Supine bottom-up extralevator abdominoperineal excision for anorectal adenocarcinoma is not inferior to standard approach and may be thus safely performed.

BACKGROUND: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal carcinoma has been described in order to improve pathological and oncological results compared to standard APE. To obtain the same oncological advantages as extralevator APE, we have previously described a new procedure starting by a perineal approach: the supine bottom-up APE. Our objective is to compare oncological and surgical outcomes between the supine bottom-up APE and the standard APE. METHODS: All patients with low rectal adenocarcinoma requiring APE were retrospectively included and divided into 2 groups: supine bottom-up APE (Group A) and standard APE (Group B). RESULTS: From 2008 to 2016, 61 patients were divided into Groups A (n = 30) and B (n = 31). Postoperative outcomes and median length of stay were similar between groups. Patients from Group A had a significantly longer distal margin (30 [8-120] vs. 20 [1.5-60] mm, p = 0.04) and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (14.5 [0-33] vs. 11 [5-25], p = 0.03) than those from Group B. Circumferential resection margin involvement was similar between groups (28 vs. 22%, p = 0.6), whereas tumors from Group A were significantly larger and more frequently classified as T4 than those from Group B. Operative time was significantly shorter in Group A (437.5 [285-655] minutes) than in Group B (537.5 [361-721] minutes, p = 0.0009). At the end of follow-up, local recurrence occurred in 7 and 16% of patients from Groups A and B (p = 0.68). Three-year overall and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups (87 vs. 90%, p = 0.62 and 61 vs. 63%, p = 0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that supine bottom-up APE doesn't impair surgical outcomes, pathological results, overall and disease-free survivals in comparison with standard APE. This new procedure may be thus safely performed and decrease the operative time. Further randomized multicentric studies are required to confirm these results.

An optimised liver-first strategy for synchronous metastatic rectal cancer leads to higher protocol completion and lower surgical morbidity.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal management of rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases remains debatable. Thus, we propose an optimised liver-first (OLF) strategy that combines concomitant pelvic irradiation with hepatic management. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and oncological quality of the OLF strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients underwent systemic neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by preoperative radiotherapy. Liver resection was performed in one step (between radiotherapy and rectal surgery) or in two steps (before and after radiotherapy). The data were collected prospectively and analysed retrospectively as intent to treat. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2018, 24 patients underwent the OLF strategy. The rate of treatment completion was 87.5%. Three patients (12.5%) did not proceed to the planned second-stage liver and rectal surgery because of progressive disease. The postoperative mortality rate was 0%, and the overall morbidity rates after liver and rectal surgeries were 21% and 28.6%, respectively. Only two patients developed severe complications. Liver and rectal complete resection was performed in 100% and 84.6%, respectively. A rectal-sparing strategy was performed in 6 patients who underwent local excision (n = 4) or a watch and wait strategy (n = 2). Among patients who completed treatment, the median overall and disease-free survivals were 60 months (range 12-139 months) and 40 months (range 10-139 months), respectively. Eleven patients (47.6%) developed recurrence, among whom five underwent further treatment with curative intent. CONCLUSION: The OLF approach is feasible, relevant, and safe. Organ preservation was feasible for a quarter of patients and may be associated with reduced morbidity.

Case-Matched Comparison of Functional and Quality of Life Outcomes of Local Excision and Total Mesorectal Excision Following Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery is the standard curative treatment for mid- to low-rectal cancer. However, the combination of these treatments may affect patients' GI and genitourinary functions and their quality of life. In the cases of good clinical response to neoadjuvant treatment, local excision is a rectal sparing strategy that would limit these side effects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of local excision or conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision after chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. DESIGN: The design is a retrospective study. SETTING: The setting used is a single tertiary center. PATIENTS: Patients with mid- to low-rectal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy and accessible via conservative surgery at our hospital between January 2010 and December 2018 were included. Patients undergoing local excision were matched 1 to 1 with the patients undergoing total mesorectal excision by age, sex, body mass index, tumor height, and year of surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of life and digestive and genitourinary functions were measured using validated questionnaires. The socioeconomic impact was also assessed. RESULTS: Forty-four patients undergoing local excision agreed to participate and were matched with 44 patients undergoing total mesorectal excision. Patients who underwent local excision reported a more favorable global health status ( p < 0.01), emotional function ( p = 0.035), social function ( p = 0.04), and body image ( p = 0.04). The low anterior resection syndrome score (rate of major syndrome, 23.8% vs 54.5%; p < 0.01) and the specific fecal incontinence subscale score ( p < 0.01) were more favorable in the local excision group. Sexual and urinary outcomes were comparable between the 2 groups. Local excision had a lower impact on the professional status (35.7% vs 76.5%; p = 0.03). LIMITATIONS: The study limitations include its retrospective design and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: When indicated, local excision improves the bowel function and quality of life of patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy compared with total mesorectal excision. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B997 . COMPARACIN DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS DE LOS RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y DE CALIDAD DE VIDA DE LA ESCISIN LOCAL Y LA ESCISIN TOTAL DE MESORECTO DESPUS DE QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA EN CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:La quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante seguida de cirugía radical es el tratamiento curativo estándar para el cáncer de recto medio-bajo. Sin embargo, la combinación de estos tratamientos puede afectar las funciones gastrointestinales y genitourinarias de los pacientes y su calidad de vida. En casos de buena respuesta clínica al tratamiento neoadyuvante, la escisión local es una estrategia conservadora del recto que limitaría estos efectos secundarios.OBJETIVO:Este estudio comparó los efectos de la escisión local o escisión total de mesorecto laparoscópica convencional después de quimiorradioterapia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Centro terciario único.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con cáncer de recto medio-bajo tratados con quimiorradioterapia y accesibles mediante cirugía conservadora en nuestro hospital entre enero del 2010 y diciembre del 2018. Los pacientes sometidos a escisión local se emparejaron uno a uno con los sometidos a escisión total de mesorecto por edad, sexo, índice de masa corporal, altura del tumor y año de cirugía.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La calidad de vida, las funciones digestivas y genitourinarias se midieron mediante cuestionarios validados. También se evaluó el impacto socioeconómico.RESULTADOS:Cuarenta y cuatro pacientes sometidos a escisión local aceptaron participar y fueron emparejados con 44 pacientes sometidos a escisión mesorrectal total. Los pacientes que se sometieron a escisión local informaron un estado de salud global más favorable ( p <0,01), función emocional ( p = 0,035), función social ( p = 0,04) e imagen corporal ( p = 0,04). La puntuación baja del síndrome de resección anterior (tasa de síndrome mayor: 23,8 % frente a 54,5 %; p <0,01) y la puntuación de la subescala de incontinencia fecal específica ( p <0,01) fueron más favorables en el grupo de escisión local. Los resultados sexuales y urinarios fueron comparables entre los dos grupos. La escisión local tuvo un menor impacto en el estatus profesional (35,7% vs 76,5%; p = 0,03).LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, tamaño de muestra pequeño.CONCLUSIONES:Cuando está indicada, la escisión local mejora la función intestinal y la calidad de vida de los pacientes sometidos a cirugía por cáncer de recto después de quimiorradioterapia en comparación con escisión total de mesorecto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B997 . (Traducción-Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

What Is the Optimal Elective Colectomy for Splenic Flexure Cancer: End of the Debate? A Multicenter Study From the GRECCAR Group With a Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal elective colectomy in patients with splenic flexure tumor is debated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare splenic flexure colectomy, left hemicolectomy, and subtotal colectomy for perioperative, histological, and survival outcomes in this setting. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor who underwent elective colectomy were included. PATIENTS: Between 2006 and 2014, 313 consecutive patients were operated on in 15 French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery centers. INTERVENTIONS: Propensity score weighting was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, quality of surgical resection, overall postoperative morbidity, surgical postoperative morbidity, and rate of anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: The most performed surgery was splenic flexure colectomy (59%), followed by subtotal colectomy (23%) and left hemicolectomy (18%). Subtotal colectomy was more often performed by laparotomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (93% vs 61% vs 56%, p < 0.0001), and was associated with a longer operative time (260 minutes (120-460) vs 180 minutes (68-440) vs 217 minutes (149-480), p < 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity was similar between the 3 groups, but the median length of hospital stay was significantly longer after subtotal colectomy (13 days (5-56) vs 10 (4-175) vs 9 (4-55), p = 0.0007). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher after subtotal colectomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (24 (8-90) vs 15 (1-81) vs 16 (3-52), p < 0.0001). The rate of stage III disease and the number of patients treated by adjuvant chemotherapy were similar between the 3 groups. There was no difference in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival between the 3 procedures. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: In the elective setting, splenic flexure colectomy is safe and oncologically adequate for patients with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor. However, given the oncological clearance after splenic flexure colectomy, it seems that the debate is not completely closed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703. CUL ES LA COLECTOMA ELECTIVA PTIMA PARA EL CNCER DE NGULO ESPLNICO FIN DEL DEBATE UN ESTUDIO MULTICNTRICO DEL GRUPO GRECCAR CON UN ANLISIS DE PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN: ANTECEDENTES:La colectomía electiva óptima en pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico continua en debate.OBJETIVO:Comparar la colectomía de ángulo esplénico, hemicolectomía izquierda y colectomía subtotal para los resultados perioperatorios, histológicos y de supervivencia en este escenario.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico.ESCENARIO:Se incluyeron pacientes diagnosticados de tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos que se sometieron a colectomía electiva.PACIENTES:Entre 2006 y 2014, 313 pacientes consecutivos fueron intervenidos en 15 centros GRECCAR.INTERVENCIONES:Se realizó una ponderación del puntaje de propensión para comparar los resultados a corto y largo plazo.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El criterio de valoración principal fue la supervivencia libre de enfermedad. Los criterios de valoración secundarios incluyeron la supervivencia general, la calidad de la resección quirúrgica, la morbilidad posoperatoria general, la morbilidad posoperatoria quirúrgica y la tasa de fuga anastomótica.RESULTADOS:La cirugía más realizada fue la colectomía del ángulo esplénico (59%), seguida de la colectomía subtotal (23%) y la hemicolectomía izquierda (18%). La colectomía subtotal se realizó con mayor frecuencia mediante laparotomía en comparación con la colectomía de ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (93% frente a 61% frente a 56%, p <0.0001), y se asoció con un tiempo quirúrgico más prolongado (260 min [120-460] frente a 180 min [68-440] frente a 217 min [149-480], p <0.0001). La morbilidad posoperatoria fue similar entre los tres grupos, pero la duración media de la estancia hospitalaria fue significativamente más prolongada después de la colectomía subtotal (13 días [5-56] frente a 10 [4-175] frente a 9 [4-55], p = 0.0007). La mediana del número de ganglios linfáticos extraídos fue significativamente mayor después de la colectomía subtotal en comparación con la colectomía del ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (24 [8-90] frente a 15 [1-81] frente a 16 [3-52], p <0.0001). La tasa de enfermedad en estadio III y el número de pacientes tratados con quimioterapia adyuvante fueron similares entre los 3 grupos. No hubo diferencias en términos de supervivencia libre de enfermedad y supervivencia general entre los 3 procedimientos.LIMITACIONES:El estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:En un escenario electivo, la colectomía del ángulo esplénico es segura y oncológicamente adecuada para pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos. Sin embargo, dado el aclaramiento oncológico tras la colectomía del ángulo esplénico, parece que el debate no está completamente cerrado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703.

Is it safe to perform an anastomosis for rectal cancer after prostate cancer? A multicentre study of 126 patients from the GRECCAR group.

AIM: To determine the safety of performing an anastomosis after rectal cancer (RC) resection in patients with a previously treated prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: Patients with a previously treated PC who underwent rectal resection from 2008 to 2018 were retrospectively included. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent rectal resection with anastomosis (restorative surgery, RS+ group) and those with a definitive stoma (RS- group). In the RS+ group, anastomotic leak (AL) rates were assessed according to the type of reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent rectal surgery for mid-low RC after a previous PC treated by radiotherapy (RT) and/or radical prostatectomy. Overall, 80 patients (63%) underwent a RS and 46 patients (37%) underwent rectal surgery with a definitive stoma. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of intraoperative data, except for the type of resection with more multivisceral resection in the RS- group (p < 0.01). In the RS+group, a diverting stoma was performed in 74% of cases. No difference between the two groups in terms of overall morbidity was found. In the RS+group (n = 80), 17 patients (21%) experienced AL. Of these, none was observed when delayed coloanal anastomosis was performed (p = 0.16). Long-term permanent stoma in the RS+ group was 16% (n = 13). CONCLUSION: Restorative surgery after resection for RC in patients with a previous history of RT and/or radical prostatectomy for PC is safe without additional morbidity. In selected patients for restorative surgery, performing delayed coloanal anastomosis may represent a promising option.

Impact of fast-track care program in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a cohort-comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Fast-track care programs after surgery improve recovery and decrease the length of hospital stay and postoperative morbidity in colonic cancer. However, the true impact of these programs on morbidity rates after rectal cancer surgery remains unclear. We aimed to assess the feasibility and impact of the fast-track program on postoperative outcomes after restorative laparoscopic rectal cancer resection and temporary loop ileostomy. METHODS: This single-center observational study assessed data of patients undergoing elective rectal cancer surgery during a defined period before (standard group) and after the introduction of a fast-track program (fast-track group) from a prospectively maintained database. The primary endpoint was postoperative 90-day morbidity. Secondary endpoints were 30-day morbidity, fast-track program compliance, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate. RESULTS: Overall, 336 patients (n = 176, standard group; n = 160, fast-track group) were assessed; there was no significant between-group difference in the patients' baseline characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, or neoadjuvant treatment). The protocol compliance rate was 91.4% in the fast-track group. The 90-day morbidity and mean total length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the fast-track group than in the standard group (34% vs 49%, respectively, p < 0.01 and 8.96 days vs 10.2 days, p < 0.01, respectively). There was no difference in readmission rates. Multivariate analysis revealed the fast-track program to be the only predictive factor of postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: Fast-track programs can be safely implemented following rectal cancer surgery to reduce the overall morbidity rate and length of hospital stay without adversely increasing the readmission rate.

Transhiatal esophagectomy as a treatment for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: postoperative and oncologic results of a single-center cohort THE for locally advanced GEJC.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To report the postoperative and oncological outcomes of transhiatal esophagectomy for locally advanced cancer of the gastroesophageal junction. METHODS: Medical records of 120 consecutive patients who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy for locally advanced cancer of the gastroesophageal junction with curative intent after neoadjuvant treatment between February 2006 and December 2018 at our center were reviewed. RESULTS: All patients received either chemotherapy (46.7%) or chemoradiation (53.3%). The 90-day mortality and overall morbidity rates were 0.8% and 56.7%, respectively. Respiratory complications were the most common (30.8%). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 19 patients (15.8%), who were treated by local wound care (n = 13) or surgical drainage (n = 6). Recurrent laryngeal nerve injury occurred in 12 patients (9.9%). The median length of hospital stay was 15.5 days. The rate of R0 resection was 95.8%, and the median number of nodes removed was 17.5. Over a median follow-up of 77 months, the rate of recurrence was 40.8%, and the overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 91%, 75%, and 65%, respectively. The median survival time was not reached. In multivariate analysis, disease stage was the only independent significant prognostic factor. CONCLUSIONS: Transhiatal esophagectomy is a safe and effective procedure with good long-term oncological outcomes for locally advanced tumors after neo-adjuvant treatment. It can be recommended for all patients with cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, regardless of the Siewert classification, tumor stage, and comorbidities.

Are colorectal cancer patients at risk for COVID-19 infection during the postoperative period? The Covid-GRECCAR study.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer patients have been regarded as having a high risk of severe events if they are infected with SARS-CoV-2, particularly those under medical or surgical treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the posttreatment risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 in a population of patients operated on for colorectal cancer 3 months before the COVID-19 outbreak and who after hospitalization returned to an environment where the virus was circulating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This French, multicenter cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for colorectal cancer between January 1 and March 31, 2020, at 19 GRECCAR hospitals. The outcome was the rate of COVID-19 infection in this group of patients who were followed until June 15, 2020. RESULTS: This study included 448 patients, 262 male (58.5%) and 186 female (41.5%), who underwent surgery for colon cancer (n = 290, 64.7%), rectal cancer (n = 155, 34.6%), or anal cancer (n = 3, 0.7%). The median age was 68 years (19-95). Comorbidities were present in nearly half of the patients, 52% were at least overweight, and the median BMI was 25 (12-42). At the end of the study, 448 were alive. Six patients (1.3%) developed COVID-19 infection; among them, 3 were hospitalized in the conventional ward, and none of them died. CONCLUSION: The results are reassuring, with only a 1.3% infection rate and no deaths related to COVID-19. We believe that we can operate on colorectal cancer patients without additional mortality from COVID-19, applying all measures aimed at reducing the risk of infection.

Surgical Management and Outcomes of Rectal Cancer with Synchronous Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Experience from the GRECCAR Group.

BACKGROUND: Synchronous prostate cancer (PC) and rectal cancer (RC) is a rare clinical situation. While combining curative-intent management for both cancers can be challenging, available data for guiding the multidisciplinary strategy are lacking. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing rectal resection for a mid-low RC with synchronous PC treated at 9 tertiary-care centers between 2008 and 2018 were included. Management strategy and data on postoperative and long-term outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 25 patients underwent curative-intent RC resection combined with PC management. Nine (36%), 10 (40%) and 6 (24%) patients had low-, intermediate-, and high-risk PC, respectively. Management mostly consisted of chemoradiotherapy combined in 18 patients (72%) with either TME in 12 patients or pelvic exenteration for resection of both cancers in 6 patients. Most patients underwent RC resection using a laparoscopic approach (n = 16, 64%). Anastomosis was performed in 18 patients (72%) of whom 13 received diverting ileostomy. The complete R0 resection rate was 96% (n = 24). The overall morbidity rate was 64% (n = 16) and 5 patients (20%) experienced severe surgical morbidity of which two died within 90 days of surgery after pelvic exenteration. Among patients with anastomosis, 2 patients (11%) experienced anastomotic leak requiring surgical management. After a median follow-up of 31.2 months, 3-year OS and RFS were 80.2% (CI 95% 58.8-92.2) and 68.6% (CI 95% 42.3-84.8), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This series is the largest to report that simultaneous curative-intent management of synchronous PC and RC is feasible and safe. Pelvic exenteration might be a better option when RC complete resection seems not achievable through TME.

Impact of surgical indication on patient outcomes and compliance with enhanced recovery program for colorectal surgery: A Francophone multicenter retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The impact of surgical indication on compliance with enhanced recovery program (ERP) and on outcomes has never been assessed. This study aims to assess the impact of surgical indication (malignant vs benign) on postoperative outcomes and ERP compliance. METHODS: A multicenter nationwide database was analyzed. Patients who underwent colorectal surgery for benign disease and those who underwent colorectal surgery for cancer were compared. Inclusion criteria were elective colorectal resection with anastomosis. ERP components, postoperative morbidity, and hospital length of hospital stay data were collected. RESULTS: Among the 6472 patients registered in the database between October 2012 and June 2018, 4528 patients were included; 2647 in the malignant group and 1881 in the benign group. The ERP compliance over 70% was not different between groups. Postoperative morbidity rate was higher in the malignant group (22.5% vs 19.3%; P = .009) but not confirmed in multivariate analysis. Patients in the malignant group were more often readmitted after discharge, 6.6% vs 4.6% (P = .004). The mean LOS was 6.3 ± 5.0 days in the malignant group and 5.4 ± 4.7 days in the benign group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Indication for colorectal surgery did not significantly influence peri-operative management and postoperative major complications, in patients managed within an enhanced recovery program.

Intraoperative nasogastric tube during colorectal surgery may not be mandatory: a propensity score analysis of a prospective database.

BACKGROUND: Avoiding the use of nasogastric tubes (NGTs) is recommended after colorectal surgery but there is no consensus on intraoperative gastric decompression using NGTs during colorectal surgery. The objective was to assess the effect of avoiding insertion of NGTs during colorectal surgery for the recovery of gastrointestinal (GI) functions. METHOD: 1561 patients undergoing colorectal surgery, for whom information on NGT use was available, were included in this retrospective analysis and propensity score analysis of the prospective GRACE Audit database. Patients who did and did not have an NGT during surgery were compared. RESULTS: Among the study population of 1561 patients, 696 patients were matched to correct baseline differences between groups. The no-NGT group significantly improved GI motility impairment (e.g., less postoperative nausea [OR = 0.59; CI 95%: 0.42-0.84] and a better tolerance of early feeding [OR = 2.07; CI 95%: 1.33-3.22]). Such an association was also highlighted for reduced postoperative morbidity [OR = 0.60; CI 95%: 0.43-0.83], and especially pulmonary complications [OR = 0.08; CI 95%: 0.01-0.59], or parietal complications [OR = 0.29; CI 95%: 0.09-0.87]. The risk of postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced in the no-NGT group [OR = 0.67; CI 95%: 0.43-1.06]. CONCLUSION: No NGT insertion during colorectal surgery is safe and could improve postoperative GI function recovery.

Laparoscopy is not enough: full ERAS compliance is the key to improvement of short-term outcomes after colectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs and laparoscopic techniques both reduce hospital stay and postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic techniques are an integral part of the ERAS program. However, evidence showing that the implementation of a multimodal rehabilitation program in addition to laparoscopy for colonic cancer would improve postoperative outcomes is still lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of ERAS program on postoperative outcomes after elective laparoscopic colonic cancer resection. METHODS: This is a single-center observational study from a prospectively maintained database. Two groups were formed from all patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic surgery for neoplasm during a defined period before (standard group) and after introduction of an ERAS program (ERAS group). The primary endpoint was postoperative 90-day morbidity. Secondary endpoints were the total length of hospital stay, readmission rate, and compliance with ERAS protocol. RESULTS: A total of 320 patients were included in the analyses, with 160 patients in the standard group and 160 in the ERAS group. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Overall morbidity was significantly lower in the ERAS group (21.25%) than that in the standard group (34.4%; OR = 0.52 [0.31-0.85], p < 0.01). This difference was not due to the reduction in major complications. Mean total hospital stay was significantly lower in the ERAS group (5.8 days) than that in the standard group (8.2 days, p < 0.01). There were no differences in readmission rates and anastomotic complications. CONCLUSIONS: The ERAS pathway reduced the overall morbidity rates and shortened the length of hospital stay, without increasing the readmission rates. A significant reduction in nonsurgical complications was evident, whereas no significant reduction was found for surgical complications.

Severe acute kidney injury following major liver resection without portal clamping: incidence, risk factors, and impact on short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) following major hepatectomy (MH) remains inadequately investigated. This retrospective study aimed to assess the risk factors and prognostic value of AKI on short-term outcomes following MH without portal pedicle clamping. METHODS: From January 2014 through June 2017, 111 consecutive patients underwent MH without portal pedicle clamping, but with intraoperative low-crystalloid infusion. Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stages II and III were classified as severe AKI. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients did not develop AKI or only AKI stage I (92%, control group), whereas 9 patients developed severe AKI (8%, severe AKI group). Hepatectomy (P = 0.002) and surgery (P = 0.011) durations were longer in the severe AKI group. Clavien-Dindo grades 3 to 5 morbidity (55% versus 9%, P = 0.001), liver failure (P = 0.017), and 90-day mortality (33% versus 2%, P = 0.003) were significantly higher in the severe AKI group. After a multivariate analysis, the duration of hepatectomy (cut-off: 250 min; P = 0.029) and urea serum levels on postoperative day 3 (P = 0.006) were identified as independent predictors of severe AKI. DISCUSSION: Severe AKI, is common with increased duration of hepatectomy, was associated with poor short-term outcomes, and can be predicted by operative duration greater than 250 minutes.

A multicentre randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy, morbidity and functional outcome of endoscopic transanal proctectomy versus laparoscopic proctectomy for low-lying rectal cancer (ETAP-GRECCAR 11 TRIAL): rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision is the standard surgical treatment for mid- and low-rectal cancer. Laparoscopy represents a clear leap forward in the management of rectal cancer patients, offering significant improvements in post-operative measures such as pain, first bowel movement, and hospital length of stay. However, there are still some limits to its applications, especially in difficult cases. Such cases may entail either conversion to an open procedure or positive resection margins. Transanal endoscopic proctectomy (ETAP) was recently described and could address the difficulties of approaching the lower third of the rectum. Early series and case-control studies have shown favourable short-term results, such as a low conversion rate, reduced hospital length of stay and oncological outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery. The aim of the proposed study is to compare the rate of positive resection margins (R1 resection) with ETAP versus laparoscopic proctectomy (LAP), with patients randomly assigned to each arm. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study is a multicentre randomised trial using two parallel groups to compare ETAP and LAP. Patients with T3 lower-third rectal adenocarcinomas for whom conservative surgery with manual coloanal anastomosis is planned will be recruited. Randomisation will be performed immediately prior to surgery after ensuring that the patient meets the inclusion criteria and completing the baseline functional and quality of life tests. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial with a main criterion of R0/R1 resection. Secondary endpoints will include the conversion rate, the minimal invasiveness of the abdominal approach, postoperative morbidity, the length of hospital stay, mesorectal macroscopic assessment, functional urologic and sexual results, faecal continence, global quality of life, stoma-free survival, and disease-free survival at 3 years. The inclusion period will be 3 years, and every patient will be followed for 3 years. The number of patients needed is 226. DISCUSSION: There is a strong need for optimal evaluation of the ETAP because of substancial changes in the operative technique. Assessment of oncological safety and septic risk, as well as digestive and urological functional results, is particularily mandatory. Moreover, benefits of the ETAP technique could be demonstrated  in post-operative outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT02584985 . Date and version identifier: Version n°2 - 2015 July 6.

Do height and weight affect the feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard for gallbladder removal and the most common laparoscopic procedure worldwide. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has recently emerged as a less invasive potential alternative to conventional three- or four-port laparoscopy. However, the feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) remains unclear, and there are no rigorous criteria in the literature. Identifying patients at risk of failure of this new technique is essential. The aim of our study was to determine risk factors that may predict failure of the procedure. METHODS: From May 2010 to March 2012, 110 consecutive patients underwent SILC and were reviewed retrospectively. The main feasibility criterion was the procedure failure rate, defined as addition of supplementary port(s) and prolonged (>60 min) operative time. The factors evaluated were age, gender, height, weight, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery, indication for surgery and gallbladder suspension. RESULTS: There was conversion in 16 patients (14.5%), and the operative time exceeded 60 min for 20 patients (30.9%). Univariate analysis showed a significant independent association between additional port requirement and each of weight as a continuous value, weight ≥80 kg, BMI >26.5 kg/m(2) and height >172 cm. Univariate analysis also showed a significant independent association between prolonged operative duration (>60 min) and each of height and weight as continuous values, height >172 cm and previous abdominal surgery. In the multivariate analysis, only weight remained independently associated with additional port requirement, and height remained independently associated with prolonged operative duration. CONCLUSION: Preoperative identification of the factors increasing the risk of conversion may assist surgeons in making decisions concerning the management of patients, including appropriate use of SILC.

Intracorporeal Anastomosis and ERAS Program: The Winning Combination of Optimized Postoperative Outcomes After Laparoscopic Right Colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic technique and the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol have become the standard of care in patients undergoing right colon cancer surgery, reducing hospital stay and postoperative morbidity. However, the optimal anastomosis technique [intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA)] remains debated. This study aimed to determine the optimal perioperative approach (ICA vs. ECA combined with the ERAS program vs. standard care) for patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated all consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer between January 2012 and June 2021. Patient data were analyzed in 4 treatment groups according to the type of anastomosis and the care protocol. The primary endpoint was total postoperative hospital stay (THS). The secondary endpoints were recovery time and overall morbidity rate. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the 373 included patients were comparable between the 4 groups. THS was significantly shorter in the ICA/ERAS group than in the ECA/standard and ICA/standard groups ( P <0.01), but there was no significant difference between the ICA/ERAS and ECA/ERAS groups (5.7 vs. 6.4 d; P =0.17). Recovery time was significantly shorter in the ICA/ERAS group ( P <0.01). The overall morbidity rate, including anastomotic morbidity, was comparable among the 4 groups. Regression analysis showed that ICA and the ERAS program were both predictive factors to reduce the THS and recovery time. CONCLUSIONS: ICA combined with the ERAS program achieves the best outcomes and thus seems to be the optimal approach for the management of patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer.

Organ sparing to cure stage IV rectal cancer: A case report and review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Rectal sparing is an option for some rectal cancers with complete or good response after chemoradiotherapy (CRT); however, it has never been evaluated in patients with metastases. We assessed long-term outcomes of a rectal-sparing approach in a liver-first strategy for patients with rectal cancer with resectable liver metastases. CASE SUMMARY: We examined patients who underwent an organ-sparing approach for rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases using a liver-first strategy during 2010-2015 (n = 8). Patients received primary chemotherapy and pelvic CRT. Liver surgery was performed during the interval between CRT completion and rectal tumor re-evaluation. Clinical and oncological characteristics and long-term outcomes were assessed.All patients underwent liver metastatic resection with curative intent. The R0 rate was 100%. Six and two patients underwent local excision and a watch-and-wait (WW) approach, respectively. All patients had T3N1 tumors at diagnosis and had good clinical response after CRT. The median survival time was 60 (range, 14-127) mo. Three patients were disease free for 5, 8, and 10 years after the procedure. Five patients developed metastatic recurrence in the liver (n = 5) and/or lungs (n = 2). Only one patient developed local recurrence concurrent with metastatic recurrence 24 mo after the WW approach. Two patients died during follow-up. CONCLUSION: The results suggest good local control in patients undergoing organ-sparing strategies for rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastasis. Prospective trials are required to validate these data and identify good candidates for these strategies.

Piecemeal Resection for Large Colorectal Adenomas Remains Essential in 2022: A Single-Center Experience in a Tertiary French Center.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal lesions measuring greater than 20 mm are unsuitable for en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): piecemeal EMR (PM-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are needed. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends ESD only for microinfiltrative lesions, although Japanese teams perform en bloc ESD for all lesions. We report the outcomes obtained in our endoscopy unit for these lesions and assess the hybrid "knife-assisted piecemeal EMR" (KAPM-EMR) technique. The main aim was to assess the short-term outcomes (C1). The secondary objectives were to evaluate the long-term results (C2), adverse event rate and management of recurrence. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients treated by PM-EMR, KAPM-EMR and ESD for a colorectal lesion measuring greater than 20 millimeters using prospective inclusion over four years. RESULTS: Data from 167 patients (median age: 70) with a median follow-up of 15.1 months were analyzed after excluding 95 patients. A total of 131 lesions were removed by PM-EMR, 24 by KAPM-EMR and 12 by ESD; 146/167 (87.4%) patients were considered in remission at C1. Recurrence was treated by endoscopy in 20/21 patients (95%); 86/89 (96.6%) were in remission at C2. A total of 16/167 patients developed adverse events, all of whom except one were endoscopically managed. KAPM-EMR was associated with a higher perforation risk (p=0.037). No differences in postoperative bleeding were found among the three groups (p=0.576). CONCLUSIONS: Piecemeal resection remains an effective and safe technique for large colorectal adenomas. KAPM-EMR may be useful but should be applied with caution due to the risk of perforation.