Reoperation after colorectal surgery is an independent predictor of the 1-year mortality rate

BACKGROUND: Comparative evaluation of surgical quality among hospitals must improve outcome and efficiency, and reduce medical costs. Reoperation after colorectal surgery is a consequence of surgical complications and therefore considered a quality-of-care indicator. With respect to the mortality rate, the 1-year mortality may be a more meaningful figure than in-hospital mortality, because it also reflects the impact of surgical complications beyond discharge. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the 1-year mortality after colorectal surgery and to identify predicting factors. DESIGN: This study was a retrospective analysis from our colorectal surgery database. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery from 2005 to 2008 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Both univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify predicting factors. The following variables were analyzed: age, operative risk according to the ASA class, Charlson-Age Comorbidity Index, indication for and type of resection, primary anastomosis, tumor staging, anastomotic leakage, and reoperation. RESULTS: For 743 consecutive patients, the 1-year mortality rate was 6.9%. Patients were operated on mainly because of colorectal cancer (n = 537; 72%). The rate of reoperation and in-hospital mortality was 12.8% and 2.4%. Univariate survival analysis demonstrated that ASA class, age, Charlson-Age Comorbidity Index, reoperation, and stage of disease were independent predictors of 1-year mortality. Multivariate analysis showed that ASA class (P = .020; HR 1.69), age (P = .015; HR 2.08) and reoperation (P = .001; HR 2.72) are directly correlated with 1-year mortality. LIMITATIONS: Both patients with benign diseases and colorectal cancer are included. Furthermore, no clear guidelines on whether to perform a reoperation were available. CONCLUSION: One-year mortality after colorectal surgery is independently predicted by ASA class, age, and reoperation. Our results underline the value of the 1-year mortality rate and the reoperation rate as parameters for quality assessment in colorectal surgery

Timing of restoration of bowel continuity after decompressing stoma, in left-sided obstructive colon cancer:a nationwide retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of decompressing stoma as a bridge to surgery for left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), the timing of restoration of bowel continuity (ROBC) is a subject of debate. There is a lack of data on immediate ROBC during elective resection as an alternative for a 3-stage procedure. This study analysed if immediate ROBC during tumour resection is safe and of any benefit for patients who underwent decompressing stoma for LSOCC. METHODS: In a Dutch nationwide collaborative research project, 3153 patients who underwent resection for LSOCC in 75 hospitals (2009-2016) were identified. Extensive data on disease and procedural characteristics, and outcomes was collected by local collaborators. For this analysis, 332 patients who underwent decompressing stoma followed by curative resection were selected. Immediate ROBC during tumour resection was compared to two no immediate ROBC groups, (1) tumour resection with primary anastomosis (PA) with leaving the decompressing stoma in situ, and (2) tumour resection without PA. RESULTS: Immediate ROBC was performed in 113 patients (34.0%) and no immediate ROBC in 219 patients [168 with PA (50.6%) and 51 patients without PA (15.4%)]. No differences at baseline between the groups were found for age, ASA score, cT, and cM. Major surgical complications (8.8% immediate ROBC vs. 4.8% PA with decompressing stoma and 7.8% no PA; P =0.37) and mortality (2.7% vs. 2.4% and 0%, respectively; P =0.52) were similar. Immediate ROBC resulted in a shorter time with a stoma (mean 41 vs. 240 and 314 days, respectively; P &lt;0.001), and fewer permanent stomas (7% vs. 21% and 80%, respectively; P &lt;0.001) as compared to PA with a decompressing stoma or no PA. CONCLUSION: After a decompressing stoma for LSOCC, immediate ROBC during elective resection appears safe, reduces the total time with a stoma and the risk of a permanent stoma.</p

Surgical treatment of anorectal melanoma:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Anorectal melanoma is a rare neoplasm with a poor prognosis. The surgical approaches for anorectal melanoma can be categorized into local excision (procedures without lymph node removal and preservation of the rectum) and extensive resection (procedures with rectum and pararectal lymph node removal). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the survival of patients who underwent extensive resection with that of patients who underwent local excision, stratifying patients according to tumour stage. METHODS: A literature review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines by searching MEDLINE/PubMed for manuscripts published until March 2021. Studies comparing survival outcomes in patients with anorectal melanoma who underwent local excision versus extensive resection were screened for eligibility. Meta-analysis was performed for overall survival after the different surgical approaches, stratified by tumour stage. RESULTS: There were 347 studiesidentified of which 34 were included for meta-analysis with a total of 1858 patients. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the surgical approaches in patients per stage (stage I odds ratio 1.30 (95 per cent c.i. 0.62 to 2.72, P = 0.49); stage II odds ratio 1.61 (95 per cent c.i. 0.62 to 4.18, P = 0.33); stage I–III odds ratio 1.19 (95 per cent c.i. 0.83 to 1.70, P = 0.35). Subgroup analyses were conducted for the time intervals (<2000, 2001–2010 and 2011–2021) and for continent of study origin. Subgroup analysis for time interval and continent of origin also showed no statistically significant differences in overall survival. CONCLUSION: No significant survival benefit exists for patients with anorectal melanoma treated with local excision or extensive resection, independent of tumour stage

Role of Local Excision for Suspected Regrowth in a Watch and Wait Strategy for Rectal Cancer

Simple Summary Rectal cancer patients with a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant treatment are eligible for Watch and Wait as an alternative to total mesorectal excision. However, in patients with local regrowth, major surgery is still the standard of care. The present study evaluates the role of local excision for suspected local regrowth in a large Watch and Wait cohort, in terms of long-term outcomes. This study shows excellent overall survival and a good organ preservation rate. Patients who developed locoregional recurrence after initial local excision for regrowth were all successfully treated with salvage surgery. This study shows that local excision can provide maintenance of organ preservation without an obvious compromise in surgical or oncological safety. Local excision for suspected regrowth in patients following Watch and Wait can be a safe alternative for total mesorectal excision in selected patients with a strong wish to preserve their rectum. Rectal cancer patients with a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant (chemo)radiation are eligible for Watch and Wait (W&W). For local regrowth, total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered the standard of care. This study evaluated local excision (LE) for suspected local regrowth. From 591 patients prospectively entered into a national W&W registry, 77 patients with LE for regrowth were included. Outcomes analyzed included histopathologic findings, locoregional recurrence, long-term organ preservation, and colostomy-free and overall survival. In total, 27/77 patients underwent early LE (= 6 months). Median follow-up was 53 (39-69) months. In 28/77 patients the LE specimen was histopathologically classified as ypT0 (including 9 adenomas); 11/77 were ypT1, and 38/77 were ypT2-3. After LE, 13/77 patients with ypT2-3 and/or irradical resection underwent completion TME. Subsequently, 14/64 patients without completion TME developed locoregional recurrence, and were successfully treated with salvage TME. Another 8/77 patients developed distant metastases. At 5 years, overall organ preservation was 63%, colostomy-free survival was 68%, and overall survival was 96%. There were no differences in outcomes between early or late LE. In W&W for rectal cancer, LE can be considered as an alternative to TME for suspected regrowth in selected patients who wish to preserve their rectum or avoid colostomy in distal rectal cancer

Definition of large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer:A systematic review

Aim: Controversies on therapeutic strategy for large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer mainly concern acute conditions, being essentially different from subacute obstruction. Clearly defining acute obstruction is important for design and interpretation of studies as well as for guidelines and daily practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate definitions of obstruction by colorectal cancer in prospective studies. Method: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria included randomized or prospective observational design, publication between 2000 and 2019, and the inclusion of patients with an obstruction caused by colorectal cancer. Provided definitions of obstruction were extracted with assessment of common elements. Results: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 99 prospective observational studies were included. Obstruction was specified as acute in 28 studies, complete/emergency in five, (sub)acute or similar terms in four and unspecified in 78. Five of 16 RCTs (31%) and 37 of 99 cohort studies (37%) provided a definition. The definitions included any combination of clinical symptoms, physical signs, endoscopic features and radiological imaging findings in 25 studies. The definition was only based on clinical symptoms in 11 and radiological imaging in six studies. Definitions included a radiological component in 100% of evaluable RCTs (5/5) vs. 54% of prospective observational studies (20/37, P = 0.07). Conclusion: In this systematic review, the majority of prospective studies did not define obstruction by colorectal cancer and its urgency, whereas provided definitions varied hugely. Radiological confirmation seems to be an essential component in defining acute obstruction

Alteration of the Exhaled Volatile Organic Compound Pattern in Colorectal Cancer Patients after Intentional Curative Surgery—A Prospective Pilot Study

As current follow-up modalities for colorectal carcinoma (CRC) have restricted sensitivity, novel diagnostic tools are needed. The presence of CRC changes the endogenous metabolism, resulting in the release of a specific volatile organic compounds (VOC) pattern that can be detected with an electronic nose or AeonoseTM. To evaluate the use of an electronic nose in the follow-up of CRC, we studied the effect of curative surgery on the VOC pattern recognition using AeonoseTM. A prospective cohort study was performed, in which 47 patients diagnosed with CRC were included, all of whom underwent curative surgical resection. Breath testing was performed before and after surgery using the AeonoseTM. A machine learning model was developed by discerning between the 94 pre-and postoperative breath samples. The training model differentiated between the pre-and postoperative CRC breath samples with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.78 (95%CI 0.61–0.90) and 0.73 (95%CI 0.56–0.86), respectively, with an accuracy of 0.76 (95%CI 0.66–0.85), and an area under the curve of 0.79 (95%CI 0.68–0.89). The internal validation of the test set resulted in an accuracy of 0.75 (95%CI 0.51–0.91) and AUC of 0.82 (95%CI 0.61–1). In conclusion, our results suggest that the VOC pattern of CRC patients is altered by curative surgery in a short period, indicating that the exhaled VOCs might be closely related to the presence of CRC. However, to use AeonoseTM as a potential diagnostic tool in the clinical follow-up of CRC patients, the performance of the models needs to be improved through further large-scale prospective research.</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

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