Retromesenteric course of the middle colic artery-challenges and pitfalls in D3 right colectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The middle colic artery (MCA) is of crucial importance in abdominal surgery, for laparoscopic or open right and transverse colectomies. Against this background, a high number of reports concerning anatomical variations of the MCA have been published intended to contribute to the improvement of operative techniques for the treatment of colon cancer. Despite this extensive literature, briefly reviewed in the present paper, a course of the MCA posterior to the superior mesenteric vein, called a retromesenteric trajectory, has been related to only once, to the best of our knowledge. METHODS: A total series of 507 patients included in two prospective trials concerning laparoscopic or open right colectomy for cancer between 2011 and 2017 are reported. The investigation included preoperative or postoperative multidetector-computed tomography angiography. RESULTS: We found four (0.79%) cases of retromesenteric MCA. They all underwent meticulous image analysis with mesenteric vessels' road mapping, detailed morphometry, and surgical validation which revealed that, apart from their course, those cases did not differ significantly from the rest of the series. CONCLUSION: This paper therefore documents the worth-knowing behavior causing considerable confusion for the operating surgeon unaware of the abnormality and shows its concrete impact on patient-tailored surgical practice, in particular for laparoscopic D3 colectomy (including the "uncinated process first" approach).

The impact of rectal cancer tumor height on recurrence rates and metastatic location: A competing risk analysis of a national database.

BACKGROUND: The impact of rectal cancer tumor height on local recurrence and metastatic spread is unknown. The objective was to evaluate the impact of rectal cancer tumor height from the anal verge on metastatic spread and local recurrence patterns. METHODS: The Norwegian nationwide surgical quality registry was reviewed for curative rectal cancer resections from 1/1/1996-12/15/2006. Cancers were stratified into five height groups: 0-3 cm, >3-5 cm, >5-9 cm, >9-12 cm, 12 cm-HI. Competing risk and proportional hazards models assessed the relationship between tumor height and patterns of metastasis and survival. RESULTS: 6859 patients were analyzed. After median follow-up of 52 months (IQR 20-96), 26.7% (n = 1835) experienced recurrence. With tumors >12 cm, the risk of liver metastases increased (crude HR 1.49, p = 0.03), while lung metastases decreased (crude HR 0.66, p = 0.03), and risk of death decreased (crude HR 0.81, p = 0.001) The cumulative incidence of pelvic recurrence were highest for the low tumors (p = 0.01). Median time to liver metastases was 14months (IQR 7-24), lung metastases 25months (IQR 13-39), pelvic recurrence 19months (IQR10-32), (p < 0.0001). Time to metastases in liver and lungs were significantly associated with tumor height (p < 0.001) CONCLUSION: There are distinct differences in metastatic recurrence patterns and time to recurrence from different anatomic areas of the rectum. In crude analyses, tumor height impacted metastatic spread to the liver and lungs. However, when adjusting for treatment variables, the hazard of metastatic spread to the liver and lungs are limited. Nevertheless, time to metastases in liver and lungs is significantly impacted by tumor height. Venous drainage of the rectal cancer may be a significant contributor of rectal cancer metastatic spread, but further research is warranted.

Application of a simple, affordable quality metric tool to colorectal, upper gastrointestinal, hernia, and hepatobiliary surgery patients: the HARM score.

BACKGROUND: Quality is the major driver for both clinical and financial assessment. There remains a need for simple, affordable, quality metric tools to evaluate patient outcomes, which led us to develop the HospitAl length of stay, Readmission and Mortality (HARM) score. We hypothesized that the HARM score would be a reliable tool to assess patient outcomes across various surgical specialties. METHODS: From 2011 to 2015, we identified colorectal, hepatobiliary, upper gastrointestinal, and hernia surgery admissions using the Vizient Clinical Database. Individual and hospital HARM scores were calculated from length of stay, 30-day readmission, and mortality rates. We evaluated the correlation of HARM scores with complication rates using the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: We identified 525,083 surgical patients: 206,981 colorectal, 164,691 hepatobiliary, 97,157 hernia, and 56,254 upper gastrointestinal. Overall, 53.8% of patients were admitted electively with a mean HARM score of 2.24; 46.2% were admitted emergently with a mean HARM score of 1.45 (p < 0.0001). All HARM components correlated with patient complications on logistic regression (p < 0.0001). The mean length of stay increased from 3.2 ± 1.8 days for a HARM score < 2 to 15.1 ± 12.2 days for a HARM score > 4 (p < 0.001). In elective admissions, for HARM categories of < 2, 2-< 3, 3-4, and > 4, complication rates were 9.3, 23.2, 38.8, and 71.6%, respectively. There was a similar trend for increasing HARM score in emergent admissions as well. For all surgical procedure categories, increasing HARM score, with and without risk adjustment, correlated with increasing severity of complications by Clavien-Dindo classification. CONCLUSIONS: The HARM score is an easy-to-use quality metric that correlates with increasing complication rates and complication severity across multiple surgical disciplines when evaluated on a large administrative database. This inexpensive tool could be adopted across multiple institutions to compare the quality of surgical care.

The HARM score for gastrointestinal surgery: Application and validation of a novel, reliable and simple tool to measure surgical quality and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The HospitAl length of stay, Readmissions and Mortality (HARM) score is a simple, inexpensive quality tool, linked directly to patient outcomes. We assess the HARM score for measuring surgical quality across multiple surgical populations. METHODS: Upper gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, and colorectal surgery cases between 2005 and 2009 were identified from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project California State Inpatient Database. Composite and individual HARM scores were calculated from length of stay, 30-day readmission and mortality, correlated to complication rates for each hospital and stratified by operative type. RESULTS: 71,419 admissions were analyzed. Higher HARM scores correlated with higher complication rates for all cases after risk adjustment and stratification by operation type, elective or emergent status. CONCLUSIONS: The HARM score is a simple and valid quality measurement for upper gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary and colorectal surgery. The HARM score could facilitate benchmarking to improve patient outcomes and resource utilization, and may facilitate outcome improvement.

Effect of laparoscopic surgery on health care utilization and costs in patients who undergo colectomy.

IMPORTANCE: Laparoscopic colectomy is safe and effective in the treatment of many colorectal diseases. However, the effect of increasing use of laparoscopy on overall health care utilization and costs, especially in the long term, has not been thoroughly investigated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of laparoscopic vs open colectomy on short- and long-term health care utilization and costs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective multivariate regression analysis of national health insurance claims data was used to evaluate health care utilization and costs up to 1 year following elective colectomy. Data were obtained from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database. Patients aged 18 to 64 years who underwent elective laparoscopic or open colectomy from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, were included. Patients with complex diagnoses that require increased non-surgery-related health care utilization, including malignant neoplasm, inflammatory bowel disease, human immunodeficiency virus, transplantation, and pregnancy, were excluded. Of 25 481 patients who underwent colectomy, 4160 were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Healthcare utilization, including office, hospital outpatient, and emergency department visits and inpatient services 90 and 365 days after the index procedure; total health care costs; and estimated days off from work owing to health care utilization. RESULTS: Of 25 481 patients who underwent colectomy, 4160 were included in the study (laparoscopic, 45.6%; open, 54.4%). The mean (SD) net and total payments were lower for laparoscopy ($23 064 [$14 558] and $24 196 [$14 507] vs $29 753 [$21 421] and $31 606 [$23 586]). In the first 90 days after surgery, an open approach was significantly associated with a 1.26-fold increase in health care costs (estimated, $1715; 95% CI, $338-$2853), increased use of heath care services, and more estimated days off from work (2.78 days; 95% CI, 1.93-3.59). Similar trends were found in the full postoperative year, with an estimated 1.18-fold increase (95% CI, 1.04-1.35) in health care expenditures and an increase of 1.15 times (95% CI, 1.08-1.23) the number of health care utilization days compared with laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Laparoscopic colectomy results in a significant reduction in health care costs and utilization in the short- and long-term postoperative periods.

Multivisceral resection for advanced rectal cancer: outcomes and experience at a single institution.

BACKGROUND: Multivisceral resection is often required in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers. Such resections are relatively rare and oncologic outcomes, especially when sphincter preservation is performed, are not fully demonstrated. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent multivisceral resection for locally advanced rectal cancer with and without sphincter preservation. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients underwent multivisceral resection for rectal cancer from 2005 to 2013 with a median follow-up of 27.8 months. Five-year overall and disease-free survival were 49.2% and 45.3%, respectively. Thirty-four patients (55.7%) had sphincter-sparing operations with primary coloanal anastomosis and temporary stoma. There was no significant difference in overall or disease-free survival, or recurrence with sphincter preservation compared with those with permanent stoma. CONCLUSIONS: Multivisceral resection for locally advanced rectal cancer has acceptable oncologic and clinical outcomes. Sphincter preservation and subsequent reestablishment of gastrointestinal continuity does not impact oncologic outcomes and should be considered in many patients.

Telementoring in education of laparoscopic surgeons: An emerging technology.

Laparoscopy, minimally invasive and minimal access surgery with more surgeons performing these advanced procedures. We highlight in the review several key emerging technologies such as the telementoring and virtual reality simulators, that provide a solid ground for delivering surgical education to rural area and allow young surgeons a safety net and confidence while operating on a newly learned technique.

Telemedical technologies in urological cancer care: past, present and future applications.

Since the initial development of telegraphy by Sir Charles Wheatstone in 1837 and the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell in 1875, doctors have been able to convey medical information across great distances. The exchange and sharing of medical information has evolved and adapted to suit the vast array of today's medicine. Early adopters of telemedicine within clinical practice have gained significant health economic benefits. The arrival of wireless connections has further enhanced the possibilities for all clinical work with focus on diagnosis, treatment and management of urological cancers, as highlighted in this article.

International trends in surgical treatment of rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgical technique might influence rectal cancer survival, yet international practices for surgical treatment of rectal cancer are poorly described. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey in a cohort of experienced colorectal surgeons representing 123 centers. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent responded, 70% are from departments performing more than 50 proctectomies annually. More than 50% defined the rectum as "15 cm from the verge." Seventy-two percent perform laparoscopic proctectomy, 80% use oral bowel preparation, 69% perform high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery, 76% divert stomas as routine for colo-anal anastomosis, and 63% use enhanced recovery protocols. Different practices exist between US and non-US surgeons: 15 cm from the verge to define the rectum (34% vs 59%; P = .03), personally perform laparoscopic resection (82% vs 66%; P = .05), rectal stump washout (36% vs 73%; P = .0001), always drain after surgery (23% vs 42%; P = .03), transanal endoscopic microsurgery for T2N0 in medically unfit patients (39% vs 61%; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Wide international variations in rectal cancer management make outcome comparisons challenging, and consensus development should be encouraged.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy skills acquisition: augmented reality simulator versus human cadaver training models.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare a simulator with the human cadaver model for hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training. DESIGN: An observational prospective comparative study was conducted to compare the laparoscopic surgery training models. SETTING: The study took place during the laparoscopic colectomy training course performed at the annual scientific meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty four practicing surgeons performed hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy on human cadavers (n = 7) and on an augmented reality simulator (n = 27). Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Trainers and trainees completed independently objective structured assessment forms. Training models were compared by trainees' technical skills scores, events scores, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both surgeon groups. Generic and specific skills scores were similar on both training models. Generic events scores were significantly better on the cadaver model. The 2 most frequent generic events occurring on the simulator were poor hand-eye coordination and inefficient use of retraction. Specific events were scored better on the simulator and reached the significance limit (p = 0.051) for trainers. The specific events occurring on the cadaver were intestinal perforation and left ureter identification difficulties. Overall satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: With regard to skills scores, the augmented reality simulator had adequate qualities for the hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy training. Nevertheless, events scores highlighted weaknesses of the anatomical replication on the simulator. Although improvements likely will be required to incorporate the simulator more routinely into the colorectal training, it may be useful in its current form for more junior trainees or those early on their learning curve.

International preoperative rectal cancer management: staging, neoadjuvant treatment, and impact of multidisciplinary teams.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding variations in preoperative treatment and practice for rectal cancer (RC) on an international level, yet practice variation may result in differences in recurrence and survival rates. METHODS: One hundred seventy-three international colorectal centers were invited to participate in a survey of preoperative management of rectal cancer. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three (71%) responded, with a majority of respondents from North America, Europe, and Asia. Ninety-three percent have more than 5 years' experience with rectal cancer surgery. Fifty-five percent use CT scan, 35% MRI, 29% ERUS, 12% digital rectal examination and 1% PET scan in all RC cases. Seventy-four percent consider threatened circumferential margin (CRM) an indication for neoadjuvant treatment. Ninety-two percent prefer 5-FU-based long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). A significant difference in practice exists between the US and non-US surgeons: poor histological differentiation as an indication for CRT (25% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.008), CRT for stage II and III rectal cancer (92% vs. 43%, p = 0.0001), MRI for all RC patients (20% vs. 42%, p = 0.03), and ERUS for all RC patients (43% vs. 21%, p = 0.01). Multidisciplinary team meetings significantly influence decisions for MRI (RR = 3.62), neoadjuvant treatment (threatened CRM, RR = 5.67, stage II + III RR = 2.98), quality of pathology report (RR = 4.85), and sphincter-saving surgery (RR = 3.81). CONCLUSIONS: There was little consensus on staging, neoadjuvant treatment, and preoperative management of rectal cancer. Regular multidisciplinary team meetings influence decisions about neoadjuvant treatment and staging methods.

A comparison of human cadaver and augmented reality simulator models for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the human cadaver model with an augmented reality simulator for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-five sigmoid colectomies were performed on a cadaver (n = 7) or an augmented reality simulator (n = 28) during a laparoscopic training course. Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Objective structured technical skills assessment forms were completed by trainers and trainees independently. Groups were compared according to technical skills and events scores and satisfaction with training model. RESULTS: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both groups. For trainers and trainees, technical skills scores were considerably better on the simulator than on the cadaver. For trainers, generic events score was also considerably better on the simulator than on the cadaver. The main generic event occurring on both models was errors in the use of retraction. The main specific event occurring on both models was bowel perforation. Global satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The human cadaver model was more difficult but better appreciated than the simulator for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy training. Simulator training followed by cadaver training can appropriately integrate simulators into the learning curve and maintain the benefits of both training methodologies.

Should the surgeon or the general practitioner (GP) follow up patients after surgery for colon cancer? A randomized controlled trial protocol focusing on quality of life, cost-effectiveness and serious clinical events.

BACKGROUND: All patients who undergo surgery for colon cancer are followed up according to the guidelines of the Norwegian Gastrointestinal Cancer Group (NGICG). These guidelines state that the aims of follow-up after surgery are to perform quality assessment, provide support and improve survival. In Norway, most of these patients are followed up in a hospital setting. We describe a multi-centre randomized controlled trial to test whether these patients can be followed up by their general practitioner (GP) without altering quality of life, cost effectiveness and/or the incidence of serious clinical events. METHODS AND DESIGN: Patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer with histological grade Dukes's Stage A, B or C and below 75 years of age are eligible for inclusion. They will be randomized after surgery to follow-up at the surgical outpatient clinic (control group) or follow-up by the district GP (intervention group). Both study arms comply with the national NGICG guidelines. The primary endpoints will be quality of life (QoL) (measured by the EORTC QLQ C-30 and the EQ-5D instruments), serious clinical events (SCEs), and costs. The follow-up period will be two years after surgery, and quality of life will be measured every three months. SCEs and costs will be estimated prospectively. The sample size was 170 patients. DISCUSSION: There is an ongoing debate on the best method of follow-up for patients with CRC. Due to a wide range of follow-up programmes and paucity of randomized trials, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the best combination and frequency of clinic (or family practice) visits, blood tests, endoscopic procedures and radiological examinations that maximize the clinical outcome, quality of life and costs. Most studies on follow-up of CRC patients have been performed in a hospital outpatient setting. We hypothesize that postoperative follow-up of colon cancer patients (according to national guidelines) by GPs will not have any impact on patients' quality of life. Furthermore, we hypothesize that there will be no increase in SCEs and that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will improve. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration number is: NCT00572143.