Search

Background: The effectiveness of colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) within opportunistic screening programs has not been clearly established. The aim of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of colonoscopy within an opportunistic screening program using nested case-control study., Methods: Subjects who received a diagnosis of CRC (CG) between the ages of 50 and 90 years were included and matched by age and gender in a 1:5 ratio with patients without CRC diagnosis (COG) during the period 2015 to 2023. Using conditional regression analyses, we tested the association between screening colonoscopy and CRC. Subgroup analyses were then performed for CRC location, endoscopist specialty, and colonoscopy quality., Results: Of the 134 patients in CG, 19 (14.18%) had a colonoscopy in the preceding 5 years compared with 258 out of 670 (38.51%) in COG (AOR, 0.24; 95% CI: 0.14-0.41). Any colonoscopy was strongly associated with decreased odds for left-sided CRC (AOR, 0.09; 95% CI: 0.04-0.24) but not for right-sided CRC (AOR, 0.58; 95% CI: 0.29-1.17). Only complete colonoscopy (AOR, 0.41; 95% CI: 0.19-0.89) and colonoscopy with satisfactory bowel preparation (AOR, 0.38; 95% CI: 0.15-0.98) were associated with decreased odds for right-sided CRC. No significant differences in colonoscopy outcomes were found when stratifying by endoscopist specialty., Conclusions: In the setting of an opportunistic screening program, exposure to any colonoscopy significantly reduced left-sided CRC incidence; however, only high-quality colonoscopy was associated with a lower incidence of right-sided CRC. Therefore, every possible effort should be made to optimize the quality and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy within an opportunistic screening program., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of proximal diversion in patients undergoing sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with a proximal diversion in perforated diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis., Method: A systematic literature search on sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion for diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis was conducted in the Medline and EMBASE databases. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies reporting the primary outcome of interest (30-day mortality) were included. Secondary outcomes were major morbidity, anastomotic leak, reoperation, stoma nonreversal rates, and length of hospital stay. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes., Results: A total of 17 studies involving 544 patients (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 287 versus sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion: 257) were included. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.53-2.40, P = .76), major morbidity (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.80-2.44, P = .24), anastomotic leak (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.099-1.20, P = .10), reoperation (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.46, P = .20), and length of stay (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 12.1 vs resection and primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy: 15 days, P = .44) were similar between groups. The risk of definitive stoma was significantly lower after sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis (odds ratio 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.006-0.35, P = .003)., Conclusion: Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with or without proximal diversion have similar postoperative outcomes in selected patients with diverticulitis and diffuse peritonitis. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: As laparoscopic colorectal surgery continues increasing worldwide, the need of having a second laparoscopic colorectal resection (SLCR) might increase as well. Experience with this challenging procedure is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SLCR., Methods: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing colorectal surgery who needed an SLCR during the period 2008-2020 was performed. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. A propensity score matching with a control population undergoing a first elective colorectal resection was performed., Results: A total of 1918 patients underwent colorectal surgery and 32 patients (1.7%) who required a SLCR were included for analysis; 17 (53.1%) were male, and the mean age was 71 (39 to 89) years. The median time between the first and second operations was 69 (6 to 230) months. At the second resection: The median operative time was 170 (90 to 380) minutes, there were 3 (9%) intraoperative complications and 2 (6%) conversions. Overall postoperative morbidity and major morbidity rates were 34% and 19%, respectively. Four patients (12.5%) required reoperation and 1 (3.1%) died of septic shock after an anastomotic leak. After propensity score matching, SLCR was more frequently performed by colorectal surgeons, and no differences in perioperative variables were observed compared with the control group., Conclusions: SLCR can be safely performed without jeopardizing perioperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm the benefits of the minimally invasive approach in colorectal second resection and to elucidate the long-term outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: As laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) continues increasing worldwide, surgeons may need to perform more than one LCS per day to accommodate this higher demand. We aimed to determine the safety of performing consecutive LCSs by the same surgeon in a single workday. Materials and Methods: Consecutive LCSs performed by the same surgeon from 2006 to 2019 were included. The sample was divided into two groups: patients who underwent the first (G1) and those who underwent the second and the third (G2) colorectal resections in a single workday. LCSs were stratified into level I (low complexity), level II (medium complexity), and level III (high complexity). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Results: From a total of 1433 LCSs, 142 (10%) were included in G1 and 158 (11%) in G2. There was a higher rate of complexity level III LCS (G1: 23% versus G2: 6%, P  < .0001) and a longer operative time (G1: 160 minutes versus G2: 139 minutes, P  = .002) in G1. There were no differences in anastomotic leak, overall morbidity, or mortality rates. Mean length of hospital stay and readmission rates were similar between groups. Conclusion: Multiple consecutive laparoscopic colorectal resections can be safely performed by the same surgeon in a single workday. This efficient strategy should be encouraged at high-volume centers with experienced colorectal surgeons.

Background: Laparoscopy for treating complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) is still controversial. Moreover, its learning curve has not been evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to analyze whether operative outcomes were influenced by the learning curve of re-laparoscopy., Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and reoperated by a laparoscopic approach during the period 2000-2019 was performed. A cumulative sum analysis was done to determine the number of operations that must be performed to achieve a stable operative time. Based on this analysis, the cohort was divided in 3 groups. Demographics and operative variables were compared between groups., Results: From a total of 1911 patients undergoing LCS, 132 (7%) were included. Based on the cumulative sum analysis, the cohort was divided into the first 50 (G1), the following 52 (G2), and the last 30 (G3) patients. Less computed tomography scans were performed in G3 (G1: 72% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 43%; P=0.03). There were no differences in the type of operation performed between the groups. The conversion rate (G1: 18% vs. G2: 4% vs. G3: 3%; P=0.02) and the mean operative time (G1: 104 min vs. G2: 80 min vs. G3: 78 min; P=0.003) were higher in G1. Overall morbidity was lower in G3 (G1: 46% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 33%; P=0.01). Major morbidity, mortality, and mean length of stay remained similar in all groups., Conclusions: A total of 50 laparoscopic reoperations might be needed to achieve an appropriate learning curve with reduced operative time and lower conversion rates. Further research is needed to determine the learning process of re-laparoscopy for treating complications after colorectal surgery., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Laparoscopic surgery has shown clear benefits that could also be useful in the emergency setting such as early reoperations after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic reintervention ("relaparoscopy") (RL) to manage postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery., Methods: We performed a retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database from 2000 to 2019. Patients who required a reoperation after undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. According to the approach used at the reoperation, the cohort was divided in laparoscopy (RL) and laparotomy (LPM). Demographics, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed., Results: A total of 159 patients underwent a reoperation after a laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 124 (78%) had RL and 35 (22%) LPM. Demographics were similar in both groups. Patients who underwent left colectomy were more frequently reoperated by laparoscopy (RL: 42.7% vs. LPM: 22.8%, p: 0.03). The most common finding at the reoperation was anastomotic leakage, which was treated more often by RL (RL: 67.7% vs. LPM: 25.7%, p: 0.0001), and the most common strategy was drainage and loop ileostomy (RL: 65.8% vs. LPM: 17.6%, p: 0.00001). Conversion was necessary in 12 patients (9.6%). Overall morbidity rate was 52.2%. Patients in the RL group had less postoperative severe complications (RL: 12.1% vs. LPM: 22.8, p: 0.01). Mortality rate was similar in both groups., Conclusion: Relaparoscopy is feasible and safe for treating early postoperative complications, particularly anastomotic leakage after left colectomy., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Some postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) require reoperation to be treated. However, if the timing to perform this reoperation has some influence on outcome remains elusive. The aim of this study was to analyze if the timing to perform the reoperation has some influence in postoperative outcomes., Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and required a reoperation during the period 2000 to 2019 were included. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: early reoperation (ER): ≤48 hours or delayed reoperation (DR): ≥48 hours based on the interval between the suspicion of a complication and reoperation. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups., Results: A total of 1843 LCS were performed, 68 (43%) were included in ER and 91 (57%) in DR. A computed tomography scan was less frequently performed in the ER (ER: 45% vs. DR: 70%; P=0.001). The rates of re-laparoscopy (ER: 86% vs. 73%; P=0.04) and negative findings in the reoperation (ER: 13% vs. DR: 1%, P=0.001) were higher in ER. There were no statistically significant differences in overall major morbidity (ER: 9% vs. DR: 21%; P=0.06) and mortality rate (ER: 4% vs. DR: 8.7%; P=0.28) between groups. The need of intensive care unit was significantly higher and the length of stay longer for patients in the DR group., Conclusions: Despite a greater risk of negative findings, ER within 48 hours after the suspicion of a complication after a LCS offers higher chances of using a laparoscopic approach and it could probably provide better postoperative outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence is growing about the benefits of laparoscopic resection with primary anastomosis (RPA) in perforated diverticulitis. However, the role of a diverting ileostomy in this setting is unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic RPA with or without a proximal diversion in Hinchey III diverticulitis., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated Hinchey III diverticulitis during the period 2000-2019. The sample was divided into two groups: RPA without diversion (G1) and RPA with protective ileostomy (G2). Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day overall morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), and urgent reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes of interest included operative time, readmission, and anastomotic leak rates., Results: Laparoscopic RPA was performed in 94 patients: 76 without diversion (G1) and 18 with proximal loop ileostomy (G2). Mortality (G1: 1.3% vs. G2: 0%, p = 0.6), urgent reoperation (G1: 7.9% vs. G2: 5.6%, p = 0.73), and anastomotic leak rates (G1: 5.3% vs. G2: 0%, p = 0.32) were comparable between groups. Higher overall morbidity (G1: 27.6% vs. G2: 55.6%, p = 0.02) and readmission rates (G1: 1.3% vs. G2: 11.1%, p = 0.03), and longer LOS (G1: 6.3 vs. G2: 9.2 days, p = 0.02) and operative time (G1: 182.4 vs. G2: 230.2 min, p = 0.003) were found in patients with proximal diversion., Conclusion: Laparoscopic RPA had favorable outcomes in selected patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis. The addition of a proximal ileostomy resulted in increased morbidity, readmissions, and length of stay. Further investigation is needed to establish which patients might benefit from proximal diversion.

Aim: Outcomes after resident involvement in emergent colectomies have rarely been studied. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcomes of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for Hinchey III diverticulitis performed by residents., Method: This study was a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis. The sample was divided into two groups: patients operated on by a supervised resident (SR) or a senior surgeon (SS). Supervising surgeons and SSs could be general surgeons (GSs) or colorectal surgeons (CSs). A SR was considered the first surgeon if he/she completed at least three of five defined steps of the procedure. The primary end-points included length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity and 30-day mortality. A sub-analysis of patients operated on by a SR assisted by either a CS or GS was performed., Results: Supervised residents and SSs operated on 59 and 42 patients, respectively. The presence of a CS was more frequent in the SS group (SR 41% vs SS 81%, P < 0.001). LOS (SR 9.4 days vs SS 6.4 days, P = 0.04) was higher in the SR group. Overall morbidity (SR 39% vs SS 43%, P = 0.69) and 30-day mortality (SR 5% vs SS 5%, P = 0.94) were also comparable among the groups. Procedures performed by SRs and supervised by a CS were associated with lower morbidity (GS 48% vs CS 25%, P = 0.06) and mortality (GS 8% vs CS 0%, P = 0.26)., Conclusion: Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for Hinchey III diverticulitis has comparable outcomes when performed by a supervised SR or a SS. Procedures performed by residents assisted by a CS seem to have better outcomes than those assisted by a GS., (Colorectal Disease © 2020 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Anastomotic leak (AL) is the most feared complication after colorectal surgery and time to diagnosis is variable. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patient who had an AL during or after hospital discharge. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections without proximal diversion during the period 2008-2018 was conducted. The sample was divided into two groups: patients who had AL during hospitalization (G1) and those who had AL after hospital discharge (G2). Demographics, operative variables and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. A total of 853 patients were included; AL was diagnosed in 60 (7%) patients and was more frequent during initial hospitalization than after hospital discharge (G1: 49 (82%) vs. G2: 11 (18%), p < 0.001). Demographics were similar between groups. Most patients were treated with laparoscopic lavage and diverting ileostomy in both groups (G1: 92% vs. G2: 82%, p = 0.30). Severity of peritonitis at reoperation and length of hospital stay after AL were similar between groups (G1: 11 vs. G2: 9 days, p = 0.54). Overall postoperative morbidity (G1: 57% vs. G2: 36%, p = 0.31), mortality (G1: 10% vs. G2: 27%, p = 0.15) and intestinal reconstruction rate (G1: 92% vs. G2: 100%, p = 1) were similar between groups. Outpatient onset of anastomotic leak did not increase the severity of peritonitis, had no impact on the type of treatment performed, and showed similar postoperative morbidity and mortality as compared to those having AL during hospitalization.

Background: Laparoscopic primary anastomosis (PA) without diversion for diverticulitis has historically been confined to the elective setting. Hartmann's procedure is associated with high morbidity rates that might be reduced with less invasive and one-step approaches. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of laparoscopic PA without diversion in Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all patients who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease during the period 2000-2018. The sample was divided in two groups: elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for recurrent diverticulitis (G1) and emergent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for Hinchey III diverticulitis (G2). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups., Results: A total of 415 patients underwent laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease. PA without diversion was performed in 351 patients; 278 (79.2%) belonged to G1 (recurrent diverticulitis) and 73 (20.8%) to G2 (perforated diverticulitis). Median age, gender, and BMI score were similar in both groups. Patients with ASA III score were more frequent in G2 (p: 0.02). Conversion rate (G1: 4% vs. G2: 18%, p < 0.001), operative time (G1: 157 min vs. G2: 183 min, p < 0.001), and median length of hospital stay (G1: 3 days vs. G2: 5 days, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in G2. Overall postoperative morbidity (G1: 22.3% vs. G2: 28.7%, p = 0.27) and anastomotic leak rate (G1: 5.7% vs. G2: 5.4%, p = 0.92) were similar between groups. There was no mortality in G1 and one patient (1.3%) died in G2 (p = 0.21)., Conclusion: Laparoscopic sigmoid resection without diversion is feasible and safe in patients with perforated diverticulitis. In centers with vast experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, patients undergoing this procedure have similar morbidity and mortality to those undergoing elective sigmoidectomy.

Background: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has obtained wide acceptance over the last two decades. However, some studies suggest that there is an increased rate of intraabdominal abscess (IAA) when is compared with open appendectomy. Since postoperative IAA is associated with high morbidity, identifying predictive factors of this complication may help to prevent it. The aim of this study was to identify preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for IAA after LA., Methods: From January 2005 to June 2015, all charts of consecutive patients underwent to LA were revised. Demographics, clinical and intraoperative variables were analyzed. Independent risk factors for postoperative IAA were determined by logistic regression analysis., Results: A total of 1300 LA were performed. The mean age was 34.7 (14-94) years. Two hundred and twenty-five patients (17.3%) had complicated appendicitis with perforation and peritonitis. The conversion rate was 2.3% (30 cases). The average hospital stay was 1.6 (0-27) days. There were 30 (2.3%) postoperative IAA. In the multivariate analysis, body mass index (BMI) >30 (p 0.01), leukocytosis >20,000/mm 3 (p 0.02), perforated appendicitis (p < 0.001) and operative time >90 min (p 0.04) were associated with the development of postoperative IAA. There was no mortality in the series., Conclusion: Patients with obesity, leukocytosis >20,000/mm 3 , perforated appendicitis and surgical time longer than 90 min have a higher chance of having a postoperative IAA. A close postoperative follow-up would be necessary in these situations in order to prevent and identify IAA after LA.

Several benefits have been described in laparoscopic surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and the results of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after LCRS. Between May 2001 and March 2014, all charts of consecutive patients who underwent LCRS and developed an incisional hernia were evaluated. Patients with parastomal hernias or those with less than 6 months of follow-up were excluded. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic repair group (LR) and open repair group (OR). Demographics, surgical factors, and 30-day postoperative complications were analyzed. The incisional ventral hernia rate was 7 % (90/1290), and 82 incisional hernia repairs were performed. In 49 patients (60 %) an open approach was performed, and there were 33 laparoscopic repairs (2 converted due to small bowel injury). Mean age was 62 years. Average body mass index was 27.4 ± 5.2 kg/m 2 . The mean defect size was 56 (4-527) cm 2 , and there were no differences between the groups (LR: 49 cm 2 vs OR: 63 cm 2 ; p = NS). Average operative time was 107 (45-240) minutes (LR: 93 min vs OR: 116 min, p = 0.02). OR showed a higher rate of postoperative complications (OR: 51 % vs LR: 18 %, p = 0.003) and increased hospital stay (OR: 2.77 ± 4 days vs LR: 0.7 ± 0.4 days; p = 0.02). The recurrence rate was 15 % (12 patients, 6 each group; p = NS) after a follow-up of 48 (r: 6-141) months. Laparoscopic approach for incisional hernia repair after LCRS seems to be safe and feasible. Patients who received laparoscopic approach showed significantly less postoperative complications and shorter hospital staying. These observations suggest that mini-invasive surgery may be the initial approach in patients who develop an incisional hernia after LCRS.

Introduction: Complicated appendicitis (CA) may be a risk factor for postoperative intra-abdominal abscess formation (IAA). In addition, several publications have shown an increased risk of postoperative collection after laparoscopic appendectomy. Most surgeons prefer to place a drain to collect contaminated abdominal fluid to prevent consequent abscess formation. We aimed to evaluate the utility of placing an intra-abdominal drain in laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis., Material and Methods: From January 2005 to June 2015 all charts of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for CA were revised. CA was defined as a perforated appendix with associated peritonitis. The sample was divided into two groups, G1: intra-abdominal drain and G2: no drain. Demographics, operative factors and 30-day postoperative complications were analyzed., Results: In the study period 1300 laparoscopic appendectomies were performed. Laparoscopic findings showed that 17.3% of the surgeries were for complicated acute appendicitis (225 patients). Fifty-six patients (25%) were in G1 and 169 patients (75%) in G2. No significant differences in clinical presentation and demographics were found (p: NS). G1 had an increased conversion rate (G1: 19.6% vs. G2: 7.1%; p: 0.007). No differences were found in the overall morbidity (G1: 32.1% vs. G2: 21.3%, p: NS). The rate of postoperative IAA was 14.2% in G1 and 8.9% in G2 (p: NS). Length of stay was higher in G1 (G1: 5.2 days vs. G2 2.9 days, p: 0.001). There was no mortality in either group., Conclusion: The placement of intra-abdominal drain in complicated acute appendicitis may not present benefits and may even lengthen hospital stay. These observations suggest that there is no need of using a drain in laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis., (Copyright © 2016 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To analyze the results of laparoscopic colectomy in complicated diverticular disease., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at an academic teaching hospital. Data were collected from a database established earlier, which comprise of all patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy for diverticular disease between 2000 and 2013. The series was divided into two groups that were compared: Patients with complicated disease (abscess, perforation, fistula, or stenosis) (G1) and patients undergoing surgery for recurrent diverticulitis (G2). Recurrent diverticulitis was defined as two or more episodes of diverticulitis regardless of patient age. Data regarding patient demographics, comorbidities, prior abdominal operations, history of acute diverticulitis, classification of acute diverticulitis at index admission and intra and postoperative variables were extracted. Univariate analysis was performed in both groups., Results: Two hundred and sixty patients were included: 28% (72 patients) belonged to G1 and 72% (188 patients) to G2. The mean age was 57 (27-89) years. The average number of episodes of diverticulitis before surgery was 2.1 (r 0-10); 43 patients had no previous inflammatory pathology. There were significant differences between the two groups with respect to conversion rate and hospital stay (G1 18% vs G2 3.2%, P = 0.001; G1: 4.7 d vs G2 3.3 d, P < 0.001). The anastomotic dehiscence rate was 2.3%, with no statistical difference between the groups (G1 2.7% vs G2 2.1%, P = 0.5). There were no differences in demographic data (body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology and previous abdominal surgery), operative time and intraoperative and postoperative complications between the groups. The mortality rate was 0.38% (1 patient), represented by a death secondary to septic shock in G2., Conclusion: The results support that the laparoscopic approach in any kind of complicated diverticular disease can be performed with low morbidity and acceptable conversion rates when compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis.

Background: Laparoscopic approach is related to, among others, educing abdominal wall complications such as incisional hernia (IH). However, there are scarce data concerning laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). The aim of this study was to evaluate related factors and incidence of IH following this approach., Methods: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent colorectal surgery with laparoscopic approach in a single center was performed. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and also converted to open surgery were included. Uni- and multi-variate analyses were performed using the following variables: age; gender; type of surgery (left, right, total, or segmental colectomy); comorbidities [diabetes and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD)]; previous surgery; colorectal disease (benign and malignant); operative time; surgical site infection (SSI); and body mass index (BMI). Midline incisions (right colectomy) and off-midline incisions (left colectomies and rectal resections) were also compared., Results: During a period of 12 years, 1051 laparoscopic colorectal surgeries were performed. The incidence of IH was 6% (n = 63). Univariate analysis showed that BMI > 30 kg/m(2) [p < 0.01, OR: 2.3 (1.3-4.7)], SSI [p < 0.01, OR: 6.5 (3.4-12.5)], operative time >180 min [p < 0.01, OR: 2.1 (1.2-3.6)] and conversion to open surgery (p = 0.01, OR: 2.4 [1.1-5.0]) were related to incisional hernias. BMI and SSI have a statistically significant relation with the incidence of IH in multivariate analysis (p < 0.01). No statistical difference between right and left colectomy was observed (6.6 vs. 6.4%, respectively)., Conclusion: The incidence of IH after LCRS seems to be acceptable. BMI over 30 kg/m(2) and SSI are strongly associated to this complication.

Background: Iatrogenic perforation due to colonoscopy is the most serious complication of this procedure. Usually, resolution of this event requires segmental resection. The laparoscopic approach could be an option to minimize the outcome of this complication. The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of the laparoscopic approach in treating colonic perforations due to colonoscopy., Methods: Between July 1997 and November 2008 data were collected retrospectively on all patients who underwent colonoscopy and had a perforation caused by the procedure. Patients with other complications after colonoscopy as well as other colonic perforations were excluded. According to the method employed for the approach, the series was divided in two groups: those treated by the laparoscopic approach (group I; GI) and those treated via laparotomy (group II; GII). Morbidity and recovery parameters were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test and the chi square test., Results: A total of 14,713 colonoscopies were performed during the study period. Of these, 10,299 (73 %) were diagnostics and 4,414 (27%) were therapeutics. There were 20 (0.13%) iatrogenic perforations (GI = 14 versus GII = 6). The mean age of the patients was 62 +/- 12.1 years. There were no differences in patient demographics, co-morbidities, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades between the groups. Seventeen patients had segmental colectomy with primary anastomosis (GI: 13 versus GII: 4). One patient in each group had simple suture with diverting ileostomy, and one patient from GII underwent a Hartmann's procedure. Patients from GI had a shorter hospital stay (GI: 4.2 +/- 2.06 days versus GII 11.5 +/- 8.8 days; P = 0.007) and there were no differences in complication rate compared with GII (GI: 3 versus GII: 5; P = 0.058)., Conclusions: Laparoscopic colectomy is effective in resolving colonic perforation due to colonoscopy, and it might offer benefits over the open approach.

Background: This study was designed to asses the predictive factors of postoperative complications in patients who underwent a laparoscopic elective approach for recurrent diverticulitis and to determine the relationship between the number of acute episodes and surgical morbidity., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with colonic diverticular disease treated by an elective laparoscopic approach between July 2000 and November 2007. The variables studied were age, sex, BMI, ASA, number of previous acute episodes, local severity, abdominal surgery history, comorbidity, and laparoscopic training of the surgeon. Logistic regression analysis was used to establish significant results., Results: A total of 137 patients were analyzed; 87 (63.5%) were men with a mean age of 56.7 (range, 27-89) years. Intraoperative and postoperative complications occurred in 2.9% (n = 4) and 12.4% (n = 17) of the patients respectively. Conversion rate was 9.4% (n = 13). Local severity (odds ratio (OR), 16.34; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.1-64.5, p = 0.00007), history of abdominal surgery (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 0.8-11.5; p = 0.02), and the training of the operating surgeon (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.02-22.7; p = 0.001) were significant risk factors related to surgery conversion. A history of three or more acute episodes was significantly associated with a high severity of local process and was a risk factor related to conversion (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 0.5-12.3; p = 0.22). The severity of the local process seems to be a risk factor for perioperative complications. A significant association (chi2, 4.45; p = 0.03) between conversion and postoperative complications also was observed (OR: 3.79, 95% CI, 1.02-14.07; p = 0.04)., Conclusions: A history of three or more acute episodes of diverticulitis with conservative treatment is associated with a high severity of the local process during laparoscopic sigmoidectomy and increases the rate of conversion and perioperative complications.

Purpose: Although the use of laparoscopy for the management of postoperative complications has been previously well documented for different pathologies, there is scarce information regarding its use after laparoscopic colorectal surgery., Methods: Data were prospectively collected from all patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery between June 2000 to October 2007. Patients were divided into two groups according to the approach used for the reoperation: laparoscopy (Group I) or laparotomy (Group II). Data were statistically analyzed by using Student's t-test and chi-squared test., Results: In all, 510 patients were analyzed. Twenty-seven patients (5.2 percent), 14 men and 13 women (men/women Group I: 10/7 vs. Group II: 4/6; P = not significant (NS)), required a second surgery because of postoperative complications (Group I: 17 (63 percent); Group II: 10 (37 percent)). Mean age was 60 +/- 17 years (Group I: 61.7 +/- 17.7 vs. Group II: 57.1 +/- 16 years; P = NS). Fifteen patients (55.5 percent) had anastomotic leaks (Group I 13/17 (76.5 percent) vs. Group II 2/13 (15 percent); P = 0.004). The were no differences between the groups regarding the length of stay or postoperative complications (Group I: 11.9 +/- 9.6 vs. Group II: 18.1 +/- 19.7 days: P = NS; Group I: 1 vs. Group II: 3; P = NS)., Conclusions: Laparoscopic approach is a useful tool for treating complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, especially anastomotic leaks. Randomized, controlled trials are necessary to validate these findings.

Purpose: Although many studies have demonstrated good results using laparoscopic proctocolectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), most surgical procedures require at least one additional incision larger than 5 cm to complete the surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of laparoscopic proctocolectomy with ileoanal J pouch, with a complete intracorporeal dissection using a 4-5 cm right lower quadrant (RLQ) incision., Methods: Data were collected prospectively from all patients with UC that were subjected to a proctocolectomy with ileoanal J pouch between August 2003 and December 2006. The dissection was performed completely by laparoscopy using a medial-lateral approach for the colon and a total mesorectal excision for the rectum. Once the rectum was resected laparoscopically, a 4-5 cm incision in the RLQ was performed to resect the specimen and then an end or a loop ileostomy was implanted at the RLQ wound. The surgery was performed in two (proctocolectomy with ileoanal J pouch and loop ileostomy) or three steps (subtotal colectomy and end ileostomy with sigmoid fistula; proctectomy with ileoanal J pouch; and loop ileostomy)., Results: A total of 47 surgical procedures were performed in 32 patients with a mean age of 34.5 +/- 15.7 years, of which 56% were male. The mean body mass index was 21 +/- 16 kg/m(2); 50% of patients underwent surgery in two steps and the other 50% in three steps. Surgery was converted in five (10.6%) cases due to megacolon in one case, narrow pelvis in two, and difficult rectal dissection in two; the overall morbidity rate was 14.9%. Two patients required reoperation and no mortality was registered. The mean operative time was 248 +/- 62 min; proctocolectomy 292 +/- 61 min, subtotal colectomy 203 +/- 43 min, and proctectomy 248 +/- 47 min. The mean hospital stay was 4.8 +/- 1.9 days, and the mean interval time to close loop ileostomies was 64 +/- 12 days., Conclusions: A complete laparoscopic proctocolectomy dissection is feasible and safe for surgical treatment of UC.

Background: Although laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery can be safely performed in the hands of well-trained surgeons, criteria for patient selection should be further developed in order to decrease the conversion rate. The main objective of this study was to identify predictive factors for conversion of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to an open procedure based on statistical analysis., Methods: A retrospective survey was performed using data collected from 400 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery between March 2000 and December 2006. As potential predictive factors for conversion, we considered demographic characteristics, surgery-related variables and disease-related variables. Univariable analysis was performed to identify individual predictive risk factors for conversion. Factors with p values below 0.05 were included in a regression model., Results: Conversion to open surgery was required in 51 patients (12.7%). Age (>65 years) was the only independent predictive demographic factor (OR=2.3; 95% CI, 1.25-4.46). Low anterior resection (OR=3.9; 95% CI, 1.64-9-18) and complicated diverticulitis (OR=3.9; 95% CI, 1.64-9.18) were also predictive factors. The only predictive factor evidenced in the multivariate analysis was complicated diverticulitis (OR=159.99; 95% CI, 41.02-624.02). Indications for conversion were: adhesions in 53% of the patients, technical problems in 18%, bleeding in 1%, and other indications for the remaining 28%., Conclusion: Complicated diverticulitis or cancer of the rectum treated by low anterior resection have higher probabilities of conversion.

Background: Lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) can cause fecal incontinence. The aim of this study was to evaluate this sequelae after long-term follow-up of patients treated by LIS and to identify possible associated factors., Methods: Data were retrospectively collected for patients with chronic anal fissure who had LIS between 1994 and 1997. Continence was assessed according to the incontinence score (IS) obtained by medical record review and telephone questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed using by Student's t test for qualitative variables and chi-square test for qualitative variables., Results: All 68 patients evaluated had healed after fissure surgery. None of these patients had preoperative fecal incontinence neither recurrence at the time of follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 66.6 months (range, 30-84 months), 7 patients (10.2%) were incontinent (mean IS=8.2; range, 5-16) and none had recovered continence at the time of follow-up. There was no significant difference between patients with and without fecal incontinence relative to gender age, hemorrhoidectomy combined with LIS, or vaginal delivery., Conclusions: Incontinence due to LIS does not recover after long-term follow-up and appears to be an independent cause of fecal incontinence.

The diagnosis of significant rectocele is currently made on the basis of cinedefecographic findings. Clinical examination alone will only allow assessment of the presence but not the significance of a rectocele. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine if anal manometric findings can predict the significance of a rectocele. All patients with a diagnosis of constipation and rectocele confirmed on cinedefecography between 1992 and 1998 were retrospectively reviewed. Significant rectocele was defined as the presence of three of the following five parameters: rectocele >4 cm in diameter as measured during the evacuatory phase of cinedefecography, rectal and/or vaginal symptoms present for longer than 12 months, persistence of rectal or vaginal symptoms for at least four weeks, despite increased dietary fiber (up to 35 g/day), need for rectal and/or vaginal digitation or perineal support maneuvers for rectal evacuation. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney test and Fisher's exact test. A logistic regression model with stepwise selection was used to determine significant prognostic factors. A total of 305 patients (31 men) with rectocele, with a median age of 68 years (range, 12-89) were identified. Of these, 89 (29.2%) had significant rectoceles. There was no difference in the frequency of significant and non-significant rectoceles with respect to gender or age. However, patients with a significant rectocele compared to those with a non-significant rectocele had higher median first sensation volume (45 vs. 30 ml, p=0.0005), median capacity (160 vs. 120 ml, p<0.0001), and median compliance (10 vs. 8 ml H(2)O/mmHg, p=0.05). Calculations based on a logistic regression model determined that with a first sensation of 100 ml, a capacity of 400 ml, and a compliance of 50 ml/mmHg, the probability of a significant rectocele would be 85%. In conclusion, anal manometric findings may be useful in predicting significant rectocele in constipated patients.

BACKGROUND: The importance of the overlapping scar in an anterior sphincteroplasty is often emphasized. The aim of this study was to identify the tissue type used in overlapping sphincter repair based upon ultrasound images, and to correlate these results with the immediate clinical outcome. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on all patients with faecal incontinence who underwent anterior overlapping sphincteroplasty between June 1998 and May 1999. Continence was assessed by a standardized incontinence score ranging from 0 to 20. Pre-operative ultrasound images were compared to intraoperative ultrasound findings for each patient. In each case the surgeon performed an overlap of what was grossly felt to represent scar after which a single blinded observer performed intraoperative ultrasound. The degree of overlap was measured and classified as hyperechoic over hyperechoic (muscle over muscle; Type 1), hyperechoic over or under hypoechoic (muscle over or under scar; Type 2), hypoechoic over hypoechoic (scar over scar; Type 3). The patient follow-up included incontinence score that was obtained by telephone interview; suboptimal outcome was considered as an incontinence score >/= 6. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney test and Wilcoxon matched-pairs test. RESULTS: Fourteen female patients with a mean age of 51.6 (range 28-79) years were evaluated. The mean pre-operative incontinence score was 17.1 (range 7-20) and 13 of the 14 (93%) patients had an incontinence score >/= 15. All pre-operative ultrasound images were hypoechoic which correlated with the surgeon's intraoperative findings of scar. The operative appearance included two Type 1, four Type 2, and eight Type 3 images. Larger pre-operative ultrasound image defects were statistically significantly related to intraoperative Type 3 ultrasound images. At a mean follow up of 7.5 (range 2-16) months the mean postoperative incontinence score was 4.5 (range 0-12). In patients with Type 1 and Type 2 images, the mean postoperative score was 8.6 (range 4-12) whereas in patients with Type 3 it was 1.3 (range 0-5) (P < 0.003); 7 of the 8 patients in Type 3 (87.5%) had an incontinence score

Patients treated with restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis occasionally develop neoplasia from the rectal mucosal remnants. We report a case of a 65-year-old male who developed an adenocarcinoma from the rectal stump after a double-stapled ileorectal J-pouch for ulcerative colitis. We emphasize the need to perform the anastomosis either at the level of the dentate line or just cephalad to the anal transitional zone. Furthermore, when high-grade dysplasia at the rectum is evident, either an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with mucosectomy or completion proctectomy with an end Brooke ileostomy should be offered. This is the second report in the literature of a carcinoma arising after use of the double-stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomotic technique.

Fecal incontinence is a disabling and distressing condition. Many patients are reluctant to discuss the condition with a physician. A thorough history, good physical examination, and detailed anorectal physiologic investigations can help in the therapeutic decision-making algorithm. Patients with isolated anterior sphincter defects are candidates for overlapping repair. In the presence of unilateral or bilateral pudendal neuropathy, the patient should be counseled preoperatively regarding a [table: see text] lower anticipation of success. If the injury occurred shortly before the planned surgery and neuropathy is present, it may be prudent to wait because neuropathy sometimes can resolve within 6 to 24 months of the injury. Pudendal nerve study may help determine surgical timing. An anterior sphincter defect combined with a rectovaginal fistula can be approached by overlapping sphincter repair and a concomitant transanal advancement flap. Patients who had undergone multiple such procedures may benefit from concomitant fecal diversion at the time of repeat sphincter repair. Patients with global or multifocal sphincter injury may be candidates for a neosphincter procedure. The stimulated graciloplasty and artificial bowel sphincter are reasonable options. In the absence of the availability of these techniques or because of financial constraints, consideration could be given to bilateral gluteoplasty or unilateral or bilateral nonstimulated graciloplasty. The postanal repair still serves a role in patients with isolated decreased resting pressures with or without neuropathy or external sphincter injury with minimal degrees of incontinence. Biofeedback and the Procon device may play a role in these patients. Lastly, fecal diversion must be considered as a means of improving the quality of life because the patient can participate in the activities of daily living without the fear of fecal incontinence.

Purpose: Surgeon influenced variables in rectal cancer surgery were assessed., Methods: The literature was reviewed to discuss technical and educational issues that may affect the outcome of surgery for rectal cancer. Particular attention was paid to recently debated topics such as adjuvant therapy, colonic J-pouches, total mesorectal excision, and surgeons' training., Results: In some selected cases, transanal techniques with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy have improved the success of local excision. The biology of rectal cancer has begun to be understood. However, until a more complete understanding with an appreciation of therapeutic implications has been arrived at, surgeon influenced variables will continue to be of paramount importance. Multiple studies have shown tremendous surgeon variability in the outcome after rectal cancer surgery. Some of the variables that have been shown to be important include tumor-free distal and lateral margins, a total mesorectal excision, and an appropriate anastomosis. It has been well demonstrated that proctectomy with straight coloanal anastomosis compromises function as compared with preoperative levels or healthy controls. These deficiencies are further exacerbated by adjuvant therapy. Significant functional improvements, particularly in the first 12 to 24 months after surgery, have been achieved with use of colonic J-pouch., Conclusion: There are many ways by which the surgeon can optimize curative resection for rectal cancer. Appropriate distal and tumor-free lateral margins with total mesorectal excision should be the goals for all tumors in the lower two-thirds of the rectum. Reconstruction should be performed, whenever technically possible, by a colonic J-pouch. Surgeons should be cognizant of their own practice patterns, volume, capabilities, and very importantly results. These results should be audited frequently and willingly shared with patients.