Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Colorectal Surgery”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Robotic assistance provides a number of potential benefits for laparoscopic surgery by addressing several inherent limitations. However, its utility in colorectal surgery has not been determined. This is a report of our initial experience with robot-assisted colon resections. We prospectively followed 10 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery using Zeus Microwrist System. Surgical outcomes were compared with those of 10 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the same institution for similar indications prior to the start of robotic-assisted surgery. Six patients in each group had surgery for colorectal malignancy. All 10 robotic-assisted procedures were completed with no intraoperative complications, conversions, or mortality. The average blood loss was less than 150 mL in all cases. Morbidity and hospital stay were comparable to those for the patients undergoing standard laparoscopic procedures. Robotic surgery was associated with a significant increase in operative time of almost 1 hour. This time was reduced significantly after the first 4 cases. The value of robotic assistance in colorectal surgery needs to be further evaluated in a larger comparative study.

Aged↗
PubMed2007

Major liver resections synchronous with colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical strategy in liver metastases synchronous to colorectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility and short-term outcomes of major hepatectomies synchronous to colorectal surgery. METHODS: Between January 1985 and December 2004, 79 patients underwent major hepatectomy for metastases synchronous to colorectal cancer; 31 underwent synchronous hepatectomy and colorectal surgery, and 48 underwent delayed liver resection. RESULTS: The synchronous group had a higher rate of right colectomy (38.7% vs. 18.8%, P = .0499) and larger metastases (8 vs. 5.3 cm, P = .0032). Mortality (one patient in synchronous group), morbidity, and anastomotic leak rates were similar in the two groups. Colon-related morbidity did not cause adjunctive liver complications. Hospitalization in delayed hepatectomies was shorter (10.4 days vs. 13.9 days, P = .0021). Blood and plasma transfusions were higher in synchronous resections (41.9% vs. 16.7%, P = .0131 and 54.8% vs. 31.3%, P = .0370); no differences were found in the last 10 years. Considering both surgical procedures (colorectal + liver resection), in delayed hepatectomies, morbidity was higher (56.3% vs. 32.6%, P = .0369) and hospitalization was longer (20.5 vs. 13.9 days, P = .00001). Nine patients underwent major hepatectomy at the same time as anterior rectal resection with no mortality (morbidity 22.2%, mean hospitalization 12.4 days). CONCLUSIONS: Major hepatectomies can be safely performed at the same time as colorectal surgery in selected patients with synchronous metastases with similar short-term results, even in the presence of rectal cancer.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2004

Complications in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: results of a multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: We present a prospective observational multicentre study of 4834 consecutive cases undergoing laparoscopic colorectal procedures. METHODS: The study was initiated on 1 August 1995, with centres from Germany, Austria and Switzerland participating. All patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included, and no selection criteria were applied. RESULTS: Between August 1995 and April 2004, the participating centres treated 4834 patients. Three thousand, one hundred and sixty-six operations were performed for benign indications, and 1668 for cancer, with most operations being done for diverticulitis (2019, 41.8%). The conversion rate was 5.6%, and the overall morbidity was 20.1%. Intra-operative complications occurred in 5.9%, postoperative complications in 14.0%, and the overall anastomotic leak rate was 3.1% (colon 2.6%, rectum 11.9%). The 30-day mortality rate was 1.3%. CONCLUSIONS: It has been our experience that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease is safe. Morbidity and mortality are comparable to those of conventional colorectal surgery.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Prophylaxis of infection following colorectal surgery.

Due to the high incidence of infective complications following colorectal surgery, prophylactic application of systemic antibiotics is required. In a prospective, randomised study of 34 patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery, it was found that a single 1 g dose of cefotaxime was as effective as three doses in controlling post-operative infections. Both groups received 500 mg metronidazole i.v. every 12 h for 72 h, with the first dose administered immediately prior to surgery. The results indicate that prophylactic cefotaxime and metronidazole are effective in reducing the incidence of septic complications following colorectal surgery; nevertheless, a study with a larger number of patients is needed to reach a definitive conclusion.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Bowel preparation with oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution vs. no preparation in elective open colorectal surgery: prospective, randomized study.

PURPOSE: Efficient mechanical bowel preparation has been regarded as essential in preventing postoperative complications of colorectal surgery, but the necessity of bowel cleansing has been disputed recently. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of elective colorectal surgery in patients with or without bowel preparation. METHODS: Altogether, 267 consecutive adult patients admitted for elective open colorectal surgery were randomly assigned either to the bowel preparation group with oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (138 patients) or no preparation group (129 patients). Patients who were unable to drink polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution, those who had had bowel preparation within the previous week, and patients not needing opening of the bowel were excluded. Routine colorectal surgery was undertaken, and infectious and other complications were registered daily. Late complications were checked up one to two months after surgery. RESULTS: No deaths were recorded, and 76 percent of the patients in the polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution group and 81 percent in the unprepared group recovered without complication. Anastomotic leaks occurred in 4 percent of the polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution patients and in 2 percent of the other cases, and other surgical site infections occurred in 6 and 5 percent, respectively. None of the differences was statistically significant. There was no difference in restoration of bowel function. The median postoperative stay was eight days in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative bowel preparation seems to offer no benefit in elective open colorectal surgery.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of cisapride after colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The predominant factor prolonging hospitalization and delaying oral intake after colorectal surgery continues to be return of large bowel function. We investigated the effect of the cisapride on postoperative bowel motility. METHODS: Patients were started on cisapride versus a placebo on postoperative day 1 after colorectal surgery. Endpoints included the time to patients' first bowel movement, time of advancement to regular diet, time of hospitalization, and cost analysis. Results were analyzed using a Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were entered in the study, consisting of 17 in the cisapride group and 18 in the placebo group. The median time to first bowel movement, advancement of diet, and hospital discharge was 1 day less in the cisapride group compared with the placebo group (P <0.05). There was a substantial cost savings in the study group. CONCLUSIONS: Cisapride use results in statistically significant improvement in postoperative bowel motility. Cisapride should be added as adjunct treatment in postoperative care after colorectal surgery.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Single-dose oral ciprofloxacin plus parenteral metronidazole for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery.

From 1983 until 1990 our standard antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery has been 80 mg gentamicin plus 500 mg metronidazole, both administered intravenously at the beginning of anesthesia, and then 80 mg gentamicin every 8 h for 3 days. In this time period, 718 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery by abdominal approach were treated with this prophylactic procedure. The mean wound infection rate was 13.4% with no significant differences between years. In the present study, including 100 adult patients, intravenous gentamicin has been replaced by a single oral dose of 750 mg ciprofloxacin randomly administered 1, 2 or 3 h (+/- 30 min) before anesthesia. All other procedures remained unchanged including intravenous metronidazole. In order to correlate an eventual infection with the actual tissue concentrations during surgery, samples of colon, peritoneum, muscle, subcutaneous fat and skin were obtained from all patients and assayed by HPLC. In only 3 cases (3% of them casuistic) was a wound infection observed, 2 of minor importance and 1 case with wound dehiscence. This infection rate is significantly lower than 13.4% obtained with our previous standard regimen, and lower than the 9% wound infection rate considered to be the 'gold standard' for elective colon resections. The effective ciprofloxacin concentrations in tissues were usually notably higher than the MICs of the pathogens commonly observed in surgical infections of colorectal surgery. By far the highest ciprofloxacin concentrations were observed in colon tissue which may explain the absence of anastomotic dehiscence or peritoneal sepsis in our series.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2000

[Postoperative wound infections in elective colorectal surgery].

BACKGROUND: Surgical wound infections still represent a significant problem in colorectal surgery. We wanted to investigate the frequency of postoperative wound infections in patients who had elective colorectal surgery at Lillehammer County Hospital. By reviewing relevant literature we also wanted to assess the evidence base for using antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery, which regimens are to be preferred, and the probable reduction in wound infections. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 99 patients were followed up at 14 days after surgery; presence or absence of wound infection was noted. Samples for culture were obtained in all patients with suspected wound infection. Literature on the subject was studied focusing on systematic reviews. RESULTS: Eight out of 99 patients (8%) had wound infections. In a systematic review of 147 studies comparing different antibiotic regimens, the overall infection rate for patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis was 11%. INTERPRETATION: The surgical wound infection rate was comparable with the results from relevant systematic reviews. The effect of antimicrobial prophylaxis is well documented. A combination of an anaerobic and an aerobic drug should be used, but no gold standard can be identified. Two adequate regimens have been investigated in controlled studies carried out in Norway.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed1999

Laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis: risk of postoperative leakage. Results of a multicenter study. Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Study Group (LCSSG).

BACKGROUND: We report on a prospective observational multicenter study of more than 1,000 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal procedures. The aim of the current study was to investigate the safety of laparoscopic colorectal surgery as reflected by the anastomotic insufficiency rates in the various sections of the bowel, and to compare these rates with those of open colorectal surgery. METHODS: The study was begun on August 1, 1995. Twenty-four centers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland participated in this prospective multicenter study. All patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included in the study. No selection criteria were applied, which means that every operation begun as a laparoscopic procedure was included. Data on patient demographics, surgical indications, surgical course, and patient outcome were recorded prospectively in a computer database. All data were rendered anonymous. RESULTS: Between August 1995 and February 1998, the 24 participating centers treated 1,143 patients (male/female ratio, 1:1.36; mean age, 60.7 years). In all, 626 operations were performed for benign indications and 517 for cancer. Most procedures involved the sigmoid colon and rectum (80.9%). An anastomosis was performed in 83% of the operations. Most of the anastomoses were laparoscopically assisted using the stapling technique. We observed an overall leakage rate of 4.25% (colon 2.9%; rectum 12.7%), and surgical reintervention was required in 1% of the cases. The rate of conversion to open surgery was 5.6%. Intraoperative complications occurred in 5.9%, and reoperation was necessary in 4.1% of the cases. The overall morbidity rate was 22.3%, and the 30-day mortality rate was 1.57%. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and safety of the laparoscopic colorectal approach is demonstrated clearly. The current study shows that the laparoscopic or laparoscopically assisted approach to colorectal surgery is not associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leaks. Morbidity and mortality rates with this method approximate those seen with conventional colorectal surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Extent of oncological resection in laparoscopic vs. open colorectal surgery: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is not yet wide accepted in cancer colorectal surgery. This study investigated whether the extent of anatomical resection in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is equivalent to that in the open colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined reports on the results of laparoscopic or open colorectal procedures published between 1990 and 1999 and selected 35 with data on lymph node count and distal margin clearance (total of 3935 patients). There were 16 comparative studies, 6 open series, and 13 laparoscopic series of patients. Several meta-analytic models were used to evaluate the difference between open and laparoscopic surgery, including multiple-outcome random-effects models that account for correlation between multiple-outcomes. RESULTS: More lymph nodes were extracted laparoscopically (0.3-2.14 lymph nodes more); however, only for the fixed-effects single-outcome model this difference was statistically significant. The average distal margin clearance was 4.6 cm with the laparoscopic approach and 5.3 with the open approach Accounting for random variation among the studies, the estimate of this difference obtained from meta-analysis was 0.64-1.19 cm, favoring the open approach; this difference was statistically significant. The estimated within-study correlation between lymph node count and distal margin clearance was 0.26 with the open and 0.19 with the laparoscopic procedure. The estimated within-study correlation between outcomes of laparoscopic and open procedures was 0.86 for the lymph node count and 0.96 for the distal margin clearance. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that laparoscopic approach is as adequate as the conventional approach. Estimates of difference between the two therapeutic options obtained from random-effects models were more precise than those from fixed-effects models.

Anastomosis, Surgical↗
PubMed2004

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of colorectal surgery with or without mechanical bowel preparation.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical bowel preparation is used routinely before colorectal surgery, but some randomized clinical trials have suggested that it is of no benefit. This study assesses whether such bowel preparation may safely be omitted before elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: A search of the literature was performed; the inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing bowel preparation with no preparation in colorectal surgery. The methodological quality of included trials was assessed. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage; secondary outcomes were other septic complications. The meta-analysis was conducted using the Peto one-step method. RESULTS: Eleven trials were retrieved, of which seven, containing 1454 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. There was no heterogeneity between the trials. Significantly more anastomotic leakage was found after mechanical bowel preparation (5.6 versus 3.2 per cent; odds ratio 1.75 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.05 to 2.90); P = 0.032). All other endpoints (wound infection, other septic complications and non-septic complications) also favoured the no-preparation regimen, but the differences were not statistically significant. Sensitivity analysis showed that these results were similar when trials of poor quality were excluded. Subgroup analysis showed that anastomotic leakage was significantly greater after bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) compared with no preparation, but not after other types of preparation. CONCLUSION: There is good evidence to suggest that mechanical bowel preparation using PEG should be omitted before elective colorectal surgery. Other bowel preparations should be evaluated by further large randomized trials.

Colonic Diseases↗
PubMed2004

Prophylactic anastomotic drainage for colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: There is little agreement on prophylactic use of drains in anastomoses in elective colorectal surgery despite many randomized clinical trials. Results of these trials are contradictory, quality and statistical power of these individual studies have been questioned. Once anastomotic leakage has occurred it is generally agreed that drains should be used for therapeutic purposes. However, on prophylactic use no such agreement exists. OBJECTIVES: Comparison of safety and effectiveness of routine drainage and non-drainage regimes after colorectal surgery. The following hypothesis was tested: The use of prophylactic anastomotic drainage after elective colorectal surgery does not prevent development of complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: The studies were identified from CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, Controlled Clinical Trials Database, Trials Register of the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group, reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing drainage with non-drainage regimes after anastomoses in elective colorectal surgery were reviewed. Outcome measures were: 1. mortality; 2. clinical anastomotic dehiscence; 3. radiological anastomotic dehiscence; 4. wound infection; 5. reoperation; 6. extra-abdominal complications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted and cross-checked by the two reviewers. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of the randomization (generation and concealment), blinding, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. The RCTs were stratified based on experimental group, according to clinical homogeneity (external validity). MAIN RESULTS: Of the 1140 patients enrolled (6 RCTs), 573 were allocated for drainage and 567 for no drainage. The patients assigned to the drainage group compared with the ones assigned to non-drainage group showed: a) Mortality: 3% (18 of 573 patients) compared with 4% (25 of 567 patients); b) Clinical anastomotic dehiscence: 2% (11 of 522 patients) compared with 1% (7 of 519 patients); c) Radiological anastomotic dehiscence: 3% (16 of 522 patients) compared with 4% (19 of 519 patients); d) Wound infection: 5% (29 of 573 patients) compared with 5% (28 of 567 patients); e) Reintervention: 6% (34 of 542 patients) compared with 5% (28 of 539 patients); f) Extra abdominal complications: 7% (34 of 522 patients) compared with 6% (32 of 519 patients). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence showing that routine drainage after colorectal anastomoses prevents anastomotic and other complications.

Anastomosis, Surgical↗
PubMed2001

Bowel preparation for colorectal surgery.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess recent literature regarding bowel preparation for colonoscopy and surgery. METHODS: The study was conducted by an Index Medicus English-language search of articles relevant to both oral mechanical and parenteral and oral antibiotic preparation for elective colorectal surgery and mechanical bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The study period was from 1975 to 2000. In addition, studies of elective colorectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation were also considered. RESULTS: Although several recent prospective, randomized trials have suggested that elective colorectal surgery can be safely performed without any mechanical bowel preparation, mechanical bowel preparation remains the standard of care, at least in North America at the present time. A recent survey of the members of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons revealed that the majority currently use sodium phosphate for bowel preparation and use a dual oral antibiotic regimen before elective colorectal surgery, combined with two doses of parenteral antibiotics. Although some of the use patterns are based on prospective, randomized study, others seem founded strictly on habit and theory. CONCLUSIONS: The current methods of bowel cleansing for both colonoscopy and surgery include sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol; colorectal surgeons practicing in North America currently prefer sodium phosphate. Additional preparation for colorectal surgery includes perioperative parenteral antibiotics and, to a slightly lesser degree, preoperative oral antibiotic preparation. Although some recent prospective, randomized studies have suggested that omission of mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery is not only feasible but potentially preferable, caution is recommended before routinely omitting these widely practiced measures, because data to support such routine omission are limited.

Animals↗
PubMed2005

[The Association Française de Chirurgie (AFC) colorectal index: a reliable preoperative prognostic index in colorectal surgery].

INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of outcome after colorectal surgery is always necessary. A new index which permits to appreciate preoperatively postoperative mortality after colorectal resection in colorectal cancer (CRC) and in diverticular disease has been published (i.e., Association Française de Chirurgie, AFC colorectal index). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From November 2002 to July 2004, in-hospital mortality was analysed on 253 patients who underwent colic resection (N = 220, 87%) or rectal resection, with anastomosis (N = 175, 70%). Mortality was analysed according to emergency resection, neurological co morbidity, lost of weight more than 10% of weight, age older than 70 years. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 63 +/- 18 years (17-92) (45% older than 70 years), 26% of patients were ASA >or= III, 35% underwent surgery in emergency, and 12% underwent laparoscopic surgery. One hundred and fifteen (45%) patients underwent surgery for CRC and 50 (20%), for diverticular disease and 11 patients underwent surgery for ischemic colitis. Overall mortality rate was 10% (N = 26), it was 19% in emergency surgery versus 5% after elective surgery. Global morbidity was 38%, percentage of anastomotic leak was 8% (N = 14/175), reoperation was necessary in 14%. The mean length of stay was 13 +/- 8 days. Ten percent of patients necessitated unplanned readmission. After surgery for CCR or diverticular disease. -i) overall mortality was 9% - ii) among patients who had 0, 1, 2, or 3 predictive risk factors of mortality; mortality was 0% , 5% 15% and 33%. After surgery for other aetiology than CCR or diverticular disease, among patients who had 0, 1, 2, or 3 predictive risk factors of mortality; mortality was 0%, 12% 36% and 25%. CONCLUSIONS: These results showed the reproducibility of the AFC colorectal index and its potential application in all aetiologies after colorectal surgery.

Aged↗
PubMed1997

The role of wound infection as a clinical indicator after colorectal surgery.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of wound infection as a clinical indicator after colorectal surgery. We assessed 553 patients who were entered into clinical trials at Royal Perth Hospital. In the clinical trials, the incidence of wound infection after colorectal surgery was 12%, however, this rose to 20% for patients over 60 years of age and with an American Society of Anaesthesia score of greater than 2. One-third of these infections occurred following discharge from hospital. We found that the incidence of wound infection following colorectal surgery was dependent upon patient characteristics, and many infections occurred after discharge from hospital. Collecting this data accurately is time consuming and expensive. Therefore, for this reason alone, wound infection may not be an appropriate clinical indicator for patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2004

Mesh herniorrhaphy during elective colorectal surgery.

The management of large ventral hernias in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery is controversial considering the reluctance to use a mesh during a clean-contaminated case. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients having undergone at our institution any colorectal surgery along with ventral hernia repair with mesh as identified by the ICD-9 codes between 1997 and 2003. Three patients underwent incisional mesh herniorrhaphy along with elective colorectal surgery, including a right hemicolectomy, a colostomy closure, and a diverting colostomy. Hernia size varied between 330 and 1,243 cm(2). All hernias were repaired using polypropylene mesh in an onlay fashion. Average operative time was 199 min. Two patients developed postoperative wound infection, one of them requiring incision and drainage of a part of the wound. One patient developed skin necrosis of the lower aspect of his incision requiring skin excision and open wound. All open wounds granulated well and healed by secondary intention despite presence of exposed mesh. Therefore prosthetic ventral hernia repair using polypropylene mesh can be performed concomitant to elective colorectal operations, thus avoiding another laparotomy. The incidence of wound complications is, however, high but does not usually require mesh excision.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2005

Randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before elective left-sided colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is performed routinely before colorectal surgery to reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the outcome of patients who underwent elective left-sided colorectal surgery with or without MBP. METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective left-sided colorectal resection with primary anastomosis were randomized to preoperative MBP (3 litres of polyethylene glycol) (group 1) or surgery without MBP (group 2). Postoperative abdominal infectious complications and extra-abdominal morbidity were recorded prospectively. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-three patients were included in the study, 78 in group 1 and 75 in group 2. Demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The overall rate of abdominal infectious complications (anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal abscess, peritonitis and wound infection) was 22 per cent in group 1 and 8 per cent in group 2 (P = 0.028). Anastomotic leak occurred in five patients (6 per cent) in group 1 and one (1 per cent) in group 2 (P = 0.210) [corrected] Extra-abdominal morbidity rates were 24 and 11 per cent respectively (P = 0.034). Hospital stay was longer for patients who had MBP (mean(s.d.) 14.9(13.1) versus 9.9(3.8) days; P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Elective left-sided colorectal surgery without MBP is safe and is associated with reduced postoperative morbidity.

Adult↗