The relationship between sarcopenia and survival at 1 year in patients undergoing elective colorectal cancer surgery

Background: Colorectal cancer remains a common cause of cancer death in the UK, with surgery being the mainstay of treatment. An objective measurement of the suitability of each patient for surgery, and their risk–benefit calculation, would be of great utility. We postulate that sarcopenia (low muscle mass) could fulfil this role as a prognostic indicator. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between sarcopenia and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing elective bowel resection for colorectal cancer. Methods: One hundred and sixty-three consecutive patients who had elective curative colorectal resection for cancer were eligible for inclusion in the study. Psoas muscle mass was assessed on preoperative computed tomography scan at the level of the L3 vertebra and standardised for patient height (total psoas index, TPI). Sarcopenia (low muscle mass) was defined as < 524 mm2/m2 in males and 385 mm2/m2 in females. In addition to clinical–pathological parameters, postoperative complications were recorded and patients were followed up for mortality for 1 year after surgery. Results: Sarcopenia was present in 19.6% of the study participants and was significantly related to body mass index (p = 0.007), 30-day mortality (p = 0.042) and 1-year mortality (p = 0.046). In univariate analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (p = 0.016), tumour stage (p = 0.018) and sarcopenia (p = 0.043) were found to be significant independent predictors of 1-year mortality. Conclusions: This study has found sarcopenia to be prevalent in patients with colorectal cancer having elective surgery. Independent of age, sarcopenia was associated with poorer 30-day mortality and survival at 1 year. Measurement of muscle mass preoperatively could be used to stratify a patient’s risk, allowing targeted strategies such as prehabilitation, to be implemented to modify sarcopenia and improve long-term outcomes for patients

Decision-making in emergency laparotomy: the role of predicted life expectancy

Introduction: Increasing numbers of older patients are undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL). They are at increased risk of adverse outcomes, making the shared decision on whether to operate challenging. This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess the role of age and life-expectancy predictions on short- and long-term survival in patients undergoing EL. Methods: All patients who underwent EL at one hospital in the West of Scotland between March 2014 to December 2016 were included. Clinical parameters were collected, and patients were followed up to allow reporting of 30-, 60- and 90-day and 1-year mortality rates. Period life expectancy was used to stratify patients into below life expectancy (bLEP) and at-or-above life expectancy (aLEP) groups at presentation. Remaining life expectancy was used to calculate the net years of life gained (NYLG). Results: Some 462 patients underwent EL: 20 per cent in the aLEP group. These patients were older (P < 0.001), had more co-morbidities (P < 0.001) and were high risk on P-POSSUM scoring (P = 0.008). The 30-, 60- and 90-day and 1-year mortality rates were 11, 14, 16 and 23 per cent respectively. Advanced age (P = 0.011) and high ASA score (P = 0.004) and P-POSSUM score (P < 0.001) were independent predictors of death at 1 year on multivariable analysis. The cohort NYLG were 19.2 years. Comparing patients aged less than 70 with those aged 70 years or older, the NYLG were 25.9 versus 5.5 years. Comparing bLEP and aLEP, the NYLG were 22.2 versus 4.4 years. In patients aged 70 years and older, NYLG decreased by more than half in patients with co-morbidities (ASA score 3,4,5) (9.3 versus 4.3 years). Conclusion: Discussions around long-term outcomes after emergency surgery remain difficult. Although age is an influencing factor, predicted life expectancy alone does not provide additional value to shared decision making

Preoperative Kidney Function linked to mortality and readmission outcomes at Day 90 and 30 in Older Emergency Surgical Patients

Grants were received from British Geriatric Society and The Renal Association to support Louis EvansPeer reviewedPublisher PD

A prospective cohort study characterising patients declined emergency laparotomy: survival in the ‘NoLap’ population

Patients eligible for emergency laparotomy who do not proceed to surgery are not as well characterised as patients who do proceed to surgery. We studied patients eligible for laparotomy, as defined by National Emergency Laparotomy Audit criteria, from August 2015 to October 2016. We analysed the association of individual variables with survival and two composite scores: P‐POSSUM and a general survival model. Out of 314 patients, 214 (68%) underwent laparotomy and 100 (32%) did not. Median (IQR [range]) follow‐up was 1.3 (0.1–1.8 [0.0–2.5]) years for the cohort, 1.5 (1.1–2.0 [0.0–2.6]) years after laparotomy and 0.0 (0.0–1.1 [0.0–2.2]) years without laparotomy. There were 126/314 (40%) deaths in the follow‐up period, 52/214 (24%) deaths after laparotomy and 74/100 (74%) deaths without surgery. Ninety out of 126 deaths (71%) were within one month of hospital admission. Patient variables were different for the two groups, which when combined in the general survival model generated background median (IQR [range]) life expectancies of 12 (6–21 [0–49]) and 4 (2–6 [0–36]) years, respectively, p < 0.0001. ‘Poor fitness’ precluded laparotomy in 74/100 (74%) patients. The decision to not operate involved a consultant less often than the decision to operate: 66/100 (66%) vs. 178/214 (83%), p = 0.001. Our study supports the contention that survival beyond 30 postoperative days could be predicted reasonably accurately. Survival in patients who did not have laparotomy was shorter than expected. Emergency laparotomy might have prolonged survival in some patients

Improving lesion localisation at colonoscopy: an analysis of influencing factors

Purpose: Colonoscopy detects colorectal cancer and determines lesion localisation that influences surgical planning. However, published work suggests that the accuracy of lesion localisation can be low as 60 %, with implications for both the surgeon and the patient. This work aims to identify potential influencing factors at colonoscopy that could lead to improved lesion localisation accuracy. Methods: A multi-centred, prospective, observational study was performed that identified patients who were undergoing planned curative resection for a colorectal lesion. Localisation of a lesion at colonoscopy was compared to the intra-operative lesion localisation to determine accuracy of colonoscopic localisation. Patient factors and colonoscopic factors were recorded to determine any influencing factors on lesion localisation at colonoscopy. Results: One hundred and eleven patients were analysed: mean age 67.4 years (range 27–89); male:female ratio 1.3:1; symptomatic referrals (n = 78, 70.3 %); and previous abdominal surgery in 27 patients (24.3 %). Complete colonoscopy was recorded in 78 patients (70.3 %). In 88 patients (79.3 %), colonoscopic lesion localisation matched the intra-operative location. Pre-operative CT imaging was unable to identify the tumour in 24 cases (21.8 %). Potential influencing patient and colonoscopic factors on accurate lesion localisation at colonoscopy found complete colonoscopy to be the only significant factor (p = 0.008). Conclusion: Colonoscopic lesion localisation was found to be inaccurate in 79.3 % cases, and with pre-operative CT unable to detect all lesions, this study confirms that accurate lesion localisation in the modern era is increasingly reliant on colonoscopy. Incomplete colonoscopy was the only significant factor that influenced inaccurate lesion localisation at colonoscopy