M Grott1, K Horisberger2, C Weiß3, P Kienle4, J Hardt1. 1. Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68135, Mannheim, Germany. 2. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Medical Statistics, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany. 4. Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68135, Mannheim, Germany. peter.kienle@umm.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: If a primary anastomosis is considered too risky after emergency colon resection either a resection enterostomy or an end stoma with closure of the distal bowel (Hartmann's procedure) is possible. This study analyzes the rate of restoration of intestinal continuity and other surgical outcomes after resection enterostomy placement versus Hartmann's procedure for emergency colon resections. METHODS: All patients who underwent emergency colorectal resections between August 2009 and June 2014 at the University Medical Center Mannheim were reviewed in regard to therapeutic approach, rate of restoration of bowel continuity, and surgical morbidity after the primary operation and after reversal surgery. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients in whom both studied interventions would have been technically feasible were further analyzed. The rate of revisional surgery was significantly higher in the resection enterostomy cohort after the primary operation. There were no significant differences regarding morbidity, mortality, and the rate of restoration of intestinal continuity. Overall, bowel continuity could be restored in 63% (29/46) of the surviving patients. The median time of surgery of the initial as well as of the reversal surgery was significantly longer in the Hartmann's group. Five of 13 patients underwent protective ileostomy placement in the Hartmann's group at the time of the reversal (vs. none in the resection enterostomy group). CONCLUSIONS: The bowel continuity can be restored in the majority of patients after emergency colonic resection. Conclusive evidence which surgical option should be preferred when a primary anastomosis is considered too risky-Hartmann's procedure or resection enterostomy-is still lacking.
BACKGROUND: If a primary anastomosis is considered too risky after emergency colon resection either a resection enterostomy or an end stoma with closure of the distal bowel (Hartmann's procedure) is possible. This study analyzes the rate of restoration of intestinal continuity and other surgical outcomes after resection enterostomy placement versus Hartmann's procedure for emergency colon resections. METHODS: All patients who underwent emergency colorectal resections between August 2009 and June 2014 at the University Medical Center Mannheim were reviewed in regard to therapeutic approach, rate of restoration of bowel continuity, and surgical morbidity after the primary operation and after reversal surgery. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients in whom both studied interventions would have been technically feasible were further analyzed. The rate of revisional surgery was significantly higher in the resection enterostomy cohort after the primary operation. There were no significant differences regarding morbidity, mortality, and the rate of restoration of intestinal continuity. Overall, bowel continuity could be restored in 63% (29/46) of the surviving patients. The median time of surgery of the initial as well as of the reversal surgery was significantly longer in the Hartmann's group. Five of 13 patients underwent protective ileostomy placement in the Hartmann's group at the time of the reversal (vs. none in the resection enterostomy group). CONCLUSIONS: The bowel continuity can be restored in the majority of patients after emergency colonic resection. Conclusive evidence which surgical option should be preferred when a primary anastomosis is considered too risky-Hartmann's procedure or resection enterostomy-is still lacking.
Authors: Vasilis A Constantinides; Paris P Tekkis; Thanos Athanasiou; Omer Aziz; Sanjay Purkayastha; Feza H Remzi; Victor W Fazio; Nail Aydin; Ara Darzi; Asha Senapati Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: P H Alizai; M Schulze-Hagen; C D Klink; F Ulmer; A A Roeth; U P Neumann; M Jansen; R Rosch Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: James R Marshall; Pamela L Buchwald; Jamish Gandhi; Johannes K Schultz; Phil N Hider; Frank A Frizelle; Timothy W Eglinton Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J V Roig; M Cantos; Z Balciscueta; N Uribe; J Espinosa; V Roselló; R García-Calvo; J Hernandis; F Landete Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Dalibor Antolovic; Christoph Reissfelder; Timur Ozkan; Luis Galindo; Markus W Büchler; Moritz Koch; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Sandra Vennix; Gijsbert D Musters; Irene M Mulder; Hilko A Swank; Esther C Consten; Eric H Belgers; Anna A van Geloven; Michael F Gerhards; Marc J Govaert; Wilhelmina M van Grevenstein; Anton G Hoofwijk; Philip M Kruyt; Simon W Nienhuijs; Marja A Boermeester; Jefrey Vermeulen; Susan van Dieren; Johan F Lange; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christian Eugen Oberkofler; Andreas Rickenbacher; Dimitri Aristotle Raptis; Kuno Lehmann; Peter Villiger; Christian Buchli; Felix Grieder; Hans Gelpke; Marco Decurtins; Adrien A Tempia-Caliera; Nicolas Demartines; Dieter Hahnloser; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Stefan Breitenstein Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Bryan Joost Marinus van de Wall; Werner A Draaisma; Esther S Schouten; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.452