Journal of Universal Surgery

  • ISSN: 2254-6758
  • Journal h-index: 7
  • Journal CiteScore: 0.79
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Euro Pub
  • Google Scholar
Share This Page

Mini Review - (2022) Volume 10, Issue 5

Complications in colorectal surgery

Dr. Roiyal Gramignoli*
Assistant Professor, Dept. Laboratory Medicine, Roberto Gramignoli Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
*Correspondence: Dr. Roiyal Gramignoli, Assistant Professor, Dept. Laboratory Medicine, Roberto Gramignoli Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, Email:

Received: 02-May-2022, Manuscript No. IPJUS-22-13935; Editor assigned: 04-May-2022, Pre QC No. IPJUS-22-13935 (PQ); Reviewed: 19-May-2022, QC No. IPJUS-22-13935; Revised: 23-May-2022, Manuscript No. IPJUS-22-13935 (R); Published: 30-May-2022, DOI: 10.36648/2254- 6758.22.10.46


Colorectal surgery is associated with a lesser threat for infections than utmost other surgical fortes and is considered an outlier for surgical point infections (SSI) [1]. Reducing the prevalence of infections, especially SSIs, remains a major challenge in colorectal surgery. Prevention of SSIs can be achieved by several styles, including optimized preoperative case medication, perioperative bowel medication, strict adherence to antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines, increased intraoperative oxygen delivery, crack irrigation, conservation of intraoperative normothermia, and postoperative glycemic control [2]. Prevention of urinary tract infections can be achieved by early urinary catheter junking and sterile intraoperative catheter placement. Respiratory infections can be averted by smoking conclusion, early postoperative rallying, and pulmonary care with use of incitement spirometry, coughing and deep breathing, oral care, and head- of- bed elevation [3].


The specialty of colorectal surgery is unique in several aspects. It covers a large part of the visceral deconstruction. Numerous diseases in colorectal surgery are associated with or located in the pelvis, a part of the mortal body with intricate anatomical detail, involving the digestive tract, complex vascular deconstruction, and the nervous system [4]. The anorectic region is also intricate in its deconstruction. Surgery on any part of the anatomical structures associated with colorectal surgery may affect the anatomical integrity, as well as function of one or further structures forenamed. In proposition, this specialty may advance itself to several operations of 3D printing [5]. Several reports have been published demonstrating the feasibility of printing in colorectal surgery (CRC), understood as surgery involving colonic resection and anastomosis, is performed for the treatment of colourful pathologies similar as ulcerative colitis, Cohn’s complaint, mechanical inhibition, intermittent diverticulitis, etc. still, it's colon cancer, which is the alternate most frequent lump in both relations, that's the main cause of surgical suggestion. CRC is a high- threat surgery that generally entails an average sanatorium stay of 12-14 days, which in utmost cases wasn't due to high morbidity but was in fact owing to a global perioperative approach responsible for this length of sanatorium stay [6].


Advances in surgical ways in colorectal surgery and a different remedial approach to the process by healthcare staff have led to the emergence of ways aimed at reducing hospitalization time, known as early or multimodal recuperation, which propose a different global strategy with the end of reducing morbidity and mortality, shortening sanatorium stays, and perfecting the quality of life of these cases [6, 7].


This review provides an overview how to identify and minimize intra- and postoperative complications. The enhancement of different treatment strategies and specialized inventions in the recent decade has been enormous [7]. This is substantially attributable to the increase in the laparoscopic approach, which is now well accepted for numerous procedures. Training of the surgeon, sanitarium volume and literacy angles are getting The lack of agreement on how to define and grade postoperative complications has greatly hampered the evaluation of surgical procedures. A new bracket of complications, initiated in 1992 by Clavien and Dindo is grounded on the type of remedy demanded to correct the complication. The principle of the bracket is simple, reproducible, flexible, and applicable. The Clavien- Dindo Bracket appears dependable and may represent a compelling tool for quality assessment in surgery [8, 9]. A literature hunt was carried out, using MEDLINE, PubMed and the Cochrane library from 1980 to 2009 using the following terms complications, threat factors, colorectal surgery, colorectal resection, laparoscopy, surgical point infection, anastomotic leakage, and bowel sanctification. This review is a general overview that provides an update on these motifs for the anthology.Preoperative and threat factorsthreat factors in exigency, in optional open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery should be honored previous to surgery in order to reduce complications and to initialize personalized treatment as soon as possible. Still, some threat factors similar as age, gender and previous abdominal surgery can obviously not be told before surgery [10].


This conception (Enhanced recovery after surgery, or ERAS) also known as Fast- track was introduced by Wilmore and Kehlet1 and championed by the favorable results attained in posterior randomized studies. It's grounded on substantiation- grounded drug and its perpetration implies knowledge of the mechanisms involved in the pathophysiology of thesurgical process and has forced surgeons and anesthesiologists to make changes in our conduct in order favor the early recovery of these cases. A literature hunt (1980- 2009) was carried out, using MEDLINE, PubMed and the Cochrane library.


  1. Roberts KE (2009) True single-port appendectomy: first experience with the puppeteer technique. Surg Endosc 23: 1825-1830.
  2.  Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  3. Navarra G,  Pozza E,  Occhionorelli S,  Carcoforo P (1997) One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 84: 695.  
  4. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  5. Remzi KH, Kirat HT, Kaouk JH, Geisler DP (2008) Single-port laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. ColorectalDis 10: 823-826.
  6. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  7. Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P, (2008) Single port access laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Int J ColorectalDis 23: 1013-1016.
  8. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  9. Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Nishiguchi Y, Maeda K, Hirakawa K, et al. (2012) Meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis. JGastrointest Surg 16: 1929-1939.
  10. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  11. Ruetsch YA, Böni T, Borgeat A (2001) from cocaine to ropivacaine: the history of local anesthetic drugs. Curr Top Med Chem 1: 175-82.
  12. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  13. Mallinson T (2019) Fascia iliaca compartment block: a short how-to guide. J Paramed Pract 11: 154-55.
  14. Google Scholar, Crossref     

  15. Ullah H, Samad K, Khan FA (2014) Continuous interscalene brachial plexus block versus parenteral analgesia for postoperative pain relief after major shoulder surgery. CDSR (2): 7080.
  16. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  17. Radvansky BM, Shah K, Parikh A, Sifonios AN, Eloy JD, et al.  (2015) Role of ketamine in acute postoperative pain management: a narrative review. BioMed Research International.
  18. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  19. Pahor AL (1992) Ear, nose and throat in ancient Egypt. J Lar Otol Lond 106: 677-87.
  20. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

Citation: Citation: Gramignoli R (2022) Complications in colorectal surgery. J Uni Sur, Vol.10 No. 5: 46.