Use of ileostomy versus colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer:retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer causes the majority of large bowel obstructions and surgical resection remains the gold standard for curative treatment. There is evidence that a deviating stoma as a bridge to surgery can reduce postoperative mortality rate; however, the optimal stoma type is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between ileostomy and colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer.METHODS: This was a national, retrospective population-based cohort study with 75 contributing hospitals. Patients with radiological left-sided obstructive colon cancer between 2009 and 2016, where a deviating stoma was used as a bridge to surgery, were included. Exclusion criteria were palliative treatment intent, perforation at presentation, emergency resection, and multivisceral resection.RESULTS: A total of 321 patients underwent a deviating stoma; 41 (12.7 per cent) ileostomies and 280 (87.2 per cent) colostomies. The ileostomy group had longer length of stay (median 13 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 10-16) versus 9 (i.q.r. 6-14) days, P = 0.003) and more nutritional support during the bridging interval. Both groups showed similar complication rates in the bridging interval and after primary resection, including anastomotic leakage. Stoma reversal during resection was more common in the colostomy group (9 (22.0 per cent) versus 129 (46.1 per cent) for ileostomy and colostomy respectively, P = 0.006).CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that patients having a colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer had a shorter length of stay and lower need for nutritional support. No difference in postoperative complications were found.</p

Use of ileostomy versus colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer:retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer causes the majority of large bowel obstructions and surgical resection remains the gold standard for curative treatment. There is evidence that a deviating stoma as a bridge to surgery can reduce postoperative mortality rate; however, the optimal stoma type is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between ileostomy and colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer.METHODS: This was a national, retrospective population-based cohort study with 75 contributing hospitals. Patients with radiological left-sided obstructive colon cancer between 2009 and 2016, where a deviating stoma was used as a bridge to surgery, were included. Exclusion criteria were palliative treatment intent, perforation at presentation, emergency resection, and multivisceral resection.RESULTS: A total of 321 patients underwent a deviating stoma; 41 (12.7 per cent) ileostomies and 280 (87.2 per cent) colostomies. The ileostomy group had longer length of stay (median 13 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 10-16) versus 9 (i.q.r. 6-14) days, P = 0.003) and more nutritional support during the bridging interval. Both groups showed similar complication rates in the bridging interval and after primary resection, including anastomotic leakage. Stoma reversal during resection was more common in the colostomy group (9 (22.0 per cent) versus 129 (46.1 per cent) for ileostomy and colostomy respectively, P = 0.006).CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that patients having a colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer had a shorter length of stay and lower need for nutritional support. No difference in postoperative complications were found.</p

Increased long-term mortality after open colorectal cancer surgery:A multicentre population-based study

Item does not contain fulltex

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision:A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers

BACKGROUND: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. SETTINGS: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

Introduction: Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate. Results: Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001. Conclusion: NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study)

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH. METHOD: Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923. CONCLUSION: Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).</p

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study)

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH. METHOD: Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923. CONCLUSION: Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).</p

Effect of Neoadjuvant Therapy and Rectal Surgery on Health-related Quality of Life in Patients With Rectal Cancer During the First 2 Years After Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION: Rectal cancer surgery with neoadjuvant therapy is associated with substantial morbidity. The present study describes the course of quality of life (QOL) in rectal cancer patients in the first 2 years after the start of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study within a colorectal cancer cohort including rectal cancer patients who were referred for neoadjuvant chemoradiation or short-course radiotherapy and underwent rectal surgery. QOL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and colorectal cancer questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-CR29) before treatment and after 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The outcomes were compared with the QOL scores from the Dutch general population and stratified by low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection. Postoperative bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection was measured using the low anterior resection syndrome score. RESULTS: Of the 324 patients, 272 (84%) responded to at least 2 questionnaires and were included in the present study. Compared with pretreatment levels, the strongest decline was observed in physical, role, and social functioning at 3 and 6 months after the start of treatment. Global health and cognitive functioning declined to a lesser extend, and emotional functioning gradually improved over the time. Within 24 months, the QOL scores had recovered toward the pretreatment levels in most patients. Compared with the general population, physical, role, social, and cognitive functioning and symptoms of fatigue and insomnia remained significantly worse in patients on longer-term. After low anterior resection, major bowel dysfunction was reported by 44% to 60% of the patients. Increasing urinary incontinence and severe complaints of impotence were observed in patients who had undergone abdominoperineal resection. CONCLUSION: Rectal cancer treatment is associated with a significant decline in QOL during the first 6 months after the diagnosis. Within 2 years, most patients return toward pretreatment functioning but could still experience poorer functioning and treatment-related symptoms compared with the general population. These findings support shared decision-making and emphasize the need for postoperative supportive care and novel treatment approaches