Management of anastomotic leaks after elective colorectal resections: The East of England experience. A retrospective cohort

2021 ◽  
pp. 106167
Author(s):  
Medhat Aker ◽  
Alan Askari ◽  
Mohamed Rabie ◽  
Mohamed Aly ◽  
Samuel Adegbola ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedja Cuk ◽  
Randi Maria Simonsen ◽  
Mirjana Komljen ◽  
Michael Festersen Nielsen ◽  
Per Helligsø ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Robotic-assisted surgery is increasingly implemented for the resection of colorectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for adopting this technique is still limited. This study's main objective was to compare short-term complications, oncological outcomes, and the inflammatory stress response after colorectal resection for cancer performed laparoscopic or robotic-assisted. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the robotic-assisted approach to laparoscopic surgery for elective malignant colorectal neoplasm. Certified colorectal and da Vinci ® robotic surgeons performed resections at a Danish tertiary colorectal high volume centre from May 2017 – March 2019. We analyzed the two surgical groups using uni- and multivariate regression analyses to detect differences in intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes and the inflammatory stress response. Results Two hundred and ninety-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Significant differences favoring robotic-assisted surgery was demonstrated for; length of hospital stay (4 days, interquartile range (4–5) versus 5 days, interquartile range (4–7), p < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (50 mL, interquartile range (20–100) versus 100 mL, interquartile range (50–150), p < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic surgery. The inflammatory stress response was significantly higher after laparoscopic compared to robotic-assisted surgery reflected by an increase in C-reactive protein concentration (exponentiated coefficient = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (1.04–1.40), p < 0.001). No differences between the two groups were found concerning mortality, microradical resection rate, conversion to open surgery and surgical or medical short-term complications. Conclusion Robotic-assisted surgery is feasible and can be safely implemented for colorectal resections. The robotic-assisted approach, when compared to laparoscopic surgery, was associated with improved intra- and postoperative outcomes. Extensive prospective studies are needed to determine the short and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.


2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
M A Gok ◽  
C J Smart ◽  
M M Sadat ◽  
S J Ward ◽  
U A Khan

Abstract Aims ERAS employs a multi-modal rehabilitation aids post-op recovery following colorectal resections. ERAS applied in both laparoscopic + open surgery. This study aims to assess effectiveness of ERAS at a single centre. Methods A retrospective study at East Cheshire NHS Trust, since 2008. Descriptive demography & post-operative features were collected for all elective colorectal resections. Results Conclusion ERAS associated with longer operative time (p &lt; 0.05) (laparoscopic surgery), a shorter hospital stay was achieved (p &lt; 0.05). Delayed ERAS occurred in 26.2 % of cases & can result in delayed discharge. Early ERAS deviations occurred in the presence of major surgical complications (ileus, anastomotic leaks, collections). Despite post-operative cardiac & pulmonary events, ERAS was maintained. A targeted rehabilitation programme especially in the elderly patients can lead to earlier recovery. 


2015 ◽  
Vol 210 (5) ◽  
pp. 793-798 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Elnahas ◽  
David Urbach ◽  
Gerald Lebovic ◽  
Muhammad Mamdani ◽  
Allan Okrainec ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Chan ◽  
H Yip ◽  
A Teoh ◽  
P Chiu ◽  
E Ng

Abstract   Anastomotic leakage after foregut surgeries are often difficult to manage. The conventional way of endoscopic treatment is ES. However, it carries a risk of stent migration and erosion. EVT is a novel way of treating these leaks. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study including all patients with anastomotic leak after foregut surgery and were treated with ES or EVT between July 2008 and July 2019. Patients’ demographics, type of surgery, size of anastomotic defect, success rate, complications, number of procedures were recorded and compared. Results There were 17 patients treated with ES and 7 patients treated with EVT. The success rate of both therapies are similar. (11/17(64.7%) in the ES group vs 5/7(71.4%) in the EVT group; p = 0.751). However, there was a trend to less complications in the EVT group (9/17 (52.9%) in ES group vs. 1/7(14.2%) in EVT group; p = 0.135). On the other hand, the EVT group has a trend to requiring more endoscopic procedures (median (range) 3 (7) procedures in the ES group vs 6(11) in the EVT group; p 0.435). Conclusion The use of EVT is feasible and safe in treating anastomotic leaks after foregut surgeries. Although more procedures are required, it achieved similar success rate while having a trend to less complications.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document