Is Robotic Complete Mesocolic Excision Feasible for Transverse Colon Cancer?

Introduction: Laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for transverse colon cancer is technically challenging. Robotic technology has been developed to reduce technical limitations of laparoscopy. Yet, no data are available on the role of robotic approach for CME of transverse colon cancer. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and short-term outcomes of robotic CME in this subset of colon cancer. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of 29 consecutive patients undergoing robotic CME for transverse colon adenocarcinoma between December 2014 and December 2017 was performed. Data on demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative 30-day complications, and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Results: There were 21 (72%) men and 8 women with a mean age of 62.915.6 years and a body mass index of 26.4 +/- 4.8kg/m(2). Of the 29 robotic CME procedures, 12 patients underwent extended right colectomy, 10 extended left colectomy, 6 subtotal colectomy, and 1 total colectomy. The mean operative time was 321.7 +/- 111.3 minutes and estimated blood loss was 106.9 +/- 110.9mL (median, 50; range, 10-400mL). The intra- and postoperative complication rates were 7% and 24%, respectively. There were no conversions. The mean time to first bowel movement was 3.5 +/- 1.3 and length of hospital stay was 7.1 +/- 3.0 days. All the resections were R0. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes in extended and subtotal/total colectomy procedures was 36.6 +/- 13.1 and 71.0 +/- 30.3, respectively. The rate of mesocolic plane surgery was 79%. There were no statistically significant differences between the mesocolic and the intramesocolic/muscularis propria plane resections with respect to clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, and pathology results (P>.05). Conclusions: Robotic CME for transverse colon cancer is feasible and can be a procedure of choice to achieve a good surgical quality

Delineating Wolfram-like syndrome: A systematic review and discussion of the WFS1-associated disease spectrum

Wolfram-like syndrome (WFLS) is a recently described autosomal dominant disorder with phenotypic similarities to autosomal recessive Wolfram syndrome (WS), including optic atrophy, hearing impairment, and diabetes mellitus. We summarize current literature, define the clinical characteristics, and investigate potential genotype phenotype correlations. A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBACE, and Cochrane Library. We included studies reporting patients with a clinical picture consisting at least 2 typical clinical manifestations of WSF1 disorders and heterozygous mutations in WFS1. In total, 86 patients from 35 studies were included. The most common phenotype consisted of the combination of optic atrophy (87%) and hearing impairment (94%). Diabetes mellitus was seen in 44% of the patients. Nineteen percent developed cataract. Patients with missense mutations in WFS1 had a lower number of clinical manifestations, less chance of developing diabetes insipidus, but a younger age at onset of hearing impairment compared to patients with nonsense mutations or deletions causing frameshift. There were no studies reporting decreased life expectancy. This review shows that, within the spectrum of WFS1-associated disorders or “wolframinopathies,” autosomal dominantly inherited WFLS has a relatively mild phenotype compared to autosomal recessive WS. The clinical manifestations and their age at onset are associated with the specific underlying mutations in the WFS1 gene

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research