Intracorporeal Anastomoses in Minimally Invasive Right Colectomies Are Associated With Fewer Incisional Hernias and Shorter Length of Stay.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Widmar M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7148181 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background Owing to important differences in surgical technique, laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal (ICA) compared to extracorporeal (ECA) anastomotic technique may result in improved patient outcomes. We aimed to compare both techniques according to incisional hernias and other pertinent perioperative characteristics, post-operative complications, and oncologic quality markers. Methods All adult patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomies between 2015 and 2020 at a single institution were included. ICA and ECA techniques were compared based on selected outcomes using univariable and multivariable statistical analyses, as appropriate. Subgroup analyses were restricted to patients with neoplastic indications for surgery and non-urgent operations. Results A total of 517 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 139 (26.9%) underwent ICA and 378 (73.1%) underwent ECA. ICA and ECA patients had similar baseline characteristics. At two years of follow-up, a lower proportion of ICA patients developed a hernia at the extraction incision (1.5% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.02) and ICA was associated with an 80% reduction in extraction incision hernias (aHR 0.20, p = 0.03). These results were stable through subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Median operative time was longer in the ICA group (186 min vs. 135 min, p < 0.001), but the gap in operative time narrowed during the study period. Median length of stay was one calendar day shorter in the ICA group (3 days vs. 4 days, p = 0.007) and ICA was associated with a 13% decrease in the length of stay (aRR 0.87, p = 0.02). The incidence of superficial wound infections, anastomotic leaks and re-interventions was lower in ICA patients, but this difference was not statistically significant. 90-day unscheduled visits, readmissions, and mortalities were similar across both groups, as were oncologic outcomes. Conclusion Laparoscopic right colectomies with intracorporeal anastomoses are associated with a reduction in incisional hernias and shorter hospital lengths of stay without compromising on patient safety or oncologic principles. Graphical abstract Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09585-0.
| S-EPMC9529334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Laparoscopic ileostomy closure with intracorporeal anastomosis offers potential advantages over open reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis, including earlier return of bowel function and reduced postoperative pain. In this study, we aim to compare the outcome and cost of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal (utilizing either intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis) with open ileostomy reversal. METHODS:A retrospective review of sequential patients undergoing elective loop ileostomy reversal between 2013 and 2016 at a single, high-volume institution was performed. Patients were stratified on the basis of operative approach: open reversal, laparoscopic-assisted reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis (LE), and laparoscopic reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis (LI). Linear and logistic regressions were utilized to perform multivariate analysis and determine risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS:Of 132 sequential cases of loop ileostomy reversal, 50 (38%) underwent open, 49 (37%) underwent LE, and 33 (22%) underwent LI. Demographic data and preoperative comorbidities were similar between the three cohorts. Median length of stay was significantly shorter for LI (52.1 h, p?<?0.05) compared to open (69.0 h) and LE (69.6 h). After risk-adjusted analysis, length of stay was significant shorter in LI compared to LE (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93, p?<?0.01) and open reversal (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93, p?<?0.01). Risk-adjusted 30-day morbidity rates were similar for LI compared to LE (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.081-2.33, p?=?0.33) and open reversal (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.09-3.125, p?=?0.48). Median in-hospital direct cost was similar for LI ($6575.00), LE ($6722.50), and open reversal ($6181.00). CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic ileostomy reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of stay without increased overall direct cost. The technique of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal warrants continued study in a randomized clinical trial.
| S-EPMC6724549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe investigated the current practices and perceptions of colorectal surgeons in South Korea regarding intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IIA) in minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (RHC).MethodsMembers of the Korean Society of Coloproctology (KSCP) participated in an online survey encompassing demographic information, surgical experiences, methods for IIA, and advantages, barriers, and perceptions of IIA. We performed a statistical analysis of survey results.ResultsAmong the 1,074 KSCP members contacted, 178 responded to the survey. Most respondents were males aged 40-49 years with >10 years of experience who were affiliated with a tertiary healthcare facility. One hundred fifty-six respondents had performed <100 colorectal cancer surgeries annually. Fifty-nine respondents reported experiences of the IIA technique in minimally invasive RHC. Most respondents favored the isoperistaltic side-to-side (S-S) anastomosis and stapled S-S anastomosis, hand-sewn closure for the common channel, and the periumbilical area for primary specimen extraction. Respondents with IIA experience emphasized the reduction in postoperative complications as the primary reason for performing IIA, whereas respondents without IIA experience cited the lack of benefits as the main deterrent. Respondents commonly cited concerns regarding anastomotic leakage and intraabdominal contamination as the primary reasons for not performing IIA. Respondents with IIA experience demonstrated a more positive response towards attempting or transitioning to IIA than those without. Respondents with IIA experience prioritized self-sufficiency, whereas respondents without IIA experience prioritized proctorship and discussions of the initial cases.ConclusionMeasures to standardize the IIA technique and appropriate training programs must be implemented to enhance its use in minimally invasive RHC.
| S-EPMC11317360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effects of early integration of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) into patient care are uncertain. This study aims to investigate the effects of early PoCUS on patients with acute flank pain.MethodsAdult non-traumatic patients with acute flank pain receiving PoCUS were enrolled. Expert physicians reviewed the medical records and made the "final diagnosis" for the cause of acute flank pain. The primary outcome was the relationship between the door to ultrasound (US) time and length of stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the sonographic diagnosis, compared with the final diagnosis.ResultsEight hundred and eighty-eight patients were included in the analysis. Patients receiving early PoCUS (≤120 min) had a shorter LOS (128 vs. 217 min, p < 0.0001). Patients in the late POCUS group (> 120 min) had a trend to receive more CT scans. The disease distribution, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were similar in patients receiving early or late PoCUS for target diagnoses. After adjusting for the confounders, early PoCUS (OR, 2.77, 95% CIs, 1.93-3.98) had a positive impact on shorter LOS. In addition, the effect of early PoCUS became more prominent (OR, 4.91, 95% CIs, 3.39-7.13) on LOS in less than 3 h.ConclusionsEarly integration of PoCUS is significantly related to shorter LOS in patients with acute flank pain without increasing morbidity and mortality. Our results suggested "PoCUS early" in these patients to possibly alleviate emergency department crowding. Trial registration NCT04149041 at the ClinicalTrial.gov.
| S-EPMC9021562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fifty patients (5 men and 45 women) in the age group of 25 to 65 years with abdominal incisional hernia were studied. The most common antecedent cause (in 86 per cent patients) was found to be a gynaecological operative procedure done earlier through a lower midline incision. All patients underwent anatomical repair and were followed-up after repair for an average of 18 months (range 6-32 months). The results were reviewed and it was seen that there was evidence of recurrence in 3 patients only.
| S-EPMC5530798 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundProphylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during closure of abdominal wall incisions has been proposed in patients with increased risk for development of incisional hernias (IHs). As part of the BioMesh consensus project, a systematic literature review has been performed to detect those studies where MAR was performed with a non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic).MethodsA computerized search was performed within 12 databases (Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, Pubmed publisher, Lilacs, Scielo, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google Scholar) with appropriate search terms. Qualitative evaluation was performed using the MINORS score for cohort studies and the Jadad score for randomized clinical trials (RCTs).ResultsFor midline laparotomy incisions and stoma reversal wounds, two RCTs, two case-control studies, and two case series were identified. The studies were very heterogeneous in terms of mesh configuration (cross linked versus non-cross linked), mesh position (intraperitoneal versus retro-muscular versus onlay), surgical indication (gastric bypass versus aortic aneurysm), outcome results (effective versus non-effective). After qualitative assessment, we have to conclude that the level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of biological meshes for prevention of IHs is very low. No comparative studies were found comparing biological mesh with synthetic non-absorbable meshes for the prevention of IHs.ConclusionThere is no evidence supporting the use of non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic) for prevention of IHs when closing a laparotomy in high-risk patients or in stoma reversal wounds. There is no evidence that a non-permanent absorbable mesh should be preferred to synthetic non-absorbable mesh, both in clean or clean-contaminated surgery.
| S-EPMC5035749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo provide an overview of the available literature on prevention of incisional hernias after stoma reversal, with the use of prophylactic meshes.MethodsA literature search of Pubmed, MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. Search terms for stoma, enterostomy, mesh, prophylaxis and hernia were used. Search was updated to December 31th 2018. No time limitations were used, while English, Geman, Dutch and French were used as language restrictions. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia formation after stoma reversal. Secondary outcomes were mesh-related complications. Data on study design, sample size, patient characteristics, stoma and mesh characteristics, duration of follow-up and outcomes were extracted from the included articles.ResultsA number of 241 articles were identified and three studies with 536 patients were included. A prophylactic mesh was placed in 168 patients to prevent incisional hernias after stoma reversal. Follow-up ranged from 10 to 21 months. The risk of incisional hernia in case of prophylactic mesh placement was significantly lower in comparison to no mesh placement (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.27, p?<?0.001, I2?=?0%, CI 0-91.40%). No differences in surgical site infections were detected between the groups.ConclusionsThe use of a prophylactic mesh seems to reduce the risk on incisional hernias after stoma reversal and therefore mesh reinforcement should be considered after stoma reversal.
| S-EPMC6661031 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate lactated ringers (LR) versus normal saline (NS) in pediatric acute pancreatitis (AP).MethodsThis retrospective study used Pediatric Health Information System database of primary AP patients, 2013 to 2017.ResultsThe study included 1581 first time AP patients with exclusive use of a single fluid (111 LR, 1470 NS) for the first 48 hours. The LR cohort had a significantly shorter length of stay (P < 0.001) compared with NS. A multivariable logistic regression analysis suggests use of NS in the first 48 hours (after controlling for total parenteral nutrition, operation, and infection during the admission) had a significantly increased likelihood of requiring a hospitalization for 4 days or more compared with the LR group (odds ratio, 3.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-5.62). The overall cost was significantly less in the LR group. There was no statistical difference observed in risk factors for AP, intensive care transfer, organ dysfunction, or mortality.ConclusionsThis represents the first large data set analysis of LR versus NS in pediatric AP. The use of LR was associated with a shorter length of stay and reduced cost compared with NS. Future randomized trials will help determine the ideal fluid choice for pediatric AP.
| S-EPMC7100996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In COPD, the course of the disease including morbidity and mortality is strongly associated with severe exacerbations. The current GOLD recommendations emphasize blood eosinophil counts as a marker for responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Retrospective analyses from randomized clinical trials indicate a favorable response to systemic corticosteroids in exacerbated COPD patients with blood eosinophils >?2%, however data outside clinical trials are scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We retrospectively evaluated data from 1007 cases of patients who were admitted to the University Medical Center Marburg between 01/2013 and 12/2018. All patients had been diagnosed with an acute exacerbation of COPD (ICD-10?J44.0/J44.1). Our analysis was based on a subgroup of 417 patients in whom a full blood cell count was obtained at the day of admission. Patients were predominantly male (63.3%), had a median age of 74 years (IQR 65 years - 83 years) and a median FEV1 of 1.03 l (42.6% predicted). We compared the hospital length of stay and other outcome parameters using established thresholds for the eosinophil blood cell count (100 and 300 eosinophils/?l and 2%). RESULTS:Patients with low eosinophils (<?2%, <100 cells/?l) had a longer median time in hospital (length of hospital stay - LOS) as compared to patients with high eosinophils (<?2%: 9.31 vs. ?2%:7?days, and?<?100/?l: 10 vs. 100-300/?l: 8 vs. >?300/?l: 7?days). The median CRP was higher in patients with low eosinophils as compared to the other groups (<?2%: 22.7 vs. ?2%: 9?mg/dl and?<?100: 25 vs. 100-300: 13.5 vs. >?300: 7.1?mg/dl). Time to re-hospitalization or time to death did not differ between strata of eosinophils. Sensitivity analysis in a subgroup of patients in which pneumonia was excluded by chest x-ray did not significantly alter the results. CONCLUSION:The results support the hypothesis that patients with severe COPD exacerbations and elevated blood eosinophil counts respond better to systemic corticosteroid treatment than patients with a non-eosinophilic exacerbation.
| S-EPMC7204070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: We aimed to investigate the difference in the total length of hospital stay (LOS) after intraperitoneal vs. intravenous antibiotic treatment in patients with complicated appendicitis. Methods: We conducted a quasi-randomized prospective clinical trial. The intervention group received 4 g fosfomycin, 1 g metronidazole, and 50 μg recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor intraperitoneally, which was left in the abdominal cavity, immediately after laparoscopic appendectomy. Postoperatively, this group received antibiotics orally. The control group received intravenous antibiotics both during surgery and postoperatively. We primarily evaluated total LOS within 30 days. Furthermore, we evaluated harms and adverse events, Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index, postoperative complications, and convalescence. Participants were followed for 30 days postoperatively. Results: A total of 12 participants concluded the trial. The total LOS was significantly shorter in the intervention group (six participants, median 13 h; range 2-21 h) than in the control group (six participants, median 84 h; range 67-169 h), p = 0.017. Comparable harms and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index scores were found in the two groups. The time to return to normal activities was median 6 and 10 days for the intervention and the control group, respectively. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial nor any complications in the intervention group. In the control group, two patients developed intraabdominal abscesses. Conclusions: The intervention group had a significantly shorter total LOS. The study was not powered to assess differences in complications, but the results indicate that the intervention seems to be a safe regimen, which can be investigated further to treat patients with complicated appendicitis. Identifiers: EudraCT no. 2017-004753-16. ClinicalTrials: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03435900?term=NCT03435900&draw=2&rank=1">draw=2&rank=1.
| S-EPMC7214811 | biostudies-literature