Добавил:
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
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
29.08.2026
Размер:
86 Мб
Скачать
7 Optimizing Outcomes withEnhanced 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. Inuence 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 inuence 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 signicantly 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, etal. Modied 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. Modied enhanced recovery after surgery protocols are benecial 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, etal. 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 inuence 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, etal. Enhanced recovery ERAS for elderly: a safe and benecial 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. Increased incidence of prolonged ileus after colectomy for inammatory 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 inammatory 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 withEnhanced Recovery
139
99. Pearsall EA, Meghji Z, Pitzul KB, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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

DanielI.Chu andDavidJ.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 modiable 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 (Table8.1). 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-specic complications such as ileus and anas­tomotic leaks have signicant 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 classication schemes exist to grade complica­tions. One of the most commonly used is the Clavien-Dindo Classication [5, 6]. This classication scheme, rened since 1992, straties 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 classication schemes also exist including a more recently proposed Comprehensive Complication Index [7] by Clavien and Dindo, the Accordion scale [8], and the ACS-NSQIP classication of complications [9]. Despite the heterogeneity in these classication 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]. Signicant 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 Supercial 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 insufciency 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-modiable (i.e., age and sex/gender), but oth­ers are potentially modiable (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-modiable Risk Factors
Age
Older age is a signicant 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-modiable, 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 signicant 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 insufciency, and neurologic decits [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 mod­iable, a priori knowledge of them can at least provide some knowledge to better educate patients on risks and expected outcomes.
Prior Surgeries andAdhesion 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 inuence colorectal resections with respect to adhesions­related complications [29]. While past surgical history is considered non-modiable, experience of the colorectal sur­geon is important to help mitigate complications in this circumstance.
Modiable 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 bene­ts 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, signicant 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 7–10days 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 signicant 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 inammatory bowel disease [39]. Smoking risk is modi­able. 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 6–8weeks before the surgical date signicantly 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 modiable 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 insufciency, 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, dened as a body mass index (BMI) of greater than 30kg/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 modiable 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 etal. demonstrated that moderate aerobic and resistance exercise signicantly 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 benets of prehabilitation programs [44]. A large international, randomized controlled trial by van Rooijen etal. 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 signicantly associated with improved short-term outcomes including decreased surgical site infections, venous thromboembolism events, and pneumonias [5860]. 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 benets 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 identi­cation of new risk factors. In fact, the ACS-NSQIP Risk Calculator was recently updated to include geriatric-specic 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 identied, 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 specically 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 (Table8.1) [4]. This complication drives signicant 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, inammatory 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 difcult. 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 [7476], 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 andTransfusions
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 deciency), hemophilia B (factor IX deciency), von Willebrand’s disease, warfarin therapy, and platelet disorders [78]. One unique intraopera­tive factor that may lead to signicant 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-inammatory 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 signicant 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 20mmHg [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 inammatory 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 identied 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 stratication to guide VTE prophylaxis [83]. These stratications 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 difcile 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 signicant 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) supercial 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