Real time organ hypoperfusion detection using Indocyanine Green in a piglet model.

BACKGROUND: Preserving sufficient oxygen supply to the tissue is fundamental for maintaining organ function. However, our ability to identify those at risk and promptly recognize tissue hypoperfusion during abdominal surgery is limited. To address this problem, we aimed to develop a new method of perfusion monitoring that can be used during surgical procedures and aid surgeons' decision-making. METHODS: In this experimental porcine study, thirteen subjects were randomly assigned one organ of interest [stomach (n = 3), ascending colon (n = 3), rectum (n = 3), and spleen (n = 3)]. After baseline perfusion recordings, using high-frequency, low-dose bolus injections with weight-adjusted (0.008 mg/kg) ICG, organ-supplying arteries were manually and completely occluded leading to hypoperfusion of the target organ. Continuous organ perfusion monitoring was performed throughout the experimental conditions. RESULTS: After manual occlusion of pre-selected organ-supplying arteries, occlusion of the peripheral arterial supply translated in an immediate decrease in oscillation signal in most organs (3/3 ventricle, 3/3 ascending colon, 3/3 rectum, 2/3 spleen). Occlusion of the central arterial supply resulted in a further decrease or complete disappearance of the oscillation curves in the ventricle (3/3), ascending colon (3/3), rectum (3/3), and spleen (1/3). CONCLUSION: Continuous organ-perfusion monitoring using a high-frequency, low-dose ICG bolus regimen can detect organ hypoperfusion in real-time.

Extended Right-Sided Colon Resection Does Not Reduce the Risk of Colon Cancer Local-Regional Recurrence: Nationwide Population-Based Study From Danish Colorectal Cancer Group Database.

BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether extensive resection of right-sided colon cancer confers oncological benefits. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of extended surgical removal of the mesocolon compared to the conventional approach. DESIGN: This was a retrospective population-based study. SETTING: Study is based on a prospectively maintained Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures included local-regional recurrence in patients who underwent curative resection for right-sided colon cancer and 30-day postoperative complications. Distant metastasis, unplanned intraoperative adverse events, and 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality were also investigated. Patients who had palliative or compromised resection, emergency surgery, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 12,855 patients with resection of right-sided colon cancer retrieved, 1151 underwent extended right hemicolectomy. Patients who had extended right hemicolectomy were younger males with lower ASA scores, were operated on by colorectal surgeons using a laparoscopic approach, and had a significantly higher number of harvested lymph nodes. The rate of local-regional recurrence was 1.1% (136/12,855), with no difference between conventional right hemicolectomy and extended right hemicolectomy (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.63-2.18). Postoperative medical complications were significantly higher in extended right hemicolectomy even after adjusting for age, comorbidity, access to the abdomen, and other covariates (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.58). No significant difference was noticed between conventional right hemicolectomy and extended right hemicolectomy in the rates of distant metastasis, unplanned intraoperative adverse events, and mortality. LIMITATIONS: Because it is a register-based study, underreporting cannot be excluded. Extended right hemicolectomy, as defined in this study, does not reflect the extent of lymphatic dissection performed during the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This large population-based register study showed no difference in local-regional recurrence of right-sided colon cancer between conventional and extended right hemicolectomy with mesenteric resection and ligation of the middle colic vessels. Extended resection was associated with higher rates of postoperative complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B907 . LA RESECCIN AMPLIADA DEL COLON DERECHO NO REDUCE EL RIESGO DE RECURRENCIA LOCALREGIONAL DEL CNCER DE COLON ESTUDIO POBLACIONAL A NIVEL NACIONAL DE LA BASE DE DATOS DEL GRUPO DANS DE CNCER COLORRECTAL: ANTECEDENTES:Es aun un tema controversial si la resección ampliada del cáncer de colon del lado derecho confiere beneficios oncológicos.OBJETIVOS:El objetivo de este estudio fue examinar los resultados a corto y largo plazo de la resección quirúrgica ampliada del mesocolon en comparación con el enfoque convencional.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio poblacional de tipo retrospectivo basado en una base de datos del Grupo Danés de Cáncer Colorrectal mantenida de manera prospectiva.AJUSTES:La medida de resultado primaria fue la recurrencia local-regional en pacientes sometidos a resección curativa por cáncer de colon del lado derecho y las medidas de resultado secundarias fueron las complicaciones posoperatorias a los 30 días. También fueron investigadas las metástasis a distancia, los eventos adversos intraoperatorios no planificados y la mortalidad posoperatoria a los 30 y 90 días. Se excluyeron los pacientes sometidos a resección paliativa o comprometida, cirugía de urgencia y quimioterapia neoadyuvante.RESULTADOS:De los 12.855 pacientes recuperados y sometidos a resección de cáncer de colon del lado derecho, 1151 fueron sometidos a hemicolectomía derecha ampliada. Los pacientes sometidos a hemicolectomía derecha ampliada fueron varones más jóvenes con puntuaciones ASA más bajas, operados por cirujanos colorrectales, utilizando la vía laparoscópica, y tuvieron un número significativamente mayor de ganglios linfáticos extraídos. La tasa de recidiva local-regional fue del 1,1% (136 / 12.855) sin diferencia entre la hemicolectomía derecha convencional y la hemicolectomía derecha ampliada (OR 1,7 IC 95% 0,63-2,18). Las complicaciones médicas post operatorias fueron significativamente mayores en la hemicolectomía derecha ampliada incluso después del ajuste por edad, comorbilidad, acceso al abdomen y otras covariables (OR 1,26; IC 95% 1,01-1,58). No se observaron diferencias significativas entre la hemicolectomía derecha convencional y la hemicolectomía derecha ampliada con respecto a las tasas de metástasis a distancia, eventos adversos intraoperatorios no planificados y mortalidad.LIMITACIONES:Es un estudio basado en registros, por lo tanto, no se puede excluir la sub notificación. La hemicolectomía derecha ampliada como se define en este estudio no refleja la extensión de la disección linfática realizada durante la cirugía.CONCLUSIONES:Este gran estudio basado en el registro poblacional no mostró diferencias en la recurrencia local-regional del cáncer de colon del lado derecho entre la hemicolectomía derecha convencional y ampliada con resección mesentérica y ligadura de los vasos cólicos medios. La resección ampliada se asoció con tasas más altas de complicaciones posoperatorias. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B907 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Robotic versus laparoscopic approach for left-sided colon cancer: a nationwide cohort study.

AIM: The use of robot-assisted surgery for left-sided colon cancer is increasing in Denmark; however, it is yet to be established if the robotic approach results in improved clinical outcomes compared with the corresponding laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer at a national level. METHOD: The study is a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centres in Denmark treated with surgery with curative intent in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic left colectomy or sigmoidectomy during the period 2014-2019 were included. To adjust for confounding, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed and the groups were compared for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, performance score, year of diagnosis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, left colectomy or sigmoidectomy, tumour localization, use of stoma or stenting and pathological T (pT) category. RESULTS: A total of 5532 patients were available for analysis, and after PSM in a ratio of 2:1, 1392 laparoscopic and 696 robotic cases were identified. After matching we found a lower conversion rate and a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group (5.8% vs. 11%, p < 0.001 and 27 vs. 24, p < 0.001, respectively). Further, we found a higher proportion of patients with a lymph node yield of 12 or more in the robotic group (97% vs. 94.8%, p = 0.02). Plane of dissection, radicality and pathological disease stages did not differ between the two groups. We found no difference in either overall surgical (13% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.23) or medical (5.6% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.49) postoperative complications and no difference in 30-day (p = 0.369) or 90-day mortality (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted surgery for left-sided colon cancer was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate and a significantly higher lymph node yield than the laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar in the two groups.

Continuous organ perfusion monitoring using indocyanine green in a piglet model.

BACKGROUND: Unrecognized organ hypoperfusion may cause major postoperative complications with detrimental effects for the patient. The use of Indocyanine Green (ICG) to detect organ hypoperfusion is emerging but the optimal methodology is still uncertain. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of real-time continuous quantitative perfusion assessment with Indocyanine Green (ICG) to monitor organ perfusion during minimally invasive surgery using a novel ICG dosing regimen and quantification software. METHOD: In this experimental porcine study, twelve subjects were administered a priming dose of ICG, followed by a regimen of high-frequency (1 dose per minute), low-dose bolus injections with weight-adjusted (0.008 mg/kg) ICG allowing for continuous perfusion monitoring. In each pig, one randomly assigned organ of interest [stomach (n = 3), ascending colon (n = 3), rectum (n = 3) and spleen (n = 3)] was investigated with varying camera conditions. Video recording was performed with the 1588 AIM Stryker camera platform and subsequent quantitative analysis of the ICG signal were performed using a research version of a commercially available surgical real-time analysis software. RESULTS: Using a high-frequency, low-dose bolus ICG regimen, fluorescence visualization and quantification in abdominal organs were successful in the stomach (3/3), ascending colon (1/3), rectum (2/3), and the spleen (3/3). ICG accumulation in the tissue over time did not affect the quantification process. Considerable variation in fluorescence signal was observed between organs and between the same organ in different subjects. Of the different camera conditions investigated, the highest signal was achieved when the camera was placed 7.5 cm from the target organ. CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept study finds that real-time continuous perfusion monitoring in different abdominal organs using ICG is feasible. However, the study also finds a large variation in fluorescence intensity between organs and between the same organ in different subjects while using a fixed weight-adjusted dosing regimen using the same camera setting and placement.

Anastomotic perfusion assessment with indocyanine green in robot-assisted low-anterior resection, a multicenter study of interobserver variation.

BACKGROUND: Securing sufficient blood perfusion to the anastomotic area after low-anterior resection is a crucial factor in preventing anastomotic leakage (AL). Intra-operative indocyanine green fluorescent imaging (ICG-FI) has been suggested as a tool to assess perfusion. However, knowledge of inter-observer variation among surgeons in the interpretation of ICG-FI is sparse. Our primary objective was to evaluate inter-observer variation among surgeons in the interpretation of bowel blood-perfusion assessed visually by ICG-FI. Our secondary objective was to compare the results both from the visual assessment of ICG and from computer-based quantitative analyses of ICG-FI between patients with and without the development of AL. METHOD: A multicenter study, including patients undergoing robot-assisted low anterior resection with stapled anastomosis. ICG-FI was evaluated visually by the surgeon intra-operatively. Postoperatively, recorded videos were anonymized and exchanged between centers for inter-observer evaluation. Time to visibility (TTV), time to maximum visibility (TMV), and time to wash-out (TWO) were visually assessed. In addition, the ICG-FI video-recordings were analyzed using validated pixel analysis software to quantify blood perfusion. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were included, and five developed clinical AL. Bland-Altman plots (BA plots) demonstrated wide inter-observer variation for visually assessed fluorescence on all parameters (TTV, TMV, and TWO). Comparing leak-group with no-leak group, we found no significant differences for TTV: Hazard Ratio; HR = 0.82 (CI 0.32; 2.08), TMV: HR = 0.62 (CI 0.24; 1.59), or TWO: HR = 1.11 (CI 0.40; 3.11). In the quantitative pixel analysis, a lower slope of the fluorescence time-curve was found in patients with a subsequent leak: median 0.08 (0.07;0.10) compared with non-leak patients: median 0.13 (0.10;0.17) (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The surgeon's visual assessment of the ICG-FI demonstrated wide inter-observer variation, there were no differences between patients with and without AL. However, quantitative pixel analysis showed a significant difference between groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04766060.

Combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery (CELS) for early colon cancer in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Local excision of early colon cancers could be an option in selected patients with high risk of complications and no sign of lymph node metastasis (LNM). The primary aim was to assess feasibility in high-risk patients with early colon cancer treated with Combined Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgery (CELS). METHODS: A non-randomized prospective feasibility study including 25 patients with Performance Status score ≥ 1 and/or American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3, and clinical Union of International Cancer Control stage-1 colon cancer suitable for CELS resection. The primary outcome was failure of CELS resection, defined as either: Incomplete resection (R1/R2), local recurrence within 3 months, complication related to CELS within 30 days (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3), death within 30 days or death within 90 days due to complications to surgery. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with clinical T1 (cT1) and ten with clinical T2 (cT2) colon cancer and without suspicion of metastases were included. Failure occurred in two patients due to incomplete resections. Histopathological examination classified seven patients as having pT1, nine as pT2, six as pT3 adenocarcinomas, and three as non-invasive tumors. In three patients, the surgical strategy was changed intraoperatively to conventional colectomy due to tumor location or size. Median length of stay was 1 day. Seven patients had completion colectomy performed due to histological high-risk factors. None had LNM. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, CELS resection was feasible, and could spare some patients large bowel resection.

Intracorporeal Versus Extracorporeal Anastomosis in Robotic Right Colectomy: A Multicenter, Triple-blind, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if minimally invasive right colectomy with intra-corporeal anastomosis improves postoperative recovery compared to extra-corporeal anastomosis. BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that intracorporeal anastomosis improves postoperative recovery; however, it has not yet been evaluated in a setting with optimized perioperative care or with patient-related outcome measures. METHODS: This was a multicenter, triple-blind, randomized clinical trial at two high-volume colorectal centers with strict adherence to optimized perioperative care pathways. The patients underwent robotic right colectomy with either intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis. The primary outcome was patient-reported postoperative recovery measured using the "Quality of Recovery-15" questionnaire. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130166. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were randomized and analyzed according to the "Intention-to-treat"-principle. We found no statistically significant differences in patient-reported recovery between the groups. Postoperative pain, nausea, time to ambulation, time to first passage of flatus/stool, length of hospital stay, and pathophysiological tests showed no differences either. The duration of time to create the anastomosis was significantly longer with intracorporeal anastomosis (17 vs 13 min, P = 0.003), while all other intraoperative, postoperative, and pathology variables showed no difference. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in postoperative recovery between the two groups.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients undergoing colonic resection for locally advanced nonmetastatic colon cancer: A nationwide propensity score matched cohort study.

AIM: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) for nonmetastatic colon cancer is not routinely used, and is currently only recommended as a treatment option for a subgroup of patients with T4b colon cancers in clinical guidelines. However, NCT may cause downstaging of the tumour, increase resectability, eradicate micrometastases and thereby improve long-term outcomes for patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term postoperative outcomes in a nationwide cohort of patients with locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) receiving NCT. METHOD: Using the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group Database, data were retrieved on patients diagnosed with LACC (defined as clinical T3 with extramural tumour invasion >5 mm or T4) and treated with resection with a curative intent between 2015 and 2019. Propensity score matching (PSM) in a 1:1 ratio was performed to compare short-term surgical and oncological outcomes in patients receiving NCT with patients operated on without receiving NCT. RESULTS: A total of 179 LACC patients were treated with NCT and 1131 were not. After PSM, 145 patients remained in each group. We found no significant differences in any short-term postoperative outcomes between the two groups. We found significant differences in favour of NCT regarding radicality and pathological N category [86% vs. 81% R0 (P = 0.029) and 51% vs. 46% pN0 (P = 0.017), respectively]. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for LACC does not result in worse short-term postoperative outcomes and may increase the R0 rate as well as node-negative disease. Results on long-term benefits including survival are awaited from several ongoing randomized controlled trials.

Long-term oncological outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer: A nationwide cohort study.

AIM: To estimate the effect of laparoscopy versus laparotomy on recurrence status in patients undergoing intended curative resection for stage I-III colon cancer using nationwide data. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected nationwide quality assurance data on all patients undergoing elective, intended curative surgery for UICC stage I-III colon cancer in Denmark from 1 January 2010, through 31 December 2013. The association between laparoscopic versus open surgery and recurrence status was investigated using cause-specific hazard and subdistribution hazard models with death from any cause as a competing event. RESULTS: In total, 4369 patients undergoing elective intended curative surgery for colon cancer were included in the analysis. Overall, 3243 (74.2%) patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. During a median follow-up time of 84 months, 1191 (27.2%) patients experienced recurrence, and 1304 (29.8%) patients died. The cause-specific hazard of recurrence following laparoscopic versus open surgery was HRCS  = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.90-1.28, p = 0.422. The subdistribution hazard of recurrence following laparoscopic versus open surgery was HRSD =0.99, 95% CI: 0.84-1.16, p = 0.880. CONCLUSION: Elective laparoscopic resection for UICC stage I-III colon cancer is oncologically safe and comparable with open resection. These results confirm the external validity of previous RCTs in everyday clinical settings.

The effect of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in robotic right colectomy on perianastomotic perfusion: a substudy to a multicenter RCT.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have shown that intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) in minimally invasive right colectomy may improve postoperative recovery compared with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA). It has been hypothesized that creating the anastomosis extracorporeally may cause mesenteric traction and compromised intestinal perfusion. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of either ICA or ECA on intestinal perfusion. METHOD: This was a substudy to a multicenter, triple-blind randomized clinical trial comparing ICA with ECA in patients undergoing robotic right colectomy for colonic cancer. Videos from intraoperative Indocyanine Green (ICG) fluorescence imaging were analyzed with quantitative ICG perfusion assessment (q-ICG). q-ICG was performed by extracting perfusion metrics from a time-intensity curve generated from an image analysis software: FMAX: maximal fluorescence intensity, TMAX: time until maximal fluorescent signal, T1/2MAX: time until half-maximal fluorescent signal, time ratio (T1/2MAX/TMAX) and slope. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (33 ICA and 35 ECA) were available for analysis. Demographics were similar between the groups, except for mean arterial blood pressure at the time of ICG infusion, which was significantly lower in the ICA group. We found a significantly steeper slope in the ICA group compared to the ECA group (6.3 vs. 4.7 AU/sec, P = .048). There were no significant differences in FMAX, TMAX, T1/2MAX, and time ratio. CONCLUSION: We found evidence of an improved intestinal perfusion following ICA compared with ECA. This finding may be related to patient outcomes and should be explored further in the future. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03130166.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide cohort study.

PURPOSE: On a national level, the minimally invasive approach is widely adopted in Denmark. The adoption of robotic colorectal surgery is increasing; however, the advantage of a robotic approach in right colectomy is still uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic right colectomy with laparoscopic right colectomy on a national level. METHODS: This was a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centers in Denmark in the period 2014-2018 treated with curative intend in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic right colectomy were identified. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounding, and the groups were compared on demographics, disease characteristics, operative data, and postoperative and pathology outcomes. Reporting was done in accordance with the STROBE statement. RESULTS: In total, 4002 patients were available for analysis. Propensity score matching in ratio 2:1 identified 718 laparoscopic and 359 robotic cases. After matching, we found a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group, (32.5 vs. 28.4, P < 0.001), while radicality, plane of dissection, and pathological disease stages showed no differences. There were no statistical differences in morbidity and mortality. Intracorporeal anastomosis (23.7% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001) was more commonly performed with a robotic approach. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic approach was associated with a significant higher lymph node yield and with similar postoperative morbidity compared to a laparoscopic approach for right colectomy.

Safety of early ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Patients with a defunctioning ileostomy after rectal resection experience substantial ileostomy-related morbidity and decreased quality of life. Early reversal of the defunctioning ileostomy has been proposed as a method of mitigating these problems. We aimed to evaluate the safety of early ileostomy closure within 6 weeks. METHOD: Randomized controlled trials investigating the safety of early ileostomy closure were identified through a systematic search and review of the current literature. Meta-analysis of the extracted outcome data was performed, and the methodological quality of the individual studies was assessed. RESULTS: The search identified six eligible studies yielding a total of 528 patients, with 269 in the early closure (EC) group and 259 in the standard closure (SC) group. Major complications in the EC group was 5.2% compared with 3.6% in the SC group (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.33-3.79). Anastomotic leakage in the EC group was 3.3% compared with 3.5% in the SC group (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.29-2.75). The meta-analysis resulted in no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: This review was not able to discern a statistically significant difference in postoperative complications when comparing early and standard ileostomy closure. The current literature indicates that early ileostomy closure is not associated with higher complication rates in patients with an uncomplicated postoperative course and radiologically verified intact distal anastomosis after index surgery.

Short-term outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in Denmark - a prospective multicentre study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term surgical and oncological outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer during the implementation phase of this procedure in Denmark. METHOD: This is a retrospective review of prospectively recorded data. Registration was initiated by the Scientific Council of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG.dk) in order to assess the quality of care during the implementation of TaTME. Pre-, intra- and postoperative data including early recurrences were recorded at the operating centres. RESULTS: From August 2016 to April 2019, 115 TaTME procedures were registered. Patients were predominantly male (74%) with mid-rectal (88%) tumours. The level of surgical complications was comparable to previous nationwide results. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 6/109 (5.5%). One urethral injury occurred. The plane of dissection was mesorectal in 60% of cases, intramesorectal in 28% and muscularis in 12%. Nonmicroradicality was seen in 8% (R1, 6%; R2, 2%). Four local recurrences occurred after a median of 23 months of follow-up. One of these was multifocal. CONCLUSION: In an implementation phase where patient selection is expected, surgical and oncological results after TaTME were comparable to those of other approaches reported in the literature.

Perioperative Use of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Decreases the Risk of Recurrence of Cancer After Colorectal Resection: A Cohort Study Based on Prospective Data.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is known to reduce inflammatory response in relation to surgery. Inflammation may promote recurrence of cancer, thus inhibition by use of NSAIDs could reduce recurrence after surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the association between perioperative use of NSAIDs and cancer recurrence, as well as disease-free survival (DFS) and mortality after colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: This was a cohort study based on data from a prospective clinical database, electronic medical records, and nationwide registers, and included patients from six major colorectal centers in Denmark. The primary outcome was cancer recurrence, while secondary outcomes included 5-year mortality and DFS. RESULTS: Overall, 2308 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2009 were included. A total of 909 patients received at least 2 days of treatment with NSAIDs, of whom 702 (77.2%) received ibuprofen and 204 (22.4%) received diclofenac. Cox regression analysis adjusting for NSAIDs resulted in decreased recurrence risk (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadjusted] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.99; p = 0.042). Competing risk analysis confirmed the finding, with an HRadjusted of 0.76 (95% CI 0.60-0.97; p = 0.026). There was no significant effect on mortality or DFS. Sensitivity analysis of the effect of ibuprofen reported an HRadjusted of 0.83 (95% CI 0.70-1.00; p = 0.047). In restricted analyses of localized disease only (Union for International Cancer Control [UICC] I-II) and elective surgery only, no effect was found (localized: HRadjusted 0.81, 95% CI 0.62-1.06, p = 0.12; elective: HRadjusted 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.01, p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative use of NSAIDs was associated with a reduced risk of cancer recurrence after resection for colorectal cancer. No effect on 5-year mortality or DFS was found.

Circumferential Resection Margin After Laparoscopic and Open Rectal Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest better oncological results after open versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer. The external validity of these results has not been tested on a nationwide basis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify risk factors for positive circumferential resection margin in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer with special emphasis on surgical approach. DESIGN: This database study was based on the Danish nationwide colorectal cancer database. To identify risk factors for positive circumferential resection margin, we performed uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses. To assess the role of surgical approach, a propensity score-matched analysis was performed. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at public hospitals across Denmark. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing elective rectal resection from October 2009 through December 2013 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: Included in the final analyses were 2721 cases (745 operated on by an open approach; 1976 by laparoscopy). On direct comparison, positive circumferential resection margin occurred more often after open resection (6.3% vs 4.7%; p = 0.047). After multivariate analyses, tumors located low in the rectum, neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, increasing T and N stage, tumor fixated in the pelvis, and dissection in the muscularis plane increased the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin. In the propensity score-matched sample (541 exact matched pairs), the laparoscopic approach did not influence the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.5; p = 0.77). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data, and thereby contained possible selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this nationwide database study, and after multivariate and propensity score-matched analyses, there was no increased risk of positive circumferential resection margin after laparoscopic vs open rectal resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A996. MARGEN DE RESECCIÓN CIRCUNFERENCIAL DESPUÉS DE LA RESECCIÓN RECTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA Y ABIERTA: UN ESTUDIO DE COHORTE DE PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN A NIVEL NACIONAL: Estudios recientes sugieren mejores resultados oncológicos después de la resección rectal abierta versus laparoscópica. La validez de estos resultados no se ha probado a nivel nacional. OBJETIVO: Identificar los factores de riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo en pacientes sometidos a cirugía por cáncer de recto con especial énfasis en el abordaje quirúrgico. DISEÑO:: Estudio de la base de datos nacional de Dinamarca de cáncer colorrectal. Para identificar los factores de riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo, realizamos análisis de regresión logística uni y multivariable. Para evaluar el papel del abordaje quirúrgico, se realizó un análisis emparejado de puntuación de propensión. AJUSTES: Hospitales públicos en toda Dinamarca. PACIENTES: Pacientes sometidos a resección rectal electiva en el período comprendido entre octubre de 2009 y diciembre de 2013. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS: Riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo. RESULTADOS: 2721 casos (745 operados por abordaje abierto; 1976 por laparoscopia) se incluyeron en el análisis final. En la comparación directa, el margen de resección circunferencial positivo ocurrió más a frecuentemente, después de la resección abierta (6.3 vs 4.7%; p = 0.047). Posterior a los análisis multivariados, tumores localizados en el recto bajo, quimioterapia con radioterapia neoadyuvante, incremento de etapas T y la N, tumor fijo en pelvis y la disección en el plano muscular, aumentaron el riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo. En la muestra emparejada del puntaje de propensión (541 pares coincidentes exactos), el abordaje laparoscópico no influyó en el riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo (razón de probabilidades (IC 95%) 0.9 (0.6-1.5); p = 0.77). LIMITACIONES: Revisión retrospectiva de los datos recopilados prospectivamente y por lo tanto, posible sesgo de selección. CONCLUSIONES: El estudio de la base de datos a nivel nacional y después de los análisis emparejados multivariados y de puntuación de propensión, no hubo un mayor riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo después de la resección laparoscópica versus resección abierta. Vea el Resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A996.

Risk Factors for Compromised Surgical Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score-Matched Study on Laparoscopic and Open Resection for Colonic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: High-quality surgical resection of colonic cancer, including dissection along the embryologic mesocolic plane, translates into improved long-term oncological outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify risk factors for compromised specimen quality and to evaluate the specimen quality of patients undergoing laparoscopic and open resection for colonic cancer. DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational study. SETTINGS: This database study is based on the prospective national Danish Colorectal Cancer Database including patients undergoing intended curative elective colonic cancer surgery from January 1, 2010 through December 2013. PATIENTS: A total of 5143 patients (1602 open resections; 3541 laparoscopic resections) with colonic cancer were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk factors for poor resection quality were identified through uni- and multivariate logistic regression analysis. The surgical approach was assessed by propensity score-matched regression analysis. Poor resection quality was defined as resections in the muscularis plane accompanied by R0 resection, or resections in any resection plane accompanied by R1 resection. RESULTS: Overall, 4415 (85.8%) of the resections were considered good and 728 (14.2%) were considered poor. After multivariate analysis, neoadjuvant oncological treatment, advanced tumor stage (T3-4), advancing N stage (N1-2), open tumor perforation, and open surgery significantly increased the risk of poor resection quality. In a propensity score-matched sample (n = 1508 matched pairs), matched for age, sex, ASA score, BMI, neoadjuvant treatment, tumor stage, and tumor location, open resection was still associated with a higher risk of poor resection quality compared with laparoscopic resection (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8; p = 0.002). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design was a limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide propensity score-matched database study, laparoscopic resection was associated with a higher probability of good resection quality compared with open resection for colonic cancer. Risk factors for compromised specimen quality were neoadjuvant oncological treatment, locally advanced tumor stage (T3-4), advanced N stage (N1-2), open tumor perforation, and open surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A830.

Wound Complications and Perineal Pain After Extralevator Versus Standard Abdominoperineal Excision: A Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision was introduced as an alternative to conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancers. The perineal dissection is more extensive with extralevator abdominoperineal excision and leaves a greater defect. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate, on a national basis, the risk of perineal wound complications, pain, and hernia after conventional and extralevator abdominoperineal excision performed for low rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study collecting data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database and from electronic medical files of patients. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at Danish surgical departments. PATIENTS: A total of 445 patients operated between 2009 and 2012 with extralevator or conventional abdominoperineal excision were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main end points of this study were perineal wound complications and pain lasting for >30 days after the operation. RESULTS: The 2 groups were demographically similar except for a higher ASA score in the conventional group. In the extralevator group, neoadjuvant chemoradiation was more frequent (71% vs 41%; p < 0.001), T stage was higher (more T3 tumors; 52% vs 38%; p = 0.006), and more tumors were fixed (21% vs 12%; p = 0.02). Perineal wound complications and pain were more frequent after extralevator versus conventional excision (44% vs 25%; p < 0.001 and 38% vs 22%; p < 0.001). After multivariate analyses, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, extralevator excision, and operation early in the study period were found to have a significant influence on the risk of long-term wound complications. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and wound complications were significant risk factors for long-term perineal pain. Results were similar after subgroup analyses on low tumors only. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study. The 2 groups were not completely comparable at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation, extralevator compared with conventional excision, and operation early in the study period were significant factors for predicting perineal wound complications. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and wound complications were predictors of long-term perineal pain.

Similar long-term overall and disease-free survival after conventional and extralevator abdominoperineal excision-a nationwide study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to assess, compare, and identify factors of importance for long-term overall (OS) and disease-free (DFS) survival after conventional (cAPE) and extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) on a nationwide basis. METHODS: This was a database study based on data from a nationwide colorectal cancer database. Patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer in the period January 1, 2009 to August 31, 2012 were examined. Factors of importance for disease-free and overall survival were identified by multivariate Cox regressions. RESULTS: Five hundred patients were included in the final population. Two hundred seventy-six were operated by ELAPE and 224 by APE. Disease-free and overall survival did not differ between groups (4-year DFS 67 and 66 % after cAPE and ELAPE, respectively, (log-rank p = 0.82); 4-year OS 74 and 77 % after cAPE and ELAPE, respectively, (log-rank p = 0.59)). In Cox regression, the type of procedure did not affect DFS or OS. Factors of importance for DFS included increasing age, ypN-positive disease and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Factors of importance for OS included increasing age, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity, fixation of the tumor, blood transfusion, and increasing American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study, we did not find any differences in DFS or OS after extralevator versus conventional abdominal perineal excision, and the type of procedure did not affect survival after adjusted analyses.