Improved Outcomes in Colon and Rectal Surgery part 7 pps

 improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery A more difficult or dense adhesion can be approached from different angles to help define the appropriate plane. Oftentimes, simpler adhesions can be taken down on either side or even behind the dense adhesion to help delineate the proper path of dissection. Placing one’s fingers on either side of the adhesion and palpating can be of assistance to feel the plane and also sometimes stretch out the adhesion for easier division. Of course, one of the biggest keys to success is proper traction and counter-traction. If the traction is too forceful though, tearing of the bowel may occur. If an enterotomy does occur, it should be repaired immediately with absorbable sutures to minimize contamination. If the case is difficult and more injuries are predicted, temporary closure can be employed until all adhesiolysis is complete. A segment of bowel with extensive injuries may be best resected. Waiting until all injuries have been identified and a plan made can save significant time on unnecessary repairs. Sometimes dissection can be performed in an extraperitoneal plane to avoid bowel injury, leaving peritoneum adherent to the bowel wall. Other times a small piece of bowel wall may be left behind, adherent to a more critical structure, such as the ureter or iliac vessels, in order to avoid morbid injury at these crucial sites. Leaving devascularized bowel serosa or muscularis in-situ is not a problem. Any mucosa left behind, however, should be desiccated with electrocautery to prevent formation of mucoceles or malignancy. Consideration should be given in each case to preventing adhesions, which lowers the risk of bowel obstruction and makes any future surgeries easier. Adhesion formation is a local response of the peritoneum and pertonealized structures to ischemia, desiccation, or trauma and may form as result of the primary disease process or due to contact with surgical instruments, staples, suture, gloves, sponges, and other irritants introduced at the time of surgery. It is assumed that laparoscopy can minimize some of these insults by limiting bowel manipulation and exposure of the peritoneal surface to potential irritants.(28–30) Preliminary evidence in this regard can be found by noting that laparoscopic assisted ileocolic resection is associated with reduced rate of bowel obstruction when compared to open surgery.(31, 32) Adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall are minimal or absent.(33) (See Figures 6.3 and 6.4) (34) Additionally, the CO2 pneumoperitoneum is felt to be protective of certain types of injury.(35, 36) Initial hope for elimi- nation of adhesive disease with the advent of laparoscopy (37) has been replaced by the realization that adhesions do indeed form and reform after laparoscopy, primarily in the operative field, (38, 39) but to a lesser extent than with open surgery. Despite these advantages, bowel obstruction continues to occur frequently in patients following laparoscopic surgery. The mechanism, severity, and risk of obstruction have shifted however. In a report for the French Association for Surgical Research, Duron (39) and colleagues noted that only 33% of postoperative bowel obstructions following various laparoscopic surgeries were due to multiple adhesions, while an additional 17% were due to a single band. Intestinal incarceration (in abdominal wall defect or port site) (See Figures 6.5 and 6.6) was responsible for another 46%. All told, 25% of patients required resection. A report from the Western Pennsylvania Hospital describes unique mechanisms of bowel obstruction, such as internal hernia, are common after laparoscopic bariatric surgery.(40) The reason for this is assumed to be the result of a laparoscopy-related decrease in scar formation between newly apposed peritoneal surfaces which leaves defects open.(41) One can imagine this same phenomenon following laparoscopic colon resection. Obstructions due to internal hernias are associated with a high incidence of bowel threatening ischemia and therefore require a high index of suspicion and prompt surgical management. The authors’ experience is that relaparoscopy, in this patient population, is an excellent technique for diagnosing and managing these obstructions and other complications.(40) General principles to minimize adhesions include gentle han- dling of the tissue, hemostasis, and avoidance of infection and ischemia. Products such as Seprafilm TM (Genzyme), a bioabsorb- able membrane of sodium hyaluronate, and carboxymethylcellu- lose, can be placed at the time of surgery to reduce the incidence of adhesions.(42–44) It should be noted that these products should not be placed adjacent to a fresh anastomosis.(45) A qualification must be maintained in the case of adhesions encountered when operating on a patient with a malignancy. If the adhesions are between a cancer and another structure, they Figure 6.3 Laparoscopic images demonstrating lack of adhesions in a patient undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis 2 years after hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection for recurrent sigmoid diverticulitis. (Courtesy of Thomas E. Read, MD, Pittsburgh, PA).  other intraoperative challenges should be treated as an extension of the malignancy. In other words, they should not be divided, but instead resected with the specimen. This process might require partial resection of another structure such as another limb of bowel or abdominal wall. Not all adhesions encountered during surgery for malignancy are malig- nant adhesions however. Attention should be paid to the extent of the tumor such as growth through the full-thickness bowel wall and its relationship to the adhesions as well as the characteristic of the adhesion. lesiOn lOcalizatiOn Up to 22% of endoscopically unresectable colorectal neoplasms with benign histology on initial biopsy harbor invasive adeno- carcinoma. Adhering to oncologically sound principles for these neoplasms is advised.(46) Many of these will not be easily palpable during surgery and even more difficult to localize laparoscopically. For operative planning, particularly when considering a laparoscopic approach, accurate localization of the tumor is imperative to avoid removal of the wrong segment of intestine.(47) Colonoscopy alone as a localizing technique is inaccurate (48) unless the tumor is clearly noted to be in the direct proximity of to an unmistakable landmark such as the rectum or cecum. As such, localization should be more definitively accomplished preoperatively. Endoscopic injection of India ink in three or four quadrants of bowel adjacent to and distal to, but not through the tumor, is safe and reliable, and preferred in most centers (49, 50) (See Figure 6.7). Other adjuncts for localization include endoscopic placement of clips and subsequent plain film of the abdomen (See Figure 6.8). Alternatively, barium enema or CT colography can be employed. (51) Though more costly than India ink injection and associated with radiation exposure, these modalities offer the additional advantage of preoperative planning for room set up and patient positioning for left vs. transverse vs. right colectomy. One disad- vantage of these approaches is they offer no direct intraoperative evidence of the lesion localization. Therefore they may be most effectively used in conjunction with India ink marking. Some centers have reported success with preoperative endoscopic clip placement followed by intraoperative laparoscopic Figure 6.4 Laparoscopic images demonstrating lack of adhesions in a patient undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis 2 years after hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection for recurrent sigmoid diverticulitis. (Courtesy of Thomas E. Read, MD, Pittsburgh, PA). Figure 6.6 A port site hernia causing a bowel obstruction and injury to the bowel. Figure 6.5 A port site hernia causing a bowel obstruction and injury to the bowel.  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery ultrasonography or intraoperative fluoroscopy.(52) These intraoperative imaging modalities, though effective, tend to be cum- bersome, resource intensive, and operator dependent. Due to the flexible nature of the colonoscope, the distance of the tumor from the anal verge cannot be accurately measured on colonoscopy. When the tumor is obviously within the colon or is palpable within the rectum, this limitation of the colonoscope is not an issue. Unfortunately, not uncommonly, a tumor reported to be in the sigmoid colon by colonoscopy is actually much lower and represents rectal cancer. A rigid proctoscope is very useful to accurately measure the distance of the tumor from the anal verge, which not only helps in planning surgery but also determines if the tumor is in a location that its stage might warrant preoperative neoadjuvant therapy.(53) Careful preoperative assessment and planning is the best way to ensure that the appropriate segment of the intestine is removed. The most notable preventable cause includes assumptions made based on colonoscopic determination of a site that is not within the direct proximity to an unmistakable landmark such as the rectum or cecum. Occasionally, however, despite our best efforts, localization attempts fail to identify lesions intraoperatively in up to 12% of cases.(54) Failure to visualize a tattoo can result from disappearance of the tattoo compound, particularly when products other than India ink are used.(55) Additionally, failure to inject the ink compound into the submucosal tissue plane can result in dissemination of the ink and imprecise localization or intraperitoneal injection. Although this presents little direct risk to the patient, it does present a problem with definitive intraoperative localization. Techniques that have been described to minimize this occurrence include injecting saline to develop the submucosal plane before injection of ink.(56) The surgeon must be prepared to deal with the case where localization efforts have failed. Blind resection is not advised unless confidently guided by preoperative imaging. Mobilization of the flexures and dissection of the omentum off the transverse colon may reveal a hidden tattoo mark. During laparoscopy, palpation cannot be performed well but a hand assist device can be used to overcome this limitation. Still there are cases where the lesion is too small to palpate and remains unfound. Under such circumstances, intraoperative colonoscopy can permit localization.(57) Use of CO 2 insufflation during the colonoscopy will minimize bowel dis- tention. This is critical if laparoscopic assisted surgery is planned. Requiring equipment, expertise, and time, this is best reserved as a back-up rather than a primary localization modality. Regardless of the technique of localization, opening the specimen after resection to confirm the presence of the lesion is recommended. abdOminal wall clOsure Abdominal wall closure is required following laparotomy and at the specimen retrieval site for laparoscopic colectomy. Wound- related complications such as acute wound failure (dehiscence), infection, and incisional hernia can result in significant morbidity. Malnutrition, tobacco abuse, and/or requirement for systemic corticosteroids or chemotherapy will increase risk. Ideally, these factors should be modified preoperatively whenever possible. Intraoperatively, proper technique minimizes the risk of wound complication and will be the focus of this discussion. Acute wound failure, defined as an early separation of the abdominal musculoaponeurotic layers, occurs at an incidence of approximately 1.2% (range 0–2.3%), (58–62) with the majority occurring between the 6th and 9th postoperative days.(63, 64) The most common cause is felt to be suture tearing through the fascia but may also occur as a result of abdominal wall rupture away from the incision or excessive suture interval. Suture break- age and knot slippage are rare.(58, 6, 65–70) An incisional hernia is failure of complete abdominal wall healing following abdominal surgery, resulting in a myofascial defect. The reported incidence of incisional hernias in the literature varies from 9–19%. They often require repair, with recurrence rates as high as 45%, causing further complications. The ideal abdominal wound closure should minimize this complication. Figure 6.8 A plain film of the abdomen after endoscopic placement of clip (arrow) can provide valuable information about the location of the lesion and aid in preoperative planning. Figure 6.7 India ink injected endoscopically before laparoscopy provides excellent lesion localization.  other intraoperative challenges technique Numerous studies have demonstrated mass closure to be superior to layered closure in clinical practice (71–73), since incorporating large bites of tissue reduces the pressure per unit area caused by the suture and decreases the risk of suture cut-through (74, 75). Although a randomized trial of mass versus layered closure showed no significant difference in wound rupture, (76) and most clinical studies comparing mass closure to layered abdominal closure have not revealed a difference in the incidence of incisional hernia formation, (73, 77) mass closure of the abdominal wall is currently favored because of its safety, efficacy, and speed. It is important to note that peritoneum heals by regeneration of the layer over the entire defect, and not in incremental advancement from the wound edge.(78, 79) Randomized studies revealed no difference between a one-layered closure (peritoneum not sutured) and a two-layered closure (peritoneum sutured) in midline and paramedian incisions.(73, 80) Peritoneal closure is therefore not vital in abdominal closures and may contribute to adhesion formation. Experimental models and cadaveric studies have shown that continuous abdominal wall closure provides the greatest wound security in terms of abdominal dehiscence.(81, 82) Continuous suturing is thought to equalize the tension differences between individual stitches and distributes the tension along the suture line, thus reducing the risk of tissue strangulation and late cut- through.(65, 81, 83, 84) The number of knots and therefore the likelihood of knot slippage may be minimized. A meta-analysis comparing six randomized controlled trials of continuous versus interrupted closure (irrespective of suture type) found the incidence of incisional hernias to be significantly less with continuous closure.(85) There is a zone of collagenolysis and matrix degradation that extends out 0.75 cm from each wound edge.(86, 87) Further, fascia strength near its cut edge decreases by 50% during the first 48 hours after an operation.(88) Experimental models have demonstrated a continuous closure while maintaining a 1 cm stitch interval and a 1 cm tissue bite reduces dehiscence rate as compared to smaller tissue bites by minimizing the risk of suture cut-through.(89) suture material Slowly resorbed monofilaments (polydioxanone: PDS ® and polygly- conate: Maxon ® ) are the strongest sutures in the fresh state, followed by the nonresorbable monofilaments (nylon: Ethilon ® and polypropylene: Prolene ® ), and then the braided sutures (polyglactin: Vicryl ® , polyglycolic acid: Dexon ® ).(90) Silk and chromic catgut, are not appropriate.(91, 66, 92, 93) With regard to incisional hernia formation, it is known from experimental studies that the abdominal fascia continues to gain strength up to 3 months after surgery.(94) Nylon (Ethilon ® ) loses approximately 20% strength per year while Polypropylene, Surgilene ® , Ethibond ® , Tevdek ® , and polybutester (Novafil ® ) seem to retain their strength indefinitely.(95) Catgut, Dexon ® , and Vicryl ® have tensile strength half-lives in the range of 1–4 weeks, and are not suitable for fascial closure. Vicryl ® , compared with nonresorbable sutures (Prolene ® ), is associated with an increased rate of wound failure and incisional hernias (85). This is in con- tradistinction to more slowly resorbed materials, such as polydioxanone (PDS ® ), that do not appear to increase the rate of incisional hernia (85). Multiple randomized trials have failed to demonstrate a difference in dehiscence rates between resorbable and nonresorbable sutures.(58, 96, 97) Additionally, persistent sinus formation and chronic wound infection can be virtually eliminated with the use of resorbable suture.(73, 98) Multiple clinical studies implicate wound sepsis as the most important factor associated with incisional herniation. Multifilament sutures provide a better growth environment for bacteria and are associated with a higher incidence of wound infection compared to monofilament sutures.(77, 99, 100) In summary, a continuous, mass closure using slowly-resorbable monofilament suture with a 1 cm tissue bite and a 1 cm interval is likely the best technique for primary abdominal wall closure.(101) It is assumed that minimizing abdominal wall trauma vis-à-vis laparoscopic approaches may minimize wound related morbidity. retentiOn sutures Retention sutures are thought to aid abdominal closure by preventing wound necrosis and avoiding evisceration. However, problems associated with retention sutures are several and include exacer- bation of the intraabdominal hypertension when the viscera are forcibly contained, and abdominal wall ischemia when the sutures become too tight. Furthermore, several studies have implicated retention sutures in the development of enterocutaneous fistulae even when they are placed extraperitoneally. With caution, retention sutures may be considered in abdominal wall closure in the patient with multiple risk factors for delayed wound healing; they are not recommended for those at risk for development of abdominal compartment syndrome. If loss of abdominal domain does not permit a tension free fascial closure, one can consider relaxing incisions to permit medial mobilization of the rectus. This requires dissection above the fascia laterally to the lateral edge of the anterior rectus sheath, which is then incised in the sagittal plane, similar to the technique for separation of parts. This technique should be used cautiously in patients at risk for abdominal compartment syndrome and those at above average risk for wound infection. synthetic prOstheses The use of synthetic mesh has been a popular technique in abdominal wall closures and reconstructions for many years and the most extensive experience is with polypropylene mesh (Prolene ® and Marlex ® ).(102) Multiple reports in the literature cite the advantages of this permanent material, which include availability, ease of use, high tensile strength and durability, maintenance of abdominal wall compliance, potential avoidance of future reconstruction, and permeability allowing for peritoneal drainage. However, several investigators have pointed out the many long-term complications related to polypropylene mesh. Most notably, the mesh acts as a nidus of infection and is associated with severe foreign body reactions leading to mesh extrusion and enterocutaneous fistulae with an incidence on the order of 23%.(103) The placement of omentum between the mesh and the viscera has been shown to reduce the early fistula rate to 1–4%.(104) Recently mesh with an adhesion preventative film bonded to it (e.g., Sepramesh ® (Genzyme)) has been introduced. The adhesive reductive film may reduce the problem of  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery small bowel adherence to the underside of the mesh, which may reduce complications such as enterocutaneous fistulae and allow for an easier re-exploration or mesh removal. Use of polytetrafluoroethylene mesh (PTFE, Gore-Tex ® ) decreases the incidence of fistulization and mesh extrusion. However, PTFE impedes the free egress of abdominal fluid and may contribute to abdominal compartment syndrome and seroma formation. After appropriate consideration, polypropylene, or polytetrafluoroethylene mesh may be considered for abdominal wall reconstruction when there is tissue loss. Resorbable meshes, polyglactin acid (Vicryl ® ) and polyglycolic acid (Dexon ® ), may provide a temporary solution in the management of the difficult abdominal wall. In experimental studies, Dexon ® is 50–70% absorbed and Vicryl ® is almost fully absorbed by 10 weeks. Resorbable mesh offers the early advantages of permanent mesh without the late complications and allows for egress of fluid reducing the chances of intraabdominal hypertension. However, not surprisingly, the reported incidence of hernia is unacceptably high with the use of resorbable synthetic mesh.(105) biOlOgic meshes There are several commercially available meshes (either allografts or xenografts) that are derived from naturally occurring sources of collagen and related connective tissues. The most extensively studied of these is Alloderm (Lifecell) (acellular dermal matrix derived from donated human skin) (106–109) and Permacol (Tissue Science Laboratories) (intact porcine dermal collagen) (110). Other variations on the theme include Collamend (Bard) (cross-linked acellular porcine dermal collagen and its constitu- ent elastin fibers), Allomax ® (Bard) (human dermal collagen), and Strattice ® (Lifecell) (acellular dermal matrix derived from porcine skin). The purported advantage of all of these agents is a low risk of mesh infectious complication in contaminated fields. In the case of acellular dermal matrix, extracellular material provides a sig- nal for fibroblast incorporation, collagen deposition, and matu- ration resulting in tissue that cannot be differentiated from fascia. (111–113) Long-term data are lacking. cOnclusiOns The colorectal surgeon can be faced with any number of potential disasters. Proper preparation and maintenance of a diverse tool- box of solutions can help avert or salvage even the most dramatic of these. references 1. Chee YL, Crawford JC, Watson HG, Greaves M. Guidelines on the assessment of bleeding risk prior to surgery or invasive procedures. British Committee for standards in haematology. Br J Haematol 2008; 140(5): 496–504. 2. Ang-Lee MK, Moss J, Yuan CS. Herbal medicines and perioperative care. JAMA 2001; 286(2): 208–16. 3. Spell NO. Stopping and restarting medications in the perioperative period. Med Clin N Am 2001; 85(5): 1117–28. 4. Ansell J, Hirsh J, Poller L et al. The pharmacology and management of the Vitamin K antagonists: The seventh ACCP conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest 2004; 126(3 Suppl): 204S–33S. 5. Malek MM, Greenstein AJ, Chin EH et al. Comparison of iatrogenic splenectomy during open and laparoscopic colon resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2007; 17(5): 385–7. 6. Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule United States October 2004–September 2005. The Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/adult- schedule.pdf. Accessed on July 6, 2006. 7. National Guideline Clearinghouse Surgical Treatment of Disease and Injuries of the Spleen. Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT). 2004 Feb. Available at: www. guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?view_id=1& doc_ id=5698. Accessed on July 6, 2006. 8. Davies JM, Barnes R, Milligan D. Update of guidelines for the prevention and treatment of infection in patients with an absent or dysfunctional spleen. Clin Med 2002; 2: 440–4. 9. Tribble CG, Joob AW, Barone GW, Rodgers BM. A new technique for wrapping the injured spleen with polyglactin mesh. Am Surg 1987; 53: 661–3. 10. Fuller J, Scott W, Ashar B, Corrado J. Laparoscopic Trocar Injuries: A report from a US Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health Systematic Technology. Assessment of Medical Products Committee. FDA; 2003. 11. Stone HH, Strom PR, Mullins RJ et al. Management of the major coagulopathy with onset during laparotomy. Ann Surg 1983; 197: 532–5. 12. Burch JM, Ortiz VB, Richardson RJ et al. Abbreviated laparotomy and planned reoperation for critically injured patient. Ann Surg 1992; 215(5): 476–83. 13. Rotondo MF, Schwab CW, McGonigal MD et al. ‘Damage control’: an approach for improved survival in exsanguinat- ing penetrating abdominal injury. J Trauma 1993; 35(3): 375–82. 14. Morris JA Jr, Eddy VA, Blinman TA, Rutherford EJ, Sharp KW. The staged celiotomy for trauma. Issues in unpacking and reconstruction. Ann Surg 1993; 217(5): 576–84. 15. Lee JC, Peitzman AB. Damage-control laparotomy. Curr Opin Crit Care 2006; 12(4): 346–50. 16. Finlay IG, Edwards TJ, Lambert AW. Damage control laparotomy. Br J Surg 2004; 91: 83–5. 17. Moore EE, Burch JM, Franciose RJ et al. Staged physiologic restoration and damage control surgery. World J Surg 1998; 22: 1184–91. 18. Loveland JA, Boffard KD. Damage control in the abdomen and beyond. Br J Surg 2004; 91(9): 1095–101. 19. Offner PJ, de Souza AL, Moore EE et al. Avoidance of abdominal compartment syndrome in damage-control laparotomy after trauma. Arch Surg 2001; 136: 676–81. 20. O’Mara MS, McCormick JT, Semins H, Caushaj PF. Abdominal Compartment Syndrome as a Consequence of Rectus Sheath Hematoma. Abdominal Surgery: Fall 2002/ Winter 2003, 5–7. 21. Schreiber MA. Damage control surgery. Crit Care Clin 2004; 20: 101–18.  other intraoperative challenges 22. Barker DE, Kaufman HJ, Smith LA et al. Vacuum pack technique of temporary abdominal closure: a seven year experience with 112 patients. J Trauma 2000; 48: 201–7. 23. Garner GB, Ware DN, Cocanour CS et al. Vacuum assisted wound provides early fascial reapproximation in trauma patients with open abdomens. Am J Surg 2001; 182: 630–8. 24. Abikhaled JA, Granchi TS, Wall MJ et al. Prolonged abdominal packing for trauma is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Am Surg 1997; 63: 1109–12. 25. Caushaj PF. In Atlas of laparoscopic surgery. Jacobs, Plasescia and Caushaj. ed, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, 1996: 13–5. 26. Rohatgi A, Widdison AL. Left subcostal closed (Veress needle) approach is a safe method for creating a pneumoperitoneum. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2004; 14(5): 278–80. 27. Thomas ER, Javier S, David F, Richard F, Philip FC. “Peek Port”: a novel approach to avoid conversion in laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 2008; in press. 28. Hiki N, Shimizu N, Yamaguchi H et al. Manipulation of the small intestine as a cause of the increased inflammatory response after open compared with laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 2006; 93(2): 195–204. 29. Kalff JC, Schraut WH, Simmons RL, Bauer AJ. Surgical manipulation of the gut elicits an intestinal muscularis inflammatory response resulting in postsurgical ileus. Ann Surg 1998; 228: 652–63. 30. Schwarz NT, Kalff JC, Turler A et al. Selective jejunal manipulation causes postoperative pan-enteric inflammation and dysmotility. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 159–69. 31. Alabaz O, Iroatulam A, Nessim A et al. Comparison of Lapa- roscopically Assisted and Conventional Ileocolic Resection for Crohn’s Disease. Eur J Surg 2000; 166(3): 213–7. 32. Bergamaschi R, Pessaux P, Arnaud J. Comparison of conventional and laparoscopic ileocolic resection for crohn’s disease. Dis Colon rectum 2003; 46: 1129–33. 33. Hasegawa H, Watanabe M, Nishibori H et al. Laparoscopic surgery for recurrent Crohn’s disease. Br J Surg 2003; 90: 970–3. 34. McCormick JT, Simmang CL. Laparoscopic reoperation after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: are the rules different? Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2006; 19(4): 217–22. 35. Daphan CE, Agalar F, Hascelik G, Onat D, Sayek I. Effects of laparotomy, and carbon dioxide and air pneumoperitoneum, on cellular immunity and peritoneal host defenses in rats. Eur J Surg 1999; 165: 253–8. 36. Hanly EJ, Mendoza-Sagaon M, Murata K et al. CO2 Pneumoperitoneum modifies the inflammatory response to sepsis. Ann Surg 2003; 237: 343–50. 37. de Wilde RL. Goodbye to late bowel obstruction after appendectomy. Lancet 1991; 338: 1012. 38. Parker JSN, Segars J, Godoy H, Winkle C, Stratton P. Adhesion formation after laparoscopic excision of endometriosis and lysis of adhesions. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 1457–61. 39. Duron JJ, Hay JM, Msika S et al. Prevalence and mechanisms of small intestinal obstruction following laparoscopic abdominal surgery: a retrospective multicenter study. French Association for Surgical Research. Arch Surg 2000; 135(2): 208–12. 40. Papasavas PK, Caushaj PF, McCormick JT et al. Laparoscopic management of complications following laparoscopic Roux- en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 610–4. 41. Higa K, Ho T, Boone K. Internal Hernias after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: incidence, treatment and prevention. Obes Surg 2003; 13: 350–4. 42. Becker JM, Dayton MT, Fazio VW et al. Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by a sodium hyaluronate- based bioresorbable membrane: a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg 1996; 183: 297–306. 43. Diamond MP. Reduction of adhesions after uterine myomectomy by Seprafilm membrane (HAL-F): a blinded, prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical study. Fert Steril 1996; 66(6): 904–10. 44. Nordic Adhesion Prevention Study Group. The efficacy of INTERCEED (TC7) for prevention of reformation of postoperative adhesions on ovaries, fallopian tubes, and fim- briae in microsurgical operations for fertility: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril 1995; 63(4): 709–14. 45. Beck DE, Cohen Z, Fleshman JW et al. Adhesion Study Group Steering Committee. A prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled study of the safety of seprafilm adhesion barrier in abdominopelvic surgery of the intestine. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46(10): 1310–9. 46. Brozovich M, Read TE, Salgado J et al. Laparoscopic Colectomy for “Benign” Colorectal Neoplasia: A Word of Caution. Surg Endosc 2007; [Epub ahead of print] 47. Larach SW, Patankar SK, Ferrara A et al. Complications of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: analysis and comparison of early vs. latter experience. Dis Colon Rectum 1997; 40: 592–6. 48. Piscatelli N, Hyman N, Osler T. Localizing colorectal cancer by colonoscopy. Arch Surg 2005; 140(10): 932–5. 49. McArthur CS, Roayaie S, Waye JD. Safety of preopera- tion endoscopic tattoo with india ink for identification of colonic lesions. Surg Endosc 1999; 13(4): 397–400. 50. Nizam R, Siddiqi N, Landas SK, Kaplan DS, Holtzapple PG. Colonic tattooing with India ink: benefits, risks, and alter- natives. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91(9): 1804–8. 51. Cho YB, Lee WY, Yun HR et al. Tumor localization for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. World J Surg 2007; 31(7): 1491–5. 52. Nagata K, Endo S, Tatsukawa K, Kudo SE. Intraoperative fluoroscopy vs. intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasonography for early colorectal cancer localization in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 2008; 22(2): 379–85. 53. McCormick JT, Gregorcyk SG. Preoperative Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer. Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2006; 15(1): 39–49. 54. Feingold DL, Addona T, Forde KA et al. Safety and reliabil- ity of tattooing colorectal neoplasms prior to laparoscopic resection. J Gastrointest Surg 2004; 8(5): 543–6. 55. Price N, Gottfried MR, Clary E et al. Safety and efficacy of India ink and indocyanine green as colonic tattooing agents. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 438–42.  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery 56. Park JW, Sohn DK, Hong CW et al. The usefulness of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing using a saline test injection method with prepackaged sterile India ink for localization in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 2008; 22(2): 501–5. 57. Zmora O, Dinnewitzer AJ, Pikarsky AJ et al. Intraoperative endoscopy in laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 808–11. 58. Carlson M. Acute wound failure. Surg Clin North Am 1997; 77: 607–36. 59. Wissing J, van Vroonhoven TJMV, Schattenkerk ME et al. Fascia closure after midline laparotomy: results of a randomized trial. Br J Surg 1987; 74: 738. 60. Trimbos JB, Smit IB, Holm JP et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing two methods of fascia closure following midline laparotomy. Arch Surg 1992; 127: 1232. 61. Niggebrugge AHP, Hansen BE, Trimbos JB et al. Mechanical factors influencing the incidence of burst abdomen. Eur J Surg 1995; 161: 655. 62. Riou JO, Cohen JR, Johnson H Jr. Factors influencing wound dehiscence. Am J Surg 1992; 163: 324. 63. Miles RM, Moore M, Fitzgerald D et al. The etiology and prevention of abdominal wound disruption. Am Surg 1964; 30: 566–73. 64. Reitamo J, Moller C. Abdominal wound dehiscence. Acta Chir Scand 1972; 138: 170–5. 65. Bowen A. Postoperative wound disruption and evisceration: an analysis of thirty four cases with a review of the literature. Am J Surg 1940; 47: 3. 66. Alexander HC, Prudden JF. The causes of abdominal wound disruption. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1966; 122: 1223–9. 67. Gisalson H, Gronbech JE, Soreide O. Burst abdomen and incisional hernia after major gastrointestinal operation—comparison of three closure techniques. Eur J Surg 1995; 161: 349. 68. Greenburg AG, Saik RP, Peskin GW. Wound dehiscence: Pathophysiology and prevention. Arch Surg 1979; 114: 143. 69. Lythgoe JP. Burst Abdomen. Postgrad Med J 1960; 36: 388. 70. Poole GV, Meredith JW, Kon ND et al. Suture technique and wound bursting strength. Am Surg 1984; 50: 569–72. 71. Marsh RL, Coxe JW, Ross WL et al. Factors involving wound dehiscence. JAMA 1954; 155: 1197–200. 72. Ellis H, Heddle R. Closure of the Abdominal Wound. J Royal Soc Med 1979; 72: 17–8. 73. Humphries Al, Corley WS, Moretz WH. Massive closure vs. layer closure for abdominal incisions. Am Surg 1964; 30: 700–5. 74. Dudley HAF. Layered and mass closure of the abdominal wall. Brit J Surg 1970; 57: 664–7. 75. DeBruin ThR. Prevention of abdominal disruption and postoperative hernia. Int Surg 1973; 58: 408–11. 76. Ausobsky JR, Evans M, Pollock AV. Does mass closure of midline laparotomies stand the test of time? A random control clinical trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1985; 67: 159. 77. Bucknall TE, Cox PJ, Ellis H. Burst abdomen and incisional hernia: a prospective study of 1129 major laparotomies. Br Med J 1982; 284: 931. 78. Ellis H, Harrison W, Hugh TB. The healing of peritoneum under normal and pathologic conditions. Br J Surg 1965; 52: 471. 79. Hubbard TB Jr, Khan MZ, Carag VR et al. The pathology of peritoneal repair: its relation to the formation of adhesions. Ann Surg 1967; 165: 908. 80. Hugh TB, Nankivell C, Meagher AP et al. Is closure of the peritoneal layer necessary in the repair of midline surgical abdominal wounds? World J Surg 1990; 14: 231. 81. Rodeheaver GT, Nesbit WS, Edlich RF. Novafil. A dynamic suture for wound closure. Ann Surg 1986; 204: 193–9. 82. Haxton H. The influence of suture materials and methods on the healing of abdominal wounds. Br J Surg 1965; 52: 372. 83. McNeill PM, Sugerman HJ. Continuous absorbable vs. interrupted non-absorbable fascial closure. Arch Surg 1986; 121: 821–3. 84. Richards PC, Balch CM, Aldrete JS. Abdominal wound closure. A randomized prospective study of 571 patients comparing continuous vs. interrupted suture techniques. Ann Surg 1983; 197: 238–43. 85. Hodgson NC. The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2000; 231(3): 436–42. 86. Adamsons RJ, Musco F, Enquist IF. The chemical dimensions of a healing incision. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1966; 123: 515. 87. Hogstrom H, Haglund U. Neutropenia prevents decrease in strength of rat intestinal anastomosis: partial effect of oxy- gen free radical scavengers and allopurinol. Surgery 1986; 99: 716–20. 88. Hogstrom H, Haglund U, Zederfeldt B. Suture technique and early breaking strength of intestinal anastomoses and laparotomy wounds. Acta Chir Scand 1985; 151: 441. 89. Jenkins TPN. The burst abdominal wound: a mechanical approach. Br J Surg 1976; 63: 873. 90. Greenwald D, Shumway S, Albear P et al. Mechanical comparison of 10 suture materials before and after in vivo incu- bation. J Surg Res 1994; 56: 372. 91. Kronborg O. Polyglycolic acid (Dexon) vs. silk for fascial closure of abdominal incisions. Acta Chir Scand 1976; 143: 9. 92. Goligher JC, Irvin TT, Johnston D et al. A controlled trial of three methods of closure of laparotomy wounds. Br J Surg 1975; 62: 823–92. 93. Postlethwait RW, Schauble JF, Dillon ML et al. Wound healing II. An evaluation of surgical suture material. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1959; 108: 555. 94. Douglas DM. The healing of aponeurotic incisions. Br J Surg 1952; 40: 79–84. 95. Mathes SJ, Abouljoud M. Wound Healing. In Davis JH, Drucker WR, Foster RS Jr, et al. eds. Clinical Surgery. St. Louis, CV Mosby Company, 1987: 493. 96. Lewis RT, Wiegand FM. Natural history of vertical abdominal parietal closure: Prolene versus Dexon. Can J Surg 1989; 32: 196. 97. Krukowski ZH, Cusick EL, Engeset J et al. Polydioxanone or polypropylene for closure of midline abdominal incisions: A prospective comparative trial. Br J Surg 1987; 74: 828.  other intraoperative challenges 98. Irvin TT, Kofman CG, Duthie HL. Layer closure of laparotomy wounds with absorbable and non-absorbable suture materials. Brit J Surg 1976; 63: 793–6. 99. Alexander JW, Kaplan JZ, Altemeier WA. Role of suture materials in the development of wound infection. Ann Surg 1967; 165: 192–9. 100. Sharp WV, Belden TA, King PH et al. Suture resistance to infection. Surgery 1982; 91: 61–3. 101. Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L. Finding the best abdominal closure: an evidence-based review of the literature. Curr Surg 2005; 62(2): 220–5. 102. Morris-Stiff GJ, Hughes LE. The outcomes of nonabsorbable mesh placed within the abdominal cavity: literature review and clinical experience. J Am Coll Surg 1998; 352–67. 103. Jones JW, Jurkovich GJ. Polypropylene mesh closure of infected abdominal wounds. Am J Surg 1989; 55: 73–6. 104. Mayberry JC, Mullins RJ, Crass RC et al. Prevention of abdominal compartment syndrome by absorbable mesh prosthesis closure. Arch Surg 1997; 132: 957–62. 105. Dayton MT, Buchele BA, Shirazi SS et al. Use of an absorbable mesh to repair contaminated abdominal wall defects. Arch Surg 1986; 121: 954–60. 106. Kim H, Bruen K, Vargo D. Acellular dermal matrix in the management of high-risk abdominal wall defects. Am J Surg 2006; 192(6): 705–9. 107. Butler MD, Langstein MD, Kronowitz MD. Pelvic, abdominal, and chest wall reconstruction with alloderm in patients at increased risk for mesh-related complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116(5): 1263–74. 108. Patton MD, Berry MD, Kralovich MD. Use of human acellular dermal matrix in complex and contaminated abdominal wall reconstructions. Am J Surg 2007; 193: 360–3. 109. Diaz JJ Jr, Guy J, Berkes MB, Guillamondegui O, Miller RS. Acellular dermal allograft for ventral hernia repair in the compromised surgical field. Am Surg 2006; 72(12): 1181–8. 110. Catena F, Ansaloni L, Gazzotti F et al. Use of porcine dermal collagen graft (permacol) for hernia repair in contaminated fields. Hernia 2007; 11: 57–60. 111. Silverman RP, Li EN, Holton LH 3rd et al. Ventral hernia repair using allogenic acellular dermal matrix in a swine model. Hernia 2004; 8: 336–42. 112. Sclafani AP, McCormick SA, Cocker R. Biophysical and microscopic analysis of homologous dermal and fascial materials for facial aesthetic and reconstructive uses. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2002; 4: 164–71. 113. An G, Walter RJ, Nagy K. Closure of abdominal wall defects using acellular dermal matrix. J Trauma 2004; 56: 1266–75.  7 Postoperative anastomotic complications Daniel L Feingold CHALLENGING CASE A 64-year-old man is 10 days status postlow anterior resection. He complains of pelvic pressure and pain. His abdominal exam dem- onstrates mild suprapubic tenderness, but no peritoneal signs. He has a low-grade fever and a white blood count of 15,000. CASE MANAGEMENT A CT scan with oral, rectal, and intravenous contrast demon- strates a contained anastomotic leak. The patient is managed with pecutaneous drainage and intravenous antibiotics. INTRODUCTION Surgical research over the past three decades has vastly enhanced our technical abilities and knowledge with respect to creating colorectal anastomoses. The Miles operation, considered state of the art for many years after its description in 1908, has been supplanted by sphincter-saving operations which are now considered the gold standard for the majority of patients with rectal cancer. The era of anal sphincter salvage was ushered in with the commercialization of mechanical staplers that permitted colorectal surgeons to resect can- cers even in the distal rectum and maintain intestinal continuity.(1) In 1979, Heald articulated the concept of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer resection which was subsequently validated and popularized adding a new dimension to our understanding of curative rectal cancer surgery.(2) In addition, appreciation of the distal mural spread of rectal cancer allowed for closer distal margins without com- promising oncologic adequacy. Concomitantly, chemoradiation was demonstrated to be an effective adjuvant therapy and became part of the armamentarium routinely used to treat patients with rectal cancer. With the ushering in of the era of low, stapled colorectal anastomoses, and sphincter preservation, experience was gained diagnosing and treating patients in whom complications of these operations arise. The most common complications related to colorectal anastomosis are dehiscence and stricture. The following chapter reviews the relevant surgical literature with emphasis on diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of these complications. Less-common complications such as anastomotic cancer recurrence and anastomotic hemorrhage and other forms of intestinal anastomoses (ileorectal, ileal pouch anal) will not be reviewed. Leaks and strictures are uncommon events and many of the studies describing these complications present conflicting results, are not definitive, or are statistically under-powered. For a more thorough understanding of the literature, this chapter relies frequently on meta-analysis that combines independent clinical trials to come to a statistical consensus supporting evidence-based practice. While meta-analysis is not an infallible tool, a well con- ducted meta-analysis can allow for more objective appraisal of the evidence, which may lead to resolution of uncertainty and disagreement and may reduce the probability of false negative results (i.e., lower the rate of a type II error). ANASTOMOTIC DEHISCENCE Anastomotic leak is the most serious complication of colorectal operations as the clinical outcome due to anastomotic disruption can be catastrophic. The risk of death within 30 days of colorectal resection is significantly higher in patients who suffered a leak and mortality has been reported as high as 36% in some series.(3, 4) For patients who survive the acute physiologic trespass of an anastomotic leak, there may be formidable, far-reaching implications in terms of long-term survival, quality of life, and function.(5–7) GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS The incidence of anastomotic dehiscence is about 10% for colorectal anastomoses within 7 cm of the anal verge.(8) The lack of a standardized definition of what actually constitutes a leak makes it difficult to compare series and draw meaningful conclusions.(9) Absence of a universal definition and the low frequency of leak events may explain why the surgical literature has so many similarly constructed trials with contradictory results supporting conflicting conclusions with regard to leaks. Common definitions include leaks identified by reoperation for peritonitis, demonstration of extraluminal contrast during an imaging study or observation of colonic contents through a pelvic drain or through the vagina. When reviewing the literature, it is important to differentiate between patients with clinically relevant leaks and asymptomatic patients who have only radiologic evidence of leak as they have different clinical consequences and are treated differently. Due to the potentially devastating consequences of anastomotic leak, there has been significant research investigating the causes of leaks as well as techniques to reduce the likelihood of anastomotic failure. A number of technical factors considered to contribute to the occurrence of anastomotic leak are subjective assessments made at the time of surgery and are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify objectively. Adequate blood supply to the ends of the bowel to be anas- tomosed is of critical importance. The mesentery and epiploic appendages should be stripped only enough to allow adequate visualization to permit anastomosis. Overzealous cleaning of the bowel compromises the blood supply to the anastomosis and must be avoided. In terms of the blood supply to the colon proximal to the anastomosis, preserving the left colic artery by transecting the main sigmoidal artery versus ligating the actual inferior mesenteric artery before the takeoff of the left colic (i.e., a high ligation) is oncologically sound but has not been shown to decrease the risk of leak.(8, 10) Rather than dogmatically coming across a specific named blood vessel, the level of transection along the mesenteric blood supply in a particular operation should be chosen to allow a tension-free anastomosis.(11) In cases where a colostomy is created for proximal diversion, care should be taken to preserve the 7 postoperative anastomotic complications marginal artery blood supply to the distal colon; this is especially important if the inferior mesenteric artery is transected. Although a variety of methods can be used to assess the blood supply to the anastomosis including Doppler ultrasound and intravenous fluorescein visualized with a Wood’s lamp, in the vast majority of cases, straightforward clinical assessment by inspection and palpation is sufficient for this determination. In an effort to improve the blood supply to the rectal side of the anastomosis (and to potentially better protect the hypogastric nerves), it is possible to spare the superior hemorrhoidal artery. Preserving the inferior mesenteric arterial supply to the rectum by transecting the individual sigmoidal branches mid-mesentery may be useful in cases of diverticulitis but would be wholly inap- propriate in cancer cases where mesenteric clearance and lymph node harvest are paramount. While sparing the superior hemorrhoidal artery, there may be a tendency to avoid dissecting out the proximal presacral space in order to prevent injury to the artery. In operations for diverticulitis, the proximal rectum must be mobilized in order to ensure complete resection of the sigmoid colon and to facilitate passage of the trans-anal circular stapler to the stapled end of the rectum. In theory, sparing the superior hemorrhoidal artery may preserve blood supply to a colorectal anastomosis but data regarding a potential reduction in the leak rate is lacking. Tension across the anastomosis can decrease blood supply and physically disrupt the anastomosis. Care must be taken to suffi- ciently mobilize the bowel to eliminate or minimize any tension at the anastomosis. Technically, this may require division of the inferior mesenteric vein at the level of the pancreas to adequately release the descending colon mesentery to permit the colon to reach to the low pelvis. Similarly, the inferior mesenteric artery may be divided proximal to the takeoff of the left colic artery so that the left colic does not tether the colon up in the abdomen. In addition, splenic flexure release should be performed to afford tension-free reach of the colon to the pelvis when required, as is most commonly the case. Although not mandatory from an oncologic perspective, splenic flexure takedown is only omitted from curative resections when patient anatomy and tumor location permit.(12) To further reduce the chance of leak, the bowel to be anas- tomosed should be healthy. Inflammation, edema, radiation changes, and thickened bowel wall due to chronic obstruction each influence the risk of leak. Under these suboptimal conditions, the bowel should be resected to normal, healthy tissue to allow safe anastomosis; otherwise, a primary anastomosis should be avoided. If unhealthy tissue precludes safe stapled anastomosis, then the anastomosis should not be handsewn; tissue unfit for staples is unfit for sutures. When preparing the colon for anastomosis, it is important to note the presence of any diverticula as incorporating a diverticulum into the staple line jeopardizes the anastomosis. To avoid this, it is helpful to suture the diverticulum in toward the anvil of the stapler so that the diverticulum ends up in the tissue donuts. Alternatively, the diverticulum can be eliminated by resecting additional colon. When marrying the circular stapler, it is important to prevent any extraneous tissue (i.e., vagina, adnexa, bladder, epiploic appendages, etc.) from catching in the stapler. This tissue can interfere with the firing mechanism of the stapler and increases the risk of anastomotic failure. Once the anastomosis is created, air testing with the pelvis under saline should be performed routinely to identify occult defects requiring repair. Once a defect demonstrated by a leak test has been repaired, as evidenced by a negative repeat on-table leak test, the risk of postoperative anastomotic leak is not increased.(13) Similarly, in situations where the anastomotic donuts are incomplete but the leak test is negative, the risk of anastomotic leak is not increased.(14) PROXIMAL DIVERSION Many surgeons divert patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision in the hopes of influencing the leak rate and/or the clinical consequences of a leak.(15, 16) Given the low frequency of anastomotic leak, in order to determine whether fecal diversion protects patients from leaking, large, well- designed, multiinstitution trials with homogenous study popula- tions are required. Nonrandomized studies testing the hypothesis that diversion decreases anastomotic failure are inherently biased because of patient selection as surgeons are more likely to divert patients in whom complications are anticipated. The Rectal Cancer Trial On Defunctioning Stoma in Sweden, a large, prospective trial including 234 patients, randomly assigned patients undergoing stapled colorectal anastomosis within 7 cm of the anal verge to have proximal fecal diversion.(17) The clinical leak rate in the diverted and nondiverted groups was 10.3% and 28%, respectively (p < 0.001). In addition, the need for urgent re-operation in the diverted and nondiverted groups was 8.6% and 25.4%, respectively (p < 0.0001). To further evaluate the possible utility of a proximal stoma, a meta-analysis was performed evaluating the role of a defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery including the Swedish trial and three other smaller randomized, controlled trials.(18) The odds ratios for clinical leak and for re-operation due to a leak in diverted patients were 0.32 and 0.27, respectively (p < 0.001). While this meta-analysis and a few other studies demonstrate significant benefits in terms of decreasing the occurrence of leak, much of the remaining literature only supports the concept that proximal diversion amelio- rates the septic consequences of leak but does not influence the actual rate of leak.(14, 19–22) Temporary fecal diversion is not without its own ramifications. It is difficult to predict which individual patients will develop a leak and routine stoma creation will reduce the quality of life in patients in whom no anastomotic complication would have occurred. Moreover, a certain percentage of diverted patients will, inevitably, never have intestinal continuity restored; although, a “temporary” diversion is more likely to become permanent in patients who have experienced a leak.(17, 23) Finally, stoma creation carries its own morbidity rate (i.e., increased wound infection rate at the original operation, stoma complications, morbidity of the reversal operation, etc.) and consumes significant healthcare resources.(20) Although there is no consensus regarding which patients should undergo proximal fecal diversion at the time of colorectal anastomosis, many surgeons routinely consider diversion in the setting of low pelvic anastomoses as these are more likely to leak.(5, 24) . hernia causing a bowel obstruction and injury to the bowel. Figure 6.5 A port site hernia causing a bowel obstruction and injury to the bowel.  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery ultrasonography. 51: 438–42.  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery 56. Park JW, Sohn DK, Hong CW et al. The usefulness of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing using a saline test injection method. Layered and mass closure of the abdominal wall. Brit J Surg 1 970 ; 57: 664 7. 75 . DeBruin ThR. Prevention of abdominal disruption and postoperative hernia. Int Surg 1 973 ; 58: 408–11. 76 . Ausobsky

Định dạng
Số trang	10
Dung lượng	262,56 KB