Ekaterina Baron1, Vadim Gushchin1, Mary Caitlin King1, Andrei Nikiforchin1, Armando Sardi2. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Mercy Medical Center, The Institute for Cancer Care at Mercy, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Mercy Medical Center, The Institute for Cancer Care at Mercy, Baltimore, MD, USA. asardi@mdmercy.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC), surgeons are reluctant to perform unprotected pelvic anastomosis despite lack of supporting data. We analyzed pelvic anastomosis outcomes and factors that influence ostomy creation in CRS/HIPEC patients. METHODS: A single-center, descriptive study of patients with rectal resection during CRS/HIPEC was conducted using a prospective database. Surgical variables were reviewed. Multinomial logistic regression of outcomes (end or protective ostomy) was performed with pre- and intraoperative factors as predictors. RESULTS: Overall, 274 of 789 CRS/HIPEC patients underwent rectal resection, including 243 (89%) with pelvic anastomosis [232 (85%) without ostomy, 11 (4%) with protective ileostomy] and 31 (11%) with no anastomosis [16 (6%) with end colostomy, 15 (5%) with end ileostomy]. The median age was 57 and 29% (79) were male. Of 243 pelvic anastomosis patients, 3 (1.2%) had rectal anastomotic leaks, including 1 with a protective ileostomy. Other anastomotic leaks occurred in 3.6%. Overall, 13% had Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ IIIB and the readmission rate was 30%. Mortality at 30 days and 100 days was 0.4% and 2.2%, respectively. Male gender and primary rectal cancer were associated with protective ileostomy [odds ratio (OR) = 7.01, 95% CI: 1.6-31.5, p = 0.011, and OR = 16.4, 95% CI: 3-88.4, p = 0.001, respectively). Male gender and prior pelvic surgery were associated with end colostomy (OR = 13.9, 95% CI: 3.7-53, p < 0.0001, and OR = 17.2, 95% CI: 3.8-78.6, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic bowel reconstruction without protective or end ostomy during CRS/HIPEC is safe. Protective ileostomy is associated with male gender and primary rectal cancer. End colostomy is associated with male gender and prior pelvic surgery.
BACKGROUND: During cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC), surgeons are reluctant to perform unprotected pelvic anastomosis despite lack of supporting data. We analyzed pelvic anastomosis outcomes and factors that influence ostomy creation in CRS/HIPEC patients. METHODS: A single-center, descriptive study of patients with rectal resection during CRS/HIPEC was conducted using a prospective database. Surgical variables were reviewed. Multinomial logistic regression of outcomes (end or protective ostomy) was performed with pre- and intraoperative factors as predictors. RESULTS: Overall, 274 of 789 CRS/HIPEC patients underwent rectal resection, including 243 (89%) with pelvic anastomosis [232 (85%) without ostomy, 11 (4%) with protective ileostomy] and 31 (11%) with no anastomosis [16 (6%) with end colostomy, 15 (5%) with end ileostomy]. The median age was 57 and 29% (79) were male. Of 243 pelvic anastomosispatients, 3 (1.2%) had rectal anastomotic leaks, including 1 with a protective ileostomy. Other anastomotic leaks occurred in 3.6%. Overall, 13% had Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ IIIB and the readmission rate was 30%. Mortality at 30 days and 100 days was 0.4% and 2.2%, respectively. Male gender and primary rectal cancer were associated with protective ileostomy [odds ratio (OR) = 7.01, 95% CI: 1.6-31.5, p = 0.011, and OR = 16.4, 95% CI: 3-88.4, p = 0.001, respectively). Male gender and prior pelvic surgery were associated with end colostomy (OR = 13.9, 95% CI: 3.7-53, p < 0.0001, and OR = 17.2, 95% CI: 3.8-78.6, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic bowel reconstruction without protective or end ostomy during CRS/HIPEC is safe. Protective ileostomy is associated with male gender and primary rectal cancer. End colostomy is associated with male gender and prior pelvic surgery.
Authors: Karl Mrak; Stefan Uranitsch; Florian Pedross; Andreas Heuberger; Anton Klingler; Michael Jagoditsch; Dominik Weihs; Thomas Eberl; Jörg Tschmelitsch Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Zachary E Stiles; Nathan M Hinkle; Gitonga Munene; Paxton V Dickson; Andrew M Davidoff; Jeremiah L Deneve Journal: Am Surg Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Matthew D Whealon; John V Gahagan; Sarath Sujatha-Bhaskar; Michael P O'Leary; Matthew Selleck; Sinziana Dumitra; Byrne Lee; Maheswari Senthil; Alessio Pigazzi Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sam Pakraftar; Lekshmi Ramalingam; Yongli Shuai; Heather L Jones; James F Pingpank; Steven S Ahrendt; Matthew P Holtzman; Amer H Zureikat; Herbert J Zeh; David L Bartlett; Haroon A Choudry Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sylvia M Vonk-Klaassen; Hilde M de Vocht; Marjolein E M den Ouden; Eric Hans Eddes; Marieke J Schuurmans Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 4.147