Surgeon-Influenced Variables in Rectal Cancer Surgery

At the conclusion of this presentation the participant should be able to: 1. Evaluate the influence of distal and circumferential margins on local recurrence rates. 2. Assess the role of total mesorectal excision in reducing local recurrence rates. 3. Describe the role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer surgery. 4. Analyze methods of reconstruction following total mesorectal excision. Presentation: 50 minute

Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LPP) in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. METHODS A PRISMA-compliant systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted, searching PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized-controlled trials assessing outcomes of LPP vs standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum (SPP) in colorectal surgery. Efficacy outcomes [pain score in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), pain score postoperative day 1 (POD1), operative time, and hospital stay] and safety outcomes (blood loss and postoperative complications) were analyzed. Risk of bias2 tool assessed bias risk. The certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE. RESULTS Four studies included 537 patients (male 59.8%). LPP was undertaken in 280 (52.1%) patients and associated with lower pain scores in PACU [weighted mean difference: -1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.65 to -0.47, P = 0.004, I 2  = 0%] and POD1 (weighted mean difference: -0.49, 95% CI: -0.91 to -0.07, P = 0.024, I 2  = 0%). Meta-regression showed that age [standard error (SE): 0.036, P < 0.001], male sex (SE: 0.006, P < 0.001), and operative time (SE: 0.002, P = 0.027) were significantly associated with increased complications with LPP. In addition, 5.9%-14.5% of surgeons using LLP requested pressure increases to equal the SPP group. The grade of evidence was high for pain score in PACU and on POD1 postoperative complications and major complications, and blood loss, moderate for operative time, low for intraoperative complications, and very low for length of stay. CONCLUSIONS LPP was associated with lower pain scores in PACU and on POD1 with similar operative times, length of stay, and safety profile compared with SPP in colorectal surgery. Although LPP was not associated with increased complications, older patients, males, patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, and those with longer operative times may be at risk of increased complications

Predictors of nodal positivity in clinically under-staged patients with colon cancer: A National Cancer Database study and proposal of a predictive scoring system.

BACKGROUND Colon cancer pathological and clinical staging may be disoncordant. This study assessed patients with colon cancer in whom the nodal status was clinically understaged. METHODS Patients with stage I-III clinical node-negative colon cancer from the National Cancer Database were included. Regression analyses were conducted to elucidate risk factors for clinical nodal understaging and a scoring system was developed to identify high-risk patients. RESULTS The study included 94,945 patients with 78.4 ​% of patients correctly staged and 21.6 ​% clinically understaged. The predictors of nodal positivity in clinically understaged patients were age <65 (OR 1.43), left-sided tumors (OR 1.41), elevated CEA (OR 2.03), moderately (OR 1.81) or poorly/undifferentiated tumors (OR 3.76), T1 tumors (OR 1.29), signet-ring cell histology (OR 2.26), and microsatellite-stable tumors (OR 1.4). CONCLUSION Patients with colon cancer and the above factors are more likely to have their nodal status clinically understaged. A scoring system has been developed to identify high-risk patients

A systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials on the role of prehabilitation programs in colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND Prehabilitation is gaining popularity in colorectal surgery but lacks high-quality postoperative outcomes data. This meta-analysis explored whether prehabilitation impacts postoperative outcomes. METHODS In this meta-analysis, compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, we searched PubMed and Scopus through November 2022. High-quality randomized control trials involving adults who underwent colorectal surgery with/without exercise-based prehabilitation were included. The main outcomes were short-term postoperative morbidity, readmissions, and length of stay. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed, and statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS Seven high-quality randomized control trials comprising 1,225 patients were included. The median prehabilitation duration was 4 (2-4) weeks. Four studies compared prehabilitation and standard of care, and 3 compared prehabilitation and rehabilitation. Exercise-based prehabilitation did not reduce the odds of short-term complications (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.27-1.40, P = .25, I2 = 68%) or readmission (odds ratio 1, 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.46, P = .85, I2 = 0%). The prehabilitation group had shorter length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -0.2, 95% confidence interval -0.25 to -0.14, P < .0001, I2 = 43.3%). Prehabilitation and rehabilitation had similar odds of short-term complications (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.56-1.89, P = .91, I2 = 33%), length of stay (weighted mean difference -0.16, 95% confidence interval -0.47 to 0.16, P = .33, I2 = 59%), and readmission (odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.28-5.56, P = .77, I2 = 52%). The only benefit of prehabilitation over rehabilitation was better 6-minute walking distance test results at time of surgery (weighted mean difference: -9.4 m; 95% confidence interval -18.04 to 0.79, P = .03, I2 = 42%). CONCLUSION Prehabilitation provided decreased postoperative length of hospital stay and improved preoperative functional outcomes, but not reduced odds of complications and/or readmissions. Prehabilitation and rehabilitation had similar clinical outcomes

Trans‑anal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus rigid platforms for local excision of early rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

BACKGROUND Available platforms for local excision (LE) of early rectal cancer are rigid or flexible [trans‑anal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS)]. We systematically searched the literature to compare outcomes between platforms. METHODS PRISMA-compliant search of PubMed and Scopus databases until September 2022 was undertaken in this random-effect meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic. Studies comparing TAMIS versus rigid platforms for LE for early rectal cancer were included. Main outcome measures were intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes and specimen quality. RESULTS 7 studies were published between 2015 and 2022, including 931 patients (423 females); 402 underwent TAMIS and 529 underwent LE with rigid platforms. Techniques were similar for operative time (WMD 11.1, 95%CI - 2.6 to 25, p = 0.11), percentage of defect closure (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.06-8.22, p = 0.78), and peritoneal violation (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.12-1.43, p = 0.16). Rigid platforms had higher rates of short-term complications (19.1% vs 14.2, OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.07-2.4, p = 0.02), although no significant differences were seen for major complications (OR 1.41, 95%CI 0.61-3.23, p = 0.41). Patients in the rigid platforms group were 3-times more likely to be re-admitted within 30 days compared to the TAMIS group (OR 3.1, 95%CI 1.07-9.4, p = 0.03). Rates of positive resection margins (rigid platforms: 7.6% vs TAMIS: 9.34%, OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.42-1.55, p = 0.53) and specimen fragmentation (rigid platforms: 3.3% vs TAMIS: 4.4%, OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.33-1.64, p = 0.46) were similar between the groups. Salvage surgery was required in 5.5% of rigid platform patients and 6.2% of TAMIS patients (OR 0.8, 95%CI 0.4-1.8, p = 0.7). CONCLUSION TAMIS or rigid platforms for LE seem to have similar operative outcomes and specimen quality. The TAMIS group demonstrated lower readmission and overall complication rates but did not significantly differ for major complications. The choice of platform should be based on availability, cost, and surgeon's preference

Perfusion Assessment in Laparoscopic Left-Sided/Anterior Resection (PILLAR II): A Multi-Institutional Study

BackgroundOur primary objective was to demonstrate the utility and feasibility of the intraoperative assessment of colon and rectal perfusion using fluorescence angiography (FA) during left-sided colectomy and anterior resection. Anastomotic leak (AL) after colorectal resection increases morbidity, mortality, and, in cancer cases, recurrence rates. Inadequate perfusion may contribute to AL. The PINPOINT Endoscopic Fluorescence Imaging System allows for intraoperative assessment of anastomotic perfusion.Study DesignThis is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial that assessed the feasibility and utility of FA for intraoperative perfusion assessment during left-sided colectomy and anterior resection at 11 centers in the United States.ResultsA total of 147 patients were enrolled, of whom 139 were eligible for analysis. Diverticulitis (44%), rectal cancer (25%), and colon cancer (21%) were the most prevalent indications for surgery. The mean level of anastomosis was 10 ± 4 cm from the anal verge. Splenic-flexure mobilization was performed in 81% and high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in 61.9% of patients. There was a 99% success rate for FA, and FA changed surgical plans in 11 (8%) patients, with the majority of changes occurring at the time of transection of the proximal margin (7%). Overall morbidity rates were 17%. The anastomotic leak rate was 1.4% (n = 2). There were no anastomotic leaks in the 11 patients who had a change in surgical plan based on intraoperative perfusion assessment with FA.ConclusionsPINPOINT is a safe and feasible tool for intraoperative assessment of tissue perfusion during colorectal resection. There were no anastomotic leaks in patients in whom the anastomosis was revised based on inadequate perfusion with FA

Global survey on the surgical management of patients affected by colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: impact of surgical specialty and geographic region

BACKGROUND: Consensus on the best surgical strategy for the management of synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has not been achieved. This study aimed to assess the attitudes of surgeons involved in the treatment of sCRLM. METHODS: Surveys designed for colorectal, hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB), and general surgeons were disseminated through representative societies. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare responses between specialties and continents. RESULTS: Overall, 270 surgeons (57 colorectal, 100 HPB and 113 general surgeons) responded. Specialist surgeons more frequently utilized minimally invasive surgery (MIS) than general surgeons for colon (94.8% vs. 71.7%, p < 0.001), rectal (91.2% vs. 64.6%, p < 0.001), and liver resections (53% vs. 34.5%, p = 0.005). In patients with an asymptomatic primary, the liver-first two-stage approach was preferred in most respondents' centres (59.3%), while the colorectal-first approach was preferred in Oceania (83.3%) and Asia (63.4%). A substantial proportion of the respondents (72.6%) had personal experience with minimally invasive simultaneous resections, and an expanding role for this procedure was foreseen (92.6%), while more evidence was desired (89.6%). Respondents were more reluctant to combine a hepatectomy with low anterior (76.3%) and abdominoperineal resections (73.3%), compared to right (94.4%) and left hemicolectomies (90.7%). Colorectal surgeons were less inclined to combine right or left hemicolectomies with a major hepatectomy than HPB and general surgeons (right: 22.8% vs. 50% and 44.2%, p = 0.008; left: 14% vs. 34% and 35.4%, p = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: The clinical practices and viewpoints on the management of sCRLM differ between continents, and between and within surgical specialties. However, there appears to be consensus on a growing role for MIS and a need for evidence-based input

Quality of Life in Older Adults After Major Cancer Surgery:The GOSAFE International Study

Abstract Background Accurate quality of life (QoL) data and functional results after cancer surgery are lacking for older patients. The international, multicenter Geriatric Oncology Surgical Assessment and Functional rEcovery after Surgery (GOSAFE) Study compares QoL before and after surgery and identifies predictors of decline in QoL. Methods GOSAFE prospectively collected data before and after major elective cancer surgery on older adults (≥70 years). Frailty assessment was performed and postoperative outcomes recorded (30, 90, and 180 days postoperatively) together with QoL data by means of the three-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), including 2 components: an index (range = 0-1) generated by 5 domains (mobility, self-care, ability to perform the usual activities, pain or discomfort, anxiety or depression) and a visual analog scale. Results Data from 26 centers were collected (February 2017-March 2019). Complete data were available for 942/1005 consecutive patients (94.0%): 492 male (52.2%), median age 78 years (range = 70-95 years), and primary tumor was colorectal in 67.8%. A total 61.2% of all surgeries were via a minimally invasive approach. The 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality was 3.7%, 6.3%, and 9%, respectively. At 30 and 180 days, postoperative morbidity was 39.2% and 52.4%, respectively, and Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications were 13.5% and 18.7%, respectively. The mean EQ-5D-3L index was similar before vs 3 months but improved at 6 months (0.79 vs 0.82; P &amp;lt; .001). Domains showing improvement were pain and anxiety or depression. A Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool score greater than or equal to 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 2.21, P = .007), palliative surgery (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.01 to 4.52, P = .046), postoperative complications (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.18, P = .007) correlated with worsening QoL. Conclusions GOSAFE shows that older adults’ preoperative QoL is preserved 3 months after cancer surgery, independent of their age. Frailty screening tools, patient-reported outcomes, and goals-of-care discussions can guide decisions to pursue surgery and direct patients’ expectations