-fluid regimens administered during abdominal surgery deliver up to 7 liters of fluid on the day of surgery. Some small trials have shown that a more restrictive fluid regimen led to fewer complications and a shorter hospital stay. However, the evidence for fluid restriction during and immediately after abdominal surgery is inconclusive. Fluid restriction could increase the risk of hypotension and decrease perfusion in the kidney and other vital organs, leading to organ dysfunction, but excessive intravenous-fluid infusion may increase the risk of pulmonary complications, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and poor wound healing (Myles 2018).

Each of the RCTs below compare restrictive vs liberal fluid management, with conflicting conclusions.

BRANDSTRUB ET AL (2003)

This multicenter RCT involved 172 patients allocated to either a restricted or a standard intraoperative and postoperative intravenous fluid regimen. The restricted regimen aimed at maintaining preoperative body weight; the standard regimen resembled everyday practice. The primary outcome measures were complications; the secondary measures were death and adverse effects.

Results: The restricted intravenous fluid regimen significantly reduced postoperative complications both by intention-to-treat (33% versus 51%, P = 0.013) and per-protocol (30% versus 56%, P = 0.003) analyses. The numbers of both cardiopulmonary (7% versus 24%, P = 0.007) and tissue-healing complications (16% versus 31%, P = 0.04) were significantly reduced. No patients died in the restricted group compared with 4 deaths in the standard group (0% versus 4.7%, P = 0.12). No harmful adverse effects were observed.

Conclusion: The restricted perioperative intravenous fluid regimen aiming at unchanged body weight reduces complications after elective colorectal resection.

MYLES ET AL (2018)

This international trial randomly assigned 3000 patients who had an increased risk of complications while undergoing major abdominal surgery to receive a restrictive or liberal intravenous-fluid regimen during and up to 24 hours after surgery. The primary outcome was disability-free survival at 1 year. Key secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury at 30 days, renal-replacement therapy at 90 days, and a composite of septic complications, surgical-site infection, or death.

Results: Up to 24 hours after surgery, 1490 patients in the restrictive fluid group had a median intravenous-fluid intake of 3.7 liters, as compared with 6.1 liters in 1493 patients in the liberal fluid group. The rate of disability-free survival at 1 year was 81.9% in the restrictive fluid group and 82.3% in the liberal fluid group. The rate of AKI was 8.6% in the restrictive fluid group and 5.0% in the liberal fluid group. The rate of septic complications or death was 21.8% in the restrictive fluid group and 19.8% in the liberal fluid group; rates of surgical-site infection (16.5% vs. 13.6%) and renal-replacement therapy (0.9% vs. 0.3%) were higher in the restrictive fluid group, but the between-group difference was not significant after adjustment for multiple testing.

Conclusion: Among patients at increased risk for complications during major abdominal surgery, a restrictive fluid regimen was not associated with a higher rate of disability-free survival than a liberal fluid regimen and was associated with a higher rate of acute kidney injury.

Additional Reading: Romagnoli S, Ricci Z, Ronco C. Perioperative acute kidney injury: prevention, early recognition, and supportive measures. Nephron. 2018;140(2):105-110.

Salmasi V, et al. Relationship between intraoperative hypotension, defined by either reduction from baseline or absolute thresholds, and acute kidney and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort analysis. Anesthesiology. 2017;126:47-65. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001432

OpenAnesthesia. Encyclopedia: Fluid Management. OpenAnesthesia. 2019. International Anesthesia Research Society. Retrieved from: http://www.openanesthesia.org/fluid-management/

EAST guidelines on the use of antibiotics in thoracostomy

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week involved the use of antibiotics in thoracostomy.

Reference: Moore FO et al. Presumptive antibiotic use in tube thoracostomy for traumatic hemopneumothorax: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. 2012. Retrieved from: https://www.east.org/education/practice-management-guidelines/tube-thoracostomy-presumptive-antibiotics-in

Summary:  A systematic review was done by 10 acute care surgeons and one statistician to update the 1998 guidelines for EAST. Routine presumptive antibiotic use to reduce the incidence of empyema and pneumonia in tube thoracostomy (TT) for traumatic hemopneumothorax is controversial. Moore et al (2012) conclude that there is insufficient published evidence to support any recommendation either for or against this practice. The authors further state that “until a large and likely multicenter, randomized, controlled trial can be performed, the routine practice of presumptive antibiotics in TT for chest trauma will remain controversial.”

Additionally, the authors are unable to recommend an optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis when antibiotics are administered for traumatic hemopneumothorax because there are insufficient published data to support the routine use of antibiotics.

Additional Reading: Department of Surgical Education, Orlando Regional Medical Center. Chest Tube Management. 2016 Sept 8. Retrieved from http://www.surgicalcriticalcare.net/Guidelines/Chest%20tube%20management%202016.pdf