METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 1043 consecutive patients submitted to CRS in a single institution. Potential risk factors for AL and GP, both related to patient overall condition, disease status and surgical technique were reviewed.
RESULTS: Anastomotic leaks were identified in 5.2% of patients, and GPs in 7.0%. The independent risk-factors for AL were age at surgery (OR1.40; CI95% 1.10-1.79); peritoneal cancer index (PCI) (OR1.04, CI95% 1.01-1.07); Cisplatin dose >240 mg during HIPEC (OR3.53; CI95% 1.47-8.56) and the presence of colorectal (CR) or colo-colic (CC) anastomosis (OR5.09; CI95% 2.71-9.53, and 4.58; CI95% 1.22-17.24 respectively). Male gender and intraoperative red blood cell transfusions were the only independent risk factors for GP identified (OR1.70; CI95% 1.04-2.78 and 1.06; CI95% 1.01-1.12, respectively). Regarding 30-day and 90-day postoperative mortality, independent risk-factors were mainly related to patient's overall condition.
CONCLUSION: Gastrointestinal leaks are a frequent source of postoperative morbidity, mainly at the expense of GP. A careful and systematic intraoperative revision of all potential gastrointestinal injuries is equally critical to perfecting anastomotic fashioning techniques to decrease gastrointestinal complication rates. We identified multiple risk-factors for AL and GP related to disease status and patient condition. Our study suggests that patient-related conditions are of paramount relevance, highlighting the importance of patient selection and preoperative patient optimization.
Methods: This multi-centre, international, single-arm, prospective observational study aimed at demonstrating the non-inferiority of a mid-term absorbable monofilament in comparison to braided sutures in gastrointestinal anastomosis. Monosyn suture was used to create the gastrointestinal anastomosis and the frequency of anastomotic leakage until day of discharge was chosen as the primary parameter. The outcome was compared to the results published for braided sutures in the literature. Secondary parameters were the time to perform the anastomosis, length of hospital stay, costs, and postoperative complications.
Results: The anastomosis leakage rate was 2.91%, indicating that Monosyn suture was not inferior to braided sutures used in gastrointestinal anastomosis. Of the reported anastomotic suture techniques, the single layer continuous method was the fastest and most economical technique in the present observational study.
Conclusion: Monosyn suture is safe and effective in gastrointestinal anastomosis and represents a good alternative to other sutures used for gastrointestinal anastomosis. With regard to safety, time and cost-efficiency, the single-layer continuous technique should be considered a preferred method. The transfer of results from clinical studies into daily practice with regard to surgical techniques for gastrointestinal anastomosis should be further evaluated in larger studies or in nationwide registries.
METHOD: This international multi-center prospective study across 137 hospitals in 41 countries included patients who underwent an esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, with 90-day follow-up. The main explanatory variable was country income, defined according to the World Bank Data classification. The primary outcome was 90-day postoperative mortality, and secondary outcomes were composite leaks (anastomotic leak or conduit necrosis) and major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade III - V). Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to produce adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI95%).
RESULTS: Between April 2018 to December 2018, 2247 patients were included. Patients from HIC were more significantly older, with higher ASA grade, and more advanced tumors. Patients from LMIC had almost three-fold increase in 90-day mortality, compared to HIC (9.4% vs 3.7%, p leaks (OR: 1.06, CI95%: 0.57-1.99, p = 0.9) or major complications (OR: 0.85, CI95%: 0.54-1.32, p = 0.5), compared to HIC.
CONCLUSION: Resections in LMIC were independently associated with higher 90-day postoperative mortality, likely reflecting a failure to rescue of these patients following esophagectomy, despite similar composite anastomotic leaks and major complication rates to HIC. These findings warrant further research, to identify potential issues and solutions to improve global outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer.
METHODS: A retrospective review of CAT patients undergoing bariatric surgery at an academic center from 2008 to 2015 was studied.
RESULTS: A total of 153 patients on CAT underwent surgery [Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 79), sleeve gastrectomy (n = 63), and adjustable gastric banding (n = 11)] during the study period: 85 patients (55%) were females; median age was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] 49-64), and median BMI was 49 kg/m2 (IQR 43-56). The most common indications for CAT were venous thromboembolism (n = 87) and atrial fibrillation (n = 83). Median duration of procedure and estimated intraoperative blood loss was 150 min (IQR 118-177) and 50 ml (IQR 25-75), respectively. Thirty-day postoperative complications were reported in 33 patients (21.6%) including postoperative bleeding (n = 19), anastomotic leak (n = 3), and pulmonary embolism (n = 1). Nineteen patients (12%) with early postoperative bleeding were further categorized to intra-abdominal (n = 10), intraluminal (n = 6), and at the port site or abdominal wall (n = 3). All-cause readmissions within 30 days of surgery occurred in 19 patients (12%). There was no 30-day mortality.
CONCLUSION: In our experience, patients who require chronic anticoagulation medication are higher than average risk for postoperative complications and all-cause readmission rates. Careful surgical technique and close attention to postoperative anticoagulation protocols are essential to decrease perioperative risk in this high-risk cohort.
METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3, multicentre randomised trial, patients aged 21-80 years with cT3 or cT4 gastric cancer undergoing curative resection were enrolled at 22 centres from South Korea, China, Japan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Patients were randomly assigned to receive surgery and EIPL (EIPL group) or surgery alone (standard surgery group) via a web-based programme in random permuted blocks in varying block sizes of four and six, assuming equal allocation between treatment groups. Randomisation was stratified according to study site and the sequence was generated using a computer program and concealed until the interventions were assigned. After surgery in the EIPL group, peritoneal lavage was done with 1 L of warm (42°C) normal 0·9% saline followed by complete aspiration; this procedure was repeated ten times. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done assuming intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02140034.
FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2012, and Aug 3, 2018, 800 patients were randomly assigned to the EIPL group (n=398) or the standard surgery group (n=402). Two patients in the EIPL group and one in the standard surgery group withdrew from the trial immediately after randomisation and were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. At the third interim analysis on Aug 28, 2019, the predictive probability of overall survival being significantly higher in the EIPL group was less than 0·5%; therefore, the trial was terminated on the basis of futility. With a median follow-up of 2·4 years (IQR 1·5-3·0), the two groups were similar in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio 1·09 [95% CI 0·78-1·52; p=0·62). 3-year overall survival was 77·0% (95% CI 71·4-81·6) for the EIPL group and 76·7% (71·0-81·5) for the standard surgery group. 60 adverse events were reported in the EIPL group and 41 were reported in the standard surgery group. The most common adverse events included anastomotic leak (ten [3%] of 346 patients in the EIPL group vs six [2%] of 362 patients in the standard surgery group), bleeding (six [2%] vs six [2%]), intra-abdominal abscess (four [1%] vs five [1%]), superficial wound infection (seven [2%] vs one [<1%]), and abnormal liver function (six [2%] vs one [<1%]). Ten of the reported adverse events (eight in the EIPL group and two in the standard surgery group) resulted in death.
INTERPRETATION: EIPL and surgery did not have a survival benefit compared with surgery alone and is not recommended for patients undergoing curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
FUNDING: National Medical Research Council, Singapore.