Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_538_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Editors
- •Authors
- •Anal Canal Epithelium
- •External Anal Sphincter
- •Hemorrhoids
- •Perineal Body
- •Pelvic Floor Muscles
- •Puborectalis Muscle
- •Iliococcygeus Muscle
- •Pubococcygeus Muscle
- •Mesorectum
- •Presacral Fascia
- •Retrosacral Fascia
- •Waldeyer’s Fascia
- •Denonvilliers’ Fascia
- •Lateral Ligaments
- •Anorectal Spaces
- •Perianal Space
- •Intersphincteric Space
- •Submucous Space
- •Ischioanal/Ischiorectal Space
- •Supralevator Space
- •Retrorectal Space
- •Internal Anal Sphincter
- •Conjoined Longitudinal Muscle
- •Rectal Blood Supply
- •Superior Rectal Artery
- •Middle Rectal Artery
- •Inferior Rectal Artery
- •Cecum
- •The Appendix
- •Ascending Colon
- •Transverse Colon
- •Descending Colon
- •Sigmoid Colon
- •Rectosigmoid Junction
- •Blood Supply
- •Superior Mesenteric Artery
- •Inferior Mesenteric Artery
- •Venous Drainage
- •Lymphatic Drainage
- •Nervous Innervation
- •Embryology
- •Midgut Rotation
- •Non-rotation
- •Malrotation
- •Reversed Rotation
- •Omphalocele
- •Internal Hernias
- •Proximal Colon Duplication
- •Meckel’s Diverticulum
- •Hirschsprung’s Disease
- •Anorectal Malformations
- •Anal Stenosis
- •Membranous Atresia
- •Anal Agenesis
- •Anorectal Agenesis
- •Rectal Atresia or “High Atresia”
- •Persistent Cloaca
- •References
- •2: Colonic Physiology
- •Embryology
- •Colonic Anatomy
- •Introduction
- •Colonic Wall Anatomy
- •Epithelial Types
- •Sodium
- •Potassium
- •Aldosterone
- •Short-Chain Fatty Acid Absorption
- •Vitamin K Absorption
- •Colonic Innervation
- •Pain
- •Colonic Motility
- •Microbiome
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •3: Anorectal Physiology
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Physiology
- •Normal Continence
- •Patient Positioning
- •Digital Rectal Examination
- •Anoscopy
- •Proctoscopy
- •Endoanal/Endorectal Ultrasound
- •Normal Defecation
- •Physiologic Testing
- •Anal Manometry
- •Pudendal Nerve Terminal Motor Latency
- •Defecography
- •Functional Anorectal Disorders
- •Fecal Incontinence
- •Anorectal Pain
- •Urogynecological Considerations
- •References
- •4: Endoscopy
- •Introduction
- •Anorectal Examination
- •Flexible Endoscopy Techniques
- •Torque
- •Dithering/Jiggle
- •Air Aspiration
- •Slide-By
- •Flexible Sigmoidoscopy
- •Colonoscopy
- •Bowel Preparation
- •Special Considerations
- •Anticoagulated Patient
- •Sedation
- •Instrumentation
- •Colonoscopy Technique
- •Alternative Techniques
- •Chromoendoscopy
- •Narrow Band Imaging
- •Full-Spectrum Endoscopy
- •Changing Patient Position
- •Abdominal Pressure
- •Incomplete Colonoscopy
- •Complications
- •Procedural Complications
- •Perforation
- •Bleeding
- •Post-polypectomy Syndrome
- •Splenic Injury
- •Infectious Complications
- •The Endoscopy Unit
- •Endoscope Processing
- •Quality Measures
- •Withdrawal Time
- •Adenoma Detection Rate
- •Leasing vs Purchasing Endoscopy Equipment
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Forceps
- •Snare
- •Lifting
- •Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
- •Clip
- •Underwater EMR
- •Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
- •ESD Complications
- •ESD Technique
- •Postoperative Care
- •Endoscopic Suturing
- •Stabilization Platforms
- •Colonic Stenting
- •Stenting Technique
- •Stenting Anastomotic Leaks
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Abdominal Surgery
- •Anorectal Surgery
- •Preoperative Testing
- •Laboratory Studies
- •Electrocardiogram
- •Chest X-Ray
- •Advanced Diagnostic Imaging
- •Cardiac Evaluation
- •Initial Workup
- •Additional Testing
- •Preoperative Anticoagulation
- •Coronary Stent Management
- •Bridging
- •AICD/Management
- •Pulmonary Assessment
- •Perioperative Steroid Management
- •Diabetes
- •Obesity
- •Malnutrition
- •Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
- •Substance Abuse
- •Alcohol
- •Tobacco
- •Opioids
- •Other Illicit Drugs
- •Immunosuppressive Agents
- •Assessing Frailty
- •Complete Geriatric Assessment
- •Frailty Scores
- •Prehabilitation
- •Exercise
- •Nutrition
- •Psychosocial Therapy
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Enhanced Recovery Models
- •Education
- •Preoperative Optimization
- •Smoking Cessation
- •Preoperative Nutrition
- •Preoperative Anemia
- •Perioperative Hyperglycemia
- •Bowel Preparation
- •In-hospital Preoperative Enhanced Recovery Elements
- •Multimodal Analgesia (MMA)
- •Intraoperative Enhanced Recovery Elements
- •Multimodal Analgesia
- •Intentional Fluid Management
- •Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches
- •Postoperative Enhanced Recovery
- •Multimodal Analgesia
- •Standard Discharge Criteria
- •Future Directions
- •Summary
- •References
- •8: General Postoperative Complications
- •Introduction
- •Risk Factors
- •Morbidities
- •Nutrition
- •Smoking
- •Preoperative Anemia
- •Sarcopenia
- •Obesity
- •Functional Exercise Capacity
- •Open Surgical Approach
- •Assessing Risk Factors
- •Addressing Risk Factors
- •Postoperative Complications
- •Gastrointestinal Complications (#1)
- •Ileus (Functional Bowel Obstruction)
- •Postoperative Small Bowel Obstruction (Mechanical Bowel Obstruction)
- •Hematologic Complications (#2)
- •Venous Thromboembolism
- •Infectious Complications (#3)
- •Surgical Site Infection (SSI)
- •Anastomotic Leaks
- •Wound Dehiscence
- •Other Infectious Complications
- •Pulmonary Complications (#4)
- •Postoperative Respiratory Failure
- •Pneumonia
- •Pulmonary Aspiration
- •Renal Complications (#5)
- •Acute Kidney Injury
- •Postoperative Urinary Retention
- •Cardiac Complications (#6)
- •Myocardial Infarction
- •Dysrhythmias
- •Neurological Complications (#7)
- •Perioperative Cerebrovascular Accidents
- •Sexual Dysfunction
- •Postoperative Delirium
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •9: Anastomotic Construction
- •Introduction
- •Operative Planning
- •Mobilization
- •Small Bowel Mobilization
- •Colonic Mobilization
- •Splenic Flexure Mobilization
- •Special Mobilization Techniques
- •Retroileal Anastomosis or Ileal Mesenteric Window
- •Right Colon De-Rotation (Deloyer’s Procedure)
- •Perfusion
- •Low Pelvic Anastomosis
- •Sutured Anastomosis
- •Stapled Anastomosis
- •Compression Ring Anastomosis
- •References
- •10: Anastomotic Complications
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Risk Factors
- •Diagnosis
- •Outcomes After Anastomotic Leak
- •Anastomotic Fistula
- •Blind Loop Syndrome
- •Anastomotic Bleeding
- •Anastomotic Stricture
- •References
- •Anal Fissure
- •Medical/Pharmaceutical Treatment
- •Topical Agents
- •Botulinum Toxin Injection
- •Operative Treatment
- •Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy (LIS)
- •Technique
- •Outcomes
- •Local Advancement Flaps
- •Atypical Fissures
- •Anal Fissure, Conclusion
- •Anal Stenosis
- •Symptoms
- •Evaluation
- •Treatment
- •Nonoperative Treatment
- •Surgical Treatment
- •Rectal Advancement Flap
- •Y-V Advancement Flap
- •V-Y Advancement Flap
- •Diamond (Rhomboid) Flap
- •House Flap
- •U Flap (Island Flap Anoplasty)
- •Rotational S Flap
- •Technical Aspects
- •Flap Aftercare
- •Prevention
- •Anal Stenosis, Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Cryptoglandular Pathophysiology
- •Cryptoglandular Abscess
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Acute Fistula Management
- •Post-drainage Care
- •Post-drainage Antibiotics
- •Anal Fistula
- •Presentation/Symptoms
- •Fistulography
- •Computed Tomography (CT)
- •Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
- •Endoanal Ultrasound (EAUS)
- •Treatment Strategies
- •Fistulotomy
- •Setons
- •Draining Seton
- •Cutting Seton
- •Fibrin Glue
- •Fistula Plug
- •Endorectal Advancement Flap (ERAF)
- •Novel Surgical Therapies
- •Fistula Tract Laser Closure (FiLaC™)
- •Video-Assisted Anal Fistula Treatment (VAAFT)
- •Stem Cell Therapy
- •Recommendation
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Etiology
- •Clinical Presentation
- •Diagnostic Evaluation
- •Transanal Approach
- •Transperineal Approach
- •Posterior Approach
- •Transabdominal Approach
- •Other Approaches
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •15: Rectovaginal Fistula
- •Obstetrical
- •Crohn’s Disease
- •Cryptoglandular
- •Radiation Injury
- •Surgical Techniques
- •Perineal Approach
- •Episioproctotomy
- •Transverse Perineal Repair
- •Transrectal Approaches
- •Rectal Sleeve Advancement
- •Vaginal Approach
- •Tissue Transposition Repairs
- •Bioprosthetic Products
- •Abdominal Approaches
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Pilonidal Disease
- •Introduction
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Managing Patient Expectations
- •Nonsurgical Treatment
- •Antibiotics
- •Phenol
- •Fibrin Glue
- •Surgical Treatments
- •Complex Surgical Treatment
- •Karydakis Flap
- •Rhomboid Flap (aka Limberg Flap)
- •Cleft Lift Flap (Bascom Procedure)
- •Minimally Invasive Treatments
- •Trephination
- •Wound Healing Adjuncts
- •Hidradenitis Suppurativa
- •Introduction
- •Treatment
- •Medical Therapy
- •Topical Therapy
- •Systemic Antibiotics
- •Biologics
- •Other Medical Therapies
- •Laser Therapies
- •Surgery
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Pathophysiology
- •Etiology
- •Fecal Soilage
- •Dermatologic Diseases
- •Diagnostic Approach
- •Laboratory Testing
- •Treatment
- •First Encounter
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Anorectal Immunology
- •Asymptomatic
- •Symptomatic
- •Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections
- •Chlamydia
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Lymphogranuloma Venereum
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Gonorrhea
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Syphilis
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Chancroid
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Donovanosis
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Herpes Simplex Virus
- •Genital Warts
- •Giant Condyloma
- •Molluscum Contagiosum
- •Ectoparasitic Sexually Transmitted Diseases
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •19: Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia
- •Introduction
- •Incidence
- •Epidemiology
- •Progression
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Expectant Management
- •Topical Therapies
- •Trichloroacetic Acid (TCA)
- •5-Flurorouracil (5FU)
- •Cidofovir
- •Imiquimod
- •Local Ablative Therapies
- •Wide Local Excision
- •Treatment Summary
- •Surveillance/Prevention
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •20: Anal Cancer
- •Physical Examination
- •Radiologic Evaluation
- •Anal Anatomy
- •Perianal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
- •Anal Canal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
- •Chemotherapy
- •Radiation Therapy
- •Inguinal Lymph Node Metastases
- •Surgery
- •Surveillance
- •Anal Adenocarcinoma
- •Verrucous Carcinoma
- •Melanoma
- •Perianal Paget’s Disease (Intraepithelial Adenocarcinoma)
- •Basal Cell Carcinoma
- •Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (GIST)
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •21: Presacral Tumors
- •Introduction
- •Anatomic Considerations
- •Clinical Presentations
- •Physical Examination
- •Imaging Studies
- •Preoperative Biopsy
- •Tailgut Cysts
- •Enterogenous Cysts
- •Teratomas
- •Chordomas
- •Meningoceles
- •Neurogenic Tumors
- •Osseous Tumors
- •Miscellaneous Lesions
- •Currarino Syndrome
- •Management
- •Multidisciplinary Team
- •Neoadjuvant Therapy
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Surgical Approach
- •Posterior Approach
- •Minimally Invasive Approaches
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Sporadic Versus Inherited Colorectal Cancer
- •Sporadic Colorectal Cancer
- •Mutations
- •Chromosomal Alterations
- •Right vs. Left CRC
- •Young Onset CRC
- •Epidemiology
- •Management
- •Inherited CRC
- •Lynch Syndrome (Hereditary Non-polyposis CRC)
- •Genetic Mutation
- •Lynch Syndrome Variants
- •Turcot Syndrome
- •Muir-Torre Syndrome
- •Familial CRC X
- •Screening Recommendations
- •Surgical Treatment
- •Medical Treatment
- •POLE/POLD1-Related Hereditary Cancer
- •Familial Adenomatous Polyposis
- •Genetic Mutations
- •Extracolonic Manifestations
- •Screening Recommendations
- •Attenuated FAP
- •Gardner Syndrome
- •Surgical Treatment
- •MUTYH-Associated Polyposis
- •Serrated Polyposis Syndrome
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Hamartomatous Polyposis Syndromes
- •Juvenile Polyposis
- •Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome
- •Cowden Syndrome
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Overview
- •Colorectal Cancer Precursor Lesions
- •Adenomas
- •Serrated Polyps
- •Colorectal Cancer Carcinogenic Pathways
- •Adenoma-Carcinoma Pathway
- •Serrated Pathway
- •Lesion Assessment
- •Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) Technique
- •Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Technique
- •Recurrence Following Endoscopic Resection
- •Surveillance After Endoscopic Resection
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Fecal Sampling
- •Flexible Sigmoidoscopy
- •Computed Tomography (CT) Colonography
- •Colonoscopy
- •Delineating Colon Versus Rectum
- •TNM Staging
- •History
- •Physical Examination
- •Proctoscopy
- •Colonoscopy
- •Tumor Localization
- •Blood Work
- •Imaging
- •Computed Tomography (CT) Scan
- •PET-CT
- •Endorectal Ultrasound
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Pathologic Features: Pre-Resection
- •Lymphovascular Invasion (LVI)
- •Perineural Invasion (PNI)
- •Tumor Budding
- •Tumor Grade
- •Histologic Type
- •Pathologic Factors: Post-Resection
- •Extranodal Tumor Deposits
- •Mesorectal Grade
- •Tumor Regression Score
- •Clinical or Imaging-Based Factors
- •Extramural Vascular Invasion (EMVI)
- •Circumferential Radial Margin (CRM) Status
- •Tumor Location
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Tumor Localization
- •General Surgical Principles
- •No-Touch Technique
- •Lymphadenectomy
- •Mesocolic Excision
- •Adjacent Tissue or Organ Invasion
- •Technical Aspects
- •Hepatic Flexure Colon Cancer
- •Technical Aspects
- •Transverse Colon Cancer
- •Technical Aspects
- •Technical Aspects
- •Sigmoid Colon Cancer
- •Technical Aspects
- •Special Circumstances
- •References
- •26: Rectal Cancer: Neoadjuvant Therapy
- •Introduction
- •Rectal Cancer Staging
- •Adjuvant Radiation
- •Neoadjuvant Radiation
- •The Foundation Trials
- •Short- vs Long-Course Radiation
- •Total Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy (TNT)
- •Rationale
- •Systemic Chemotherapy Alone
- •Pathologic Complete Response
- •Consolidation vs Induction Chemotherapy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •27: Rectal Cancer: Local Excision
- •Introduction
- •Patient Selection
- •T1N0
- •Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis
- •Tumor Budding
- •Techniques
- •Transanal Excision
- •Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery
- •Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS)
- •Complications
- •Oncologic Results
- •T1 Cancer
- •T2 Cancer
- •Salvage Surgery
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •28: Rectal Cancer: Nonoperative Management
- •Introduction
- •Rationale
- •Accidental Versus Intentional WW
- •Baseline Stage
- •Tumor Location
- •Endoscopic Features
- •Radiological Studies

7 Optimizing Outcomes withEnhanced Recovery
137
(POET). Rationalization, development, and implementation
of a preoperative diabetes optimization program designed to
improve perioperative outcomes and reduce cost. Diabetes Spectr.
2017;30(3):217–23.
31. Evans C, Lee J, Ruhlman M.Optimal glucose management in the
perioperative period. Surg Clin N Am. 2015;95(2):337–54.
32. Ljungqvist O, Thorell A, Gutniak M, Häggmark T, Efendic
S.Glucose infusion instead of preoperative fasting reduces postoperative insulin resistance. J Am Coll Surg. 1994;178(4):329–36.
33. Shi M, Hu Z, Yang D, Cai Q, Zhu Z. Preoperative oral carbohydrate reduces postoperative insulin resistance by activating
AMP-activated protein kinase after colorectal surgery. Dig Surg.
2020;10:1–8.
34. Practice Guidelines for Preoperative Fasting and the Use
of Pharmacologic Agents to Reduce the Risk of Pulmonary
Aspiration: Application to Healthy Patients Undergoing Elective
Procedures: An Updated Report by the American Society of
Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preoperative Fasting and the
Use of Pharmacologic Agents to Reduce the Risk of Pulmonary
Aspiration. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(3):376–93.
35. Migaly J, Bafford A, Francone T, Gaertner W, Eskicioglu C,
Bordeianou L, Feingold D, Steele S. The American Society of
Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the
Use of Bowel Preparation in Elective Colon and Rectal Surgery.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62(1):3–8.
36. Gan TJ, Diemunsch P, Habib AS, Kovac A, Kranke P, Meyer TA,
Watcha M, Chung F, Angus S, Apfel CC, Bergese SD, Candiotti
KA, Chan MT, Davis PJ, Hooper VD, Lagoo-Deenadayalan S,
Myles P, Nezat G, Philip BK, Tramèr MR, Society for Ambulatory
Anesthesia. Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 2014;118(1):85–113.
37. Tateosian V, Champagne K, Gan TJ. What is new in the battle against postoperative nausea and vomiting? Clin Anesth.
2018;32(2):137–48.
38. Scott MJ, McEvoy MD, Gordon DB, Grant SA, Thacker JKM,
Wu CL, Gan TJ, Mythen MG, Shaw AD, Miller TE, Perioperative
Quality Initiative (POQI) I Workgroup. American Society for
Enhanced Recovery (ASER) and Perioperative Quality Initiative
(POQI) Joint Consensus Statement on Optimal Analgesia within
an Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Colorectal Surgery: Part
2-From PACU to the Transition Home. Perioper Med (Lond).
2017;6:–7.
39. Barletta JF, Asgeirsson T, Senagore AJ. Inuence of intravenous opioid dose on postoperative ileus. Ann Pharmacother.
2011;45(7–8):916–23.
40. Kooij F, Schlack W, Preckel B, Hollmann M.Does regional analgesia for major surgery improve outcome? Focus on epidural analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2014;119(3):740–4.
41. Pöpping DM, Elia N, Van Aken HK, Marret E, Schug SA,
Kranke P, Wenk M, Tramèr MR.Impact of epidural analgesia
on mortality and morbidity after surgery: systematic review
and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg.
2014;259(6):1056–67.
42. Allen BFS, Jablonski PM, McEvoy MD, Ehrenfeld JM, Shi H,
King AB, Wanderer JP.Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery
Protocol (ERP) is associated with an increase in the perioperative
use of non-opioid multimodal analgesia for non-ERP patients. J
Clin Anesth. 2020;62:109694.
43. Weibel S, Jelting Y, Pace NL, Helf A, Eberhart LH, Hahnenkamp
K, Hollmann MW, Poepping DM, Schnabel A, Kranke
P. Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for
postoperative pain and recovery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev. 2018;6:CD009642.
44. Myles PS, Bellomo R, Corcoran T, Forbes A, Peyton P, Story D,
Christophi C, Leslie K, McGuinness S, Parke R, Serpell J, Chan
MTV, Painter T, McCluskey S, Minto G, Wallace S, Australian and
New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Clinical Trials Network and
the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical
Trials Group. Restrictive versus liberal uid therapy for major
abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(24):2263–74.
45. Brandstrup B. Finding the right balance. N Engl J Med.
2018;378:2335–6.
46. Grass F, Lovely JK, Crippa J, Hübner M, Mathis KL, Larson
DW. Potential association between perioperative uid management and occurrence of postoperative ileus. Dis Colon Rectum.
2020;63(1):68–74.
47. Brandstrup B, Beier-Holgersen R, Iversen LH, Starup CB, Wentzel
LN, Lindorff-Larsen K, Petersen TC, Tønnesen H.The inuence
of perioperative uid therapy on N-terminal-pro-brain natriuretic
peptide and the Association with Heart and Lung Complications
in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: Secondary Results of
a Clinical Randomized Assessor-blinded Multicenter Trial. Ann
Surg. 2020;272(6):941–9.
48. Tolstrup J, Brandstrup B. Clinical assessment of uid balance
is incomplete for colorectal surgical patients. Scand J Surg.
2015;104(3):161–8.
49. Voldby AW, Brandstrup B.Fluid therapy in the perioperative setting- a clinical review. J Intensive Care. 2016;4:27.
50. Vlug MS, Bartels SA, Wind J, Ubbink DT, Hollmann MW,
Bemelman WA, Collaborative LAFA Study Group. Which fast
track elements predict early recovery after colon cancer surgery?
Color Dis. 2012;14(8):1001–8.
51. Nelson R, Edwards S, Tse B.Prophylactic nasogastric decompression after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2007;3:CD004929.
52. Podda M, Di Saverio S, Davies RJ, Atzeni J, Balestra F, Virdis
F, Reccia I, Jayant K, Agresta F, Pisanu A. Prophylactic intraabdominal drainage following colorectal anastomoses. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am
J Surg. 2020;219(1):164–74.
53. Aarts MA, Rotstein OD, Pearsall EA, Victor JC, Okrainec A,
McKenzie M, McCluskey SA, Conn LG, RS ML, iERAS group.
Postoperative ERAS interventions have the greatest impact on
optimal recovery: experience with implementation of ERAS
across multiple hospitals. Ann Surg. 2018;267(6):992–7.
54. Lau C, Phillips E, Bresee C, Fleshner P.Early use of low residue
diet is superior to clear liquid diet after elective colorectal surgery:
a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260(4):641–7. discussion 647-9
55. Chough I, Zaghiyan K, Ovsepyan G, Fleshner P.Practice changes
in postoperative feeding after elective colorectal surgery: from
prospective randomized study to everyday practice. Am Surg.
2018;84(10):1675–8.
56. Fiore JF Jr, Bialocerkowski A, Browning L, Faragher IG, Denehy
L.Criteria to determine readiness for hospital discharge following
colorectal surgery: an international consensus using the Delphi
technique. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(4):416–23.
57. Balvardi S, Pecorelli N, Castelino T, Niculiseanu P, Liberman AS,
Charlebois P, Stein B, Carli F, Mayo NE, Feldman LS, Fiore JF
Jr. Measuring in-hospital recovery after colorectal surgery within
a well-established enhanced recovery pathway: a comparison
between hospital length of stay and time to readiness for discharge. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(7):854–60.
58. Cartmell MT, Jones OM, Moran BJ, Cecil TD. A defunctioning
stoma signicantly prolongs the length of stay in laparoscopic
colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(12):2643–7.
59. Munk-Madsen P, Eriksen JR, Kehlet H, Gogenur I.Why still in
hospital after laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced
recovery programme? Color Dis. 2019;21(12):1438–44.
60. Forsmo HM, Pfeffer F, Rasdal A, Sintonen H, Korner H, Erichsen
C. Pre- and postoperative stoma education and guidance within
an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme reduces

138
J. Thacker and N. Morin
length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery. Int J Surg. 2016;36(Pt
A):121–6.
61. Younis J, Salerno G, Fanto D, Hadjipavlou M, Chellar D, Trickett
JP.Focused preoperative patient stoma education, prior to ileostomy formation after anterior resection, contributes to a reduction
in delayed discharge within the enhanced recovery programme.
Int J Color Dis. 2012;27(1):43–7.
62. Chaudhri S, Brown L, Hassan I, Horgan AF.Preoperative intensive, community-based vs. traditional stoma education: a randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(3):504–9.
63. Hughes MJ, Cunningham W, Yalamarthi S.The effect of preoperative stoma training for patients undergoing colorectal surgery
in an enhanced recovery programme. Ann R Coll Surg Engl.
2019:1–5.
64. Hignett S, Parmar CD, Lewis W, Makin CA, Walsh CJ.Ileostomy
formation does not prolong hospital length of stay after open
anterior resection when performed within an enhanced recovery
programme. Color Dis. 2011;13(10):1180–3.
65. Miller D, Pearsall E, Johnston D, Frecea M, McKenzie
M. Executive summary: enhanced recovery after surgery: best
practice guideline for care of patients with a fecal diversion. J
Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2017;44(1):74–7.
66. Lohsiriwat V, Jitmungngan R. Enhanced recovery after surgery
in emergency colorectal surgery: review of literature and current
practices. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;11(2):41–52.
67. Lohsiriwat V. Enhanced recovery after surgery vs conventional
care in emergency colorectal surgery. World J Gastroenterol.
2014;20(38):13950–5.
68. Wisely JC, Barclay KL.Effects of an Enhanced Recovery After
Surgery programme on emergency surgical patients. ANZ J Surg.
2016;86(11):883–8.
69. Shida D, Tagawa K, Inada K, etal. Modied enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for patients with obstructive
colorectal cancer. BMC Surg. 2017;17(1):18.
70. Shang Y, Guo C, Zhang D. Modied enhanced recovery after
surgery protocols are benecial for postoperative recovery for
patients undergoing emergency surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Medicine
(Baltimore). 2018;97(39):e12348.
71. Verheijen PM, Vd Ven AW, Davids PH, Vd Wall BJ, Pronk
A.Feasibility of enhanced recovery programme in various patient
groups. Int J Color Dis. 2012;27(4):507–11.
72. Roulin D, Blanc C, Muradbegovic M, Hahnloser D, Demartines
N, Hubner M.Enhanced recovery pathway for urgent colectomy.
World J Surg. 2014;38(8):2153–9.
73. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Bill V, Satyadas T. Meta-analysis
of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols in emergency abdominal surgery. World J Surg. 2020;
74. Lee GC, Hodin RA. Applying enhanced recovery pathways to unique patient populations. Clin Colon Rectal Surg.
2019;32(2):134–7.
75. Bagnall NM, Malietzis G, Kennedy RH, Athanasiou T,
Faiz O, Darzi A. A systematic review of enhanced recovery
care after colorectal surgery in elderly patients. Color Dis.
2014;16(12):947–56.
76. Rumstadt B, Guenther N, Wendling P, etal. Multimodal perioperative rehabilitation for colonic surgery in the elderly. World J
Surg. 2009;33(8):1757–63.
77. Feroci F, Lenzi E, Baraghini M, et al. Fast-track surgery in real
life: how patient factors inuence outcomes and compliance with
an enhanced recovery clinical pathway after colorectal surgery.
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013;23(3):259–65.
78. Forsmo HM, Erichsen C, Rasdal A, Korner H, Pfeffer F.Enhanced
Recovery After Colorectal Surgery (ERAS) in elderly patients
is feasible and achieves similar results as in younger patients.
Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2017;3:2333721417706299.
79. Slieker J, Frauche P, Jurt J, etal. Enhanced recovery ERAS for
elderly: a safe and benecial pathway in colorectal surgery. Int J
Color Dis. 2017;32(2):215–21.
80. Baek SJ, Kim SH, Kim SY, Shin JW, Kwak JM, Kim J.The safety
of a “fast-track” program after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is
comparable in older patients as in younger patients. Surg Endosc.
2013;27(4):1225–32.
81. Owodunni OP, Hampton J, Bettick D, etal. High compliance to an
enhanced recovery pathway for patients >/=65 years undergoing
major small and large intestinal surgery is associated with improved
postoperative outcomes. Ann Surg. 2019;270(6):1117–23.
82. Depalma N, Cassini D, Grieco M, etal. Feasibility of a tailored
ERAS programme in octogenarian patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer. Aging Clin Exp Res.
2020;32(2):265–73.
83. Ban KA, Berian JR, Ko CY.Does implementation of enhanced
recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in colorectal surgery improve patient outcomes? Clin Colon Rectal Surg.
2019;32(2):109–13.
84. Dai X, Ge X, Yang J, etal. Increased incidence of prolonged ileus
after colectomy for inammatory bowel diseases under ERAS
protocol: a cohort analysis. J Surg Res. 2017;212:86–93.
85. D'Andrea AP, Khetan P, Miller R, Sylla P, Divino CM.Outcomes
after bowel resection for inammatory bowel disease in the era of
surgical care bundles and enhanced recovery. J Gastrointest Surg.
2020;24(1):123–31.
86. Joliat GR, Hubner M, Roulin D, Demartines N. Cost analysis of
enhanced recovery programs in colorectal, pancreatic, and hepatic
surgery: a systematic review. World J Surg. 2019;
87. Lee L, Li C, Landry T, etal. A systematic review of economic
evaluations of enhanced recovery pathways for colorectal surgery.
Ann Surg. 2014;259(4):670–6.
88. Lemanu DP, Singh PP, Stowers MD, Hill AG. A systematic review to assess cost effectiveness of enhanced recovery
after surgery programmes in colorectal surgery. Color Dis.
2014;16(5):338–46.
89. Greco M, Capretti G, Beretta L, Gemma M, Pecorelli N,
Braga M. Enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery: a
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg.
2014;38(6):1531–41.
90. Roulin D, Donadini A, Gander S, etal. Cost-effectiveness of the
implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal
surgery. Br J Surg. 2013;100(8):1108–14.
91. Lee L, Feldman LS.Enhanced recovery after surgery: economic
impact and value. Surg Clin North Am. 2018;98(6):1137–48.
92. Stone AB, Grant MC, Wu CL, Wick EC.Enhanced recovery after
surgery for colorectal surgery: a review of the economic implications. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2019;32(2):129–33.
93. Joliat GR, Ljungqvist O, Wasylak T, Peters O, Demartines
N. Beyond surgery: clinical and economic impact of Enhanced
Recovery After Surgery programs. BMC Health Serv Res.
2018;18(1):1008.
94. Sikka R, Morath JM, Leape L.The Quadruple Aim: care, health,
cost and meaning in work. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(10):608–10.
95. Khan S, Wilson T, Ahmed J, Owais A, MacFie J.Quality of life
and patient satisfaction with enhanced recovery protocols. Color
Dis. 2010;12(12):1175–82.
96. Hughes M, Coolsen MM, Aahlin EK, etal. Attitudes of patients
and care providers to enhanced recovery after surgery programs
after major abdominal surgery. J Surg Res. 2015;193(1):102–10.
97. Li D, Jensen CC. Patient satisfaction and quality of life
with enhanced recovery protocols. Clin Colon Rectal Surg.
2019;32(2):138–44.
98. Thacker J.Overview of enhanced recovery after surgery: the evolution and adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery in North
America. Surg Clin North Am. 2018;98(6):1109–17.

7 Optimizing Outcomes withEnhanced Recovery
139
99. Pearsall EA, Meghji Z, Pitzul KB, etal. A qualitative study
to understand the barriers and enablers in implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery program. Ann Surg.
2015;261(1):92–6.
100. Abeles A, Kwasnicki RM, Darzi A. Enhanced recovery after
surgery: current research insights and future direction. World J
Gastrointest Surg. 2017;9(2):37–45.
101. Tanious MK, Ljungqvist O, Urman RD.Enhanced recovery after
surgery: history, evolution, guidelines, and future directions. Int
Anesthesiol Clin. 2017;55(4):1–11.
102. Joshi GP, Kehlet H.Enhanced recovery pathways: looking into the
future. Anesth Analg. 2019;128(1):5–7.
103. Currie A, Soop M, Demartines N, Fearon K, Kennedy R,
Ljungqvist O.Enhanced recovery after surgery interactive audit
system: 10 years’ experience with an international web-based
clinical and research perioperative care database. Clin Colon
Rectal Surg. 2019;32(1):75–81.
104. Aziz O, Atallah L, Lo B, etal. Ear-worn body sensor network
device: an objective tool for functional postoperative home recovery monitoring. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(2):156–9.
105. Dobkin BH, Dorsch A. The promise of mHealth: daily activity monitoring and outcome assessments by wearable sensors.
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(9):788–98.
106. Appelboom G, Camacho E, Abraham ME, etal. Smart wearable
body sensors for patient self-assessment and monitoring. Arch
Public Health. 2014;72(1):28.
107. Alam R, Figueiredo SM, Balvardi S, et al. Development of a
patient-reported outcome measure of recovery after abdominal
surgery: a hypothesized conceptual framework. Surg Endosc.
2018;32(12):4874–85.
108. Fiore JF Jr, Feldman LS.Tracking postoperative recovery-making
a case for smartphone technology. JAMA Surg. 2019;28:28.
109. Williams AM, Bhatti UF, Alam HB, Nikolian VC.The role of telemedicine in postoperative care. mHealth. 2018;4:11.
110. Asiri A, AlBishi S, AlMadani W, ElMetwally A, Househ M.The
use of telemedicine in surgical care: a systematic review. Acta
Inform Med. 2018;26(3):201–6.
111. Borsuk DJ, AL-Khamis A, Geiser AJ, et al. S128: active post
discharge surveillance program as a part of Enhanced Recovery
After Surgery protocol decreases emergency department visits and readmissions in colorectal patients. Surg Endosc.
2019;33(11):3816–27.
112. Mandel JC, Kreda DA, Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Ramoni
RB. SMART on FHIR: a standards-based, interoperable apps
platform for electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc.
2016;23(5):899–908.

General Postoperative Complications
DanielI.Chu andDavidJ.Maron
8
Key Concepts
• Complications following colorectal surgery are not infrequent, making recognition and treatment an important
component of the care of postoperative patients.
• Assessment of risk factors (particularly modiable factors) can help to estimate and reduce the risk of postoperative complications.
• Gastrointestinal complications are the most frequent complications after major abdominal operations and range from
minor nausea/vomiting to ileus and bowel obstruction.
• Postoperative bleeding and transfusions are the second
most common complication following colorectal surgery,
and additional complications such as venous thromboembolism can have major impacts on patients and healthcare
systems.
• Infectious complications following colorectal surgery
include surgical site infections (SSIs) – which include
both incisional and organ space infections, as well as
postoperative urinary tract infections and pseudomembranous colitis.
• Pulmonary complications in colorectal surgical patients
include pneumonia, aspiration, and postoperative respiratory failure requiring prolonged ventilation.
Introduction
Every operation carries inherent risks for postoperative complications, and the eld of colorectal surgery is certainly no
different. Colorectal operations account for nearly 25% of all
D. I. Chu
University of Alabama at Birmingham, University Hospital,
Department of General Surgery-Gastrointestinal Division,
Birmingham, AL, USA
D. J. Maron (
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Department of Colorectal Surgery,
Weston, FL, USA
e-mail: marond@ccf.org
*)
complications in general surgery [1] and have reported complication rates exceeding 35% [2, 3]. A query of data from
the 2012 to 2017 American College of Surgeons National
Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP)
Procedure Targeted Colectomy database shows that the most
frequent postoperative complication is ileus followed by
bleeding and surgical site infections (Table8.1). Less common complications include myocardial infarctions, pulmonary embolisms, and strokes (Table 8.1). While agencies
such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) view complications such as venous thromboembolism as key performance measures, it is increasingly clear
that colorectal-specic complications such as ileus and anastomotic leaks have signicant impacts on patients, providers,
and healthcare systems [4]. It is therefore critical for colorectal surgeons to be able to recognize, understand, and manage
a diverse set of complications as they will happen.
Several classication schemes exist to grade complications. One of the most commonly used is the Clavien-Dindo
Classication [5, 6]. This classication scheme, rened since
1992, straties complications into seven grades (I, II, IIIa, IIIb,
IVa, IVb, and V) with increasing severity from grade I (which
represents any deviation from the normal postoperative course
without a need for major intervention) to grade V (which represents death of a patient). Other classication schemes also
exist including a more recently proposed Comprehensive
Complication Index [7] by Clavien and Dindo, the Accordion
scale [8], and the ACS-NSQIP classication of complications
[9]. Despite the heterogeneity in these classication schemes,
it is clear that complications matter, as they are associated with
increased risks of patient mortality [4, 10], longer lengths of
stay [1], more readmissions [4, 11], higher costs [12], and
worse long-term oncologic outcomes [13]. Signicant responsibility therefore lies with the colorectal surgeon to be experienced not only with performing the index operation(s) but also
with managing postoperative complications.
The aims of this chapter will be to provide an overview of
common risk factors for postoperative complications and to
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
S. R. Steele et al. (eds.), The ASCRS Textbook of Colon and Rectal Surgery, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66049-9_8
141

142
OPERATIVE
INTRAOPERATIVE
POSTOPERATIVE
Table 8.1 Common postoperative complications after colorectal surgery using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality
Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Procedure Targeted for Colectomy (2012–2017)
Complication Overall frequency (%) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Prolonged postoperative ileus 17.1 15.99 17.07 17.36 17.54 17.28 16.91
Bleeding/transfusion 10.3 12.29 11.67 10.84 10.01 9.13 9.11
Sepsis 5.42 4.77 4.96 5.73 5.51 5.58 5.67
Organ/space SSI 5.07 4.29 4.57 4.99 5.09 5.38 5.63
Supercial incisional SSI 4.96 6.38 5.74 5.4 4.69 4.37 3.99
Septic shock 4.05 3.01 3.98 4.52 4.2 4.16 4.13
On ventilator greater than 48 hours 3.76 4.31 4.15 3.82 3.67 3.6 3.35
Leak 3.38 3.6 3.8 3.41 3.44 3.09 3.23
Pneumonia 3.38 3.15 3.4 3.59 3.46 3.5 3.16
Urinary tract infection 2.53 3.32 2.79 2.71 2.43 2.22 2.12
Unplanned intubation 2.25 2.48 2.45 2.4 2.17 2.11 2.04
DVT requiring therapy 1.47 1.5 1.52 1.44 1.46 1.46 1.45
Wound disruption 1.32 1.51 1.51 1.37 1.32 1.22 1.13
Deep incisional SSI 1.3 1.69 1.76 1.66 1.42 0.86 0.77
C. diff 1.28 – – – 0.89 1.55 1.38
Progressive renal insufciency 0.81 0.78 0.81 0.79 0.8 0.85 0.81
Acute renal failure 0.81 0.86 0.8 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.76
Cardiac arrest requiring CPR 0.79 0.72 0.73 0.82 0.81 0.82 0.79
Myocardial infarction 0.76 0.73 0.64 0.72 0.8 0.81 0.79
Pulmonary embolism 0.67 0.68 0.65 0.71 0.7 0.63 0.68
Stroke/CVA 0.3 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.27 0.29
Complications listed in order of overall frequency. All numbers expressed as % (frequency)
D. I. Chu and D. J. Maron
Fig. 8.1 Risk factors for
postoperative complications
in colorectal surgery
review the management of general complications in colorectal surgery. The discussion will be framed pragmatically in
order of frequency of complications using the ACSNSQIP.Successful acquisition and application of this knowledge will build a foundation for excellence in the care of
colorectal surgery patients.
Risk Factors
Successful management of postoperative complications
begins with a thorough understanding of the risk factors
leading to those complications (Fig.8.1). Some of these risk
factors are non-modiable (i.e., age and sex/gender), but others are potentially modiable (i.e., nutrition and smoking).
The latter risk factors are prime targets for single-level interventions (i.e., smoking cessation-only) versus more comprehensive interventions (i.e., prehabilitation and enhanced
recovery pathways).
Patient Risk Factors
Non modifiable
Age, sex
Co-morbidities
Previous surgical history
Modifiable
Nutrition, smoking, functional
capacity
Obesity, sarcopenia
Intraoperative Risk Factors
Surgical approach (open vs MIS)
Type of procedure (reoperation,
deep pelvic surgery)
Duration, blood loss, adhesions
Surgical wound infection (SSI)
precautions
Wound closure techniques
Complications
Gastrointestinal-ileus
Hemotologic - bleeding
Infectious - SSI
Pulmonary
Renal
Cardiac
Neurologic
Non-modiable Risk Factors
Age
Older age is a signicant risk factor for postoperative complications. The reasons are multifactorial and due to
decreased physiologic reserve, worse organ system
function(s), cognitive impairment, and increased frailty [14].
Studies have shown that even within the geriatric population,
increasing age is a strong independent predictor of mortality
and postoperative complications [15, 16]. Among octogenar-
ians [17] and nonagenarians [18], studies have suggested that
common operations can be performed safely, but complication rates often exceed 25%. While age is non-modiable,
interventions can target age-associated risk factors such as
poor nutrition, sarcopenia, and decreased physiologic
reserve. Comprehensive recovery pathways such as
Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERPs), for instance, have
shown promising early results in improving surgical outcomes and reducing complications for the elderly [19].

8 General Postoperative Complications
143
Sex
Sex has been shown to be associated with risks of postoperative complications. Recent single-institution studies have
associated the male sex with higher risks of complications
for laparoscopic and open colorectal operations [15]. Within
the ACS-NSQIP database, overall complications were higher
for males across many major surgical procedures [20].
Similarly, males have been observed to be at higher risk for
anastomotic leaks after colorectal operations [21]. While the
underlying mechanism(s) are not clear, complication rates
may be higher in males due to sex-based variations in risk
prevalence at the patient level (i.e., smoking rates, cardiac
disease, etc.) and procedure level (i.e., obesity, narrow pelvis, etc.).
Morbidities
Many patients undergoing colorectal surgery have preexisting comorbidities, and data has consistently shown that
comorbidities are linked to the risk of developing a postoperative complication. Patients with American Society of
Anesthesiology (ASA) scores of 3–5, for instance, are at
signicant risk of postoperative complications such as
anastomotic leaks [22]. Similarly, patients with a high
Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) are at increased risk for
mortality and morbidities after colorectal operations [23–
25]. Additional comorbidities have also been associated
with postoperative complications including need for emergency surgery, body weight loss of >10%, use of steroids,
congestive heart failure, renal insufciency, and neurologic
decits [26]. More recent studies have suggested that
comorbidities and comorbidity indices should not be considered in isolation. Patients often have “clusters” of
comorbidities that in combination drive the risks for complications [27]. While some comorbidities may not be modiable, a priori knowledge of them can at least provide
some knowledge to better educate patients on risks and
expected outcomes.
Prior Surgeries andAdhesion Formation
Prior abdominal surgical history is increasingly common,
and colorectal surgeons often face reoperative scenarios. For
laparoscopic operations, a history of prior abdominal surgery
has been shown to be predictive of the need for open conversion, unintentional enterotomies, postoperative ileus, reoperations, and longer operative times [28]. Similarly, the
presence of adhesions from prior operations appears to most
inuence colorectal resections with respect to adhesionsrelated complications [29]. While past surgical history is
considered non-modiable, experience of the colorectal surgeon is important to help mitigate complications in this
circumstance.
Modiable Risk Factors
Nutrition
Malnutrition is common and may occur in upward of 50%
of surgical patients [30]. Several scoring systems such as
the Nutrition Risk Screening (NRS) tool [31] and
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) have been
used effectively to screen patients for malnutrition and help
predict outcomes [32]. Early studies since 2002 have demonstrated that preoperative optimization of nutrition benets malnourished surgical patients [33]. While the optimal
content of supplements are still debatable, studies suggests
that oral immunonutrition, which often contains arginine
and fatty acids, may be one of the key elements [34]. In a
large population- based study of 3375 patients in Washington
state, signicant improvements in length of stay for surgical patients were observed for those on oral immunonutrition with reductions in postoperative complications [35].
Additional evidence suggests that oral supplementation at
least 7–10days prior to an elective operation (and parenteral nutrition only as needed) may improve nutritional status in a malnourished patient to ensure a better surgical
outcome [36].
Smoking
Smoking is one of the most signicant risk factors for postoperative complications. Multiple studies have associated
smoking with complications such as surgical site infections
[37], anastomotic leaks [38], and even disease recurrence in
inammatory bowel disease [39]. Smoking risk is modiable. Randomized trials have shown that smoking abstinence/interventions at 4 weeks before surgery reduces
postoperative complications such as wound infections to levels of nonsmokers [40, 41]. In another trial, initiating a preoperative smoking-cessation program 6–8weeks before the
surgical date signicantly reduced postoperative complications from 31% to 5% [42]. A recent meta-analysis of 11
randomized controlled trials demonstrated a 44% pooled risk
reduction of 30-day postoperative complications with smoking cessation [43]. While the most effective type of smokingcessation intervention remains unclear, the evidence thus far
indicates that preoperative smoking cessation should be a
fundamental part of any complication risk-reduction strategy, especially for high-risk specialties such as colorectal
surgery [44].
Preoperative Anemia
Anemia is a modiable risk factor for postoperative complications. In a large ACS-NSQIP study of 23,348 elective open
and laparoscopic colorectal operations, preoperative anemia
was an independent risk factor for postoperative complica-

144
D. I. Chu and D. J. Maron
tions and longer length of stays [45]. More recent studies
have also associated anemia with higher risk of postoperative
complications [46]. Building evidence suggest that interventions with iron infusions and oral supplementation are effective and mitigate the risks of postoperative complications
[47]. In a study on 95 colorectal cancer patients, correction
of preoperative anemia with intravenous/oral iron restored
hemoglobin levels to normal and corrected anemia patients
required no postoperative transfusions (0% compared to
38% transfusion rates for uncorrected, anemic patients) [47].
Societies such as the American Society of Anesthesiologists
have established guidelines on the perioperative management of anemia with interventions recommended if time permits [48]. More recently, the Enhanced Recovery After
Surgery (ERAS) Society also incorporated anemia management into the most recent 2018 colorectal guidelines [36].
Sarcopenia
Sarcopenia describes the loss of muscle mass and strength
that occurs with aging. It may be further accelerated with the
presence of chronic diseases and is a result of multiple physiologic mechanisms including declines in growth hormones,
nutritional insufciency, decreased physical activity, and loss
of alpha-motor neurons [49]. Retrospective studies in colorectal cancer have associated sarcopenia with an over 82%
increased odds of postoperative complications after colorectal surgery [50, 51]. A recent meta-analysis of 29 studies in
gastrointestinal cancers showed that sarcopenia was a consistent risk factor for major complications (risk ratio, 1.40) and
overall complications (risk ratio, 1.35). Effective interventions to address sarcopenia have yet to be formalized but will
undoubtedly work at multiple levels including improving
functional capacity and nutritional status.
Obesity
Over a third of adults in the United States are currently
obese, with predictions that over half of the US population
will be obese by 2030 [52]. Obesity, dened as a body mass
index (BMI) of greater than 30kg/m2, is increasingly common in the surgical population, and colorectal surgeons often
manage these challenging patients. Studies have shown that
obesity increases the risk of surgical complications after
colorectal surgery [53, 54]. Data using the ACS-NSQIP has
suggested that a dose-dependent relationship exists between
BMI and complications with increasing obesity classes leading to increasing risks of complications such as surgical site
infections [55]. Taken together, these data suggest that obesity is a modiable risk factor that may be addressable using
weight-loss interventions in the preoperative and elective
setting [15].
Functional Exercise Capacity
The functional capacity of a patient is measurable and has
been linked to surgical outcomes. Similar to athletic training,
improving functional exercise capacity is possible. In one of
the rst studies on prehabilitation, Carli etal. demonstrated
that moderate aerobic and resistance exercise signicantly
improved scores on walking tests [56]. While these improvements were not yet linkable to measurable reductions in
postoperative complications, this study formed the basis for
further studies that have suggested benets of prehabilitation
programs [44]. A large international, randomized controlled
trial by van Rooijen etal. is currently underway to test the
effects of a multimodal rehabilitation program on functional
capacity (6-minute walk test) in surgical patients [57].
Open Surgical Approach
Open approaches in colorectal surgery have been associated
with higher rates of postoperative complications [58]. In
contrast, minimally invasive techniques are signicantly
associated with improved short-term outcomes including
decreased surgical site infections, venous thromboembolism
events, and pneumonias [58–60]. These associations are
complex as hospital/surgical volume and clinical culture also
play important roles in determining surgical outcomes [61].
Doing the best operation in the operating room, however,
ensures the best start to surgical recovery, and the benets of
minimally invasive techniques are clear – this technique
should therefore be utilized whenever possible and currently
remains a central tenant of colorectal ERP pathways [36].
Assessing Risk Factors
Risk calculators use population-level data to quantify the
risk of complications for individual patients. The POSSUM
(Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity) [62] and APACHE
(Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) [63]
scoring systems are two original examples of validated scoring systems that use clinical information to risk stratify. A
relatively newer system is the ACS-NSQIP Risk Calculator
[64] which was developed to predict risk of postoperative
complications, length of stay, mortality, and readmission
based on patient- and procedure-level factors (Fig. 8.2).
This powerful calculator continues to evolve with the steady
accumulation of robust national data annually and identication of new risk factors. In fact, the ACS-NSQIP Risk
Calculator was recently updated to include geriatric-specic
risk factors to better predict outcomes for the growing geriatric population [65].

8 General Postoperative Complications
145
Fig. 8.2 The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Risk Calculator including new geriatric risk factors
Addressing Risk Factors
Once risk is identied, however, the question remains: What
can be done? Single-item interventions to address individual
risk factors such as malnutrition and smoking have previously been highlighted, but larger gains may be seen with
more comprehensive and multilevel interventions. These
include programs that are meant to optimize patients before
major surgery such as the STRONG program [66] and comprehensive recovery programs such as Enhanced Recovery
Programs which aim to mitigate the surgical stress and organ
dysfunction associated with major surgery [36].
Prehabilitation is a relatively newer but synergistic program
that has gained attention in addressing the risks of complica-
Postoperative Complications
According to the 2012–2017 ACS-NSQIP database, the most
common postoperative complications in colorectal surgery
are (1) gastrointestinal complications (ileus), (2) hematologic complications (bleeding), and (3) infectious complications (surgical site infections [SSIs]) (Table 8.1). Other
postoperative complications such as cardiac, renal, and pulmonary complications also occur in colorectal surgery but
less frequently. This section will review the most common
postoperative complications as guided by the ACS-NSQIP
database. In addition, a review of other associated but important complications will be presented in an organ system
approach.
tions by specically targeting risk factor categories (nutrition, smoking, obesity, and physical activity) before surgery
[67]. Data is still limited, however, with the most recent
Gastrointestinal Complications (#1)
study from Carli et al. (2020) showing no demonstrable
improvement in reduction of complications as measured by
the CCI [68]. Larger multi-institutional trials will aim to
establish the effectiveness of such interventions [57].
Gastrointestinal complications are the most frequent complications after major abdominal operations and range from
minor nausea/vomiting to ileus and obstructions. The sever-

146
D. I. Chu and D. J. Maron
ity of complications is determined by several risk factors
including the type of operation performed, the approach
(minimally invasive vs. open), and even blood loss during
the case (Fig.8.1) [69].
Ileus (Functional Bowel Obstruction)
Ileus, which is a functional obstruction of the small bowel, is
the single most common complication after colorectal surgery. In the ACS-NSQIP, postoperative ileus rates occur in
12–17% of patients after colorectal surgery (Table8.1) [4].
This complication drives signicant lengths of stay and costs
for healthcare systems [4]. The pathophysiology of ileus is
unclear but is likely a consequence of disturbances to normal
peristalsis governed by the enteric nervous system as a result
of anesthetic and surgical manipulation [69]. Disturbances in
the large bowel are called pseudo-obstruction or Ogilvie’s
syndrome [70]. Several factors are known to slow return of
bowel function including medications (i.e., opioids), electrolyte abnormalities, inammatory conditions, pain, and
degree of operative manipulation. Patients present with
symptoms of nausea, vomiting, bloating, burping, and hiccups in the absence of atus or bowel movements. Abdominal
distension and accompanied tympani are usually observed
on physical exam. Abdominal radiographs and computed
tomography (CT) scans show dilated loops of bowel but with
no transition points or concerns for mechanical obstruction.
Studies have suggested that postoperative ileus can be
subdivided into severe ileus and non-severe ileus [71]. In a
prospective database from 40 international centers in 5 countries, the rates of severe and non-severe ileus were 9.3% and
6.1%, respectively, even under an Enhanced Recovery
Program. Non-severe ileus, or a “primary” ileus, was best
treated with nonoperative management including nasogastric
tube decompression, bowel rest, intravenous uids, mobilization, and avoidance of opioids. Severe ileus was very different and driven by intraabdominal complications such as
abscesses. As a result, management for severe ileus centers
on addressing the underlying insult.
Recommendations for treating functional obstruction
such as ileus are to (i) ensure there is no mechanical component to the obstruction, (ii) start with nonoperative management with bowel rest and decompression, and (iii) address
underlying causes (electrolyte abnormalities for non-severe
ileus and intraabdominal pathology for severe ileus).
Postoperative Small Bowel Obstruction (Mechanical Bowel Obstruction)
Mechanical bowel obstructions in the postoperative setting
for the small bowel and colon are most often caused by adhesions. For the small bowel, these obstructions are termed
early postoperative small bowel obstructions (ESBO) and
occur in upward of 9.5% of abdominal operations [72, 73].
ESBO clinically mimics postoperative ileus, and the differ-
entiating the two can be difcult. Making the correct diagnosis is critical as there is an 8–9% strangulation risk with
ESBO [72]. Compared to laparoscopic approaches, open
cases are at increased risk for developing this complication.
Diagnosis can be made through abdominal radiographs,
which may show air-uid levels in loops of small bowel, and
CT scans, which may show a transition point. Strangulation
is uncommon from the adhesions themselves, but increasing
distension leads to bowel necrosis as mural tension leads to
decreased mucosal perfusion. Treatment is usually initially
nonoperative with nasogastric decompression, and success
rates have been reported as high as 87% [73]. However, if the
obstruction does not resolve, then the patient may require
operative intervention. The time to wait remains controversial with reports showing safe waiting times from 24 hours to
7 days [74–76], but these decisions are complex and individualized. Reoperations are not without risk as there are
increased risks for complications especially for those patients
who had an index open operation [72].
Hematologic Complications (#2)
Colorectal operations affect the hematologic system directly
and through the coagulation pathway. The 2012–2017 ACSNSQIP data show that postoperative bleeding and transfusions are the second most common complication following
colorectal surgery (Table 8.1). Additional complications
such as venous thromboembolism occur less frequently but
have major impacts on patients and healthcare systems.
Postoperative Bleeding andTransfusions
Bleeding requiring reoperation is rare after colorectal surgery, but bleeding requiring transfusions may occur in up to
10% of colorectal operations [77]. Risk factors for bleeding
include intraoperative factors and medical coagulopathies
such as hemophilia A (factor VIII deciency), hemophilia B
(factor IX deciency), von Willebrand’s disease, warfarin
therapy, and platelet disorders [78]. One unique intraoperative factor that may lead to signicant bleeding in colorectal
surgery includes operations in the pelvis. The presacral space
is lined by a presacral venous plexus that can be easily disrupted during proctectomy. Trauma to these veins may lead
to massive hemorrhage [78].
All postoperative bleeding requires an assessment, resuscitation, and ultimately control. Mild bleeding with no systemic symptoms is often self-limited. Withholding
anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents such as nonsteroidal
anti-inammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is rst-line and effective
step. Severe bleeding with systemic changes such as tachycardia and hypotension requires more aggressive interventions. While radiographic techniques such as CT angiography
may be used to identify bleeding sources, delay may be fatal.

8 General Postoperative Complications
147
In a study of 196 reoperations for bleeding, 77% of takebacks occurred within 24 hours of the index operation with a
28% mortality rate [79]. An expeditious return to the operating room must always be considered if the patient demonstrates signs of exsanguination. Intraoperatively, the source
needs to be localized and controlled, clots evacuated, and the
peritoneal cavity carefully examined. It is not uncommon to
nd no active source of bleeding, especially after operations
that require signicant adhesiolysis and mobilization of retroperitoneal structures. In these situations, a reoperation is
still useful as evacuation of the clot may help with achieving
nal hemostasis.
Presacral bleeding is a challenging situation that all
colorectal surgeons must be able to manage. The algorithms
are well-established and focus on initial control with packing, resuscitation, and then further action if bleeding persists.
These additional actions include suture ligation, sterile
thumbtacks, rectus muscle welding, and hemostatic agents
[78]. The principles of damage control surgery are also relevant to massive presacral bleeding. In the situation where
bleeding control cannot be established, patients should be
temporized, packed, and taken back to the ICU to correct
acidosis, coagulopathies, and hypothermia. A second operation is usually performed in 24–48 hours with the goal of
restoring intestinal continuity, removing packing, and
achieving nal closure [78]. A related complication is
abdominal compartment syndrome, a life-threatening condition that results from massive uncontrolled hemorrhage and/
or aggressive resuscitation leading to increased abdominal
pressure [80]. When pressures exceed 20mmHg [78], the
compartment must be rapidly decompressed to reestablish
ow to the viscera, usually via an abdominal laparotomy.
With decompression, symptoms tend to resolve.
Complications are high, however, with multi-organ dysfunction and mortality rates approaching 50% [81].
Venous Thromboembolism
Venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) include deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Colorectal surgery patients are at high risk for developing VTEs because
many colorectal diseases such as cancer and inammatory
bowel disease create hypercoagulable states. Among colorectal surgical patients, VTE rates are reported from 1.1% to
2.5% [82]. While not as prevalent as complications such as
ileus, VTEs are a common cause of preventable deaths.
Many risk factors have been identied including obesity, steroid use, sepsis, reoperations, ASA class 3, and having
another postoperative complication [82]. Based on these factors, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) has
published important guidelines on risk stratication to guide
VTE prophylaxis [83]. These stratications use validated
scoring systems (Caprini Score and the Roger Score) to stratify patients to early ambulation, mechanical prophylaxis, or
chemical prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin
(LMWH) or low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH).
Diagnosis for VTEs can be made by (i) ultrasound scanning
and D-dimer testing for DVTs and (ii) CT pulmonary angiography and/or D-dimer testing for PEs [84]. Ventilation perfusion scanning (V/Q scan) and V/Q SPECT are reserved for
patients with contrast allergies or renal impairment.
Prevention of VTEs is more effective than treatment of this
complication. Once a VTE is diagnosed, treatment relies
upon systemic anticoagulation with chemical agents such as
LMWH, coumadin, or newer oral anticoagulants such as
dabigatran, apixaban, or edoxaban. In cases where anticoagulation is contraindicated, inferior vena cava (IVC) lters
need to be considered to prevent development of a fatal PE.
Infectious Complications (#3)
Infectious-related complications occur frequently after
colorectal operations. These complications are usually
related to the surgical site. However, infectious complications can occur well away from the surgical bed including
urinary tract infections and Clostridium difcile infections.
Surgical Site Infection (SSI)
In the United States, an estimated 500,000 cases of surgical
site infections (SSIs) are reported each year [85]. As the
leading cause of nosocomial infections after surgery, SSIs
add over 3.7 million excess hospital days and $10 billion in
excess costs per year to the healthcare system [86]. SSIs also
add signicant morbidity with a 2–11 times higher risk of
death for patients who experience an SSI [87]. Importantly,
most SSIs are thought to be preventable [88]. Colorectal
operations have one of the highest rates of SSIs with reported
rates from 15% to over 30% [89].
SSIs are infections in areas where surgery was performed.
Classically, SSIs are categorized to (1) supercial incisional
(limited to skin/subcutaneous tissues), (2) deep incisional
(involves muscle/fascia), and (3) organ space. Risk factors
for SSIs include patient factors (i.e., age, nutritional status,
diabetes, smoking, obesity, coexistent infection at another
site, microorganism colonization, altered immune response,
and duration of postoperative stay) and operative factors
(i.e., preoperative antiseptic preparation, antimicrobial prophylaxis, duration of operation, operation room venting, use
of foreign materials, surgical site, and surgical technique)
(Fig.8.1).
The WHO [90, 91], ACS/SIS [92], and CDC [93] guidelines are major publications that represent the consensus of
multidisciplinary experts on SSI prevention strategies. The
ACS/SIS, WHO, and CDC reviewed 17, 29, and 42 individual SSI reduction processes, respectively. Interestingly, only
a minority of reviewed processes were recommended at the
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
