| 1. |
- Frontali, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Segmental Colectomy for Ulcerative Colitis: Is There a Place in Selected Patients Without Active Colitis? An International Multicentric Retrospective Study in 72 Patients
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Crohn's & Colitis. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 1873-9946 .- 1876-4479. ; 14:12, s. 1687-1692
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and Aims: The aim of this study was to report a multicentric experience of segmental colectomy [SC] in ulcerative colitis [UC] patients without active colitis, in order to assess if SC can or cannot represent an alternative to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA]. Methods: All UC patients undergoing SC were included. Postoperative complications according to Clavien-Dindos classification, long-term results, and risk factors for postoperative colitis and reoperation for colitis on the remnant colon, were assessed. Results: A total of 72 UC patients underwent: sigmoidectomy [n = 28], right colectomy [n = 24], proctectomy [n = 11], or left colectomy [n = 9] for colonic cancer [n = 27], diverticulitis [n = 17], colonic stenosis [n = 5], dysplasia or polyps [n = 8], and miscellaneous [n = 15]. Three patients died postoperatively and 5/69 patients [7%] developed early flare of UC within 3 months after SC. After a median follow-up of 40 months, 24/ 69 patients [35%] were reoperated after a median delay after SC of 19 months [range, 2-158 months]: 22/24 [92%] underwent total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis [n = 9] or total coloproctectomy [TCP] [n = 13] and 2/24 [8%] an additional SC. Reasons for reoperation were: colitis [n = 14; 20%], cancer [n = 3] or dysplasia [n = 3], colonic stenosis [n = 1], and unknown reasons [n = 3]. Endoscopic score of colitis before SC was Mayo 23 in 5/5 [100%] patients with early flare vs 15/42 without early flare [36%; p = 0.0101] and in 9/12 [75%] patients with reoperation for colitis vs 11/35 without reoperation [31%; p = 0.016]. Conclusions: After segmental colectomy in UC patients, postoperative early colitis is rare [7%]. Segmental colectomy could possibly represent an alternative to IPAA in selected UC patients without active colitis.
|
|
| 2. |
- Martin, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining Major Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Among European Surgical Association (ESA) Members
- 2020
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 44:7, s. 2211-2219
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2020, Société Internationale de Chirurgie. Background: Major surgery is a term frequently used but poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to reach a consensus in the definition of major surgery within a panel of expert surgeons from the European Surgical Association (ESA). Methods: A 3-round Delphi process was performed. All ESA members were invited to participate in the expert panel. In round 1, experts were inquired by open- and closed-ended questions on potential criteria to define major surgery. Results were analyzed and presented back anonymously to the panel within next rounds. Closed-ended questions in round 2 and 3 were either binary or statements to be rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 2-week intervals for each round. 70% of agreement was considered to indicate consensus. Results: Out of 305 ESA members, 67 (22%) answered all the 3 rounds. Significant comorbidities were the only preoperative factor retained to define major surgery (78%). Vascular clampage or organ ischemia (92%), high intraoperative blood loss (90%), high noradrenalin requirements (77%), long operative time (73%) and perioperative blood transfusion (70%) were procedure-related factors that reached consensus. Regarding postoperative factors, systemic inflammatory response (76%) and the need for intensive or intermediate care (88%) reached consensus. Consequences of major surgery were high morbidity (>30% overall) and mortality (>2%). Conclusion: ESA experts defined major surgery according to extent and complexity of the procedure, its pathophysiological consequences and consecutive clinical outcomes.
|
|
