Primary anastomosis without colonic lavage for the obstructed left colon

16Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Resection, on-table lavage (OTL) and primary anastomosis is the treatment of choice for the obstructed left colon:. OTL is time-consuming, requires considerable mobilisation/bowel handling, an enterotomy and potentially exposes the patient to mesenteric vascular injury, faecal contamination and a prolonged ileus. We have assessed outcome following primary resection and anastomosis without prior lavage. Patients and Methods: Twenty-four consecutive, obstructed patients underwent splenic flexure mobilisation and high anterior resection (concomitant small bowel resection in 2) with primary side-to-side colorectal anastomosis without either prior lavage or covering stoma. Outcome was audited. Results: Twenty-four patients, 17 female aged 48-92 years (median, 76 years) presented with left-sided obstruction due to carcinoma (Dukes' B [3], C [6], D [1]) or chronic diverticulitis (14). Median operative time was 85 min (range, 40-105 min). Colonic ileus resolved on day 2 (29%) and day 3 (58%). Median hospital stay was 7 days (range, 6-72 days); 92% discharged by day 10. There were no deaths or re-admissions. A return to theatre followed a reactionary haemorrhage in one. This latter patient's anastomosis leaked on day 4 (no faecal contamination) and was converted to an end stoma. Urinary and wound infections were seen in two. Late complications comprised two anastomotic strictures; both responded, to balloon dilatation at 5 months. Conclusions: Resection and primary anastomosis without on-table lavage is an easy, practical, predictable and safe treatment option for left-sided colonic obstruction with minimal complications.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cross, K. L. R., Rees, J. R., Soulsby, R. H. R., & Dixon, A. R. (2008). Primary anastomosis without colonic lavage for the obstructed left colon. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 90(4), 302–304. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588408X285874

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free