A prospective cohort study to evaluate continuous wound infusion with local analgesics within an enhanced recovery protocol after colorectal cancer surgery

AIM: To reduce detrimental opioid-related side effects, minimising the postoperative opioid consumption is needed, especially in older patients. Continuous wound infusion (CWI) with local analgesics seems an effective opioid-sparing alternative. However, the added value of CWI to an enhanced recovery protocol after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of CWI after CRC surgery within a strictly adhered enhanced recovery protocol. METHOD: In this multicentre prospective observational cohort study, patients who underwent CRC surgery between May 2019 and January 2021 were included. Patients were treated with CWI as adjunct to multimodal pain management within an enhanced recovery protocol. Postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores and outcomes regarding functional recovery were evaluated. RESULTS: A cohort of 130 consecutive patients were included, of whom 36.2% were ≥75 years. Postoperative opioids were consumed by 80 (61.5%) patients on postoperative day 0, and by 28 (21.5%), 27 (20.8%), and 18 (13.8%) patients on postoperative day 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Median pain scores were <4 on all days. The median time until first passage of stool was 1.0 (IQR 1.0-2.0) day. Postoperative delirium occurred in 0.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 3.0 days (IQR 2.0-5.0). CONCLUSION: In patients treated with CWI, low amounts of postoperative opioid consumption, adequate postoperative pain control, and enhanced recovery were observed. CWI seems a beneficial opioid-sparing alternative and may further improve the outcomes of an enhanced recovery protocol after CRC surgery, which seems especially valuable for older patients

Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy with Intra-Operative Radiotherapy for Patients with Locally Advanced or Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer and Peritoneal Metastases

Purpose: To assess the safety and long-term outcome of a multimodality treatment consisting of radical surgery, intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT), and cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) or locally recurrent rectal carcinoma (LRRC) and peritoneal metastases (PM). Methods: The present study was a single-center cohort study, including all consecutive patients undergoing this treatment in a tertiary referral center for LARC, LRRC, and PM. Postoperative complications, intensive care stay (ICU stay), and re-admission rates were assessed as well as disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 14 LARC and 16 LRRC patients with PM were included in the study. The median ICU stay was 1 day, and 57% of patients developed a severe postoperative complication. No 90-day mortality was observed. Median DFS was 10.0 months (Interquartile Range 7.1–38.7), and median OS was 31.0 months (Interquartile Range 15.9–144.3). Conclusions: As postoperative complications and survival were in line with treatments that are accepted for LARC or LRRC and PM as separate procedures, we conclude that combined treatment with IORT and CRS-HIPEC should be considered as a treatment option for selected patients with LARC or LRRC and peritoneal metastases in tertiary referral centers

Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol in Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer Patients after beyond Total Mesorectal Excision Surgery: A Feasibility Study

Introduction: The implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) has been deemed unfeasible until now because of the heterogeneity of this disease and low caseloads. Since evidence and experience with ERAS principles in colorectal cancer care are increasing, a modified ERAS protocol for this specific group has been developed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation of a tailored ERAS protocol for patients with LARC or LRRC, requiring beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) surgery. Methods: Patients who underwent a bTME for LARC or LRRC between October 2021 and December 2022 were prospectively studied. All patients were treated in accordance with the ERAS LARRC protocol, which consisted of 39 ERAS care elements specifically developed for patients with LARC and LRRC. One of the most important adaptations of this protocol was the anaesthesia procedure, which involved the use of total intravenous anaesthesia with intravenous (iv) lidocaine, iv methadone, and iv ketamine instead of epidural anaesthesia. The outcomes showed compliance with ERAS care elements, complications, length of stay, and functional recovery. A follow-up was performed at 30 and 90 days post-surgery. Results: Seventy-two patients were selected, all of whom underwent bTME for either LARC (54.2%) or LRRC (45.8%). Total compliance with the adjusted ERAS protocol was 73.6%. Major complications were present in 12 patients (16.7%), and the median length of hospital stay was 9 days (IQR 6.0–14.0). Patients who received multimodal anaesthesia (75.0%) stayed in the hospital for a median of 7.0 days (IQR 6.8–15.5). These patients received fewer opioids on the first three postoperative days than patients who received epidural analgesia (p 70%. Its complication rate was substantially reduced in comparison with the literature. Multimodal anaesthesia is feasible in beyond TME surgery with promising effects on recovery after surgery

A Multidisciplinary Approach for the Personalised Non-Operative Management of Elderly and Frail Rectal Cancer Patients Unable to Undergo TME Surgery

Simple Summary Total mesorectal excision is the cornerstone for rectal cancer curation. However, elderly and frail patients may not be able to undergo a surgical procedure. These patients often receive no treatment at all and are at risk for developing debilitating symptoms that impair quality of life. Recent developments in the non-operative management of rectal cancer have increased the possibilities to provide patients with an alternative treatment if surgery is not possible, in an effort to avoid the onset of debilitating symptoms, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. The heterogeneity within the elderly and frail population requires a patient-centred approach to optimise treatment. The aim of this narrative review was to discuss a multidisciplinary and patient-centred treatment approach for the personalised non-operative management of elderly and frail rectal cancer patients. The narrative review also provides a practical suggestion of a successfully implemented multidisciplinary clinical care pathway, based on a literature review. Despite it being the optimal curative approach, elderly and frail rectal cancer patients may not be able to undergo a total mesorectal excision. Frequently, no treatment is offered at all and the natural course of the disease is allowed to unfold. These patients are at risk for developing debilitating symptoms that impair quality of life and require palliative treatment. Recent advancements in non-operative treatment modalities have enhanced the toolbox of alternative treatment strategies in patients unable to undergo surgery. Therefore, a proposed strategy is to aim for the maximal non-operative treatment, in an effort to avoid the onset of debilitating symptoms, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. The complexity of treating elderly and frail patients requires a patient-centred approach to personalise treatment. The main challenge is to optimise the balance between local control of disease, patient preferences, and the burden of treatment. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is a crucial element within the multidisciplinary dialogue. Since limited knowledge is available on the optimal non-operative treatment strategy, these patients should be treated by dedicated multidisciplinary rectal cancer experts with special interest in the elderly and frail. The aim of this narrative review was to discuss a multidisciplinary patient-centred treatment approach and provide a practical suggestion of a successfully implemented clinical care pathway

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort.

Objective:To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL).Background:AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma.Methods:This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated.Results:This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76).Conclusions:The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2: 1). Results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding