Close margin of adverse histologic factors with a negative primary tumor margin is not associated with increased locoregional recurrence in colon cancer.

PURPOSE: Locoregional recurrence after resection of colon cancer is increased when primary tumor margin is positive (<1 â€‹mm). Data is limited regarding the risk of locoregional recurrence with close margin (<1 â€‹mm) of histologic factors, such as intravascular tumor, intranodal tumor, tumor deposits, or extranodal extension. We hypothesized that close margin of these factors doesn't affect locoregional recurrence. METHODS: A retrospective review of all colon cancer surgical resections for adenocarcinoma from 2007 to 2020 was performed. Inclusion criteria were specimens with a negative primary tumor margin but a close margin of adverse histologic factors, defined as intravascular tumor, intranodal tumor, tumor deposits, or extranodal extension within 1 â€‹mm of a mesenteric or circumferential margin. RESULTS: Among 4435 pathology reports reviewed, 45 (1 â€‹%) of cases met inclusion criteria. Average follow-up was 38 months. The adverse histologic factor was identified as intranodal tumor in 24 (53 â€‹%) cases, intravascular tumor in 8 (17.8 â€‹%), tumor deposits in 5 (11.1 â€‹%), and more than one pathologic feature in 6 (13.3 â€‹%). There were 9 (20 â€‹%) recurrences; 6 (13 â€‹%) had distant recurrences only, 2 (4 â€‹%) patients had locoregional recurrences only, and 1 (2 â€‹%) patient had both locoregional and distant recurrence. The adverse histologic factor in these three patients was intravascular in two and both intravascular and intranodal in one. CONCLUSION: Based on our results, we do not have evidence that the presence of intravascular tumor, intranodal tumor, tumor deposits, or extranodal extension within 1 â€‹mm of a mesenteric or circumferential margin is associated with increased risk of locoregional recurrence.

Ventral mesh rectopexy for recurrent rectal prolapse after Altemeier perineal proctosigmoidectomy: feasibility and outcomes.

PURPOSE: Recurrence of rectal prolapse following the Altemeier procedure is reported with rates up to 40%. The optimal surgical management of recurrences has limited data available. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a favored procedure for primary rectal prolapse, but its role in managing recurrences after Altemeier is unclear. VMR for recurrent prolapse involves implanting the mesh on the colon, which has a thinner wall, more active peristalsis, no mesorectum, less peritoneum available for covering the mesh, and potential diverticula. These factors can affect mesh-related complications such as erosion, migration, or infection. This study assessed the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of VMR for recurrent rectal prolapse after the Altemeier procedure. METHODS: We queried our prospectively maintained database between 01/01/2008 and 06/30/2022 for patients who had experienced a recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse following Altemeier's perineal proctosigmoidectomy and subsequently underwent ventral mesh rectopexy. RESULTS: Ten women with a median age of 67 years (range 61) and a median BMI of 27.8 kg/m2 (range 9) were included. Five (50%) had only one Altemeier, and five (50%) had multiple rectal prolapse surgeries, including Altemeier before VMR. No mesh-related complications occurred during a 65-month (range 165) median follow-up period. Three patients (30%) experienced minor postoperative complications unrelated to the mesh. Long-term complications were chronic abdominal pain and incisional hernia in one patient, respectively. One out of five (20%) patients with only one previous prolapse repair had a recurrence, while all patients (100%) with multiple prior repairs recurred. CONCLUSION: Mesh implantation on the colon is possible without adverse reactions. However, high recurrence rates in patients with multiple previous surgeries raise doubts about using VMR for secondary or tertiary recurrences.