UNKNOWN. AUTHOR
Published: 2015-06-04
Total Pages: 631
Get eBook
Excerpt from The British Journal of Surgery, 1922, Vol. 9 The result is that many weeks may elapse before the patient is out of the surgeon's hands. In dealing with malignant disease between the hepatic flexure and the pelvirectal junction, the question we have to consider, therefore, is whether it is possible to find a compromise between the two procedures above referred to - a method, that is to say, which combines the advantages of both without possessing the disadvantages and risks of either. The experience I have had in dealing with the cases which have been operated on when the obstruction has become complete has convinced me that there is such a method, and that the risks which attend the one-stage operation may be largely, if not entirely, eliminated by opening the cæecum. I have entirely given up the Mikulicz operation. For the past ten years it has been my invariable practice, in the absence of obstruction, to do a primary resection followed by an end-to-end anastomosis; and then, as the final step of the operation, to make a small incision over the cæcum and, by means of a carefully applied continuous suture, to stitch the circumference of an area of the anterior wall of the cæecum about the size of a two-shilling piece to the parietal peritoneum and the two deeper muscles. The cæecum is opened twenty-four or forty-eight hours later. A tube about the diameter of a lead pencil is introduced to keep the opening patent. The opening, by providing for the escape of flatus, acts as an efficient safety-valve in preventing all strain on the intestinal sutures. As already mentioned, the patient has almost always a painless and uneventful convalescence; moreover, there is no hurry or anxiety about the giving of an aperient to get the bowels to move. Quite frequently there is a movement by the rectum without the help of an aperient: if one should be necessary it need not be given until the end of the first week, by which time the healing of the bowel will have become secure. The opening in the cæecum need only be about three-quarters of an inch in length, and as it is not intended to be permanent its edges should not be sutured to the skin. In the majority of cases the fistula will have closed spontaneously either when, or shortly after, it is time for the patient to leave the hospital, which he usually does in about three weeks from the date of operation. From the patients point of view, therefore, this procedure possesses a great advantage over the Mikulicz operation. To prevent fæcal matter from the cæcostomy opening reaching the main wound, all that is necessary is to cover over the gauze dressing with a sheet of batiste and fix to the skin (with Michel's clips) the edge which is directed towards the cæcostomy opening. In my opinion there are three advantages which may be claimed for combining a small cæcostomy opening with a primary resection. They are: - 1. It allows of an end-to-end union with safety. 2. This, again, makes it easier to remove a greater extent of bowel, mesentery, and glands than if it were intended to re-establish continuity by a lateral anastomosis. 3. It is sometimes possible to effect an end-to-end union in cases in which a lateral anastomosis would be impracticable; for example, when the tumour is situated rather near the pelvirectal junction. I have become so convinced of the great value of cæcostomy in the treatment of malignant disease of the large intestine that I have seriously considered the question as to whether it is advisable to do it as a preliminary to a resection at a later date, even in the absence of obstruction, just as we do a sigmoidotomy preliminary to removal of the rectum. It is true that in the latter case we divert the whole of the fæces from the pelvic wound, whereas by the cæcostomy we only divert a part of them; it is enough, however, to provide a safety-valve. I will at any rate go so far as...