Search

To evaluate postoperative complications and clinical evolution in patients undergoing colectomies and anastomosis with two preoperative strategies, mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP) and mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (MBP+OA). Materials and Method: Retrospective study, with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Variables studied: preoperative demographic characteristics, surgical intervention, anastomotic location, anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infection (SSI), postoperative intestinal transit, Clostridium difficile (CD) infection and hospital stay. Statistical analysis, bivariate and multivariate models were performed. Results: 216 patients studied, 149 were MBP group and 67 MBP+OA group. The group MBP had higher rates of AL (7.38% vs. 0%, p = 0.011). For leftsided colectomies, AL rate in both groups had a higher difference in the middle rectum, with no cases in the MBP+OA group (0% vs. 50%, p = 0.019). For right colectomies, the AL rates were similar in both groups. SSI was higher in MBP group (4.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.037). The bowel transit recovery was faster for MBP+OA group, determining less hospital stay (3.98 days vs. 6.39 days, p = 0.001). The group MBP+OA had a higher rate of CD colitis, 4.48% (p = 0.008). Discussion and Conclusion: These results suggest that preoperative oral antibiotic with mechanical bowel preparation could help to prevent anastomotic leaks in left-sided colectomies, also avoid surgical site infection, favoring the recovery of postoperative bowel transit, reducing hospital stay. The association to CD should be examined in larger studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare diagnostic yield of significant findings rate and safety of screening colonoscopies in two groups of elderly patients. Materials and Method: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent screening colonoscopies at INDISA Clinic, from November 2017 to March 2019. Exclusion criteria were those with "alarm" symptoms according to Rome IV criteria, emergencies and therapeutic colonoscopies were excluded. Comparison groups were patients between 70-79 years old (Grupo I), and those over 80 years old (Grupo II). The primary outcome was the diagnostic yield of screening colonoscopy, defined as its capacity to identify adenomas, high-grade dysplasia, and colorectal cancer. Secondary outcomes were morbidity and mortality of the procedure. Statistical analysis was descriptive and inferential. Results: A total of 125 patients met our inclusion criteria; Grupo I: 70 and Grupo II 55 patients. Significant findings were observed in 27.1% in Grupo I and 30.9% in Grupo II (p = 0.675). No differences in bowel prep quality or procedure-related complications were observed between both groups. Discussion and Conclusion: Screening colonoscopies for colorectal cancer are well tolerated in patients over 80 years of age, with equivalent diagnostic rates compared with the younger patient group. Given the increasing life expectancy worldwide, it is recommended to continue checking for colorectal cancer with screening colonoscopies in octogenarians, particularly healthy ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To compare three approaches (laparoscopic, open, and conversion of laparoscopic approach) for the management of intra-abdominal surgical complications after elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Materials and Method: This was a retrospective cohort study including patients who required reoperation due to an intra-abdominal surgical complication after initial elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Patients were grouped according to the reoperation approach-laparoscopic reoperation, laparoscopic reoperation that required conversion to open surgery, and open reoperation. Pre-operative variables (age, gender, ASA score, BMI, comorbidities, and surgical history), operative variables (cause of reoperation, latency for reoperation, operative time, surgery performed, and cause of conversion), and post-operative variables (intestinal transit, hospital days, ICU days, medical complications, surgical site infection, evisceration, transfusion and 30-day mortality), were compared between groups. Results: There were no significant differences between groups among the pre-operative and operative variables. In terms of post-operative variables, the laparoscopic reoperation group, had fewer hospital days (p = 0.012), fewer ICU days (p = 0.001), and faster intestinal transit regarding gas, stool and return to solid diet (p = 0.008, p = 0.029 and p = 0.030, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in surgical site infection, evisceration, medical complications, transfusion, and mortality. Discussion and Conclusion: This study revealed better post-operative clinical course in the laparoscopic reoperation group, with shorter hospital and ICU stay, and reduced postoperative ileus, without increased morbidity or mortality. Laparoscopic reoperation for complications after elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery may therefore be the preferred approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]