A Comparison of the Short-term Outcomes of Three Flap Reconstruction Techniques Used After Beyond Total Mesorectal Excision Surgery for Anorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancy can result in perineal defects that cannot be closed by wound edge approximation. Myocutaneous flaps can fill the defect and accelerate healing. No reconstruction has been proven to be superior to the others. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare 3 flap procedures after beyond total mesorectal excision surgery. DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database, according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. SETTINGS: This study was performed at a tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive series of patients who required flap reconstruction after beyond total mesorectal excision surgery between 2007 and 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Short-term outcomes after oblique rectus abdominis flap vs vertical rectus abdominis flap vs inferior gluteal artery perforator flap reconstruction were evaluated. RESULTS: Included are 65 (59%) oblique rectus abdominis flap, 30 (27.3%) vertical rectus abdominis flap, and 15 (13.7%) inferior gluteal artery perforator flap outcomes. Sacrectomy was performed in 12 (18.5%), 10 (33.3%), and 8 (53.3%) patients (p = 0.016). Preoperative radiotherapy was used in 60 (92.3%), 26 (86.7%), and 11 (73.3%) patients (p = 0.11). Flap infection and dehiscence occurred in 7 (10.8%), 1 (3.3%), and 4 (26.7%) patients. There was an increased risk of flap complication with inferior gluteal artery perforator flap vs vertical rectus abdominis flap (p = 0.036). Inferior gluteal artery perforator flap (OR, 6.26; p = 0.02) and obesity (OR, 4.96; p = 0.02) were associated with flap complications. Only complications of the oblique rectus abdominis flap decreased significantly over time (p = 0.03). The length of stay and complete (R0) resection rate were not different between the groups. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited because of its retrospective nature and because it was conducted at a single center. CONCLUSIONS: The techniques appear comparable. The approaches should be considered complementary, and the choice should be individualized. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B141. COMPARACIÓN DE RESULTADOS A CORTO PLAZO DE TRES TÉCNICAS DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN CON COLGAJO UTILIZADAS DESPUÉS DE LA CIRUGÍA DE ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL EXTENDIDA PARA EL CÁNCER ANORRECTAL: La cirugía para malignidad pélvica avanzada o recurrente puede provocar defectos perineales, que no pueden cerrarse por aproximación de los bordes de la herida. Los colgajos miocutáneos pueden llenar el defecto y acelerar la curación. Ninguna reconstrucción ha demostrado ser superior a las demás.Comparar tres procedimientos de colgajo después de una cirugía de escisión mesorrectal total extendida.Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos prospectiva, de acuerdo con la Declaración de Fortalecimiento de los informes de estudios observacionales en epidemiología.Hospital de tercer nivel.Series consecutivas de pacientes que requirieron reconstrucción con colgajo después de una cirugía de escisión mesorrectal total extendida entre 2007 y 2016.Resultados a corto plazo después del colgajo oblicuo recto abdominal versus colgajo vertical recto abdominal versus reconstrucción del colgajo perforador de la arteria glútea inferior.Se incluyen 65 (59%) colgajo oblicuo recto abdominal oblicuo, 30 (27.3%) colgajo vertical recto abdominal y 15 (13.7%) colgajo perforador de la arteria glútea inferior. Sacrectomía se realizó en 12 (18.5%), 10 (33.3%) y 8 (53.3%) pacientes respectivamente (p = 0.016). La radioterapia preoperatoria se utilizó en 60 (92.3%), 26 (86.7%) y 11 (73.3%) (p = 0,11). La infección del colgajo y la dehiscencia ocurrieron en 7 (10.8%), 1 (3.3%) y 4 (26.7%). Hubo un mayor riesgo de complicación con el colgajo perforador de la arteria glútea inferior en comparación al colgajo vertical del recto abdominal (p = 0.036). El colgajo perforador de la arteria glútea inferior (OR 6.26, p = 0.02) y la obesidad (OR 4.96, p = 0.02) se asociaron con complicaciones del colgajo. Solo las complicaciones del colgajo oblicuo recto abdominal disminuyeron significativamente con el tiempo (p = 0.03). La duración de la estancia hospitalaria y la tasa de resección completa (R0) no fue diferente entre los grupos.Estudio retrospectivo en centro único.Las técnicas parecen comparables. Los enfoques deben considerarse complementarios y la elección individualizada. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B141.

Predictors of short-term readmission after beyond total mesorectal excision for primary locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.

Unplanned readmissions heavily affect the cost of health care and are used as an indicator of performance. No clear data are available regarding beyond-total mesorectal excision (bTME) procedure. Aim of the study is to identify patient-related and surgery-related factors influencing the 30-day readmissions after bTME. Retrospective data were collected from 220 patients who underwent bTME procedures at single centre between 2006 and 2016. Patient-related and operative factors were assessed, including body mass index (BMI), age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists' (ASA) score, preoperative stage, neo-adjuvant therapy, primary tumour vs recurrence, the extent of surgery. The readmission rate was 8.18%. No statistically significant association was found with BMI, ASA score, length of stay and stay in the intensive care unit, primary vs recurrent tumour or blood transfusions. Not quite statistically significant was the association with pelvic side wall dissection (OR 3.32, p = 0.054). Statistically significant factors included preoperative stage > IIIb (OR: 4.77, p = 0.002), neo-adjuvant therapy (OR: 0.13, p = 0.0006), age over 65 years (OR: 5.96, p = 0.0005), any re-intervention during the first admission (OR: 7.4, p = 0.0001), and any post-operative complication (OR: 9.01, p = 0.004). The readmission rate after beyond-TME procedure is influenced by patient-related factors as well as post-operative morbidity.

The obesity paradox in beyond total mesorectal excision surgery for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.

The objective is to investigate preoperative body mass index (BMI) in patients receiving beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) surgery. The primary end point is length of postoperative stay. Secondary end points are length of intensive care stay, postoperative morbidity and overall survival. BMI is the most commonly used anthropometric measurement of nutrition and studies have shown that overweight and obese patients can have improved surgical outcomes. Patients who underwent a bTME operation for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer were put into three BMI (kg/m2) groups of normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25-29.9) and obese (≥ 30) for analysis. Included are 220 consecutive patients from a single centre. The overall length of stay, in days ± standard deviation (range), for normal weight, overweight and obese patients was 21.14 ± 16.4 (6-99), 15.24 ± 4.3 (7-32) and 19.10 ± 9.8 (8-62) respectively (p = 0.002). The mean ICU length of stay was 5.40 ± 9.1 (1-69), 3.37 ± 2.4 (0-19) and 3.60 ± 2.4 (1-14), respectively (p = 0.030). There was no significant difference between the three groups in terms of postoperative morbidity or overall survival. Patients with a normal weight BMI in this cohort have a significantly longer length of stay in ICU and in hospital than overweight or obese patients. This is seen with no significant difference in morbidity or overall survival.

A Systematic Review to Assess Resection Margin Status After Abdominoperineal Excision and Pelvic Exenteration for Rectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess resection margin status and its impact on survival after abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent rectal cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Resection margin is important to guide therapy and to evaluate patient prognosis. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of resection margin status on survival, and a regression analysis to analyze positive resection margin rates reported in the literature. RESULTS: The analysis included 111 studies reporting on 19,607 participants after abdominoperineal excision, and 30 studies reporting on 1326 participants after pelvic exenteration. The positive resection margin rates for abdominoperineal excision were 14.7% and 24.0% for pelvic exenteration. The overall survival and disease-free survival rates were significantly worse for patients with positive compared with negative resection margins after abdominoperineal excision [hazard ratio (HR) 2.64, P < 0.01; HR 3.70, P < 0.01, respectively] and after pelvic exenteration (HR 2.23, P < 0.01; HR 2.93, P < 0.01, respectively). For patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision with positive resection margins, the reported tumor sites were 57% anterior, 15% posterior, 10% left or right lateral, 8% circumferential, 10% unspecified. A significant decrease in positive resection margin rates was identified over time for abdominoperineal excision. Although positive resection margin rates did not significantly change with the size of the study, some small size studies reported higher than expected positive resection margin rates. CONCLUSIONS: Resection margin status influences survival and a multidisciplinary approach in experienced centers may result in reduced positive resection margins. For advanced anterior rectal cancer, posterior pelvic exenteration instead of abdominoperineal excision may improve resection margins.