Reoperative Pelvic Surgery

Reoperative Pelvic Surgery

Reoperative Pelvic Surgery

Edited By Richard P. Billingham, MD Director, Colon and Rectal Surgery, Swedish Cancer Institute; Clinical Professor, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

William A. Peters III, MD Pacific Gynecology Specialists, Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Kathleen C. Kobashi, MD Head, Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

13

Editors Richard P. Billingham Colon and Rectal Surgery Swedish Cancer Institute and Department of Surgery University of Washington Seattle WA 98104 USA

William A. Peters III Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University of Washington Pacific Gynecology Specialists Seattle WA 98104 USA

Kathleen C. Kobashi Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation Virginia Mason Medical Center Seattle WA 98101 USA

ISBN 978-0-387-89998-5 DOI 10.1007/b14187

e-ISBN 978-0-387-89999-2

Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2009921352 # Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC 2009 All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of going to press, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface

The impetus for this book came from the recent appearance of single specialty books pertaining to reoperative surgery on various organs in the pelvis, as well as from the recognition that several different disciplines are involved with the challenges of reoperative pelvic surgery. Surgeons often encounter challenging dilemmas involving organ systems that have historically been attended to by surgeons representing closely related but distinct specialty areas. With increasing sophistication and knowledge about management of anatomically adjacent organs by the specialties of gynecologic oncology, gynecology, urology, and colon and rectal surgery, as well as the emergence of specialty training programs in urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders, we thought it appropriate and timely to create a textbook acknowledging this increasing knowledge and interspecialty collaboration. To this end, where appropriate, we have included collaborative authors from each of the specialties, any of whom may be called upon to address a particular anatomic area. It seems inevitable that situations will arise in which the collaborative expertise of several separate specialties may converge to provide surgeons the benefit of the combined thought processes that would prove invaluable when such difficult problems are encountered. With this in mind, the editors, from the fields of gynecologic oncology, urology, and colon and rectal surgery, identified experts in their own fields who could best contribute to the management of specific problem areas. For example, since reoperations for endometriosis may involve uterus, adnexae, ovaries, or the colorectum, the chapter concerning this condition has been coauthored by specialists in colorectal surgery and gynecologic oncology. We have been fortunate to find experts who have collaborated to bring available evidence-based medicine, best demonstrated practices, and personal experience to their contributions. We are particularly indebted to Dr. Victor Fazio, who has given us an excellent overview of the principles of reoperative surgery, which are well worth reading carefully at any level of the reader’s education. We would also like to thank Dr. William Curtis, Annie Cimino, Paula Callaghan, and Margaret Burns, of Springer, for their interest in and hard work organizing and editing this milestone project. Richard P. Billingham, MD William A. Peters, III Kathleen Kobashi, MD

v

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v ix

1

Introduction and Overview: Principles of Reoperative Pelvic Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Victor W. Fazio

1

2

Reoperations Within the First 30 Days After Pelvic Surgery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeffery Nelson

5

3

Reoperation and Management of Postoperative Pelvic Hemorrhage and Coagulopathy . . . Jennifer L. Young, Jason A. Lachance, Laurel W. Rice, and Eugene F. Foley

15

4

Reoperative Considerations After Laparoscopic Pelvic Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marco J. Tomassi and Deborah Nagle

23

5

Laparoscopic Reoperative Surgery for Incompletely Staged Gynecologic Malignancies. . . . Dan S. Veljovich

31

6

Reoperation for Endometriosis and Ovarian Remnants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neil S. Horowitz and H. Randolph Bailey

43

7

Pelvic Exenteration for Recurrent Pelvic Cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pamela Paley and Chirag Shah

49

8

Reoperation for Bladder Cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rou Wang, Nina Casanova, and Cheryl T. Lee

61

9

Reoperative Surgery for Prostate Cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christopher Amling and Douglass Clayton

81

10

Introduction to Reoperative Pelvic Surgery for Rectal Cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Juan L. Poggio and W. Douglas Wong

93

11

Recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Tristi Wood Muir

12

Recurrent Rectal Prolapse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Harry T. Papaconstantinou

13

Suburethral Sling Failures and Complications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Joanna M. Togami and J. Christian Winters

vii

viii

C ON TE NT S

14

Reoperative Surgery for Anal Incontinence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Christina J. Seo, Steven D. Wexner, and G. Willy Davila

15

Gastrointestinal Fistulas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Herand Abcarian and Vivek Chaudhry

16

Urogenital Fistulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 David E. Rapp and Kathleen C. Kobashi

17

Complications of Urinary Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Christopher Porter and Greg Hanson

18

Complications of Transurethral Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Rajiv Saini and Steven A. Kaplan

19

Reoperative Management of Fissure and Hemorrhoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Martin Luchtefeld and Michael Ott

20

Reoperative Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Stephen R. Gorfine

21

Complications of Surgery After Pelvic Radiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Eugene K. Lee, Darren Klish, and Jeffrey Holzbeierlein

22

Reoperation for Diverticular Disease. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Michael J. Stamos and Zuri A. Murrell

23

Reoperative Surgery for Gastrointestinal Stomal Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Bruce A. Orkin and Farshid Araghizadeh

24

Reoperative Pelvic Surgery for Late Bowel Obstruction (After 30 Days) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 Katharine W. Markell and Scott R. Steele

25

Reoperations for Bleeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 David E. Beck

26

Reoperative Surgery for Constipation or Dysmotility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Tracy L. Hull

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

Contributors

Herand Abcarian, MD Turi Josefsen Professor of Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA Christopher Amling, MD Professor and Director, Division of Urology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA Farshid Araghizadeh, MD, FACS, FASCRS Chief, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA H. Randolph Bailey, MD Chief, Colon and Rectal Surgery, Director Emeritus, Residency Training Program/Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA David E. Beck, MD Chairman, Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA, USA Nina Casanova, MD Resident, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Vivek Chaudhry, MD Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago; Instructor, Department of Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA Douglass Clayton, MD Resident, Division of Urology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA G. Willy Davila, MD Chairman, Department of Gynecology and Head, Section of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA Victor W. Fazio, AO, MB, MS, FRACS, FRACS (Hon), FACS, FRCS, FRCS (Ed) Chairman, Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Rupert B. Turnbull, Jr. MD, Chair, Professor of Surgery, Lerner School of Medicine Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA Eugene F. Foley, MD, FACS Professor, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison, WI, USA Stephen R. Gorfine, MD, FACS, FACP, FASCRS Clinical Professor of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

ix

x

CO NT RI BU TO RS

Greg Hanson, MD Fellow, Department of Urology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA Jeffrey Holzbeierlein, MD Associate Professor, Department of Urology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA Neil S. Horowitz, MD Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Director, Clinical Research, Division Gynecologic Oncology, Harvard University Medical School/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA Tracy L. Hull, MD Staff Surgeon, Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA Steven A. Kaplan, MD Professor, Department of Urology; Chief, Institute for Bladder and Prostate Health, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA Darren Klish, MD Resident, Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA Kathleen C. Kobashi, MD Head, Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA Jason A. Lachance, MD, MSc Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Marine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA Cheryl T. Lee, MD Associate Professor, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Eugene K. Lee, MD Resident, Department of Urology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA Martin Luchtefeld, MD Chairman, Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Spectrum Hospital, Ferguson Clinic, Michigan Medical PC, Grand Rapids, MI, USA Katharine W. Markell, MD Fellow, Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Northwest Colon and Rectal Clinic, Seattle, WA, USA Tristi Wood Muir, MD Director, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA Zuri A. Murrell, MD Staff Surgeon, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Cedar-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA Deborah Nagle, MD Chief of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA Jeffery Nelson, BS, MD Chief, Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA

CO NT RI BU TO RS

xi

Bruce A. Orkin, MD Professor of Surgery, Tufts University, Chief, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Adjuvant Professor of Surgery, The George Washington University in Washington, DC, Boston, MA Michael Ott, MD, MSc Assistant Professor, Department of General and Colorectal Surgery, University of Western Ontario; Director of Core Surgery, London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario, Canada Pamela Paley, MD Staff Surgeon, Pacific Gynecology Specialists Seattle, Seattle, WA, USA Harry T. Papaconstantinou, MD Assistant Professor, Chief of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Scott and White Hospital and Clinic, Texas A&M University System Health Science Center, Temple, TX, USA Juan L. Poggio, MD, MS Clinical Research Fellow, Department of Surgery, Colorectal Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA Christopher Porter, MD Codirector of Urologic Oncology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA David E. Rapp, MD Fellow, Department of Urology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Glen Allen, VA, USA Laurel W. Rice, MD Professor, Department Chairperson, School of Medicine and Public Health, Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA Rajiv Saini, MD Clinical Instructor, Department of Urology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA Christina J. Seo, MD Clinical Associate, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA Chirag Shah, MD Fellow, Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Michael J. Stamos, MD, FACS Chief, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery; Professor and Vice Chair, Department of Surgery, University of California Irvine Health Sciences, Orange, CA, USA Scott R. Steele, MD, FACS Chief, Colon and Rectal Surgery; Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, USUHS, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, WA, USA Joanna M. Togami, MD Staff Urologist, Section of Female Urology and Voiding Dysfunction, Department of Urology, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, LA, USA Marco J. Tomassi, MD Chief Surgical Resident, Department of General Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

xii

CO NT RI BU TO RS

Dan S. Veljovich, MD Clinical Assistant Professor, Swedish Medical Center; Gynecologic Oncologist, Pacific Gynecology Specialists, Seattle WA, USA Rou Wang, MD Resident, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Steven D. Wexner, MD Chairman, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA J. Christian Winters, MD Professor and Chairman, Department of Urology; Director of Urodynamics and Female Urology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA, USA W. Douglas Wong, MD Chief, Colorectal Service/Stuart H.Q. Quan Chair in Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA Jennifer L. Young, MD Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

1

Introduction and Overview: Principles of Reoperative Pelvic Surgery Victor W. Fazio

For the abdominal surgeon, few situations pose greater potential difficulties than reoperative pelvic surgery. These challenges range from the surprisingly (relatively) easy, for example, refixation of recurrent rectal prolapse, to the nearly impossible, such as the frozen pelvis with complex chronic sepsis from a leaked low rectal anastomosis. This overview deals with reoperation for intestinal complications. Considerations include the following: understanding pelvic anatomy, timing of reoperation, preparation of the patient preoperatively, preparation of the patient intraoperatively, conduct of the surgery, identification of structures, prevention and control of pelvic bleeding, and the specific operative procedures.

Pelvic Anatomy The applied anatomy of the pelvis in the reoperative surgery setting implies knowledge that certain structures stay fixed and can be counted on as constants. The aortic bifurcation, common iliac vessels and its branches, the sacral promontory and sacrum, the prostate gland, bladder and vagina are included here (except where previous surgery may have involved partial or total excision). Others that we regard as usually constant, such as ureters, mesorectum, rectal stump, uterus, and tube ovaries, may be quite displaced. Examples included ureters coursing over the stump of a distal rectum. The pelvis resembles a forward-tilted basin. Access is limited by the narrow pelvis, often with dense scarring; the absence of planes of cleavage; and the need for aids to anatomy identification. These include ureteric stents, vaginal or rectal bougies (a rigid proctoscope is useful), and irrigation/infusion of the urinary bladder to help identify the plane between loops of small bowel fixed to the posterior bladder. The problem is compounded by a history of previous pelvic sepsis or irradiation. The term frozen pelvis

has been aptly coined to describe the dismaying spectacle of the deep pelvis where none of the ordinary landmarks can be visualized.

Timing of Reoperation There is general agreement that reoperative surgery is the surgery of adhesions—the process of repair and recovery of peritoneal injury. All abdominal surgeons are well versed in the surgery of adhesions. Yet it is surprising that many still fail to appreciate the dynamic of adhesion formation and resolution. Serosal injury (abrasion, infection, ischemia) leads to an inflammatory response with rapid fibrin-rich, serofibrinous exudate deposited on the injured areas (small bowel, parietes). Platelet and leukocyte deposition occurs into the fibrin matrix. Fibrinous (soft) adhesions form. Organization of these adhesions occurs, and under the effects of plasminogen activation, the fibrin matrix is gradually lysed, leading to normal re-mesothelialization. This cycle of injury and repair takes time. Although this time period varies somewhat, from 8 weeks up to months, there is in general a bell-shaped curve that results from contrasting the time since injury (index surgery) with the severity of the adhesions. This development of type IV adhesions (where separation of structures from each other, such as small bowel from abdominal wall, occurs) will be so difficult that perforation of the viscus will occur. This perforation can be predicted to appear within 14 days of index surgery and can last for 6 to 12 weeks. This situation, then, is the ‘‘no-man’s-land’’ where reentry into the abdomen after previous major laparotomy should be an exceptional venture. These exceptions, where reoperative surgery may be considered on the basis of risk/benefit analysis, are few. Examples include ischemic gut (almost never, as this implies, a postoperative volvulus, which is hardly possible given the obliterative effects of adhesions in the peritoneal cavity; undrainable sepsis, as seen on

R.P. Billingham et al. (eds.), Reoperative Pelvic Surgery, DOI 10.1007/b14187_1, Ó Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC 2009

1

2

C H AP TE R 1

computed tomography; and peritonitis or hemorrhage, unresponsive to endovascular radiologic techniques of hemostasis. Thus the practical significance of genesis and resolution of adhesions is that prudence dictates a waiting interval from previous surgery. If one is contemplating elective, reoperative major pelvic surgery, such as a redo colorectal anastomosis or redo ileopouch anal operation, then the surgeon would be well advised to allow 6 months or longer (especially if pelvic sepsis or radiation of the deep pelvis has been an additional factor to consider). This wait interval is strongly advised, but the patient should still be advised that fusion of pelvic structures to the point of the surgeon’s decision to abandon pelvic dissection might remain despite the wait period. One method I have found useful as a rough guide to assessing the relative ease of abdominal reentry is the abdominal mobility test. This involves placing one’s hands on either side of the midline and shaking the abdomen. If the abdomen ‘‘feels’’ mobile, then laparotomy is feasible.

Saline is injected between fused tissue planes (‘‘hydrodissection’’) to increase the almost nonexistent space between fused visceral structures. Tag the ureters even when stents have been placed, with Silastic vessel loops. Stents are no guarantee against ureteric injury: they should be a guide and at very least facilitate a diagnosis of an injured ureter. Where fusion to the abdominal parietes is complete, a sometimes useful maneuver is to dissect through the fascia, leaving it attached to small bowel, and then to reenter the peritoneal cavity several centimeters further away. Where an indurated fibrosed (sometimes radiated) base of bladder limits access to the deep pelvis, this might be remedied by multiple small incisions in this ‘‘crescent moon’’ appearance. Then bougie dilatation will serially stretch this restrictive band to allow better deep pelvic access.

Other Points to Consider During Surgery  Adequacy of exposure generally calls for long incisions.  It is often preferable to enter the peritoneal cavity

Patient Preparation Most cases of reoperative pelvic surgery are elective. As such, restoration of nutrition coagulopathies and electrolyte disturbance can usually be done. Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis and sepsis control, obtaining appropriate imaging studies (to get a ‘‘road map’’), embolization of tumors, venous and arterial access for monitoring, and obtaining or arranging for help from appropriate subspecialists (urology, orthopedics) are advised. The intraoperative considerations are presented in Table 1.1. All of these techniques may help in retracting structures out of the way, facilitate identification of certain structures, or improve access and visibility of relatively obscure areas of the pelvis.

TABLE 1.1. Intraoperative Considerations.

         

Positioning of the patient Perineal access Bean bags and shoulder rests to stabilize patient position Arms tucked in by the patient’s side, to maximize the surgeon’s access to the pelvis Vertical midline incision, to provide maximum exposure Ureteric stents; urinary catheter Suture retraction of bladder dome or dome of uterus Self-retaining retraction Headlight for surgeon Lighted retractors

Conduct of the Surgery Reoperative pelvic surgery calls for experienced surgeons and good assistants. One does not start the procedure late in the day; ideally, it is scheduled as the first (or only) procedure for the day. Small bowel adhesiolysis is facilitated with delivery of any matted loops of intestine out of the retroperitoneal areas where possible, so that dissection can be done extraabdominally.

     

through the easiest part, away from enterocutaneous fistulas, for example. In practice, this usually means through the upper abdomen, above the umbilicus. If the bowel is distended, try to decompress it. This is often best achieved by a large-bore, 14-gauge needle attached to suction tubing. Repair serosal injuries or enterotomies as they occur (to reduce enteric contamination or risk of making a fullthickness enterotomy). Leave the fixed, hand part to last (e.g., fusion of enterocutaneous fistula to mesh.) Use absorbable sutures. Use hot saline irrigation of peritoneal cavity throughout. Check all of the intestine at the end of the operation for occult enterotomies. This can be done by saline or air sufflation of small bowel through a stoma or enterotomy.

Identification of Structures RECTAL STUMP The rectal stump is frequently shortened, lying in the lower third of the pelvis. It is frequently fused to the sacrum, sacral promontory, vagina, or prostate. Rigid proctoscope or bimanual palpitation is a useful aid to identification. Start the dissection in the midline posterior to where the stump is perceived to be: grasp the stump with long Babcock clamps; use electrocautery and do not stray more than 1 cm on either side of the midline until other land marks are identified. For stump fusion to the promontory of the sacrum, where dissection at this point endangers the major common iliac vessels, dissection is facilitated by initiating dissection on the right side of the midrectal mesorectum. After entering the bloodless plane between the investing layer of fascia of the rectum and Waldeyer’s fascia, the dissection can be extended first in a cephalad direction. This facilitates dissection of the mesorectum from the great vessels.

I N TRO D UC TI ON AN D O VE RVI EW : PRI NC I PLES O F R EO PERA TI VE PE LVI C S U RG ERY

Where pararectal stump fibrosis is extensive, and an anastomosis of the colon to the distal stump is considered desirable, it is often best to remove the rectal stump (piecemeal if necessary) to the anorectal ring, or to complete the distal proctectomies transanally. A hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis is still feasible. In the deep pelvis, perineal pressure may elevate the rectal stump, facilitating dissection.

VAGINAL IDENTIFICATION For vaginal identification, vaginal preparation (e.g., Betadine) is used in all cases. Bougie stents or bimanual palpation is often useful. Hydrodissection using a No. 19/20 spinal needle helps to expand the space between the rectum and vagina, making dissection safer with less likelihood of vaginotomy. After vaginal mobilization or repair, do a final recheck with Betadine to identify any missed vaginal defects.

Prevention and Control of Pelvic Bleeding Bleeding is expected in reoperative pelvic surgery. The principles of management include identification where problematic bleeding is likely and minimizing those maneuvers that can cause such bleeding. Of course, this is not always achievable. Areas of particular vulnerability include the following:

 The presacral area: Dissection behind (posterior to) Waldeyer’s fascia may strip the basivertebral veins, structures that are impossible to cauterize, causing venous bleeding. In some situations, such as recurrent rectal cancer, dissection in this plane is necessary.  Internal iliac vein bleeding (or its branches): This is especially likely where a viscus like the rectal stump or a ureter is fused to the lateral pelvic wall, which is related to sepsis, radiation, or recurrent cancer.  Retroprostatic/rectrovaginal bleeding especially in posterior lateral aspects of these structures.  Arterial injury to common or external iliac vessels is rare but very problematic. Some enteric contamination is usual, in the vicinity. Proximal and distal vascular control can be very difficult in the partially fixed pelvis. In the radiated pelvis as well, risks of arteriotomy repair may call for iliac artery ligation and a femora-femoral crossover graft.

MANAGEMENT OF BLEEDING Management of bleeding involves good exposure and lighting of the pelvis. Initial management involves obtaining finger control, alerting the anesthesiologist to the situation, and ensuring adequate supply of blood products. The application of a cotton pledget (on a long clamp) can facilitate pressure to the point where finger control was effective, and with the hand and wrist out of the way, allow for better visualization of the problems. Then determine the best method for control: thumbtack, suture, free muscle suture tamponade, etc. If venous, a vessel laceration is best treated by suture, for example, 5-0 Prolene; a cotton pledget pressure point on the caudal side of the injured vessel acts as vascular control, facilitating the

3

suturing. If effective, use packing of the pelvis when other maneuvers are unsuccessful. This may require pack removal at separate laparotomy 48 hours later.

Specific Procedures and Reconstruction This overview cannot do justice to the many technical maneuvers that may be applied to specific circumstances, such as restoration after Hartmann’s procedure. Obtaining a soft, supple top of the rectal stump is important but not always possible with a fibrosed narrow stump. The end of the descending colon to the side of the midrectum with circular stapling technique may be a useful alternative in such cases. For restoration after septic or ischemic stricturing of a low colorectal anastomosis, resection of the distal rectum to the anorectal ring may facilitate a coloanal anastomosis. While there is functional value to a colonic J pouch, if the operation has been at all difficult, I favor dispensing with this reservoir and performing a straight anastomosis. Longterm outcomes of straight anastomoses are similar to those with a reservoir in these settings. Where pelvic radiation has been used, especially if there is an associated vaginal or prostatic fistula, then I favor the Turnbull Cutait pullthrough procedure. This negates the possibility of anastomotic leak, and the pulled-through colon is amputated at 7 days and delayed coloanal anastomoses are done. In all reconstructive cases in the low pelvis, temporary fecal diversion is recommended. For restoration after a redo ileopouch anal anastomosis, pouch-anal disconnection is done; also curettage of any presacral sepsis/abscess and drainage are done; check for integrity of the pouch and its reach to the anus; and completion mucosal proctectomy and neo-pouch–anal anastomosis with loop ileostomy are performed. A complete discussion of reoperation for recurrent rectal cancer is beyond the scope of this overview. The key to embarking on this procedure is patient selection, which involves clinical laboratory and imaging techniques to indicate if curative surgery is possible. Emphasis is placed on weighing the benefits against the complications or risk of death. Planned palliative surgery is rarely indicated in the setting of reoperative pelvic surgery. Pelvic exenteration and sacral resections may be performed when indicated, but they require experienced surgeons, as landmarks are frequently absent. Trial dissection of the presacral space may come to a halt when fusion to the sacrum occurs and distinction between cancer and radiation fibrosis is nearly impossible. The experienced surgeon may deem it then appropriate to dissect flush on the periosteum, risking bleeding from the basivertebral veins, but may be rewarded by finding a plane, an intact plane, posterior to the cancer.

Conclusion Reoperative pelvic surgery may be a hugely challenging undertaking. Careful planning, timing, and patient selection, and an experienced team of surgeons and

4

C H AP TE R 1

anesthesiologist are required for successful surgery while minimizing the risk of complications.

References 1. Beynon J, Carr ND. Progress in coloproctology. New York: Springer; 2004. 2. Church JM, Garcia-Aguilar J, Roberts PL, et al. The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery. New York: Springer; 2006. 3. Davila GW, Ghoniem GM, Wexner SD. Pelvic floor dysfunction: A multidisciplinary approach. New York: Springer; 2005.

4. DiZerega GS, DeCherney AH, Diamond MP, et al. Pelvic surgery: adhesion formation and prevention. New York: Springer; 1997. 5. Drutz HP, Herschorn S, Diamant NE. Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive pelvic surgery. New York: Springer; 2005. 6. Longo W, Northover J. Reoperative colon and rectal surgery. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2003. 7. Siddighi S, Hardesty J. Urogynecology and female pelvic reconstructive surgery. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2006. 8. Stanton S, Zimmern P (eds). Female pelvic reconstructive surgery. New York: Springer; 2002. 9. Teich S, Caniano DA. Reoperative pediatric surgery. New York: Humana Press; 2008. 10. Zimmern PE, Norton PA, Haab F, et al. Vaginal Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse. New York: Springer, 2006.

2

Reoperations Within the First 30 Days After Pelvic Surgery Jeffery Nelson

Reoperative problems that present within the first 30 days after pelvic surgery from either a perineal or abdominal approach require not only a high index of suspicion, but also constant vigilance on the part of the clinician in order to avoid unnecessary morbidity. These problems present acutely and demand quick recognition and subsequent treatment. Infection is one of the leading causes of early readmission after abdominal and anorectal surgery, but the surgeon must keep other factors in mind, as well. Kariv et al.1 examined the characteristics of 150 consecutive patients readmitted within 30 days of surgery. The causes of readmission were surgical site infections (SSIs) (33%), ileus or small bowel obstruction (SBO) (23%), medical complications (24%), and others (24%). Risk factors for readmission were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, low functioning capacity, previous anticoagulant therapy, steroid treatment, and discharge to a location other than home. Disease-related factors actually had little to do with readmission rates. Based on these findings, the authors concluded that in addition to the typical preoperative medical risk stratification, that patients also receive treatment to increase their functional capacities before surgery, minimize steroid use, or stratify perioperative anticoagulant use in order to decrease readmission rates. This study serves as a good reminder that we should keep the patient’s overall condition in mind if we are to minimize the chances for complications. For the purposes of this chapter, we examine reoperative anorectal complications separately from those arising from pelvic operations using an abdominal approach.

Anorectal Complications Infection Any anorectal operation can potentially be complicated by local or systemic sepsis, but this is quite uncommon. Necrotizing soft tissue infections, such as Fournier’s gangrene, after hemorrhoidectomy or perirectal abscess drainage are rare, with only case reports in the

literature.2–6 Suspected predisposing factors such as granulocytopenia,2 urinary tract infection, and local trauma3 have been reported, but frequently the cause is unknown. When this rare complication does occur after any anorectal procedure, surgical debridement of any and all infected devitalized tissue, combined with broad-spectrum antibiotics, is mandatory. One recent review examined the incidence of severe sepsis and any predisposing factors after hemorrhoid treatment using rubber band ligation, excisional surgery, sclerotherapy, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy.4 Thirty-eight patients were identified in the literature who suffered severe sepsis after hemorrhoid treatment manifested by perineal sepsis, liver abscess, or retroperitoneal gas and edema. Ten deaths occurred. No definite predisposing factors were identified, but common presenting features included urinary difficulties, fever, severe pain, leukocytosis, and septic shock. Patients found to have necrotizing soft tissue infections were uniformly managed with surgery, but the minority who presented early without signs of soft tissue necrosis were managed without surgery. Localized wound infections of the perineum are managed identically to those found anywhere else. Primarily closed wounds should be opened (i.e., flap anoplasties or hemorrhoidal suture lines) and broad-spectrum antibiotics started if any cellulitis is present. Some procedures, such as an overlapping sphincteroplasty, may leave open perineal wounds for drainage, but they still can develop localized cellulitis. As long as no evidence of tissue necrosis or deep space infection of the repair is present, antibiotic treatment is sufficient to treat the cellulitis.

Wound Healing Complications Wound healing complications after anorectal surgery that require reoperation within 30 days from the initial surgery are relatively few. Wound separation and flap necrosis after flap anoplasty are among the most serious problems, although thrombosed external hemorrhoids, anal fissure, and fistulas have also been reported as being reoperated on within 30 days.7 Resuturing of separated flap anoplasties

R.P. Billingham et al. (eds.), Reoperative Pelvic Surgery, DOI 10.1007/b14187_2, Ó Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC 2009

5

6

C H AP TE R 2

has been reported,8 but many surgeons would choose to let them heal by secondary intent. Wound debridement of excessive exudate or necrotic tissue may also be necessary within the first 30 days to promote subsequent wound healing. Anal fissure also may occur after flap procedures, or an excisional hemorrhoidectomy that leaves a wound in the posterior or anterior midline of the anus. The resultant fissure really represents a nonhealing wound, but may be treated like any other chronic anal fissure—with lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) or possibly pharmacologic therapy (nitropaste, Botox, etc.). However, once again most would wait beyond 30 days to offer sphincterotomy to ensure that normal healing does not occur first. Anal fissure resulting from stapled hemorrhoidopexy has also been reported within the first 30 days,9 but LIS is typically reserved for chronic anal fissures beyond the 30-day mark. One meta-analysis of ten randomized controlled trials comparing stapled hemorrhoidopexy to Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy found no differences in the rates of anal fissure or sphincter damage.10 If significant sphincter damage after hemorrhoidectomy, of any variety, or other anorectal procedure is noted at the time of the initial operation, the sphincter should be repaired at that time. If recognition of significant sphincter damage (e.g., disruption or division) is delayed, however, then repair should be delayed until healing of the anorectum is complete and scar has developed at the ends of the sphincter that would aid in eventual reconstruction. Fernando et al.11 reported the results of their randomized prospective evaluation of end-to-end vs. overlapping sphincter repair for grades 3 and 4 (partially through the external sphincter and completely through the sphincter into the rectum, respectively) perineal lacerations immediately after childbirth. In both groups healing was complete, but at 12 months no patient in the overlapping repair group reported incontinence vs. the 24% reported incontinence in the endto-end group (p = .009). Extrapolating from the obstetric literature, it is clear that repair should be carried out at the time of injury, regardless of the repair technique employed, if possible. Anal fistulas, which may develop from wound healing problems during the first 30 days, may be dealt with in several ways, depending on the clinical situation. After a complex anorectal or perineal reconstruction (utilizing flaps for instance), fistulotomy or unroofing of the fistulous tract may not be the most attractive option if one wants to maintain the overall integrity of the repair, not to mention the anal sphincter. Fortunately, other options are available, such as fibrin glue or the anal fistula plug, which do not require the division of any overlying normal tissue. Again, depending on the location of the internal opening of the fistula in relation to the suture lines and flap locations of the initial reconstruction (or staple line in the case of stapled hemorrhoidopexy7), a V-Y or house flap anoplasty may be carried out to close the fistula, leaving the external opening open to drain. After restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA), pouch-vaginal fistulas may also occur. Early complications associated with eventual pouch vaginal fistula development include

pelvic sepsis, anastomotic separation, anastomotic stricture, SBO, hemorrhage, and pouchitis.12

Fecal Impaction Difficult bowel movements after anorectal surgery are commonplace, making the postoperative prescription of fiber supplements and stool softeners routine, but fecal impaction also occurs. This complication typically requires a return to the operating room for disimpaction under anesthesia. Fecal impaction has been reported after many anorectal procedures, including excisional hemorrhoidectomy, stapled hemorrhoidopexy, and anorectal reconstructions, such as a sphincteroplasty.7,13 In a randomized study comparing overlapping to end-to-end sphincteroplasty, two patients in the overlapping group developed fecal impaction vs. none in the end-to-end group.13 This was not statistically significant, however. Examination under anesthesia for disimpaction is also useful for wound examination. The earlier this problem is recognized and dealt with, the better, since fecal impaction may lead to other problems besides wound disruption and patient discomfort, such as obstipation, postobstructive diarrhea, and in extreme cases stercoral ulceration with or without perforation.14 Medical bowel confinement should be omitted from the postoperative management of patients undergoing elective anorectal surgery, because it leads to at least three times the rate of fecal impaction, increases overall costs, and does not impact the wound or septic complication rate.15

Reoperative Pelvic and Abdominal Complications Infection Surgical site infections have been categorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as either superficial, deep, or organ space.16 A superficial wound infection involves skin and subcutaneous tissue. A deep space wound infection involves components of the abdominal wall. Examples of organ space infections include intraabdominal abscesses and hepatic abscesses. All these SSIs require drainage and/or debridement, with or without antibiotic therapy. This may or may not require a return to the operating room. Superficial SSIs are typically managed at the bedside. However, deep and organ space SSIs may require a return to the operating room for definitive management. When the infection involves the fascia, in addition to the subcutaneous tissue, concerns about fascial integrity may require operative debridement and washout to rule out dehiscence. Necrotizing soft tissue infections warrant special mention here. As in necrotizing infections of the perineum, the treatment of abdominal wound necrotizing infections is very similar. These infections are typically polymicrobial. In one prospective series of necrotizing infections from India, the clinical characteristics and outcomes of 75 patients were followed over their course of treatment.17 Staphylococcus aureus was the most common

R EOP ERA TI ON S WI TH IN TH E FIR ST 30 D AYS A F TER P ELVI C S U RG ERY

bacteria cultured (46%), but b-hemolytic streptococci were isolated from only 13% of patients. Bacteroides fragilis, anaerobic cocci, and fungi were also isolated. The mortality in this series was 27%. As with Fournier’s gangrene, wide debridement of all necrotic and infected tissue is mandatory. This may take more than one trip to the operating room. Large-volume blood loss during these debridements is not uncommon, and blood products should be typed and crossed ahead of time. The end result may be massive loss of the abdominal wall with wounds even extending onto the flank, back, buttocks, and thighs. These wounds require some very creative management techniques. Vacuum-assisted dressings are ideal for these large wounds, which otherwise would require constant dressing changes. We discuss complicated wound management in more detail below. Intraabdominal and pelvic abscesses are typically discovered via a computed tomography (CT) scan, which may then lead to either percutaneous CT-guided drainage or open operative drainage. Another manner in which organ space SSIs may be discovered is when they lead to fascial dehiscence, prompting a return to the operating room. This is discussed in more detail below. Several studies have shown that CT-guided percutaneous drainage of postoperative abdominal and pelvic abscesses is highly successful and the preferred initial management strategy for this problem, with success rates reported at around 80%.18–21 Even within 1 week of operation, CT-guided abscess drainage has been shown to be effective when the patient displays the appropriate signs and symptoms.22 In the otherwise stable patient with no signs of diffuse peritonitis, this is the typical management strategy employed today. Only when CTguided drainage fails to adequately drain the abscess(es), or if the patient’s condition deteriorates, does reexploration become mandatory. Pelvic sepsis after restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA is particularly troublesome, since it is associated with subsequent pouch failure.23 Sagap et al.23 reviewed 2518 IPAA patients and found that early sepsis, preoperative steroid use, and need for percutaneous abscess drainage were all associated with eventual pouch salvage. Handsewn anastomoses, hypertension, associated fistulas, need for transanal drainage of abscesses, need for laparotomy to control sepsis, delayed ileostomy closure, and the need for a new diverting ileostomy were all associated with eventual pouch failure. These results underscore the importance of hypervigilance for infectious complications in the early postoperative period, since an early abscess that is treatable with antibiotics or percutaneous drainage is less likely to lead to pouch failure in IPAA patients.

7

in the presence of an SSI, once the infection has been dealt with appropriately the subsequent wound management itself is essentially the same. In cases of simple fascial separation without overt dehiscence and evisceration, simple wound care normally suffices. This may involve wet to dry dressing changes or newer methods such as vacuum-assisted dressings, which are becoming increasingly popular. In one recent randomized controlled trial of 65 patients with acute and chronic wounds managed with either vacuum-assisted closure or modern wound dressings, the authors found that the time required to achieve a granulated wound bed was not significantly different from the regular dressings, unless the patient was diabetic or had cardiovascular disease.24 Patient comfort was improved, however, as were the nursing costs. The total costs of both dressing methods were similar. When abdominal wound dehiscence occurs with overt or threatened evisceration, a return to the operating room is mandatory. At least three different studies have demonstrated the association of intraabdominal sepsis with fascial dehiscence in both elective and trauma laparotomies.25–27 Other associated factors include age over 65, pulmonary disease, hemodynamic instability, ostomies in the incision, hypoproteinemia, systemic infection, obesity, uremia, hyperalimentation, malignancy, ascites, steroid use, and hypertension.27 A complete abdominal exploration should be carried out to search for any anastomotic leaks, enterotomies, and abscesses, which may have led to the dehiscence. Once these have been dealt with and drained, as appropriate, the fascia can be closed again with retention sutures, if possible. The retention sutures prevent evisceration from occurring again, if the fascia later dehisces. The skin should be left open to heal by secondary intention, or should be managed by delayed primary closure once granulation tissue develops. If too much tension on the fascia exists to close it safely due to bowel edema or previous fascial debridement, then open abdomen management techniques are employed (Fig. 2.1). One popular method is the abdominal vacuum-assisted dressing. The

Wound and Fascial Dehiscence This topic is closely related to that of infectious complications, because infection so often leads to the problem of wound and fascial breakdown. Once the infection is under control, management of the resulting wound, whether it be an open abdomen, an open perineal wound after abdominoperineal resection (APR), or a simple fascial dehiscence, becomes the management issue. Wounds do break down in the absence of infection, as well, but even

FIGURE 2.1. Typical appearance of open abdomen before placement of vacuum-assisted dressing or other dressing.

8

C H AP TE R 2

advantage of this method, over the older ‘‘IV bag’’ closure, is that it controls the abdominal fluid leakage making skin care and overall nursing care of the patient much easier.24 These dressings are typically changed every 2 days along with an abdominal washout until the abdomen is again ready for closure, either primarily or with some kind of prosthetic or skin graft.28 In the case of massive wounds created by soft tissue debridements secondary to necrotizing soft tissue infections, vacuum-assisted dressings can also be used to manage not only the open abdominal wound but also any open soft tissue defects created by the debridement, such as wounds extending onto the back, buttocks, or thighs. Again, these dressings are typically changed in the operating room during any scheduled abdominal washouts with abdominal vacuum-assisted dressing changes. Besides abdominal wound dehiscence, the other contentious wound healing problem affecting pelvic surgery is perineal wound breakdown, especially after APR. Overall, the management principles here are the same as with abdominal wound dehiscence. The surgeon must rule out infection, usually through wound exploration. Computed tomography scanning of the abdomen and pelvis is also advised to rule out a pelvic abscess or fluid collection that may be contributing to breakdown of the perineal wound, especially in the presence of perineal wound drainage of any character. If a fluid collection is present, then it may be percutaneously drained. The next question facing the surgeon is how to manage the wound. Wet to dry dressings usually suffice, but vacuum-assisted dressings have also been used in this setting.29 A return to the operating room for wound exploration, debridement, and placement of the initial dressing may be required. To avoid this complication after APR (in irradiated patients in particular), some surgeons have turned to prophylactic or primary myocutaneous flap reconstruction of the perineal defect or omentoplasty to prevent wound breakdown and perineal sinus formation.30–32 These flaps may be taken from the abdomen, such as a transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (TRAM) flap, or from the thigh, such as a gracilis flap. This approach should definitely be considered routinely in reoperative recurrent rectal cancer cases where part of the sacrum may need resection. The perineal wound dehiscence rate has been reported to be as high as 48% in this setting.33 However, there is no prospective, randomized data to completely support the mandatory routine use of these flaps for primary perineal wound reconstruction.

Anastomotic Leak One of the most feared early postoperative complications, at the forefront of every surgeon’s mind, is anastomotic leak. For the purposes of this chapter we limit our discussion to anastomotic leakage in the pelvis after rectal resection, which is especially problematic, not only because of the anatomic location of the leak, but also because of the functional and oncologic problems it may cause. In one large prospective study, 622 patients were evaluated after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.34 Either total mesorectal (TME) or partial mesorectal excision

(PME) was used depending on the height of the tumor. The average height of the tumors from the anal verge was 8 cm. Overall the anastomotic leak rate was 8.1% in the TME patients and 1.3% in the PME patients. Independent risk factors for a higher leak rate were TME, male gender, absence of a stoma, and higher blood loss. Male gender has also been found to be a risk factor for anastomotic leak after low anterior resection in at least one other study.35 In this prospective trial, 541 consecutive colon and rectal resections were evaluated. The leak rate for the rectal resections was 7.4% and that for the colon resections was 2.2%. These investigators found that male gender, previous abdominal surgery, Crohn’s disease, tumor height less than or equal to 12 cm from the anal verge, and prolonged operating time were all significantly associated with anastomotic leak. Intuitively, it makes sense that a more difficult operation in a male patient with a deep, narrow pelvis and with a low rectal tumor making the anastomosis more difficult (i.e., more tension and compromised blood supply) might lead to higher leak rates. Most surgeons agree that the highest risk for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection exists in men with unprotected anastomoses less than 5 cm from the anal verge, especially if they have received preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy.36 Based on these data, one could conclude that a protecting ostomy for all such patients with low colorectal or ileorectal anastomoses would be mandatory. However, this topic remains somewhat controversial. Protecting stomas have been criticized, because they probably do not decrease the actual leak rate, they require a second potentially risky operation with its own attendant morbidity, and the stomas themselves are associated with many different complications in patients who are typically elderly and debilitated from both their disease and the treatment for it.37–39 Diverting loop ileostomies can cause many problems including dermatitis, stomal prolapse, and dehydration (which can lead to renal failure in severe cases). After these stomas are closed, the patients are again at risk for wound infection, anastomotic leak, SBO, and enterocutaneous fistula. Why do it then? Ultimately the goal in rectal cancer patients, as in all cancer patients, is to rid them of their tumor. There is significant concern that pelvic sepsis after rectal cancer resection may increase the local and distant recurrence rate. In a retrospective study of 300 patients who underwent rectal resection with TME, with and without preoperative radiation therapy, Laurent et al.40 evaluated the effect postoperative sepsis had on overall and disease free survival. The patients who experienced pelvic sepsis postoperatively had a 5-year disease-free survival of 39% compared with a 5-year disease-free survival of 65% in those without it (p