Predictors of short-term readmission after beyond total mesorectal excision for primary locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Unplanned readmissions heavily affect the cost of health care and are used as an indicator of performance. No clear data are available regarding beyond-total mesorectal excision (bTME) procedure. Aim of the study is to identify patient-related and surgery-related factors influencing the 30-day readmissions after bTME. Retrospective data were collected from 220 patients who underwent bTME procedures at single centre between 2006 and 2016. Patient-related and operative factors were assessed, including body mass index (BMI), age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists’ (ASA) score, preoperative stage, neo-adjuvant therapy, primary tumour vs recurrence, the extent of surgery. The readmission rate was 8.18%. No statistically significant association was found with BMI, ASA score, length of stay and stay in the intensive care unit, primary vs recurrent tumour or blood transfusions. Not quite statistically significant was the association with pelvic side wall dissection (OR 3.32, p = 0.054). Statistically significant factors included preoperative stage > IIIb (OR: 4.77, p = 0.002), neo-adjuvant therapy (OR: 0.13, p = 0.0006), age over 65 years (OR: 5.96, p = 0.0005), any re-intervention during the first admission (OR: 7.4, p = 0.0001), and any post-operative complication (OR: 9.01, p = 0.004). The readmission rate after beyond-TME procedure is influenced by patient-related factors as well as post-operative morbidity

CLINICAL UPDATES Acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency in the world, with around 50 000 and 300 000 acute appendicectomies performed annually in the UK and in the US respectively.12 However, its incidence is falling for unknown reasons.34 This clinical update provides information on how patients may present and what investigations and treatments are available

Factors associated with metachronous metastases and survival in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Background Better understanding of the impact of metachronous metastases in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer may improve decision‐making. The aim of this study was to investigate factors influencing metachronous metastasis and its impact on survival in patients who have a beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) operation. Methods This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients who had bTME surgery for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer at a tertiary referral centre between January 2006 and December 2016. The primary outcome was overall survival. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed. The influence of metachronous metastases on survival was investigated. Results Of 220 included patients, 171 were treated for locally advanced primary tumours and 49 for recurrent rectal cancer. Some 90·0 per cent had a complete resection with negative margins. Median follow‐up was 26·0 (range 1·5–119·6) months. The 5‐year overall survival rate was 71·1 per cent. Local recurrence and metachronous metastasis rates were 11·8 and 22·2 per cent respectively. Patients with metachronous metastases had a worse overall survival than patients without metastases (median 52·9 months versus estimated mean 109·4 months respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 6·73, 95 per cent c.i. 3·23 to 14·00). Advancing pT category (HR 2·01, 1·35 to 2·98), pN category (HR 2·43, 1·65 to 3·59), vascular invasion (HR 2·20, 1·22 to 3·97) and increasing numbers of positive lymph nodes (HR 1·19, 1·07 to 1·16) increased the risk of metachronous metastasis. Nine of 17 patients (53 per cent) with curatively treated synchronous metastases at presentation developed metachronous metastases, compared with 40 of 203 (19·7 per cent) without synchronous metastases (P = 0·002). Corresponding median length of disease‐free survival was 17·5 versus 90·8 months (P < 0·001). Conclusion As metachronous metastases impact negatively on survival after bTME surgery, factors associated with metachronous metastases may serve as selection tools when determining suitability for treatment with curative intent

A Systematic Review to Assess Resection Margin Status After Abdominoperineal Excision and Pelvic Exenteration for Rectal Cancer.

Objective The aim of this study was to assess resection margin status and its impact on survival after abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.Summary of background data Resection margin is important to guide therapy and to evaluate patient prognosis.Methods A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of resection margin status on survival, and a regression analysis to analyze positive resection margin rates reported in the literature.Results The analysis included 111 studies reporting on 19,607 participants after abdominoperineal excision, and 30 studies reporting on 1326 participants after pelvic exenteration. The positive resection margin rates for abdominoperineal excision were 14.7% and 24.0% for pelvic exenteration. The overall survival and disease-free survival rates were significantly worse for patients with positive compared with negative resection margins after abdominoperineal excision [hazard ratio (HR) 2.64, P < 0.01; HR 3.70, P < 0.01, respectively] and after pelvic exenteration (HR 2.23, P < 0.01; HR 2.93, P < 0.01, respectively). For patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision with positive resection margins, the reported tumor sites were 57% anterior, 15% posterior, 10% left or right lateral, 8% circumferential, 10% unspecified. A significant decrease in positive resection margin rates was identified over time for abdominoperineal excision. Although positive resection margin rates did not significantly change with the size of the study, some small size studies reported higher than expected positive resection margin rates.Conclusions Resection margin status influences survival and a multidisciplinary approach in experienced centers may result in reduced positive resection margins. For advanced anterior rectal cancer, posterior pelvic exenteration instead of abdominoperineal excision may improve resection margins

A systematic review of transabdominal levator division during abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER)

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the surgical technique, short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes for the transabdominal division of the levator ani muscles during abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER). A systematic review was performed to identify studies reporting on transabdominal division of the levator ani during APER. A comprehensive literature search was performed using a combination of free-text terms and controlled vocabulary when applicable on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library. The search period was from January 1945 to December 2015. The following search headings were used: "transabdominal", "transpelvic", "abdominal" or "pelvic" combined with either "levator" or "extralevator" and with "abdominoperineal". Nine publications were identified reporting on 99 participants. The male/female distribution was 1.44:1, respectively, and the mean age was 56.6 (30-77) years. All tumours were less than 5 cm from the anal verge. The preoperative radiological staging was T2 in 18% of cases, T3 in 53.5% and T4 in 28.5%. Transabdominal division of the levators was performed laparoscopically in 55 cases, robotically in 34 and open in 10. The mean operating time was 255 (177-640) min. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 140 (92-500) ml. There were no conversions to open. Circumferential resection margins were positive in two cases, and there was one intraoperative perforation. Mean post-operative length of stay was 9.3 (3-67) days. Follow-up (from 0 to 31 months) revealed 19 perineal wound infections, 15 cases of sexual dysfunction and 7 cases of urinary retention. There was no mortality and 1 readmission. Transabdominal division of the levators during APER is feasible and reproducible, with acceptable perioperative and good early oncological outcomes. Further comparative studies are needed