Bowel anastomosis before or after HIPEC: A prospective comparative study in patients undergoing CRS+HIPEC for peritoneal surface malignancy at a tertiary care cancer center in India.

254 Background: To do bowel anastomosis before or after HIPEC has been debated since the time heat is being used for intraperitoneal chemotherapy after cytoreductive surgery. We report our experience of impact of heat on anastomosis and leak rates. Methods: All patients diagnosed with peritoneal surface malignancy eligible for CRS+ HIPEC as per institution protocol had bowel restoration being performed with stapler & second layer taken. Our institution has two teams, of which one performs anastomosis before and one after HIPEC. All the data was entered prospectively in the HIPEC registry and is being analyzed to see the effect of heat on anastomosis. Results: 220 patients underwent CRS+ HIPEC of which organ of origin was colorectal 39%, stomach 20%, mesothelioma 11%, ovary 20% and others 10%. Upfront cases were 12%, interval 58% & recurrent 30%. Prior surgical score was 0 (62%), 1 (11%), 2 (23%), 3 (4%). 100 patients were in group that had anastomosis before HIPEC and 120 patients in other. Mean PCI 13.4±4.5, blood loss 1250±553.9 ml, duration of surgery 9.5±2.4 hrs, duration of hospital stay 9±3.5 days. Overall 57.05% had bowel resections, of which large bowel was 47.8%, small bowel 17.7%, stomach 6.13%. 19.6% required multivisceral resection & stoma rate was 11.1% for whole group. Both the group had almost same number of total (55.4 %vs 58.6%), small (15.3%vs16.5%) & large bowel resections (44.3%vs 49.5%). We had 4 (1.84%) leak overall, of which 2 were in either groups. Overall G3-4 morbidity was 28.4%, surgical G3-4 was 12.5%, perforation 3.6%, obstruction 1.84%, re exploration was 9.2%. 30-day mortality was 4.9%. Conclusions: We conclude that anastomotic integrity, leak rates & complications related to small or large bowel restoration is same either before or after HIPEC as we observed no difference in our study. However, since this is not a randomized study a well-designed multi-institutional randomized study needs to be planned for stronger evidence of the same.