Search

Background and Aim The effects of vedolizumab [VEDO] exposure on perioperative outcomes following surgery for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] remain controversial. The aim of our study was to compare postoperative morbidity of IBD surgery following treatment with VEDO vs other biologics or no biologics. Methods An institutional review board-approved, prospectively collected database was queried to identify all patients undergoing abdominal surgery for IBD between August 2012 and May 2017. The impact of VEDO within 12 weeks preoperatively on postoperative morbidity was initially assessed with univariate and multivariable analyses on all patients. A case-matched analysis was then carried out comparing patients exposed to VEDO vs other biologic agents, based on gender, age ± 5 years, diagnosis, date of surgery ± 2 years, and surgical procedure. Results Out of 980 patients, 141 received VEDO. The majority of patients [59%] underwent surgery involving end or diverting ostomy creation. The initial multivariate analysis conducted on all patients indicated that VEDO use was independently associated with increased overall morbidity [ p <0.001], but not infectious morbidity [ p = 0.30]. However, the case-matched comparison of 95 VEDO-treated patients vs 95 patients treated with adalimumab or infliximab did not indicate any difference in overall morbidity [ p = 0.32], infectious complications [ p = 0.15], or surgical site infections [ p = 0.12]. Conclusions In a study population having a high rate of surgery involving ostomy creation, the exposure to preoperative VEDO was not associated with an increased morbidity rate when compared with other biologics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) failure occurs in approximately 5%–10% of patients. We aimed to compare short‐term (30‐day) postoperative outcomes associated with pouch revision and pouch excision using a large international database. Our null hypothesis was that there is no statistically significant difference in overall postoperative complications between patients selected for pouch revision vs pouch excision. Methods: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant User File from 2005 to 2016 we identified patients who underwent either IPAA revision via the combined abdominoperineal approach [Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 46712] or IPAA excision (CPT 45136). Differences in baseline characteristics and short‐term outcomes between groups were assessed with univariate and matched analyses. Results: We identified 593 reoperative IPAA procedures: revision group 78 (13%) and excision group 515 (86%). The groups had similar age and body mass index (kg/m2), but the revision group had more women (65.4% vs 51.8%, P = 0.02) and fewer were on chronic steroids (3.9% vs 17.9%, P = 0.0008) relative to the excision group. Revision IPAA patients were more likely to have received a preoperative transfusion (5.1% vs 0.97%, P = 0.02). Revision and excision were associated with similar postoperative length of stay (9.3 vs 8.6 days, 0.44), mortality (nil vs 0.58%, respectively; P = 0.99) and short‐term morbidity (34.6% vs 40.2%, respectively; P = 0.88) at 30 days. Conclusions: Pouch revision and excision have comparable short‐term postoperative outcomes, but pouch excision appears to be more commonly utilized. Increased awareness of the indications for pouch revision or referral to specialized centres may improve pouch revision rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Photographs of medical equipment used in the proctoscopic detorsion of sigmoid volvulus are presented.

Background: Animal studies have documented significantly better preserved postoperative cell-mediated immune function, as measured by serial delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) challenges, after laparoscopic-assisted than after open bowel resection. Similarly, in humans, the DTH responses after open cholecystectomy have been shown to be significantly smaller than preoperative responses; whereas after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, no significant change in DTH response has been noted. The purpose of this study was to assess cell-mediated immune function via serial DTH skin testing in patients undergoing laparoscopic or open colectomy., Methods: A total of 35 subjects underwent either laparoscopic (n = 18) or open colectomy (n = 17) in this prospective but not randomized study. Only patients who were judged to be immunoresponsive by virtue of having responded successfully to a preoperative DTH challenge were eligible for entry in the study. DTH challenges were carried out at three time points in all patients: preoperatively, immediately following surgery, and on the third postoperative day (POD 3). Responses were measured 48 h after each challenge and the area of induration calculated. There were no significant differences between the laparoscopic (LC) and open (OC) colorectal resection groups in regard to demographics, indications for surgery, or type of resection carried out. The percentage of patients transfused was similar in both groups (17%, LC; 12% OC; p = NS). In the LC group, all cases were completed without conversion using minimally invasive methods. There were no perioperative deaths, and the rate of postoperative complications was similar in both groups. The preoperative and postoperative DTH results were analyzed and compared within each surgical group using several methods., Results: In regards to the OC group results, the median sum-total DTH responses for the day of surgery challenges (0.44 +/- 69 cm2) and the POD 3 challenges (0.72 +/- 3.37 cm2) were significantly smaller than the preoperative results (3.61 +/- 3.83 cm2, p <0.0005 vs op day and p <0.0003 vs POD 3 results). When the LC group results were similarly analyzed, no significant difference in DTH response was noted between the pre- and the postoperative challenge results. Additionally, when the median percent change from baseline was calculated and considered for the OC group's DTH results, both postoperative challenge time points demonstrated significantly decreased responses when compared to their preoperative results (vs day of surgery, p <0.007; vs POD 3, p <0.006). Similar analysis of the LC group's results yielded nonsignificant differences between the pre- and postoperative responses. Lastly, when the LC and the OC groups median percent change from baseline results were directly compared for each of the postoperative challenges, a significant difference was noted for the POD 0 challenge (LC, -21%; OC 88%; p <0.004) but not for the POD 3 challenge., Conclusions: The postoperative DTH responses of the open surgery patients were significantly smaller than their preoperative responses. This was not the case for the laparoscopic group (a combination of fully laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted resections). When the open and laparoscopic groups results are directly compared, regarding the results of the day of surgery DTH challenges, the LC groups median percent change from baseline was significantly less than that observed in the OC group. These results imply that open colorectal resection is associated with a significant suppression of cell-mediated immune response postoperatively, whereas in this study laparoscopic colorectal resection was not. Further human studies are needed to verify these findings and to determine the clinical significance, if any, of this temporary difference in immune function following colon resection.