Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:In recent years, there has been considerable interest in developing technology as well as techniques that could widen the therapeutic horizons of endoscopy. Rectal prolapse, a benign localized condition causing considerable morbidity, could be an excellent focus for new endoscopic therapies. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of endoluminal fixation of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall, after pushing it up inside the body, using an in vivo animal model. METHODS:We performed an in vivo comparative surgical study in a porcine model, including laparoscopic mobilization of the rectum and posterior rectopexy (standard surgical method) or endoluminal tacking of the rectum. After proving feasibility in ex vivo and acute studies, we performed a survival study to evaluate the safety of endoluminal tacking of the mobilized rectum to the anterior abdominal wall. The main outcome measures were successful completion of the tasks, maintenance of the fixation, complications associated with the methods, and survival studies including histopathological examinations of the fixation sites. RESULTS:There were two groups: laparoscopic rectopexy (8 animals) and endoluminal fixation of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall (10 animals). There were no differences between these two groups in their postoperative recovery. The group with the endoluminal fixation was found to have adequate attachment of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall (measured attachment pressure in the endoluminal group = 6.06 ± 0.52 ft-lb, in the control group = 4.86 ± 2.00 ft-lb) on both gross and microscopic evaluation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Endoscopic fixation of the mobilized rectum is feasible and safe in this model and in the future may provide an effective alternative to current treatment options for rectal prolapse.

BACKGROUND:Over the past 3 decades, there has been a significant increase in the incidence of gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors in the United States. Incidentally discovered carcinoids in the lower gastrointestinal tract have probably contributed to this increase. In this study we aimed to compare the clinicopathologic characteristics of incidentally discovered carcinoids of the small and large bowel with those identified as a result of symptoms. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:We performed a retrospective review of 58 consecutive patients with nonappendiceal gastrointestinal carcinoids: 30 small bowel and 28 large bowel. We compared asymptomatic patients with lower gastrointestinal tract carcinoids identified by routine colonoscopy with those identified as a result of symptoms. RESULTS:Twenty-eight (48.3%) incidentally identified carcinoids (15 small bowel and 13 large bowel) were compared with 30 (51.7%) symptomatic carcinoids. Incidental ileal carcinoids were similar in size (mean ± SD, 1.3 ± 0.61 vs 1.7 ± 1.13, p = 0.45) and incidence of lymph node metastases (12 in 15 vs 9 in 15, p = 0.43) to symptomatic ileal carcinoids. However, incidental ileal carcinoids had a lower incidence of distant metastases (1 in 15 vs 7 in 15, p = 0.035) compared with symptomatic ileal carcinoids. There was no difference in tumor size, extent of lymph node metastases, or distant metastases between incidental and symptomatic large bowel carcinoids. CONCLUSIONS:Ileal carcinoids identified at screening colonoscopy are associated with a significantly decreased incidence of distant metastases compared with those identified after development of symptoms, despite similar size and extent of lymph node metastases. However, incidental large bowel carcinoids appear to have similar staging to those identified as a result of symptoms.

BACKGROUND:The use of intraoperative carbon dioxide (CO(2)) colonoscopy during a laparoscopic colon operation is becoming more common. Simultaneous intracolonic and intraabdominal CO(2) insufflation may result in significant physiologic changes, but in-depth physiologic effects have not been studied to date. This study aimed to evaluate the physiologic changes and the overall safety of simultaneous CO(2) laparoscopy and colonoscopy. METHODS:A prospective pilot study was performed with 26 subjects (17 men and 9 women) undergoing laparoscopic surgical treatment for colorectal conditions adjunctively managed with CO(2) intraoperative colonoscopy. Surgery proceeded with CO(2) insufflation to a maximum pressure of 12 mmHg by laparoscopy and with a maximum CO(2) flow of 5 l/min via colonoscopy. Serial intra- and postoperative arterial blood gases, end-tidal CO(2), and minute ventilation were recorded during predetermined periods: during initial laparoscopy, during simultaneous colonoscopy and laparoscopy, during laparoscopy after colonoscopy, and after desufflation. RESULTS:No significant morbidity resulted from simultaneous CO(2) insufflation. Three patients had a CO(2) partial pressure (PaCO(2)) greater than 50, and one patient with a body mass index (BMI) higher than 42 kg/m(2) had a PaCO(2) greater than 50 for more than 30 min and was compensated by increasing minute ventilation. The mean pH was 7.36 in the recovery room. Postoperatively, no patient had a pH lower than 7.3, prolonged intubation, or reintubation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Simultaneous CO(2) colonoscopy and laparoscopy lead only to transient alterations in respiratory parameters that can be compensated. Based on these findings, simultaneous insufflation of CO(2) into the peritoneal cavity and the large bowel lumen during complex endoscopic procedures may be considered safe for most patients.

The presence of isolated splenic metastasis in rectal carcinoma is uncommon and usually presents as an asymptomatic mass, noted incidentally on imaging. Splenectomy is usually performed with the goal of curing metastatic disease. It is unclear if adjuvant chemotherapy affords any benefit, and the prognosis is unknown. The case of a young woman is reported, in whom an isolated metastatic lesion in the spleen was discovered 9 months after adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III rectal adenocarcinoma. The patient has remained disease-free for nearly 5 years following splenectomy and chemotherapy. To our knowledge, this is the fourth reported case in the English literature of an isolated splenic metastatic lesion from rectal cancer. We discuss the unique presentation, the importance of post-treatment surveillance, and the implementation of multi-modality treatment strategies in this young patient.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Distal rectal stapling is often challenging because of limited space and visibility. We compared two stapling devices in the distal rectum in a cadaver study: the iDrive™ right angle linear cutter (RALC) (Covidien, New Haven, CT) and the CONTOUR® curved cutter (CC) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH). METHODS:Twelve male cadavers underwent pelvic dissection by 4 surgeons. After rectal mobilization as in a total mesorectal excision, the staplers were applied to the rectum as deep as possible in both the coronal and sagittal positions. The distance from the pelvic floor was measured for each application. A questionnaire rated the visibility and access of the stapling devices. Measurements were taken between pelvic landmarks to see what anatomic factors hinder the placement of a distal rectal stapler. RESULTS:The median (range) distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor in the coronal position for the RALC was 1.0 cm (0-4.0) vs. 2.0 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p = 0.003. In the sagittal position, the median distance was 1.6 cm (0-3.5) for the RALC and 3.3 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p < 0.0001. The RALC scored better than the CC in respect to: 1. interference by the symphysis pubis, 2. number of stapler readjustments, 3. ease of placement in the pelvis, 4. impediment of visibility, 5. ability to hold and retain tissue, 6. visibility rating, and 7. access in the pelvis. A shorter distance between the tip of the coccyx and the pubic symphysis correlated with a longer distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS:The RALC is superior to the CC in terms of access, visibility, and ease of placement in the deep pelvis. This could provide important clinical benefit to both patient and surgeon during difficult rectal surgery.

BACKGROUND:Surgical site infections (SSIs) cause morbidity after elective colorectal surgery, and antibiotic prophylaxis can decrease SSIs. The aim of this study was to determine compliance with an antibiotic administration protocol, including regimen, initial dose timing, and re-dosing, and determine the risk of SSI associated with each. We hypothesized that appropriate antibiotic administration reduces the risk of SSI. METHODS:Retrospective review from a prospective database of a random sample of patients undergoing elective abdominal colorectal procedures with anastomosis. Antibiotic regimens, initial dose timing (IDT), and re-dosing were evaluated. Appropriate regimens covered gram-positive cocci, gram-negative bacilli, and anaerobes. The IDT was considered proper if completed within 30 min prior to incision; re-dosing parameters were determined pharmacokinetically for each agent. The main outcome was SSI. Sequential logistic models were generated: Model 1 assessed antibiotic administration factors, whereas Model 2 controlled for patient and clinical factors, including disease process, patient characteristics, intra-operative factors, and post-operative factors. RESULTS:Six hundred five patients (mean age 59.7 [standard deviation 17.8] years, 42.8% male) were included. The most common diagnoses were cancer (38.8%) and inflammatory bowel disease (22.0%). Seventy-six patients (12.6%) had superficial or deep incisional SSI, and 54 (8.9%) had organ/space SSI. Regimens included cefazolin + metronidazole for 219 patients (36.2%), cefoxitin for 214 (35.4%), and levofloxacin + metronidazole for 48 (7.9%). One hundred fourteen patients (18.8%) received other/nonstandard regimens, and ten had no documented antibiotic prophylaxis. Fifty-five patients (9.1%) received insufficient coverage, whereas 361 patients (59.7%) had proper IDT, and 401 regimens (66.3%) were re-dosed properly. In Model 1, the use of other/nonstandard regimens (odds ratio [OR] 2.069; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.078-1.868) and early administration of the initial prophylaxis dose (OR 1.725; 95% CI 1.147-2.596) were associated with greater odds of SSI. After adding clinical factors in Model 2, both of these factors remained significant (OR 2.505; 95% CI 1.066-5.886 and OR 1.733; 95% CI 1.017-2.954, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Appropriate antibiotic selection and timing of administration for prophylaxis are crucial to reduce the likelihood of SSI after elective colorectal surgery with intestinal anastomosis.

OBJECTIVE:Surgical site infections are a major source of morbidity after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to explore differences between incisional and organ/space surgical site infection types by evaluating risk factors, National Nosocomial Risk Index Scores, and clinical outcomes. DESIGN/METHODS:A random sample of adults undergoing abdominal colorectal surgery between June 2001 and July 2008 was extracted from a colorectal surgery practice database. Patient factors, comorbidities, intraoperative factors, postoperative factors, and infection were collected; risk score (from -1 to 3 points) was calculated. Variables associated with surgical site infection by univariate analysis were incorporated in a multivariable model to identify risk factors by infection type. Infection risk by risk score was evaluated by logistic regression. Length of stay, readmission, and mortality were examined by infection type. RESULTS:Six hundred fifty subjects were identified: 312 were male, age was 59.8 (SD 17.8) years. Common preoperative diagnoses included colorectal cancer (36.9%) and inflammatory bowel disease (21.7%). Forty-five cases were emergencies, and 171 included rectal resections. Eighty-two patients developed incisional and 64 developed organ/space surgical site infections. Body mass index was associated with incisional infection (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00-1.09), whereas previous radiation (OR 4.49, 95% CI 1.53-13.18), postoperative hyperglycemia (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.41-6.34), preoperative [albumin] (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.76), and case length (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08-1.47) were associated with organ/space infection. A risk score of 2 and above, compared with a score of <2, predicted organ/space (OR 5.92, 95% CI 3.16-11.09) but not incisional infection (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.41-2.16). Organ/space infections were associated with longer length of stay (P = .006) and higher readmission rates (P < .001) than incisional infections. CONCLUSIONS:Risk factors for surgical site infections differ by type of infection. Clinical outcomes and value of the risk index score are different by infection type. It may be prudent to consider incisional and organ/space surgical site infections as different entities for patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND:For complex right colon polyps, not removable using colonoscopy, right colon resection is considered the optimal treatment. Combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery, using both laparoscopy and CO2 colonoscopy, has been introduced as a new approach for these complex colon polyps with intent to avoid bowel resection. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the safety and outcomes of combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery used for treatment of complex right colon polyps. DESIGN/METHODS:This is a retrospective study of patients undergoing combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery for treatment of benign right colon polyps from 2003 to 2008. SETTINGS/METHODS:This is a single-institution study. PATIENTS/METHODS:Twenty-three patients with complex right colon polyps were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The main outcome measures included the length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and polyp recurrence. RESULTS:Of 23 patients, 20 (87%) patients had their polyp removed successfully by combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery and 3 (13%) needed laparoscopic resection, after laparoendoscopic evaluation. The median length of hospital stay was 2 days (range, 1-5), and there were no postoperative complications. Median follow-up time was 12 months. Three patients had recurrent polyps, and the recurrence-free interval at 36 months was 55.7% (95% CI = 8.6%, 87.0%). All recurrences were benign polyps and were removed by colonoscopic snaring. CONCLUSIONS:Combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery can be safely offered to selected patients with benign right colon polyps that can not be removed by colonoscopy. This combined approach may provide a viable alternative to right colon resection for complex benign colon lesions and warrants future investigation.

BACKGROUND:Although evidence suggests that laparoscopic colectomy (LC) results in faster gastrointestinal (GI) recovery than open bowel resection, previous studies were performed at single institutions or generally not controlled for diet introduction or perioperative care, making the results difficult to interpret. A prospective, observational, multicenter study was planned to investigate GI recovery, length of hospital stay (LOS), and postoperative ileus (POI)-related morbidity after LC. METHODS:Patients scheduled to undergo LC or hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) bowel resection and to receive opioid-based postoperative intravenous patient-controlled analgesia were enrolled in 16 U.S. centers. The study design was similar to that for trials of alvimopan phase 3 open laparotomy bowel resection using a standardized accelerated postoperative care pathway. The primary end points were time to upper and lower GI recovery (GI-2: toleration of solid food and bowel movement) and postoperative LOS. The secondary end points included POI-related morbidity (postoperative nasogastric tube insertion or investigator-assessed POI resulting in prolonged hospital stay or readmission), conversion rate, and protocol-defined prolonged POI (GI-2 > 5 postoperative days). RESULTS:In this study, 148 patients received hemicolectomy by the LC (42 left and 67 right) or HAL (39 left) approach. The conversion rate was 18.8% (25.4% LC left, 17.3% HAL left, 15% LC right). The mean time to GI-2 recovery was 4.4 days, and the mean postoperative LOS was 4.9 days, neither of which varied substantially by surgical approach. Prolonged POI occurred for 15 patients (10.1%), and POI-related morbidity occurred for 17 patients (11.5%). No patients were readmitted because of POI, whereas 3 patients (2%) were readmitted for all other causes. CONCLUSIONS:Mean GI recovery and LOS after LC were accelerated compared with those for patients in open laparotomy bowel resection clinical trials or those reported in large hospital databases (0.7 and 1.7-2.2 days, respectively). Overall POI-related morbidity was similar between the open bowel resection and LC populations, demonstrating that POI continues to present with important morbidity regardless of the surgical approach.