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

Outcomes of patients with perforated colon cancer:A systematic review

Introduction: Perforated colon cancer (PCC) is a distinct clinical entity with implications for treatment and prognosis, however data on PCC seems scarce. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the recent literature on clinical outcomes of PCC. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane library and Google scholar was performed. Studies describing intentionally curative treatment for patients with PCC since 2010 were included. The main outcome measures consisted of short-term surgical complications and long-term oncological outcomes. Results: Eleven retrospective cohort studies were included, comprising a total of 2696 PCC patients. In these studies, various entities of PCC were defined. Comparative studies showed that PCC patients as compared to non-PCC patients have an increased risk of 30-day mortality (8–33% vs 3–5%), increased post-operative complications (33–56% vs 22–28%), worse overall survival (36–40% vs 48–65%) and worse disease-free survival (34–43% vs 50–73%). Two studies distinguished free-perforations from contained perforations, revealing that free-perforation is associated with significantly higher 30-day mortality (19–26% vs 0–10%), lower overall survival (24–28% vs 42–64%) and lower disease-free survival (15% vs 53%) as compared to contained perforations. Conclusion: Data on PCC is scarce, with various PCC entities defined in the studies included. Heterogeneity of the study population, definition of PCC and outcome measures made pooling of the data impossible. In general, perforation, particularly free perforation, seems to be associated with a substantial negative effect on outcomes in colon cancer patients undergoing surgery. Better definition and description of the types of perforation in future studies is essential, as outcomes seem to differ between types of PCC and might require different treatment strategies.</p

AbcApp: incidence of intra-abdominal ABsCesses following laparoscopic vs. open APPendectomy in complicated appendicitis

Background: Patients with complicated appendicitis are more at risk for the occurrence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscesses than patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. Studies comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomy showed limitations and contradictory findings on the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses after appendicitis, as most of these studies analysed both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis as one group. The aim of the present study is to investigate the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses after laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed over the period January 2009 till May 2020. All patients who had an intra-operative diagnosis of complicated appendicitis (e.g. perforation, necrosis) were included. The outcome measure was the occurrence of intra-abdominal abscesses with a postoperative follow-up of 30 days. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed including adjustments for significant confounders. Results: A total of 900 patients had undergone appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The majority was operated laparoscopically (78%, n = 705). The incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess was 12.3% in both laparoscopic and open appendectomy groups. On univariable analysis, the postoperative rates of intra-abdominal abscesses between laparoscopic and open appendectomy were not significantly different (odds ratio 1.11, 95% CI [0.67–1.84], p = 0.681). Conclusion: The present study provides evidence that, in current daily practice, intra-abdominal abscess formation remains a common postoperative complication for complicated appendicitis. Nonetheless, no significant difference was found with regard to intra-abdominal abscess formation when comparing laparoscopy with open surgery

Risk factors for a permanent stoma after resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer - A prediction model.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a stoma is often constructed as part of primary treatment, but with a considerable risk of becoming a permanent stoma (PS). The aim of this retrospective multicentre cohort is to identify risk factors for a PS in LSOCC and to develop a pre- and postoperative prediction model for PS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was retrospectively obtained from 75 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients who had curative resection of LSOCC between January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2016 were included with a minimum follow-up of 6 months after resection. The interventions analysed were emergency resection, decompressing stoma or stent as bridge-to-elective resection. Main outcome measure was presence of PS at the end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for PS at primary presentation (T(0)) and after resection, in patients having a stoma in situ (T(1)). These risk factors were used to construct a web-based prediction tool. RESULTS: Of 2099 patients included in the study (T(0)), 779 had a PS (37%). A total of 1275 patients had a stoma in situ directly after resection (T(1)), of whom 674 had a PS (53%). Median follow-up was 34 months. Multivariable analysis showed that older patients, female sex, high ASA-score and open approach were independent predictors for PS in both the T(0) and T(1) population. Other predictors at T(0) were sigmoid location, low Hb, high CRP, cM1 stage, and emergency resection. At T(1), subtotal colectomy, no primary anastomosis, not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and high pTNM stage were additional predictors. Two predictive models were built, with an AUC of 0.74 for T(0) and an AUC of 0.81 for T(1). CONCLUSIONS: PS is seen in 37% of the patients who have resection of LSOCC. In patients with a stoma in situ directly after resection, 53% PS are seen due to non-reversal. Not only baseline characteristics, but also treatment strategies determine the risk of a PS in patients with LSOCC. The developed predictive models will give physicians insight in the role of the individual variables on the risk of a PS and help in informing the patient about the probability of a PS

Relief of Obstruction in Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer:Nationwide Analysis of Applied Treatment in the Palliative Setting

Background:For relief of bowel obstruction in left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) or decompressing stoma (DS) can be placed. In a curative setting, these two strategies have been extensively studied as a bridge to elective resection. Guidelines recommend SEMS as the preferred option in the palliative setting, but adherence in daily practice is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to gain more insight into patients with LSOCC who received palliative treatment with SEMS or DS at a national level. Methods: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted in the Netherlands. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) on all patients with LSOCC treated with DS or SEMS not followed by resection of the primary tumour between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, were analysed. Type of treatment (DS or SEMS) for different clinical scenarios, was the main outcome of this study, and was also evaluated over the years (2015–2019). Results: Palliative treatment with SEMS or DS for LSOCC was performed in 1077 patients, of whom 79.2% had metastatic disease (M1). Patients without metastatic disease (M0) were older (≥ 80 years M0 67.4%, M1 25.3%, P &lt; 0.001), had a worse clinical condition (ASA III 51.4% versus 36.37%, ASA IV-V 13.3% versus 4.0% P &lt; 0.001) and presented with higher tumour stage (cT4 55.4% versus 33.5%, % P &lt; 0.001). DS was performed in 91.5% of the patients and SEMS in 8.5%. The proportion of DS did not significantly differ between patients with M1 and M0 (91.8% vs. 90.2% respectively, P = 0.525). No increase in SEMS application was observed over the years, with a stable overall proportion of DS of 91–92% per year. In the multivariable analyses, ninety-day mortality and overall survival were not significantly different between SEMS and DS. Conclusions: This study revealed that DS was the primary treatment modality for palliative management of LSOCC in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2019, while the guidelines recommended SEMS as preferred treatment. For patients with LSOCC eligible for stenting in the palliative setting, SEMS placement should become more available and accessible as the preferred treatment option, to avoid a stoma in the terminal phase of life.</p

Relief of Obstruction in Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer:Nationwide Analysis of Applied Treatment in the Palliative Setting

Background:For relief of bowel obstruction in left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) or decompressing stoma (DS) can be placed. In a curative setting, these two strategies have been extensively studied as a bridge to elective resection. Guidelines recommend SEMS as the preferred option in the palliative setting, but adherence in daily practice is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to gain more insight into patients with LSOCC who received palliative treatment with SEMS or DS at a national level. Methods: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted in the Netherlands. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) on all patients with LSOCC treated with DS or SEMS not followed by resection of the primary tumour between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, were analysed. Type of treatment (DS or SEMS) for different clinical scenarios, was the main outcome of this study, and was also evaluated over the years (2015–2019). Results: Palliative treatment with SEMS or DS for LSOCC was performed in 1077 patients, of whom 79.2% had metastatic disease (M1). Patients without metastatic disease (M0) were older (≥ 80 years M0 67.4%, M1 25.3%, P &lt; 0.001), had a worse clinical condition (ASA III 51.4% versus 36.37%, ASA IV-V 13.3% versus 4.0% P &lt; 0.001) and presented with higher tumour stage (cT4 55.4% versus 33.5%, % P &lt; 0.001). DS was performed in 91.5% of the patients and SEMS in 8.5%. The proportion of DS did not significantly differ between patients with M1 and M0 (91.8% vs. 90.2% respectively, P = 0.525). No increase in SEMS application was observed over the years, with a stable overall proportion of DS of 91–92% per year. In the multivariable analyses, ninety-day mortality and overall survival were not significantly different between SEMS and DS. Conclusions: This study revealed that DS was the primary treatment modality for palliative management of LSOCC in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2019, while the guidelines recommended SEMS as preferred treatment. For patients with LSOCC eligible for stenting in the palliative setting, SEMS placement should become more available and accessible as the preferred treatment option, to avoid a stoma in the terminal phase of life.</p