Improved Outcomes in Colon and Rectal Surgery part 8 doc

 improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery The specific type of fecal diversion, ileostomy versus colostomy, does not influence anastomotic related outcomes.(25) MECHANICAL BOWEL PREPARATION Mechanical bowel preparation before elective resection has been surgical dogma since Halsted’s description of intestinal anasto- mosis in 1887. Empiric-based practice relies on mechanical bowel preparation together with oral antibiotics to reduce the bacterial load of the bowel and, in theory, to decrease the risks of anas- tomotic leak and surgical site infection. Bowel preparation, far from innocuous, is inconvenient and unpleasant for patients and is associated with potentially harmful metabolic and fluid distur- bances. For these reasons, and because the purported benefits of bowel preparation remain unproven, the utility of mechanical preparation has been questioned. A Cochrane review evaluating the efficacy of bowel prepara- tion in its ability to reduce postoperative complications included 1,592 patients from nine randomized, controlled trials stratified to a colectomy group and a low anterior resection group.(26) The clinical leak rate in the colectomy group with and without bowel preparation was 2.9% and 1.6%, respectively (p value not signifi- cant). The clinical leak rate in the low anterior resection group with and without bowel preparation was 9.8% and 7.5%, respec- tively (p value not significant). When the surgical groups were combined, the 6.2% clinical leak rate in the prepared group was significantly higher than the 3.2% rate in the unprepared group (p = 0.003). Meta-analysis of all other infectious complication rates, including surgical site infection, demonstrated no protec- tive effect of mechanical bowel preparation. Despite significant evidence that bowel preparation before elective colorectal resection does not influence infectious com- plications (and may actually increase the anastomotic leak rate) surgical tradition and medico-legal pressure continue to heav- ily influence the practice of colorectal surgery with respect to mechanical bowel preparation. ANASTOMOTIC TECHNIQUE Stapled techniques for low pelvic anastomosis have been rigor- ously evaluated since their introduction into the armamentarium of colorectal surgery. A systematic Cochrane review comparing the outcomes of straight, end-to-end stapled and handsewn col- orectal anastomoses pooled data on 1,233 patients from nine ran- domized, controlled trials.(27) This comprehensive meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference with regard to clinical leaks (stapled 6.3% vs. handsewn 7.1%, p value not significant) or radiologic anastomotic dehiscence (stapled 7.8% vs. handsewn 7.2%, p value not significant). A similarly conducted Cochrane review of four randomized, controlled trials comparing stapled versus handsewn ileocolic anastomoses during colon cancer resection demonstrated signifi- cantly fewer clinical leaks in the stapled group (1%) compared to the handsewn group (4.2%, p = 0.04).(28) Given the fundamen- tal differences between ileocolic and colorectal anastomoses, it is not surprising that they each may have unique technical require- ments to reduce the risks of complications. In addition to evaluating the mechanics of forming the anas- tomosis, the configuration of the anastomosis has been studied with regard to possible reduction in the risk of leak. Of the most common stapled colorectal anastomotic configurations (end-to- end, side-to-end Baker, colonic “J” pouch) there is no optimal configuration that consistently confers a risk reduction benefit. (8, 10, 15, 17, 19, 29) It has also been shown that the size of the circular stapler does not contribute to the leak rate.(14) OMENTAL PEDICLE In an effort to quarantine an anastomosis in the event of a leak and to mitigate the consequences of a leak, many surgeons utilize an omental pedicle. To reach a pelvic anastomosis, the omentum is typically mobilized to survive off the left gastroepiploic artery. The influence of an omental pedicle on anastomotic outcomes was eval- uated in a prospective, randomized study of 705 patients undergo- ing bowel anastomosis and no statistically significant influence on the rate or severity of leak was observed.(30) Another smaller, ran- domized, controlled trial of 126 patients demonstrated a protective effect of an omental pedicle; though, this study could be criticized for a rather high leak rate (22%) in the group of patients without an omentoplasty.(31) Both of these studies reported overall leak rates including clinical and radiologic leaks. The discrepancy between these two trials is characteristic of many of the studies investigating anastomotic complications. Leaks are low frequency events requiring large, homogenous study populations for accurate evaluation. No firm evidence-based rec- ommendation can be made with regard to omentoplasty and its potential effects on colorectal anastomotic outcomes; bringing an omental pedicle to the pelvis should be done according to the surgeon’s preference. RADIATION Neoadjuvant radiotherapy has been evaluated in terms of poten- tially increasing the risk of dehiscence of pelvic anastomoses. The proposed mechanism of increasing the leak rate is that pel- vic radiation may interfere with healing of the anastomosis due to toxicity in the pelvis. Radiation changes to the colon side of the anastomosis are usually not an issue as the irradiated colon is resected at the time of the proctectomy to ensure that healthy colon is used to form the anastomosis. The Dutch Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) trial randomized 1,414 rectal cancer patients to neoadjuvant short-course radia- tion therapy followed by low anterior resection versus resection alone and demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups with respect to clinical anastomotic leak (neoadju- vant group leak rate 11% versus surgery alone leak rate 12%, p value not significant). However, these results were difficult to interpret because patients in the radiotherapy group were more likely to have a diverting stoma.(19, 22) The Swedish rectal can- cer trial randomized 1,168 patients to short-course neoadjuvant radiation followed by surgery versus surgery alone and also dem- onstrated no significant difference in leak rates between the two study arms.(32) A nonrandomized study comparing 150 patients who received long-course chemoradiation (5,040 cGy) followed by surgery to 531 patients who underwent surgery alone dem- onstrated similar results with 4% overall leak rate in each group (p = 0.86).(10) The notion that neoadjuvant radiotherapy increases the risk of leak is not supported by the majority of the  postoperative anastomotic complications literature and may be incorrectly based on the fact that low pelvic anastomoses in the setting of total mesorectal excision are more likely to leak.(33, 34) PELVIC DRAINS Pelvic drains are placed by some surgeons to prevent colorectal anastomotic leaks and to diagnose leaks sooner with the hope of initiating treatment before leaking patients clinically decompen- sate. The possible mechanism whereby pelvic drains, theoreti- cally, may protect against colorectal anastomotic leak relies on the characteristics of the extra-peritoneal low pelvis in that the peri- toneum is absent. Violation of the presacral space during proctec- tomy leaves a significant raw surface and without the absorptive abilities of the peritoneum fluid can collect in the dependent dead space created by total excision of the mesorectum. Further com- plicating the matter is the potential for negative pressure in the low pelvis that promotes the accumulation of fluid that can possi- bly disrupt the anastomosis. A pelvic drain can, possibly, prevent accumulation of fluid behind the anastomosis. These theoretical benefits of pelvic drainage together with results of statistically under-powered trials may explain why many surgeons continue to drain pelvic anastomoses. Routine pelvic drainage has been evaluated in retrospective fashion as well as with randomized, controlled trials with regard to a possible influence on the occurrence and diagnosis of col- orectal anastomotic leak. For example, the data collected in the prospective, randomized Dutch TME trial was studied after-the- fact in retrospective fashion to determine the utility of pelvic drainage during low anterior resection.(19) Patients in this trial were randomly assigned whether or not to receive neoadjuvant radiation therapy before TME. At the time of operation, place- ment of pelvic drains was decided at the discretion of the oper- ating surgeon. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that pelvic drainage was strongly associated with a lower clinical leak rate (leaks occurred in 9.6% of patients with drains compared with 23.5% of patients without drains, p < 0.001). Moreover, the need for re-operation in leaking patients was significantly more likely in patients without preexisting pelvic drainage (97% of leaking patients without drains were re-operated versus 74% of leaking patients with drains, p = 0.006). Other reviews and ran- domized trials regarding the use of drains have been published with contradicting results and conclusions; some attributed an increase in the leak rate to pelvic drainage.(14, 29, 35, 36) Like the retrospective study reviewed above, many of these papers may not have accurately evaluated the utility of drains due to lack of statistical power or suboptimal methodology. To better evaluate the utility of pelvic drainage after colorec- tal anastomosis, a Cochrane review tested the hypothesis that anastomotic drainage after elective colorectal surgery does not prevent the development of complications.(37) This exhaus- tive meta-analysis pooled data on 1,140 patients from six ran- domized, controlled trials. The clinical anastomotic leak rate for patients with drains versus without drains was 2% and 1%, respectively (p value not significant). Stratification of the data according to the height of the anastomosis also showed no ben- efit of drainage even for low pelvic anastomoses. In addition, the re-operation rates between patient groups with and without drains were comparable. This review does not support the prac- tice of routinely draining colorectal anastomoses. The practice of routinely draining colorectal anastomoses is not supported by strong scientific evidence. In addition, there is no compelling literature supporting the notion that pelvic drains facilitate earlier diagnosis of a leak. MISCELLANEOUS Other factors shown to increase the colorectal anastomotic leak rate include total mesorectal excision (8, 15, 16), height of the anastomosis from the anal verge (5, 20, 33), male gender (5, 20), and prolonged operating time (20). Each of these factors is either difficult or impossible to influence. Due to the large numbers of patients required to study anastomotic complications, many variables may never be studied sufficiently in terms of possibly contributing to anastomotic leak (Table 7.1). Total mesorectal excision, as it was originally described, left a relatively ischemic distal rectum after resection for proximal rec- tal cancer. Tumor specific mesorectal excision for proximal rectal cancer has become popular as it preserves the distal mesorectum without compromising oncologic adequacy and decreases the risk of leak compared with total mesorectal excision.(10, 15, 33, 38) The height of an anastomosis can influence tension across the tissues and, together with prolonged operating time, is likely a surrogate marker for more difficult operations especially in the narrow, male pelvis. It is also postulated that, in low pelvic anas- tomoses, the proximate anal sphincter increases the intraluminal pressure across the anastomosis jeopardizing its integrity. In terms of the surgical approach, the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) trial and others have not demonstrated an increased anastomotic failure rate with regard to laparoscopic versus conventional open colectomy.(39–41) Trials evaluating laparoscopic versus open rectal cancer resection with colorectal anastomosis are underway. CLINICAL PRESENTATION The clinical manifestations of anastomotic dehiscence vary depending on the location of the leaking anastomosis, the severity of the leak and whether or not the leak is contained or walled-off. For these reasons, while many patients with anasto- motic dehiscence present acutely with signs and symptoms of sepsis and an abdominal catastrophe, a subset of patients have Table 7.1 Factors with conflicting evidence in the literature that may or may not impact anastomotic leak rates. Smoking or alcohol abuse (33, 46, 59) Obesity (8) Hospital operative caseload (24) Surgeon subspecialty training and volume (33, 60, 61) Diabetes (48) Cardiovascular disease (48) Steroid use (46, 48) Malnutrition (46, 62) Anemia (48) Blood transfusions (46) Intraoperative rectal irrigation ASA score (33) Field contamination  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery a more sub-acute, insidious presentation. This is more typical of walled-off infections and leaks that have sealed on their own. Possibly contributing to a sub-acute presentation of a leak is the use of antibiotics during recovery from colorectal surgery (for pneumonia, urinary tract infection, etc.) that can mask the signs and symptoms of an occult leak. While the majority of patients with colorectal anastomotic leak are diagnosed within a week of operation, a significant proportion of patients are diagnosed well beyond this timeframe (Table 7.2). Patients with a more delayed presentation of a leak have often been released from the hospital only to be diagnosed upon re-admission.(42) Patients with feculent peritonitis or diffuse purulent peritonitis typically become acutely ill, often in dramatic fashion, with classic signs and symptoms of peritonitis, hemodynamic instability and rapid progression to multisystem organ dysfunction. Meanwhile, in a considerable number of patients, recognition of an anasto- motic leak may be difficult due to the significant overlap between the signs and symptoms of a leaking patient and those of a typi- cal patient recovering from major abdominal surgery. Patients may present with any combination of fever, tachycardia, varying degrees of abdominal pain and distension, ileus, diarrhea, mal- aise, failure to thrive, bowel obstruction, and septic shock. Some patients present with symptoms mimicking cardiac complications such as respiratory failure and chest pain. Leaking patients may also fail to clinically progress or recover within a usual timeframe, have increasing narcotic demands, or have decreased urine output requiring fluid boluses. The physical exam of a leaking patient may include focal or diffuse abdominal tenderness, rigidity, guarding, abdominal distension, and evidence of varying degrees of hemo- dynamic collapse. Patients may have leukocytosis, typically with a left shift, leukopenia, metabolic acidosis, or thrombocytopenia. After any intestinal anastomosis, the surgeon must maintain a high index of suspicion when evaluating patients with unusual signs of sepsis or patients who fail to meet the clinical milestones of normal recovery within a typical timeframe. The potential for delay in diagnosis is significant; delays may impact patient out- comes and have medicolegal ramifications. DIAGNOSIS Patients with generalized peritonitis consistent with a leak require urgent return to the operating room with concomitant intrave- nous fluid resuscitation and broad-spectrum antibiotics. In this setting, the time to re-operation is critical and a diagnostic jour- ney with imaging studies will only delay potentially life-saving abdominal exploration. Meanwhile, patients with a more subtle clinical presentation do not mandate immediate exploration and may benefit from imaging studies to confirm the diagnosis and direct appropriate management. Although no single radiologic study is ideal for investigating a possible leak, computed tomography (CT) and contrast enemas are the tests of choice in this setting. The advantage of triple con- trast CT scanning with intravenous, oral, and rectal contrast is that it may identify other potential underlying pathologies like ileus, abscess, hematoma, and bowel obstruction. CT scan find- ings consistent with anastomotic leak include extravasation of luminal contrast, perianastomotic fluid, ascites, and varying amounts of extra-luminal gas. With the exception of contrast extravasation, many of the CT findings in leaking patients are not specific and overlap considerably with CT scans of nonleaking patients in the postoperative setting. The mere presence of free air in the postoperative period is not specific for a leak and has been demonstrated by CT in control patients without anastomoses up to 9 days after operation and even later.(43, 44) Depending on the clinical circumstances, inconclusive CT findings can be followed up with a contrast enema study, repeat CT or abdominal explora- tion to exclude anastomotic leak. According to some of the literature, CT may be superior to contrast enema when determining the integrity of an anastomo- sis.(42) Potential shortcomings of enema studies in this setting are that the water-soluble contrast can dilute out and compro- mise resolution of a contrast enema and that clinicians may be reluctant, in the early postoperative period, to introduce a suf- ficient column of enema contrast to adequately fill the rectum. On the other hand, some of the retrospective literature strongly favors contrast enema over CT in terms of diagnosing a pelvic anastomotic leak outright as well as after a CT scan fails to dem- onstrate a leak.(9, 45) Extravasation or pooling of rectal contrast outside of the bowel lumen during an enema study is pathogno- monic of leak (Figures 7.1 and 7.2). Water-soluble contrast must be used when evaluating for a possible anastomotic dehiscence as extravasated barium increases the severity of a leak by adding to the inflammatory response in the abdomen. In reality, the choice of imaging study in a particular patient is influenced by the clini- cal presentation, institutional expertise, and available resources. MANAGEMENT The management of anastomotic dehiscence in a particular patient depends on the clinical manifestations of the leak and the condition of the patient (Figure 7.3). Common manifesta- tions of a leak from a colorectal anastomosis are asymptomatic, leak without abscess, leak with associated abscess, peritonitis, and colocutaneous fistula. Asymptomatic Early in the experience with circular staplers, routine water- soluble contrast enemas demonstrated that as many as half of patients with pelvic anastomoses demonstrated a radiologic leak during the first postoperative week. Often these are short, sim- ple sinus tracts originating from the anastomosis. In otherwise Table 7.2 The time interval between colorectal anastomosis and diagnosis of a leak. Post Op Day Study N of Diagnosis a Range (days) Rullier 1998 (8) 32 11 2–41 Carlsen 1998 (16) 11 8 4–15 Alves 2002 (47) 43 8.1 4–25 Mäkelä 2003 (46) 44 8 3–25 Hedrick 2006 (4) 14 9 b 3–137 Matthiessen 2007 (17) 27 8 b 3–18 Nicksa 2007 (45) 36 10.1 2–50 Jung 2008 (6) 35 5.5 b 2–15 a. Mean. b. Median.  postoperative anastomotic complications treatment period of several days is reasonable after which par- enteral nutrition or re-operation often need to be addressed. Clearly, failure to improve or clinical deterioration requires sur- gical intervention. It is difficult to predict which patients will suc- cessfully recover without re-operation in the setting of a leak; this treatment pathway requires dedicated attention on the part of the surgeon with frequent hands-on re-evaluation. Leak with associated abscess Stable patients with CT evidence of a contained leak with an abdominopelvic abscess should, initially, be treated with drainage and appropriate antibiotic therapy (Figures 7.4 and 7.5). Drainage Figure 7.1 Gastrografin enema demonstrating anastomotic leak (black arrows) from colorectal anastomosis (anterior-posterior view). Figure 7.2 Gastrografin enema demonstrating leak with contained abscess (white arrows) from colorectal anastomosis (lateral view). No abscess No peritonitis Antibiotics Bowel rest No resolution or Patient worsens Anastomotic Leak Peritonitis Colocutaneous Fistula Abscess Laparotomy Antibiotics Resuscitation Address any collections Drainage Antibiotics Leak resolves Laparotomy No further treatment Worsens Fistula Antibiotics Bowel rest Nutrition No resolution Resolution No further treatment Figure 7.3 Management algorithm for patients with anastomotic leak. asymptomatic patients with an anastomotic leak discovered inci- dentally, no intervention is required as the leak is not likely of clinical consequence and will seal spontaneously. Leak without abscess Stable patients with mild symptoms, focal abdominal tenderness, and radiologic evidence of anastomotic leak without abscess may be initially treated nonoperatively with bowel rest and intrave- nous fluids and broad-spectrum antibiotics. These are often minor leaks that can, potentially, seal spontaneously. The dura- tion of treatment is empiric and is based on the clinical response, the patient’s condition, and the surgeon’s judgment. An initial  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery is usually performed percutaneously or trans-anally through the anastomotic defect. There are situations where operative drain- age is required due to inaccessibility of an abscess by less invasive routes, but these are quite uncommon. As before, patients who fail nonoperative treatment require exploration. A contained leak can rupture freely into the abdomen; depending on the clinical circumstances, repeat imaging, or urgent exploration would be required in this situation. Peritonitis Patients with generalized peritonitis consistent with a leak require urgent exploration with aggressive fluid resuscitation and intrave- nous antibiotic administration on the way to the operating room. Typically, these patients decompensate quickly and become unstable and must be treated in urgent fashion. As reviewed earlier, in these situations, there is no benefit to pursuing diagnostic studies as the consequences of delaying operative intervention may be dire. Colocutaneous fistula Fistulization to the skin, typically through a drain site or skin incision, may be a late manifestation of anastomotic leak. Once a fistula is observed clinically, a CT scan is helpful to evaluate for any undrained collection which would need to be addressed. In general, once the local sepsis has been controlled, most anasto- motic fistulae will close with bowel rest. Optimizing nutritional status and attention to wound care are important in these patients. Specific circumstances that may preclude spontaneous resolution of a fistula are distal obstruction, associated anastomotic stric- ture, radiation, and steroid therapy. Patients who fail nonopera- tive treatment may benefit from operative intervention. OPERATIVE INTERVENTION The goals of re-operation for anastomotic leak are to control the source of sepsis, remove any purulence or contamination and prevent ongoing leak. While preservation of function is impor- tant, it must be emphasized that these are life-saving operations. There are a number of options available to the surgeon returning a patient to the operating room to address a leaking anastomosis and the particular procedure performed is decided at the time of exploration based on clinical judgment and the unique presenta- tion of the patient on the table. As most patients undergoing reoperation for suspected leak require some form of fecal diversion that may be permanent, potential sites for stoma formation should be marked preopera- tively. In the operating room, it is helpful to have the patient in either split leg position or in lithotomy stirrups to facilitate access in case proctoscopy is required. In terms of the surgical approach to re-operation in the setting of a leak, the quickest approach is likely conventional laparotomy. Laparoscopic exploration has potential benefits, especially if the original operation was per- formed laparoscopically or if the diagnosis of anastomotic leak is not clear, but a minimal-access approach to anastomotic leak should only be performed by surgeons with expertise in advanced laparoscopic techniques. Microbial cultures of the peritoneal fluid encountered during re-operation for anastomotic leak most often demonstrate polymicrobial flora and are of questionable benefit in terms of directing patient management.(23) Resection of the leaking anastomosis and colostomy creation Traditionally, the surgical approach for a colorectal anastomotic leak has been to dismantle the anastomosis, bring out the colon as an end stoma, close the rectum as a Hartmann pouch, washout the abdomen, and place drains.(12) This modified Hartmann procedure is very effective at removing the septic source and alleviating the abdominal sepsis. A major drawback of this oper- ation is that end colostomy reversal is technically challenging and carries its own risk of morbidity. It is not surprising that these end colostomies become permanent in a substantial pro- portion of patients.(4, 23, 46) Exteriorization of the rectal stump as a mucus fistula (typically described in staged resections for fulminant proctocolitis) can be considered in the rare circum- stance of a difficult to control rectum.(47) Figure 7.4 Abdominal CT scan demonstrating a large abdominal abscess (arrows mark cavity). Figure 7.5 CT scan of a percutaneous drain in an abscess.  postoperative anastomotic complications Leaving the leaking anastomosis in place An alternative to end stoma creation in many instances consists of abdominal washout, proximal fecal diversion via loop stoma, and drainage of the anastomotic leak.(19, 23, 45, 46) The benefits of this approach are that it effectively controls the septic source and allows the majority of patients to undergo stoma reversal in the future.(4, 6, 17) The main criticism of leaving a leaking anastomosis in place is that luminal contents proximal to the anastomosis may provide an ongoing source of contamination and that the anastomosis may stric- ture or fistulize.(23) Review of the literature does not substantiate the concern of ongoing contamination and demonstrates that proximal diversion is safe and has a high rate of anastomotic salvage. The use of a colostomy versus ileostomy for diversion does not impact anastomotic outcomes but meta-analysis of 1,204 patients demonstrated significantly fewer stoma related complications and postreversal hernias with loop ileostomy.(25) Some advocate lavage of the proximal colon to eliminate whatever stool is proximal to the anastomosis and some surgeons describe suturing closed the anas- tomotic defect in an effort to contain the leak; the utility of these maneuvers remains empiric. Deciding whether or not to resect or preserve a leaking anastomosis depends on the surgeon’s experience, the size of the anastomotic defect, and the viability of the colon. Repeat anastomosis after resection of the leaking anastomosis In certain situations, it may be possible to resect a leaking anasto- mosis and perform a new anastomosis with or without proximal diversion. This may be technically possible when dealing with a leak from an ileocolic anastomosis. Colorectal anastomoses are unlikely to be amenable to immediate reconstruction given the limitations of reach, especially in a hostile abdomen. Exteriorization of the leaking anastomosis Another surgical option for treating a patient with anastomotic dehiscence is to exteriorize the leaking anastomosis as a stoma. This removes the septic source from the abdomen and may be performed rapidly. The potential problems with this damage control approach are that the anastomosis rarely can reach out to allow exterioriza- tion and that even if the leaking segment can reach out, it will make for a very bulky and difficult to manage stoma. In addition, this form of stoma may be fraught with wound-related complications. The utility and practicality of this approach are questionable. SHORT AND LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF LEAK The short-term consequences of an anastomotic leak requiring operative intervention are substantial. The 30-day mortality rate associated with anastomotic leak is typically documented in the 10% to 15% range and has been reported to be as high as 36% (3, 5, 42, 46, 47). Indeed, the most common cause of death after colorec- tal cancer resection is due to anastomotic leak.(4) In comparison to patients who recover uneventfully, patients who suffer anastomotic leak consume significantly more healthcare resources. After re- operation for leak, roughly 50% of patients require intensive care and a number of patients go on to require additional percutaneous drainage procedures or operations.(4, 17) Also, the average length of stay of patients with anastomotic leak is considerably prolonged compared with patients who recover normally from colorectal resection.(3, 48) In terms of overall morbidity rates, patients who experience an anastomotic leak are much more likely to experience further complications than patients who did not leak.(47) It is for these reasons that anastomotic leak is the most dreaded complica- tion of colorectal surgery. Anastomotic leak also carries significant long-term conse- quences. The quality of life of patients with permanent fecal diver- sion after a leak and bowel function after experiencing a leak are significantly impaired.(49) In comparison with patients who did not leak, patients who undergo stoma reversal after resolution of a leak have decreased rectal capacity and compliance and more diffi- culties evacuating.(7) In addition, in a review of nearly 1,400 surgi- cal patients treated for rectal cancer, patients who leaked were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy and when they did receive chemotherapy, it was more likely after a substantial delay.(6) In a multicenter Scottish study of 2,235 patients who under- went curative resection for colorectal cancer, the 5-year overall survival rate, excluding mortalities within 30-days of operation, for patients who leaked compared with patients who did not leak was 42% and 55%, respectively (p < 0.01) (3). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate, also excluding postoperative deaths, for patients who leaked compared with patients who did not leak was 50% and 68%, respectively (p < 0.001). The increased risk of cancer-specific death in patients with an anastomotic leak was most apparent between 2 and 4 years after surgery. Similarly, other studies have demonstrated increased local recurrence rates (5) as well as decreased overall and cancer-specific survival (50) after anastomotic leak. The etiology of these inferior long-term outcomes in patients who suffer a leak remains speculative. ANASTOMOTIC STRICTURE Colorectal anastomotic stricture may occur in up to 10% of patients depending on how a stricture is defined.(51, 52) From a clinical standpoint, stricture may be defined as a symptomatic narrowing of the anastomosis that obstructs the flow of intestinal contents. (53) Alternatively, a stricture may be defined by the inability to pass a particular size of proctoscope through an anastomotic narrow- ing. The vast majority of anastomotic strictures tend to be short segment stenoses less than a centimeter in length (Figure 7.6). Figure 7.6 Contrast enema demonstrating colorectal anastomotic stricture.  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery Figure 7.7 (A) Colonoscopic view of a strictured colorectal anastomosis. (B) Passage of a through-the-scope balloon dilator. (C) Hydrostatic dilation of the stricture. (D) The dilated anastomosis. Factors predisposing to anastomotic stricture include anasto- motic leak, postoperative pelvic infection, and proximal diversion. In addition, two meta-analyses concluded that stapling the col- orectal anastomosis increases the risk of stricture formation com- pared with hand sewing the anastomosis.(27, 54) It is hypothesized that strictures develop due to an inflammatory response or, possi- bly, from mucosal gaps within a staple line that heal by secondary intention. Although ischemia is commonly included as a poten- tial etiology of stricture formation, the pathophysiology remains speculative. Whether or not a smaller diameter circular stapler increases the risk of stricture formation is not clear; nonetheless, the convention remains to use the largest diameter stapler that the bowel can accommodate. Late anastomotic stricture formation is associated with recurrent cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, and radiation injury and must be thoroughly investigated. DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT While most strictures are likely incidental findings, certain patients have symptoms such as mechanical obstruction or impaction at the level of the stricture, constipation, tenesmus, frequent bowel movements, or diarrhea. In general, asymptomatic strictures in patients with intestinal continuity are not clinically relevant and do not require treatment. Meanwhile, symptomatic patients and asymptomatic patients undergoing evaluation before reversal of a diverting stoma who demonstrate stenosis require intervention. Stoma reversal in the face of a stricture risks anastomotic disrup- tion at the site of the stoma takedown and should be avoided. The majority of colorectal anastomotic strictures that require intervention are readily salvaged using endoluminal dilating techniques.(55) Typically, dilation is postponed until the anas- tomosis has healed and become more pliable; waiting over 4–6 (a) (b) (c) (d)  postoperative anastomotic complications weeks is prudent. Simple methods used to dilate a low anastomo- sis include gentle digital rectal exam or sequentially sized dilators (i.e., bougie, Hegar, etc.). Strictures out of reach for these modalities or that require con- trolled dilation under direct observation are usually treated with commercially available through-the-scope (TTS) hydrostatic bal- loon dilators that control radial expansion using a pressure gauge (Figure 7.7). Sequential dilation to a diameter >20 mm is usually accomplished under conscious sedation with or without empiric antibiotic coverage and has a low complication rate.(56) Balloon dilation is successful in the majority of cases although repeat dila- tions may be required. Injecting triamcinolone, a long-acting corticosteroid, into the stricture or releasing the stricture using electrocautery or laser in combination with balloon dilation may decrease the need for repeat dilations without significantly increas- ing the complication rate.(57) Larger diameter, over-the-wire bal- loons may require fewer repeat dilations than TTS devices.(55) The few patients with short anastomotic strictures who do not respond to repeated dilation and patients with long, irregular strictures may be candidates for resection with repeat anasto- mosis. Depending on the height of the stricture, the anastomosis can be resected and intestinal continuity may be restored with either colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. To avoid dissecting out the distal rectum in a reoperative pelvis consideration could be given to resecting the anastomosis and reconstructing with rectal mucosectomy and a pull-through operation.(51, 53) Alternatives to resection to correct an anastomotic stricture include a number of creative stricturoplasty techniques using tran- sanal endoscopic microsurgery, conventional staplers, or a special mechanical anastomotic staple cutting device.(58) Individual cases of endorectal stenting have been reported in the literature but the utility and long-term outcomes of stenting in the setting of a benign stricture remain questionable and require further evaluation. CONCLUSION Anastomotic complications are difficult to predict and carry sig- nificant risks of morbidity and mortality. Attention to detail while forming a colorectal anastomosis is paramount to reducing the risk of complications. Tissue sealants, novel compression anasto- mosis devices, anastomotic buttressing materials, and alternatives to conventional fecal diversion may each contribute to reducing anastomotic complications in the future. REFERENCES 1. Knight CD, Griffin FD. An improved technique for low ante- rior resection of the rectum using the EEA stapler. Surgery 1980; 88: 710–4. 2. Heald RJ. A new approach to rectal cancer. Br J Hosp Med 1979; 22: 277–81. 3. McArdle CS, McMillan DC, Hole DJ. Impact of anasto- motic leakage on long-term survival of patients undergoing curative resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 1150–4. 4. Hedrick TL, Sawyer RG, Foley EF et al. Anastomotic leak and the loop ileostomy: friend or foe? Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49: 1167–76. 5. Branagan G, Finnis D. Prognosis after anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 1021–6. 6. Jung SH, Yu CS, Choi PW et al. Risk factors and oncologic impact of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 902–8. 7. Nesbakken A, Nygaard K, Lunde OC. Outcome and late func- tional results after anastomotic leakage following mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 400–4. 8. Rullier E, Laurent C, Garrelon JL et al. Risk factors for anas- tomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 1998; 85: 355–8. 9. Bruce J, Krukowski ZH, Al-Khairy G et al. Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1157–68. 10. Enker WE, Merchant N, Cohen AM et al. Safety and efficacy of low anterior resection for rectal cancer: 681 consecutive cases from a specialty service. Ann Surg 1999; 230: 544–54. 11. Lange MM, Buunen M, van de Velde CJ et al. Level of arterial ligation in rectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1139–45. 12. Brennan J, Moynagh M, Brannigan AE et al. Routine mobi- lization of the splenic flexure is not necessary during ante- rior resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50: 302–7. 13. Beard JD, Nicholson ML, Sayers RD et al. Intra-operative air testing of colorectal anastomoses: a prospective, randomized trial. Br J Surg 1990; 77: 1095–7. 14. Vignali A, Fazio VW, Lavery IC et al. Factors associated with the occurrence of leaks in stapled rectal anastomoses: a review of 1,014 patients. J Am Coll Surg 1997; 185: 105–13. 15. Law WL, Chu KW. Anterior resection for rectal cancer with mesorectal excision: a prospective evaluation of 622 patients. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 260–8. 16. Carlsen E, Schlichting E, Guldvog I et al. Effect of the intro- duction of total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rec- tal cancer. Br J Surg 1998; 85: 526–9. 17. Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Rutegård J et al. Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer. Ann Surg 2007; 246: 207–14. 18. Hüser N, Michalski CW, Erkan M et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2008; 248: 52–60. 19. Peeters KC, Tollenaar RA, Marijnen CA et al. Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 211–6. 20. Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U et al. Value of a protective stoma in low anterior resections for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2002; 45: 1164–71. 21. Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Holdsworth PJ et al. Risk of perito- nitis and fatal septicemia and the need to defunction the low anastomosis, Br J Surg 1991; 78: 196–8. 22. Marijnen CA, Kapiteijn E, van de Velde CJ et al. Acute side effects and complications after short-term preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision in pri- mary rectal cancer: report of a multicenter randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 817–25. 23. Parc Y, Frileux P, Schmitt G et al. Management of post-oper- ative peritonitis after anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43: 579–89.  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery 24. Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U et al. Hospital caseload and the results achieved in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1397–402. 25. Tilney HS, Sains PS, Lovegrove RE et al. Comparison of out- comes following ileostomy versus colostomy for defunction- ing colorectal anastomoses. World J Surg 2007; 31: 1141–51. 26. Guenaga K, Atallah AN, Castro AA et al. Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005, 1: CD001544. 27. Matos DDM, Atallah A, Castro A et al. Stapled versus hand- sewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001, 3: CD003144. 28. Choy PY, Bissett IP, Docherty JG et al. Stapled versus hand- sewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 3: CD004321. 29. Yeh CY, Changchien CR, Wang J et al. Pelvic drainage and other risk factors for leakage after elective anterior resection in rectal cancer patients: a prospective study of 978 patients. Ann Surg 2005; 241: 9–13. 30. Merad F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A et al. Omentoplasty in the pre- vention of anastomotic leakage after colonic or rectal resec- tion. Ann Surg 1998; 227: 179–86. 31. Agnifili A, Schietroma M, Carloni A et al. The value of omen- toplasty in protecting colorectal anastomosis from leakage. Hepatogastroenterology 2004; 51: 1694–7. 32. Swedish Rectal Cancer Study. Initial report from a Swedish multicentre study examining the role of preoperative irra- diation in the treatment of patients with resectable rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1993; 80: 1333–6. 33. Martel G, Al-Suhaibani Y, Moloo H et al. Neoadjuvant therapy and anastomotic leak after tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1195–201. 34. Buie WD, MacLean AR, Attard JP et al. Neoadjuvant chemo- radiation increases the risk of pelvic sepsis after radical exci- sion of rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 1868–74. 35. Merad F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A et al. Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? Surgery 1999; 125: 529–35. 36. Merad F, Yahchouchi E, Hay JM et al. Prophylactic abdomi- nal drainage after elective colonic resection. Arch Surg 1998; 133: 309–14. 37. Jesus EC, Karliczek A, Matos D et al. Prophylactic anasto- motic drainage for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004, 2: CD002100. 38. Zaheer S, Pemberton JH, Farouk R et al. Surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Ann Surg 1998; 227: 800–11. 39. Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS et al. A comparison of lap- aroscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 2050–9. 40. Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S et al. Laparoscopy- assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer. Lancet 2002; 359: 2224–9. 41. Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J et al. Short terms benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005, 2: CD003145. 42. Hyman N, Manchester TL, Osler T et al. Anastomotic leaks after intestinal anastomosis: it’s later than you think. Ann Surg 2007; 245: 254–8. 43. Power N, Atri M, Haddad R et al. CT assessment of anasto- motic bowel leak. Clin Rad 2007; 62: 37–42. 44. Feingold DL, Widmann WD, Calhoun SK et al. Persistent post-laparoscopy pneumoperitoneum: expected or cause for alarm. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 296–9. 45. Nicksa GA, Dring RV, Johnson KH et al. Anastomotic leaks: what is the best diagnostic imaging study? Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50: 197–203. 46. Mäkelä JT, Kiviniemi H, Laitinen S. Risk factors for anasto- motic leakage after left-sided colorectal resection with rectal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 653–60. 47. Alves A, Panis Y, Trancart D et al. Factors associated with clinically significant anastomotic leakage after large bowel resection: multivariate analysis of 707 patients. World J Surg 2002; 26: 499–502. 48. Pickleman J, Watson W, Cunningham J. The failed gastroin- testinal anastomosis. J Am Coll Surg 1999; 188: 473–82. 49. Lim M, Akhtar S, Sasapu K et al. Clinical and subclinical leaks after low colorectal anastomosis: a clinical and radio- logic study. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49: 1611–9. 50. Walker KG, Bell SW, Rickard MJ et al. Anastomotic leakage is predictive of diminished survival after potentially curative resection for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 255–9. 51. Garcea G, Sutton CD, Lloyd TD et al. Management of benign rectal strictures. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 1451–60. 52. Bannura GC, Cumsille MA, Barrera AE et al. Predictive fac- tors of stenosis after stapled colorectal anastomosis. World J Surg 2004; 28: 921–5. 53. Schlegel RD, Dehni N, Parc R et al. Results of reoperations in colorectal anastomotic strictures. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44: 1464–8. 54. MacRae HM, McLeod RS. Handsewn versus stapled anasto- moses in colon and rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41: 180–9. 55. Giorgio PD, Luca LD, Rivellini G et al. Endoscopic dilation of benign colorectal anastomotic stricture after low anterior resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 347–50. 56. Nguyen-Tang T, Huber O, Gervaz P et al. Long-term qual- ity of life after endoscopic dilation of strictured colorectal or colocolonic anastomoses. Surg Endosc 2008; 22: 1660–6. 57. Lucha PA, Fticsar JE, Francis MJ. The strictured anastomosis: successful treatment by corticosteroid injectors. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 862–5. 58. Shimada S, Matsuda M, Uno K et al. A new device for the treatment of coloproctostomic stricture after double stapling anastomoses. Ann Surg 1996; 224: 603–8. 59. Sorensen LT, Jorgensen T, Kirkeby LT et al. Smoking and alcohol abuse are major risk factors for anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 1999; 86: 927–31. 60. Borowski DW, Kelly SB, Bradburn DM et al. Impact of sur- geon volume and specialization on short-term outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 2007; 94: 880–9. 61. Smith JA, King PM, Lane RH et al. Evidence of the effect of spe- cialization on the management, surgical outcome and survival from colorectal cancer in Wessex. Br J Surg 2003; 90: 583–92. 62. Golub R, Golub RW, Cantu R et al. A multivariate analysis of factors contributing to leakage of intestinal anastomoses. J Am Coll Surg 1997; 184: 364–72.  8 General postoperative complications Scott R Steele and Clifford L Simmang Financial Disclosure: No outside financial support or provision of supplies was solicited or received in connection with this work. Disclosure and Proprietary Statement: This is an original work by the above author. The opinions expressed are the author’s and author’s alone. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the U.S. Government, the U.S. Department of Defense, or Madigan Army Medical Center. CHALLENGING CASE A 72-year-old female is scheduled to undergo a low anterior resection for T3N0M0 rectal cancer. She has been confined to a wheelchair for the last month due to a fibular fracture. Her co- morbidities include diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and she has a 50 pack-year smoking history. Describe the optimal management for deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis. CASE MANAGEMENT The patient falls into a high risk classification as evidenced by her older age, recent immobility, smoking history, comorbidi- ties, malignancy, and need for pelvic surgery. In addition to the mechanical measures (e.g., graduated compression stockings or intermittent pneumatic compression devices and early ambula- tion) this patient should receive either subcutaneous unfraction- ated heparin (typically 5,000 IU two or three times per day) or low molecular weight heparin (~0.5 IU/kg), with higher doses reserved for those patients within the most at risk group. The first dose of unfractionated subcutaneous heparin should be given before induction, preferably 1–2 hours before incision, as some evidence indicates that venous thrombotic events occur more commonly during the time of anesthesia induction. Perioperative use should continue until the patient is fully ambulatory. This may require patient education on self-injection to continue after discharge, for up to 10–14 days. INTRODUCTION Despite ever-evolving advancements aimed at improving surgical outcomes, which have included technological innovations, compre- hension of perioperative physiology, and implementation of clini- cal pathways, postoperative complications continue to account for significant health care costs. Highlighting this, in a study evaluating the financial impact on surgical site infections alone, development of one single preventable surgical site infection was associated with an increased length of stay of almost 11 days, at a resultant cost of $27,000 for each patient.(1) In addition, lost work days, delayed functional recovery, and resultant physical deficits are oftentimes not as easily quantifiable in monetary amounts, yet create an even larger impact on both patient and society alike. Thus, emphasis needs to be placed not only on the identification and treatment of these complications, but also prevention as a major focus in order to optimize outcomes. In this chapter we will review the current status of a variety of perioperative parameters surrounding com- plications encountered with colon and rectal surgery as well as explore the most recent measures employed for prevention. More detailed treatment options are found in specific chapters elsewhere within this text. PAIN Although it may seem intuitive that adequate control of postop- erative pain is a mandatory and rather easy standard to achieve, in practice this oftentimes remains a far more difficult objective to attain. In part, this may be secondary to the lack of having an accurate way to predict those patients that will have difficulty with postoperative pain control. In addition, we frequently use primi- tive measures to quantify pain, relying heavily on devices such as visual analogue scales and verbal pain scales commonly employed in the recovery phase, which, due to language and cultural barri- ers, often do not have adequate correlation amongst patients. This is especially evident when trying to accurately detect and record changes in pain level over time, evaluate which pain dimension the patient is being asked to report (i.e., intensity versus relief), or to which interval does the pain level correspond (i.e., current level versus average over a time period).(2) Despite these difficulties, adequate pain control remains such an important component to the overall care of the postoperative patient, it is often referred to as the fifth vital sign. Optimal control of pain continues to be pur- sued through a multifactorial and multifaceted approach. Emphasis in recent years has been toward adequate preoperative and thus preemptive pain control. Medications such as ketorolac, COX-2 inhibitors, and local anesthesia before the incision have all been used in attempt to lessen postoperative pain, as well as decrease reliance on more traditional methods such as narcotics. Sim and colleagues in a prospective randomized blinded study of 40 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery found the perioperative use of COX-2 inhibitors, which included a single dose 1 hour before surgery, was associated with a significant decrease in both postop- erative narcotic use as well as shorter recovery of bowel function and earlier discharge.(3) Lack of widespread use of these agents has, in part, been centered on surgeon concerns regarding the potential for increased bleeding felt to be associated with use of these medica- tions. Yet this appears to be unfounded. As narcotics are plagued by side effects such as respiratory depression, constipation, and ileus, which hinder gastrointestinal recovery following colorectal sur- gery, methods to decrease their usage seem beneficial in this patient population. This is not to say that patients following both colorectal and anal surgery do not require narcotics; However, other classes of medications may improve pain control, while minimizing the dependency on them. Other Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs (NSAIDS) have also been evaluated in the postoperative period as independent pain-controlling agents, yet appear to work better in . use (46, 48) Malnutrition (46, 62) Anemia ( 48) Blood transfusions (46) Intraoperative rectal irrigation ASA score (33) Field contamination  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery a more. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43: 579 89 .  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery 24. Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U et al. Hospital caseload and the results achieved in patients with rectal. than a centimeter in length (Figure 7.6). Figure 7.6 Contrast enema demonstrating colorectal anastomotic stricture.  improved outcomes in colon and rectal surgery Figure 7.7 (A) Colonoscopic view