Comparison of J-pouch and coloplasty pouch for low rectal cancers: a randomized, controlled trial investigating functional results and comparative anastomotic leak rates. [Infection prevention in elective large intestine surgery. Results of a prospective randomized comparative study]. Double layer versus single layer intestinal anastomosis: a clinical trial. Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre randomised trial. Early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding improve patients' rehabilitation after colorectostomy. Similar outcome after colonic pouch and side-to-end anastomosis in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Randomized comparison of straight and colonic J pouch anastomosis after low anterior resection. A comparison between open versus laparoscopic assisted colonic pouches for rectal cancer. A prospective, controlled study of prophylactic drainage after colonic anastomoses.
To assess the efficacy of a novel coloplasty colonic pouch design in optimizing bowel function after ultralow anterior resection.
                A colonic J-pouch may reduce excessive stool frequency and incontinence after anterior resection, but at the risk of evacuation problems. Experimental surgery on pigs has suggested that a coloplasty pouch (CP) may be a useful alternative. Although CP has recently been shown to be feasible in patients, there is no randomized controlled trial comparing bowel function with the J-pouch.
                After anterior resection for cancer, patients were allocated to either J-pouch or CP-anal anastomoses. Continence scoring, anorectal manometry, and endoanal ultrasound assessments were made before surgery. All complications were recorded, and these preoperative assessments were repeated at 4 months. The assessments were repeated again at 1 year, and a quality of life questionnaire was added.
                Eighty-eight patients were recruited from October 1998 to April 2000. Both groups were well matched for age, gender, staging, adjuvant therapy, and mean follow-up. There were no differences in the intraoperative time and hospital stay. CP resulted in more anastomotic leaks. At 4 months, J-pouch patients had 10.3% less stool fragmentation but poorer stool deferment and more nocturnal leakage. However, there were no differences in the bowel function, continence score, and quality of life at 1 year. There were no differences in the anorectal manometry and endoanal ultrasound findings.
                Coloplasty pouches resulted in more anastomotic leaks and minimal differences in bowel function. At present, the J-pouch remains the benchmark for routine clinical practice, and due care (including defunctioning stoma) should be exercised in situations requiring CP. In a prospective randomized trial clinical results of orthograde bowel lavage alone (group I) versus combined bowel lavage and parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis with 4 gm Cefoxitin (group II) in two separate dosages (perioperative short-term-prophylaxis) are compared with regard to the reduction of septic complications after colorectal surgery. Septic wound complications were 11/27 = 41% in group I and 2/30 = 7% in group II. The rate of anastomotic leakages was significantly different in the two groups (5/27 in group I, 0 in group II). The monetary costs for given antibiotics and the duration of hospitalization were less in group II. Orthograde bowel lavage alone proved to be of no effect in reducing the rate of septic complications when used without antibiotic perioperative short-term-prophylaxis and therefore cannot be recommended to be used solely. One hundred and seventy two cases requiring bowel resection for various intestinal conditions were randomly selected for use of the double or single layer technique, for the end-to-end anastomosis. It was observed that the return of bowel function was quicker in the single layer group than in the double layer group, and the incidence of anastomotic leakage was lower in the former group. Mechanical bowel preparation is a common practice before elective colorectal surgery. We aimed to compare the rate of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal resections and primary anastomoses between patients who did or did not have mechanical bowel preparation.
                We did a multicentre randomised non-inferiority study at 13 hospitals. We randomly assigned 1431 patients who were going to have elective colorectal surgery to either receive mechanical bowel preparation or not. Patients who did not have mechanical bowel preparation had a normal meal on the day before the operation. Those who did were given a fluid diet, and mechanical bowel preparation with either polyethylene glycol or sodium phosphate. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage, and the study was designed to test the hypothesis that patients who are given mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery do not have a lower risk of anastomotic leakage than those who are not. The median follow-up was 24 days (IQR 17-34). We analysed patients who were treated as per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00288496.
                77 patients were excluded: 46 who did not have a bowel resection; 21 because of missing outcome data; and 10 who withdrew, cancelled, or were excluded for other reasons. The rate of anastomotic leakage did not differ between both groups: 32/670 (4.8%) patients who had mechanical bowel preparation and 37/684 (5.4%) in those who did not (difference 0.6%, 95% CI -1.7% to 2.9%, p=0.69). Patients who had mechanical bowel preparation had fewer abscesses after anastomotic leakage than those who did not (2/670 [0.3%] vs 17/684 [2.5%], p=0.001). Other septic complications, fascia dehiscence, and mortality did not differ between groups.
                We advise that mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery can safely be abandoned. To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding in the patients undergoing surgery for colorectal carcinoma.
                Three hundred and sixteen patients submitted to operations associated with colorectostomy from January 2004 to September 2005 were randomized to two groups: In experimental group (n=161), the nasogastric tube was removed after the operation from 12 to 24 h and was promised immediately oral feeding; In control group (n=155), the nasogastric tube was maintained until the passage of flatus per rectum. Variables assessed included the time to first passage of flatus, the time to first passage of stool, the time elapsed postoperative stay, and postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage, acute dilation of stomach, wound infection and dehiscense, fever, pulmonary infection and pharyngolaryngitis.
                The median and average days to the first passage of flatus (3.0+/-0.9 vs 3.6+/-1.2, P<0.001), the first passage of stool (4.1+/-1.1 vs 4.8+/-1.4, P<0.001) and the length of postoperative stay (8.4+/-3.4 vs 9.6+/-5.0, P<0.05) were shorter in the experimental group than in the control group. The postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage (1.24% vs 2.58%), acute dilation of stomach (1.86% vs 0.06%) and wound complications (2.48% vs 1.94%) were similar in the groups, but fever (3.73% vs 9.68%, P<0.05), pulmonary infection (0.62% vs 4.52%, P<0.05) and pharyngolaryngitis (3.11% vs 23.23%, P<0.001) were much more in the control group than in the experimental group.
                The present study shows that application of gastrointestinal decompression after colorectostomy can not effectively reduce postoperative complications. On the contrary, it may increase the incidence rate of fever, pharyngolaryngitis and pulmonary infection. These strategies of early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding in the patients undergoing colorectostomy are feasible and safe and associated with reduced postoperative discomfort and can accelerate the return of bowel function and improve rehabilitation. To compare a colonic J-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis after low-anterior resection for rectal cancer with regard to functional and surgical outcome.
                A complication after restorative rectal surgery with a straight anastomosis is low-anterior resection syndrome with a postoperatively deteriorated anorectal function. The colonic J-reservoir is sometimes used with the purpose of reducing these symptoms. An alternative method is to use a simple side-to-end anastomosis.
                One-hundred patients with rectal cancer undergoing total mesorectal excision and colo-anal anastomosis were randomized to receive either a colonic pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis using the descending colon. Surgical results and complications were recorded. Patients were followed with a functional evaluation at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.
                Fifty patients were randomized to each group. Patient characteristics in both groups were very similar regarding age, gender, tumor level, and Dukes' stages. A large proportion of the patients received short-term preoperative radiotherapy (78%). There was no significant difference in surgical outcome between the 2 techniques with respect to anastomotic height (4 cm), perioperative blood loss (500 ml), hospital stay (11 days), postoperative complications, reoperations or pelvic sepsis rates. Comparing functional results in the 2 study groups, only the ability to evacuate the bowel in <15 minutes at 6 months reached a significant difference in favor of the pouch procedure.
                The data from this study show that either a colonic J-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis performed on the descending colon in low-anterior resection with total mesorectal excision are methods that can be used with similar expected functional and surgical results. The authors compared clinical bowel function and complications of a low anterior resection with either a straight or colonic J pouch anastomosis.
                Urgency and frequent bowel movements after rectal resection with a low anastomosis have been related to the loss of rectal reservoir function. Reconstruction with a colonic J pouch possibly can obviate some of this dysfunction. Earlier reports have been favorable, but they must be verified in randomized trials.
                One hundred patients with rectal cancer in whom a sphincter-saving procedure was appropriate were randomized to reconstruction with either a straight or a colonic J pouch anastomosis.
                The incidence of symptomatic anastomotic leakage was lower in the pouch group (2% vs. 15%, p = 0.03). Eighty-nine patients could be evaluated after 1 year. The pouch patients had significantly fewer bowel movements per 24 hours, and less nocturnal evacuations, urgency, and incontinence. Overall well-being owing to the bowel function was rated significantly higher by the pouch patients.
                Reconstruction with a colonic J pouch was associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage and better clinical bowel function when compared with the traditional straight anastomosis. Functional superiority was especially evident during the first 2 months. The aim of this prospective study was to compare the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic assisted vs. open ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) with the creation of a colonic pouch-anal anastomosis. Patients undergoing ULAR with creation of a colonic pouch and who either had conventional open (CO) or laparoscopic assisted (LA) surgery in colorectal cancer were studied and compared. There were 33 patients, 22 in CO group and 11 in LA group. The groups were comparable for age, sex, tumour and anastomotic heights from anal verge, stage of disease, length of specimen removed and duration of surgery. Incisions were significantly shorter in the LA group (median, 9 cm vs. 16 cm, p = 0.01). Less parenteral analgesia was required in the LA group (2 days vs. 3 days, p = 0.05), but there were no significant differences in the time to passage of flatus, commencement of oral fluids or solid foods and length of hospital stay. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality. With regards to patients with Dukes A to C disease only, at a median of 12 months of follow-up, there was no patient with local or port site recurrence in the LA group. In the CO group, there was one local recurrence and two with distal metastases. In conclusion, laparoscopic assisted ULAR with colonic J pouch anal anastomosis is feasible, easy to perform and safe. It s advantages include significantly shorter incision and lower analgesic requirements postoperatively. Return of bowel function and length of hospital stay, however, are comparable to those of conventional open surgery. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was designed to study the influence of a corrugated latex drain on anastomotic integrity, wound infection, and respiratory complications after elective colonic resections above the pelvic peritoneum. Sixty patients entered the trial; 28 were drained and 32 undrained. Three patients in the undrained group died soon after surgery of causes unrelated to their colon anastomoses. There were no other differences in the incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups. When an anastomosis leaked, neither feces nor pus emerged via the drain. It is concluded that while the drains did not increase the incidence of postoperative complications, neither did they accomplish the purpose for which they were inserted. If, in addition, the economic cost of drainage is considered, it would seem that there is no advantage in inserting prophylactic drains after colonic anastomoses and their routine use needs to be reconsidered.
SGIA can be performed quicker as compared to double layer GIA. SGIA is comparable to DGIA in terms of anastomotic leak, peri-operative complications, mortality and hospital stay. SGIA may routinely be used for GIA following bowel resection. However, since this conclusion is derived from smaller number of patients recruited in relatively moderate quality trials, further trials should be aimed to reduce the limitations of this review.