| Literature DB >> 28801697 |
Emma Westerduin1,2, Gijsbert D Musters1,2, Anna A W van Geloven1, Marinke Westerterp3, Erwin van der Harst4, Willem A Bemelman2, Pieter J Tanis5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Two non-restorative options for low rectal cancer not invading the sphincter are the low Hartmann's procedure (LH) or intersphincteric proctectomy (IP). The aim of this study was to compare postoperative morbidity with emphasis on pelvic abscesses after LH and IP.Entities:
Keywords: Complications; Hartmann’s procedure; Intersphincteric proctectomy; Pelvic abscess; Rectal cancer; Surgery
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28801697 PMCID: PMC5635102 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-017-2886-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis ISSN: 0179-1958 Impact factor: 2.571
Baseline characteristics
| LHP ( | IP ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 1.000 | ||
| Male | 24 (60%) | 7 (58%) | |
| Female | 16 (40%) | 5 (42%) | |
| Age (years), mean (± SD) | 74 (± 10.2) | 73 (± 7.0) | 0.904 |
| BMI, median (IQR) | 25.0 (8.7) | 25.9 (4.5) | 0.585 |
| ASA classification | 0.264 | ||
| 1 | 3 (8%) | 1 (8%) | |
| 2 | 22 (55%) | 9 (75%) | |
| 3 | 15 (38%) | 2 (17%) | |
| Height of tumour on MRI | 0.046 | ||
| 1 cm | 1 (3%) | 5 (42%) | |
| 2 cm | 9 (23%) | 2 (17%) | |
| 3 cm | 11 (28%) | 0 | |
| 4 cm | 8 (20%) | 3 (25%) | |
| 5 cm | 11 (28%) | 2 (17%) | |
| Preoperative treatment | |||
| Short course radiotherapy | 31 (78%) | 7 (58%) | 0.267 |
| Long course chemo radiotherapy | 9 (23%) | 5 (42%) | 0.189 |
| Indication primary colostomy | 0.777 | ||
| Expected high risk of leakage considering patient-related risk factors | 29 (73%) | 9 (75%) | |
| Expected poor functional outcome of ultra-low anastomosis | 7 (18%) | 1 (8%) | |
| Expected high risk of leakage related to quality of tissue | 3 (8%) | 1 (8%) | |
| Missing | 1 (3%) | 1 (8%) | |
| Timing of decision for permanent colostomy | 0.287 | ||
| Preoperative | 23 (58%) | 9 (75%) | |
| Intra-operative | 16 (40%) | 2 (17%) | |
| Missing | 1 (3%) | 1 (8%) |
BMI body mass index, ASA American Society of Anaesthesiology, cm centimetres
Intra-operative characteristics
| LHP ( | IP ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of surgery | |||
| Minutes, median (IQR) | 145 (61) | 297 (138) | < 0.001 |
| Technique | 0.740 | ||
| Open | 16 (40%) | 6 (50%)a | |
| Laparoscopic | 24 (60%) | 6 (50%) | |
| Multivisceral resection | 0 | 0 | 1.000 |
| Omentoplasty | 5 (13%) | 6 (50%) | 0.011 |
| Tumour perforation | 0 | 0 | – |
| Pelvic drains | 0.129 | ||
| No | 4 (10%) | 4 (33%) | |
| Yes, 1 drain | 33 (83%) | 8 (67%) | |
| Yes, 2 drains | 2 (5%) | 0 | |
| Missing | 1 (3%) | 0 | |
| Duration pelvic drainage | |||
| Days, median (IQR) | 2 (2) | 9 (9) | 0.006 |
| Intra-operative complications | 1 (3%) | 2 (17%) | 0.129 |
| Bleeding | 1 | 0 | |
| Bowel injury | 0 | 1 | |
| Subcutaneous emphysema | 0 | 1 | |
aIn one patient laparoscopic approach was converted to an open approach because of haemodynamic instability after subcutaneous emphysema
Pathology
| LHP ( | IP ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| ypTNM tumour stage | 0.804 | ||
| Stage 0 | 4 (10%) | 2 (17%) | |
| Stage I | 13 (33%) | 2 (17%) | |
| Stage II | 9 (23%) | 5 (42%) | |
| Stage III | 13 (33%) | 2 (17%) | |
| Stage IV | 1 (3%) | 1 (8%) | |
| Tumour perforation at pathological examination | 1 (3%) | 0 | 1.000 |
| Positive CRM | 0 | 0 | – |
| Lymphatic invasion | 4 (10%) | 1 (8%) | 1.000 |
| Extramural vascular invasion | 3 (8%) | 0 | 1.000 |
Postoperative outcome
| LHP ( | IP ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of admittance | |||
| Days, median (IQR) | 15 (14) | 18 (28) | 0.170 |
| Major complications within 30 days | 7 (18%) | 4 (33%) | 0.253 |
| Clavien-Dindo grade III | 5 (13%)b | 4 (33%)c | 0.185 |
| Clavien-Dindo grade IV | 0 | 0 | – |
| Clavien-Dindo grade V | 2 (5%) | 0 | 1.000 |
| Pelvic abscessa | 4 (10%) | 2 (17%) | 0.612 |
| Time between surgery and diagnosis pelvic abscess | |||
| Days, median (range) | 20 (14–65) | 44 (7–81) | 1.000 |
| Reinterventiona | 11 (28%) | 5 (42%) | 0.478 |
| Two or more reinterventionsa | 2 (5%) | 1 (8%) | 0.553 |
| Total number of reinterventions at any time during follow-up | 13 | 20 | – |
| Drainage of pelvic abscess | 6 | 1 | |
| Endo-sponge® treatment of pelvic abscess | 0 | 13 | |
| Closure of perineum | 0 | 1 | |
| Relaparotomy | 3 | 1 | |
| Correction of parastomal herniation | 2 | 2 | |
| Closure of fascial dehiscence | 1 | 0 | |
| Coiling of bleeding rectal stump | 1 | 0 | |
| Appendectomy | 0 | 1 | |
| Revision of necrotic colostomy | 0 | 1 | |
| Readmissiona | 9 (23%) | 4 (33%) | 0.466 |
| Total number of readmissions | 12 | 7 | – |
| Pelvic abscess | 5 | 3 | |
| Stoma complications | 3 | 2 | |
| Fever | 3 | 0 | |
| Ileus | 1 | 0 | |
| Anaemia | 0 | 1 | |
| Herniation of appendix through drain opening | 0 | 1 | |
| Two or more readmissionsa | 3 (8%) | 1 (8%) | 1.000 |
| Time between surgery and first readmission | |||
| Days, median (IQR) | 18 (669) | 31 (88) | 0.643 |
| Total duration of readmissions until end of follow-up | |||
| Days, median (IQR) | 20 (15) | 5 (15) | 0.061 |
| Total duration of readmissions due to pelvic abscess | |||
| Days, median (range) | 15 (10–29) | 12 (7–16) | 0.639 |
aNumber of patients, at any time during follow-up
bIncluding three patients with a pelvic abscess
cIncluding one patient with a pelvic abscess