Evaluation of the impact of implementing the prone jackknife position for the perineal phase of abdominoperineal excision of the rectum.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal excision of rectum has been associated with poor oncological specimens and high local recurrence rates in comparison with restorative surgery. The role of recent changes in operative position has yet to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether a change in the perineal phase from the Lloyd-Davies position to the prone jackknife position might improve excision margins and oncological outcomes. METHODS: A single-institution review of a prospectively maintained database comparing the quality of excision and oncological outcomes after abdominoperineal excision in conventional and prone position was performed. Consecutive abdominoperineal excisions performed for adenocarcinoma of the rectum between January 1999 and April 2008 were included. RESULTS: Abdominoperineal excision cases were assessed including 63 in the Lloyd-Davies position and 58 in the prone jackknife position. The 5-year local recurrence rate was 5% in the prone jackknife group in comparison with 23% in the Lloyd-Davies group (p = 0.03) by life table analysis. For local recurrence, the most significant and independent risk factors were a favorable effect of having the patient in the prone jackknife position for the perineal phase of abdominoperineal excision (HR 0.2; 95% CI 0.04-0.81) and, unfavorably, a positive circumferential resection margin (HR 7.1; 95% CI 2.4-20). Lymph node involvement (N2) was an independent risk factor for overall survival (HR 4.6; 95% CI 2.1-9.5) and relapse of disease (HR 4.0; 95% CI 0.7-9.4). LIMITATIONS: This study has some limitations because it is a retrospective review of a prospective database. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the rate of local recurrence after abdominoperineal excision may be lowered by adaptation of the prone jackknife position.

Preoperative risk stratification for mortality and major morbidity in major colorectal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification in major colorectal surgery, in general, has used preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables, and has been used for purposes of comparative audit. To enable preoperative clinical use, this study aimed to stratify risk by use of preoperative risk factors only. METHODS: This is a single-institutional prospective observational study. RESULTS: There were 887 major colorectal procedures assessed. Independent risk factors for mortality were American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status Grades III to V, age, high comorbidity count, and low surgeon case volume. For major morbidity, risk factors were American Society of Anesthesiologists' Grades III to V, urgent operation, and operation to excise the rectum. Overall, mortality was 4.51%, and major morbidity was 19.6%. The estimated risk of mortality was stratified by risk factor profile from 0.12% (95% CI, 0.02-0.93) to 42.4% (95% CI, 23.5-63.9). The risk of major morbidity was stratified from 7.22% (95% CI, 4.82-10.7) to 49.2% (95% CI, 34.2-64.4). Model discrimination was favorable to the existing risk adjustment models applied to our cohort. The Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (including Portsmouth and ColoRectal modifications), and Association of ColoProctology of Great Britain and Ireland Colorectal Cancer models (mortality: area under receiver operating characteristic (AU ROC) curves 0.87 compare 0.70-0.81, major morbidity: 0.69 compare 0.66)). CONCLUSIONS: Simple and readily available preoperative risk factors can achieve risk stratification. Risk stratification based on preoperative risk factors only possibly has comparable efficacy with those models that use preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative risk factors.