Laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the elderly.
(25/111)
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been demonstrated in several well designed trials in recent years. At the same time the experience in the field of laparoscopy in the elderly has increased. The aim of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the experience of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients over 75 years in our unit. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Surgical Department, San Lorenzo Hospital, Valdagno (VI). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All the patients over 75 years, out of a total number of 121 unselected patients, undergoing laparoscopic colectomy or laparoscopic abdomino-perineal resection between June 2002 and May 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative mortality, operating time, conversion rate, morbidity, time of discharge from hospital. RESULTS: Six patients were converted to open surgery. 87 patients over 75 years underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery. There was no postoperative death, in three cases a reoperation was done, because of postoperative intestinal obstruction in one case (over 75) and for anastomotic fistula in two (one over 75, after low anterior resection). Mean operative time was was 180 minutes (range 150-300). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients is a safe group of procedures for benign and malignant lesions of large bowel, resulting in a low rate of complications even if the time of operation is increased compared with open procedures. Postoperative pain and hospital stay, with return to normal life, are decreased compared with open surgery. (+info)
Subspecialisation and its effect on the management of rectal cancer.
(26/111)
INTRODUCTION: To assess the impact of subspecialisation on surgical and oncological outcomes after rectal cancer surgery in a single surgical unit within a district general hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 207 patients with rectal cancer treated surgically by two colorectal surgeons and four experienced general surgeons at the Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, England between January 1995 and December 1999 were studied. A retrospective case-note review of each patient's personal details, operative and histological findings, their subsequent clinical progress and oncological outcomes, including 5-year survival were recorded. RESULTS: In the study group, 127 patients were treated by a colorectal surgeon and 80 by general surgeons. Pre-operative radiotherapy was more likely to be given to patients treated by a colorectal surgeon. Fewer permanent stomas were performed by colorectal surgeons. Postoperative morbidity, transfusion requirements, anastomotic leak rates and 30-day mortality were not significantly different. Tumour-involved circumferential resection margins, local recurrence rates and risk of distant metastases were similar between the two groups of surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal subspecialisation has resulted in an increased use of pre-operative radiotherapy and fewer permanent stomas. No significant improvement in surgical or oncological outcomes after rectal cancer surgery have been observed. (+info)
Treatment strategies in obstructed defecation and fecal incontinence.
(27/111)
Obstructed defecation (OD) and fecal incontinence (FI) are challenging clinical problems, which are commonly encountered in the practice of colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists. These disorders socially and psychologically distress patients and greatly impair their quality of life. The underlying anatomical and pathophysiological changes are complex, often incompletely understood and cannot always be determined. As a consequence, many medical, surgical, and behavioral approaches have been described, with no panacea. Over the past decade, advances in an understanding of these disorders together with rational and similar methods of evaluation in anorectal physiology laboratories (ARP), radiology studies, and new surgical techniques have led to promising results. In this brief review, we discuss treatment strategies and recent updates on clinical and therapeutic aspects of obstructed defecation and fecal incontinence. (+info)
Modern management of rectal cancer: a 2006 update.
(28/111)
The goal of this review is to outline some of the important surgical issues surrounding the management of patients with early (T1/T2 and N0), as well as locally advanced (T3/T4 and/or N1) rectal cancer. Surgery for rectal cancer continues to develop towards the ultimate goals of improved local control and overall survival, maintaining quality of life, and preserving sphincter, genitourinary, and sexual function. Information concerning the depth of tumor penetration through the rectal wall, lymph node involvement, and presence of distant metastatic disease is of crucial importance when planning a curative rectal cancer resection. Preoperative staging is used to determine the indication for neoadjuvant therapy as well as the indication for local excision versus radical cancer resection. Local excision is likely to be curative in most patients with a primary tumor which is limited to the submucosa (T1N0M0), without high-risk features and in the absence of metastatic disease. In appropriate patients, minimally invasive procedures, such as local excision, TEM, and laparoscopic resection allow for improved patient comfort, shorter hospital stays, and earlier return to preoperative activity level. Once the tumor invades the muscularis propria (T2), radical rectal resection in acceptable operative candidates is recommended. In patients with transmural and/or node positive disease (T3/T4 and/or N1) with no distant metastases, preoperative chemoradiation followed by radical resection according to the principles of TME has become widely accepted. During the planning and conduct of a radical operation for a locally advanced rectal cancer, a number of surgical management issues are considered, including: (1) total mesorectal excision (TME); (2) autonomic nerve preservation (ANP); (3) circumferential resection margin (CRM); (4) distal resection margin; (5) sphincter preservation and options for restoration of bowel continuity; (6) laparoscopic approaches; and (7) postoperative quality of life. (+info)
Prospective assessment of the impact of feedback on colonoscopy performance.
(29/111)
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is an operator-dependent procedure. The medical literature describes disparity in colonoscopy performance with respect to polyp detection, caecal intubation rates and procedural times. AIM: To assess prospectively the impact of feedback among a large cohort of colonoscopists on three performance parameters: caecal intubation rate, insertion time and withdrawal time. METHOD: In a prospective clinical study, procedural data from all out-patient colonoscopies performed by attending gastroenterologists at our institution were recorded routinely in a computerized database. Enhanced serial feedback was provided on a quarterly basis for three procedure parameters: intubation to caecum, insertion time and withdrawal time. Feedback (absolute value, % rank and group distribution) was sent by email every 3 months beginning with January 2005 feedback for all of 2004, and subsequently quarterly in April 2005 (for January-March 2005), July 2005 (for April-June 2005) and October 2005 (for July-September 2005). RESULTS: Feedback was provided to 58 endoscopists with a median experience level of 8 years. There was a relative decline of 19% in incomplete procedures, with median caecal non-intubation rates decreasing from 4.7% to 3.8% following the introduction of feedback while median insertion times declined from 10.6 to 9.5 mins, P = 0.02. Median withdrawal times did not change significantly, 9.1-8.9 mins, P = 0.6. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback by email appears to improve colonoscopy performance, enhancing completion rates and shortening insertion times without compromising withdrawal times. (+info)
Implementing referral guidelines: lessons from a negative outcome cluster randomised factorial trial in general practice.
(30/111)
BACKGROUND: Few patients with lower bowel symptoms who consult their general practitioner need a specialist opinion. However data from referred patients suggest that those who are referred would benefit from detailed assessment before referral. METHODS: A cluster randomised factorial trial. 44 general practices in North Trent, UK. Practices were offered either an electronic interactive referral pro forma, an educational outreach visit by a local colorectal surgeon, both or neither. The main outcome measure was the proportion of cases with severe diverticular disease, cancer or precancerous lesions and inflammatory bowel disease in those referred by each group. A secondary outcome was a referral letter quality score. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify key themes relating to the use of the software RESULTS: From 150 invitations, 44 practices were recruited with a total list size of 265,707. There were 716 consecutive referrals recorded over a six-month period, for which a diagnosis was available for 514. In the combined software arms 14% (37/261) had significant pathology, compared with 19% (49/253) in the non-software arms, relative risk 0.73 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.15). In the combined educational outreach arms 15% (38/258) had significant pathology compared with 19% (48/256) in the non-educational arms, relative risk 0.79 (95% CI: 0.50 to 1.24). Pro forma practices documented better assessment of patients at referral. CONCLUSION: There was a lack of evidence that either intervention increased the proportion of patients with organic pathology among those referred. The interactive software did improve the amount of information relayed in referral letters although we were unable to confirm if this made a significant difference to patients or their health care providers. The potential value of either intervention may have been diminished by their limited uptake within the context of a cluster randomised clinical trial. A number of lessons were learned in this trial of novel innovations. (+info)
Development of quality indicators for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.
(31/111)
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer type among new cancer diagnoses in the United States. Attention to the quality of surgical care for colorectal cancer is of particular importance given the increasing numbers of colorectal cancer resections performed in the aging population. A National Cancer Institute-sponsored consensus panel produced guidelines for colorectal cancer surgery in 2000. We have updated and extended that work by using a formal process to identify and rate quality indicators as valid for care during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. METHODS: Using a modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology, we carried out structured interviews with leaders in the field of colorectal cancer surgery and systematic reviews of the literature to identify candidate quality indicators addressing perioperative care for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. A panel of 14 colorectal surgeons, general surgeons, and surgical oncologists then evaluated and formally rated the indicators using the modified Delphi method to identify valid indicators. RESULTS: A total of 142 candidate indicators were identified in six broad domains: privileging (which addresses surgical credentials), preoperative evaluation, patient-provider discussions, medication use, intraoperative care, and postoperative management. The expert panel rated 92 indicators as valid. These indicators address all domains of perioperative care for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology can be used to identify and rate indicators of high-quality perioperative care for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. The indicators can be used as quality performance measures and for quality-improvement programs. (+info)
Learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: our first 100 patients.
(32/111)
BACKGROUND: Recent data confirming the oncologic safety of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer as well as its potential benefits will likely motivate more surgeons to perform laparoscopic colorectal surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess factors related to the learning curve of laparoscopic colorectal surgery, such as the number of operations performed, the type of procedures, major complications, and oncologic resections. METHODS: We evaluated the data of our first 100 elective laparoscopic colorectal operations performed during a 2 year period and compared the first 50 cases with the following 50. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 66 years and 49% were males. Indications included cancer, polyps, diverticular disease, Crohn's disease, and others, in 50%, 23%, 13%, 7% and 7% respectively. Mean operative time was 170 minutes. One patient died (massive pulmonary embolism). Significant surgical complications occurred in 10 patients (10%). Hospital stay averaged 8 days. Comparison of the first 50 procedures with the next 50 revealed a significant decrease in major surgical complications (20% vs. 0%). Mean operative time decreased from 180 to 160 minutes and hospital stay from 8.6 to 7.2 days. There was no difference in conversion rate and mean number of harvested nodes in both groups. Residents performed 8% of the operations in the first 50 cases compared with 20% in the second 50 cases. Right colectomies had shorter operative times and fewer conversions. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant decrease in major complications after the first 50 laparoscopic colorectal procedures. Adequate oncologic resections may be achieved early in the learning curve. Right colectomies are less difficult to perform and are recommended as initial procedures. (+info)