Catheter Directed Thrombolysis for Not Immediately Threatening Acute Limb Ischaemia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the outcomes of catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) in patients with not immediately threatening (Rutherford I) acute lower limb ischaemia (ALI). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify observational studies and trials published between 1990 and 2022 reporting on the results of CDT in patients with Rutherford I ALI. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The outcomes of interests were treatment duration, angiographic success, bleeding complications, amputation and mortality rates, primary and secondary patency, and functional outcome expressed as pain free walking distance. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were included, comprising 1 861 patients who received CDT for not immediately threatening ALI. Funnel plots showed an indication of publication bias, and heterogeneity was substantial. Data from 5 to 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled treatment duration was 2 days (95% CI 1 - 2), with an angiographic success rate of 80% (95% CI 73 - 86) and a 30 day freedom of amputation rate of 98% (95% CI 92 - 100). The major bleeding rate was 5% (95% CI 2 - 14), with a 30 day mortality rate of 3% (95% CI 1 - 5). The amputation free survival rate was 71% (95% CI 62 - 80) at the one year and 63% (95% CI 51 - 73) at the three year follow up. Long term patency rates were retrieved from four studies: 48% at one year (95% CI 27 - 70). No data could be retrieved on patient walking distance. CONCLUSION: Although CDT in the treatment of not immediately threatening ALI showed high angiographic success, the long term outcomes were relatively poor, with low patency and a substantial risk of major amputation. Further research is required to interpret the outcome of CDT in the context of potential confounders such as age and comorbidities.

Oncological Outcomes After Anastomotic Leakage After Surgery for Colon or Rectal Cancer: Increased Risk of Local Recurrence.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate oncological outcome for patients with and without anastomotic leakage after colon or rectal cancer surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The role of anastomotic leakage in oncological outcome after colorectal cancer surgery is still topic of debate and impact on follow-up and consideration for further treatment remains unclear. METHODS: Patients included in the international, multicenter, non-inferior, open label, randomized, controlled trials COLOR and COLOR II, comparing laparoscopic surgery for curable colon (COLOR) and rectal (COLOR II) cancer with open surgery, were analyzed. Patients operated by abdominoperineal excision were excluded. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the impact of leakage on overall survival, disease-free survival, local and distant recurrences, adjusted for possible confounders. Primary endpoints in the COLOR and COLOR II trial were disease-free survival and local recurrence at 3-year follow-up, respectively, and secondary endpoints included anastomotic leakage rate. RESULTS: For colon cancer, anastomotic leakage was not associated with increased percentage of local recurrence or decreased disease-free-survival. For rectal cancer, an increase of local recurrences (13.3% vs 4.6%; hazard ratio 2.96; 95% confidence interval 1.38-6.34; P = 0.005) and a decrease of disease-free survival (53.6% vs 70.9%; hazard ratio 1.67; 95% confidence interval 1.16-2.41; P = 0.006) at 5-year follow-up were found in patients with anastomotic leakage. CONCLUSION: Short-term morbidity, mortality, and long-term oncological outcomes are negatively influenced by the occurrence of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. For colon cancer, no significant effect was observed; however, due to low power, no conclusions on the influence of anastomotic leakage on outcomes after colon surgery could be reached. Clinical awareness of increased risk of local recurrence after anastomotic leakage throughout the follow-up is mandatory.Trial Registration: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00387842 and NCT00297791.

Quality of life after rectal cancer surgery: differences between laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision.

BACKGROUND: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a safe alternative to laparoscopic TME for mid and low rectal cancer. TaTME allows improved visualization of the surgical planes and margins, and may potentially improve oncological outcomes. However, functional results after total mesorectal excision (TME) are variable and there are currently only a few published studies that include functional data related to the outcomes of TaTME. METHODS: Fifty-four consecutive patients were included in this study: one group included 27 patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior and the other included 27 patients who underwent TaTME. All patients were asked to complete five questionnaires related to quality of life (QOL) and function [EQ-5D-3L, EORTC-QLQ C30, EORTC-QLQ C29, Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score (LARS), and International Prostate Symptom Score IPSS]. All TaTME patients were operated on at The Gelderse Vallei Hospital by a single surgeon and had a follow-up of at least 6.6 months. RESULTS: The EORTC-QLQ C30 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires showed comparable outcomes in terms of QOL between the two groups. Almost all items evaluated by the EORTC-QLQ C29, including sexual outcomes, were similar between the two groups. One item concerning fecal incontinence, however, was scored worse for TaTME. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of LARS symptoms or urinary function. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic or transanal TME showed comparable functional and QOL outcomes. Although the TaTME technique is still evolving, this study indicates that this technique is a safe alternative to laparoscopic surgery in terms of functional outcomes for mid and low rectal cancers.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery with or without Completion Total Mesorectal Excision for T2 and T3 Rectal Carcinoma.

AIM: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is used for the resection of large rectal adenomas and well or moderately differentiated T1 carcinomas. Due to difficulty in preoperative staging, final pathology may reveal a carcinoma not suitable for TEM. Although completion total mesorectal excision is considered standard of care in T2 or more invasive carcinomas, this completion surgery is not always performed. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the outcome of patients after TEM-only, when completion surgery would be indicated. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter, observational cohort study, outcome after TEM-only (n = 41) and completion surgery (n = 40) following TEM for a pT2-3 rectal adenocarcinoma was compared. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 29 months for the TEM-only group and 31 months for the completion surgery group. Local recurrence rate was 35 and 11% for the TEM-only and completion surgery groups respectively. Distant metastasis occurred in 16% of the patients in both groups. The 3-year overall survival was 63% in the TEM-only group and 91% in the completion surgery group respectively. Three-year disease-specific survival was 91 versus 93% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although local recurrence after TEM-only for pT2-3 rectal cancer is worse compared to the recurrence that occurs after completion surgery, disease-specific survival is comparable between both groups. The lower unadjusted overall survival in the TEM-only group indicates that TEM-only may be a valid alternative in older and frail patients, especially when high morbidity of completion surgery is taken into consideration. Nevertheless, completion surgery should always be advised when curation is intended.

[Application of flexible transanal port for excision of rectal tumours]. / Toepassing flexibele toegangspoort voor excisie rectumtumoren.

In 2010 the first report of the application of the flexible transanal port ('operation platform') for the excision of rectal tumours was published. Due to the enhanced vision it provides, adenomas and small malignant rectal tumours can be radically resected with significantly fewer recurrences than with endoscopic mucosal resection or transanal excisions done without this platform. The application of this platform is cheaper and more intuitive than transanal endoscopic microsurgery, while the quality of the local resection, the risk of postoperative complications and the functional and oncological outcomes all appear to be comparable. This is the reason that this flexible platform is now in use in most Dutch hospitals. The flexible port has led to an increase in rectum-sparing treatment for low-risk T1 rectal carcinoma. Nowadays, this platform is also used for the transanal approach during radical rectal surgery for high-risk rectal carcinomas and for rectal operations in patients with benign conditions in the pelvis minor such as severe endometriosis or Crohn's disease.