Colonic j-pouch and side-to-end anastomosis are similar regarding perioperative measures including operation time, rates of postoperative complications, reoperation and 30-day mortality, and hospitalization period except anastomotic leak rate, which is higher in j-pouch group. Postoperative aspects are not different in patients receiving either technique including functional outcomes and life quality for the first year after stoma closure. In our opinion, both techniques may be preferred during the daily practice while performing laparoscopic surgery; but surgeons may be aware of a possibly higher anastomotic leak rate in case of a j-pouch.

Background Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre‐specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57–75) years (54·9 per cent men). Some 1153 (27·7 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1–3, of whom 1061 (92·0 per cent) received non‐selective cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4·6 versus 4·8 days; hazard ratio 1·04, 95 per cent c.i. 0·96 to 1·12; P = 0·360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5·4 versus 4·6 per cent; P = 0·349) or acute kidney injury (14·3 versus 13·8 per cent; P = 0·666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35·3 versus 56·7 per cent; P < 0·001). Conclusion NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement.

OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to reveal the risk factors and outcomes of gallbladder perforation (GP) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.METHODS:Videotapes of all patients who underwent an elective cholecystectomy at our department were retrospectively analyzed, and the patients were divided into two groups based on the presence of GP. The possible risk factors and early outcomes were analyzed.RESULTS:In total, 664 patients [524 (78.9%) females, 49.7±13.4 years of age] were observed, and GP occurred in 240 (36.1%) patients, mostly while dissecting the gallbladder from its bed (n=197, 82.1%). GP was not recorded in the operation notes in 177 (73.8%) cases. Among the studied parameters, there was no significant risk factor for GP, except preoperatively elevated alanine transaminase level (p=0.005), but the sensitivity and specificity of this measure in predicting GP were 14.2% and 7.4%, respectively. The two groups had similar outcomes, but the operation time (35.4±17.5 vs 41.4±18.7 min, p=0.000) and incidence of drain use (25% vs 45.8%, p=0.000) increased in the GP group.CONCLUSION:The present study reveals that GP occurs in 36.1% of patients who undergo laparoscopic elective cholecystectomy, but it may not be recorded in most cases. We did not find any reliable risk factor that increases the possibility of GP. GP causes an increase in the operation time and incidence of drain use; however, the other outcomes were found to be similar in patients with GP and those without.

PurposeThe current study aims to analyze the risk factors for the failure of ileostomy reversal after laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.MethodsAll patients who underwent a laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer with a diverting ileostomy between 2007 and 2014 were abstracted. The patients who underwent and did not undergo a diverting ileostomy procedure were compared regarding patient, tumor, treatment related parameters, and survival.ResultsAmong 160 (103 males [64.4%], mean [± standard deviation] age was 58.1 ± 11.9 years) patients, stoma reversal was achieved in 136 cases (85%). Anastomotic stricture (n = 13, 52.4%) was the most common reason for stoma reversal. These were the risk factors for the failure of stoma reversal: Male sex (P = 0.035), having complications (P = 0.01), particularly an anastomotic leak (P < 0.001), or surgical site infection (P = 0.019) especially evisceration (P = 0.011), requirement for reoperation (P = 0.003) and longer hospital stay (P = 0.004). Multivariate analysis revealed that male sex (odds ratio [OR], 7.82; P = 0.022) and additional organ resection (OR, 6.71; P = 0.027) were the risk factors. Five-year survival rates were similar (P = 0.143).ConclusionFifteen percent of patients cannot receive a stoma reversal after laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Anastomotic stricture is the most common reason for the failure of stoma takedown. Having complications, particularly an anastomotic leak and the necessity of reoperation, limits the stoma closure rate. Male sex and additional organ resection are the risk factors for the failure in multivariate analyses. These patients require a longer hospitalization period, but have similar survival rates as those who receive stoma closure procedure.

The presence of a previous laparotomy does not worsen the outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic removal of sigmoid or rectal cancer, thus laparoscopy may be considered to be safe and feasible in these cases.

No abstract

Current study has revealed that early morbidity and mortality are not rare after gastric cancer surgery with curative intent. Since multivariate analyses have revealed that ASA score and older age may be only risk factors for postoperative morbidity and 30-day mortality, respectively; it may be logical to consider these factors during the preoperative decision making in patients with gastric cancer.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes following surgical treatment of hemorrhoids between elderly (≥60 years old) and young patients (<60 years old).Methods: A total of 365 patients who underwent surgical procedures for the treatment of third or fourth degree hemorrhoids between January 01, 2009 and January 31, 2014 were retrospectively screened.Results: Among the 365 participants, 316 and 49 patients were younger and older than 60 years of age, respectively. No statistically significant differences with regard to the gender, operative duration, hospitalization time, incapacity to work, hemoglobin levels at admission or discharge, number of hemorrhoid packages, presence of thrombosis prior to the surgery, reoperation requirement, or the number of patients complaining of long-term pain were observed between the groups. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of early or late postoperative complications between the groups.Conclusions: In conclusion, we found that the surgical treatment of hemorrhoids is equally safe in the younger and elderly patients. Therefore, surgeons can be confident in performing surgical treatment of hemorrhoids in elderly patients.