Does Rectoanal Intussusception Limit Improvements in Clinical Outcome and Quality of Life After Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence?

BACKGROUND: Sacral nerve stimulation is a treatment option for severe, medically refractory fecal incontinence, although its use in patients with anatomic abnormalities remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether patients with rectoanal intussusception achieve similar benefits from device implantation to patients without rectoanal intussusception. DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. Demographics and clinical data were collected for each patient, including preoperative pelvic floor testing. Defecographies were reanalyzed in a blinded manner. Preoperative rectoanal intussusception was determined on the basis of the Oxford system (grade III-IV vs not; grade V excluded). SETTINGS: Academic-affiliated pelvic health center. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence between July 2011 and July 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence/Wexner Scores, Fecal Incontinence Severity Indices, and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Indices at 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine patients underwent sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence during the study period. The average age was 60.3 years and 91% were female. Forty-six patients (27.2%) had concomitant rectoanal intussusception (38 patients [22.5%] grade III and 8 patients [4.7%] grade IV). Before surgery, patients reported an average of 10.8 accidents per week and a Wexner score of 15.7, with no difference between patients with and without rectoanal intussusception ( p = 0.22 and 0.95). At 1 year after surgery, the average Wexner score was 9.5. There was no difference in postoperative Wexner scores (10.4 vs 9.2, p = 0.23) or improvement over time between patients with and without rectoanal intussusception (-6.7 vs -5.7, p = 0.40). Similarly, there was no difference in quality of life or frequency of incontinence to liquid or solid stool. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution, moderate sample size, incomplete survey response. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant rectoanal intussusception does not appear to affect clinical outcomes or quality of life after sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Appropriate patients with fecal incontinence and rectoanal intussusception can be considered for sacral nerve stimulation placement. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C192 . LA INTUSUSCEPCIN RECTOANAL LIMITA LAS MEJORAS EN EL RESULTADO CLNICO Y LA CALIDAD DE VIDA DESPUS DE LA NEUROESTIMULACION SACRA PARA LA INCONTINENCIA FECAL: ANTECEDENTES:La neuroestimulación sacra es una opción de tratamiento para la incontinencia fecal grave refractaria al tratamiento médico, aunque su uso en pacientes con anomalías anatómicas sigue siendo controvertido.OBJETIVO:Determinar si los pacientes con intususcepción rectoanal logran beneficios similares de la implantación del dispositivo a los pacientes sin intususcepción rectoanal.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente. Se recopilaron datos demográficos y clínicos de cada paciente, incluidas las pruebas preoperatorias del piso pélvico. Las defecografías se volvieron a analizar de forma ciega. La intususcepción rectoanal preoperatoria se determinó según el sistema de Oxford (grado III-IV vs. no; grado V excluido).ESCENARIO:Centro académico de salud pélvica.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes sometidos a neuroestimulación sacra por incontinencia fecal entre julio de 2011 y julio de 2019.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence/Wexner Scores, Índices de gravedad de la incontinencia fecal, Índices de calidad de vida de la incontinencia fecal al año.RESULTADOS:169 pacientes se sometieron a neuroestimulación sacra por incontinencia fecal durante el período de estudio. La edad promedio fue de 60.3 años y el 91% eran mujeres. Cuarenta y seis pacientes (27.2%) tenían intususcepción rectoanal concomitante (38 [22.5%] grado III y 8 [4.7%] grado IV). Antes de la cirugía, los pacientes informaron un promedio de 10.8 accidentes por semana y una puntuación de Wexner de 15.7 sin diferencia entre pacientes con y sin intususcepción rectoanal (p = 0.22 y 0.95). Un año después de la cirugía, la puntuación promedio de Wexner fue de 9.5. No hubo diferencia en las puntuaciones de Wexner posoperatorias (10.4 frente a 9.2, p = 0.23) o mejoría con el tiempo entre los pacientes con y sin intususcepción rectoanal (-6.7 frente a -5.7, p = 0.40). De manera similar, no hubo diferencia en la calidad de vida o la frecuencia de incontinencia de heces líquidas o sólidas.LIMITACIONES:Institución única, tamaño de muestra moderado, respuesta de encuesta incompleta.CONCLUSIÓN:La intususcepción rectoanal concomitante no parece afectar los resultados clínicos o la calidad de vida después de la neuroestimulación sacra para la incontinencia fecal. Los pacientes apropiados con incontinencia fecal e intususcepción rectoanal pueden ser considerados para la neuroestimulación sacra. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C192(Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

Specialization Reduces Costs Associated With Colon Cancer Care: A Cost Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgeons have been reported to have superior outcomes to general surgeons in the management of colon cancer, but it is unclear whether this leads to a difference in costs associated with cancer care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether colorectal surgeons versus general surgeons performing elective colectomies for colon cancer resulted in cost savings. DESIGN: A decision analysis model was built to evaluate the cost of care. One-way and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were performed to test the assumptions of the model. SETTING: Data for the model were taken from previously published studies. PATIENTS: This study included a simulated cohort of patients undergoing elective colectomy for colon cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total cost of care from the societal and health care system perspectives. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, from the societal perspective, colectomy performed by a colorectal surgeon costs $38,798 during the 5-year window versus $46,571 when performed by a general surgeon (net savings, $7773). From the health care system perspective, surgery performed by a colorectal surgeon costs $25,125 versus surgery performed by a general surgeon, which costs $29,790 (net savings, $4665). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, surgeries performed by colorectal surgeons were cost saving or equivalent to those performed by general surgeons in 997 of 1000 simulations in the societal perspective and 989 of 1000 simulations in the health care system perspective. Overall, this finding was primarily driven by differences in reported overall recurrence rates and patient loss of productivity. LIMITATIONS: The limitation of this study was reliance on published data, some of which included rectal cancer cases. CONCLUSIONS: In our decision analysis model, elective colectomies for colon cancer had lower associated costs when performed by colorectal versus general surgeons. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B974 . LA ESPECIALIZACIN REDUCE LOS COSTOS ASOCIADOS CON LA ATENCIN DEL CNCER DE COLON UN ANLISIS DE COSTOS: ANTECEDENTES: Se ha informado que los cirujanos colorrectales obtienen mejores resultados que los cirujanos generales en el tratamiento del cáncer de colon, pero no está claro si esto conduce a una diferencia en los costos asociados con la atención del cáncer.OBJETIVO: Investigar si los cirujanos colorrectales que realizan colectomías electivas para el cáncer de colon generaron ahorros de costos en comparación con los cirujanos generales.DISEÑO: Se construyó un modelo de análisis de decisiones para evaluar el costo de la atención. Se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad unidireccional y de Monte Carlo para probar los supuestos del modelo.AJUSTE: Los datos para el modelo se tomaron de estudios publicados previamente.PACIENTES: Una cohorte simulada de pacientes sometidos a colectomía electiva por cáncer de colon.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Costo total de la atención y desde la perspectiva de la sociedad y del sistema de salud.RESULTADOS: El escenario del caso base incluyó suposiciones sobre las diferencias en los resultados, incluida la recurrencia general y local, el porcentaje de recurrencia operable, la mortalidad a los 30 días, la duración de la estadía, el porcentaje de cirugía mínimamente invasiva, las complicaciones y los costos asociados. En el escenario de caso base, desde la perspectiva social, la colectomía con un cirujano colorrectal costó $38 798 durante la ventana de cinco años, frente a $46 571 con un cirujano general (ahorros netos, $7 773). Desde la perspectiva del sistema de atención médica, la cirugía realizada por un cirujano colorrectal fue de $25 125 frente a $29 790 con la cirugía realizada por un cirujano general (ahorro neto, $4665). En los análisis de sensibilidad de probabilidad, los cirujanos colorrectales ahorraron costos o fueron equivalentes a los cirujanos generales en 997 de 1000 simulaciones en la perspectiva social y 989 de 1000 simulaciones en la perspectiva del sistema de salud. En general, este hallazgo se debió principalmente a las diferencias en las tasas de recurrencia generales informadas y la pérdida de productividad de los pacientes.LIMITACIONES: Dependencia de los datos publicados, algunos de los cuales incluyeron casos de cáncer de rectoCONCLUSIONES: En nuestro modelo de análisis de decisiones, las colectomías electivas por cáncer de colon tuvieron menores costos asociados cuando las realizaron cirujanos colorrectales versus generales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B974 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado).

Selective type & screen for elective colectomy based on a transfusion risk score may generate substantial cost savings.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative type and screen are currently recommended for all patients undergoing colectomy. We aimed to identify risk factors for transfusion and define a low-risk cohort of patients undergoing colectomy in whom type and screen may be safely avoided. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing elective colectomy in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project-Targeted Colectomy files from 2012 to 2016. Patients transfused preoperatively and those undergoing other concurrent major abdominal procedures were excluded. We compared patients who received blood transfusion on the day of surgery to those who did not. Half of the cohort was randomly selected for development of a points-based model predicting blood transfusion on the day of surgery. This model was then validated using the remaining patients. RESULTS: Of 61,964 patients undergoing colectomy, 3128 (5%) patients were transfused with 1290 (2.1%) occurring on the day of surgery. Preoperative anemia was the strongest predictor of blood transfusion on the day of surgery. Among patients with hematocrit > 35%, day of surgery transfusion risk was 0.8%; 99% of patients with hematocrit > 35% had a score 20 or less. Selective type and screen for patients with score ≤ 20 or hematocrit > 35% would avoid type and screen in 91% and 81% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Transfusion following elective colectomy is rare and can be accurately predicted by preoperative patient characteristics. Selective type and screen based on these parameters have the potential to prevent operative delays and lower cost.

Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Versus Standard Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Comparison of Short- and Long-term Oncologic Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of neoadjuvant multi-agent systemic chemotherapy and radiation (TNT) vs neoadjuvant single-agent chemoradiation (nCRT) and multi-agent adjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival (OS), tumor downstaging, and circumferential resection margin (CRM) status in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Outside of clinical trials and small institutional reports, there is a paucity of data regarding the short and long-term oncologic impact of TNT as compared to nCRT. METHODS: Adult patients with stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma were identified in the National Cancer Database [2006-2015]. RESULTS: Out of 8,548 patients, 36% received TNT and 64% nCRT. In the cohort, 13% had a pCR and 20% a neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score <8. In multivariable analysis, as compared to nCRT, TNT demonstrated numerically higher pCR rates ( P = 0.05) but had similar incidence of positive CRM ( P = 0.11). Similar results were observed with NAR scores <8 as the primary endpoint. After adjusting for confounders, OS was comparable between the 2 groups. Additional factors independently associated with lower OS included male gender, uninsured status, low income status, high comorbidity score, poorly differentiated tumors, abdominoperineal resection, and positive surgical margins (all P <0.01). In separate models, both pCR and a NAR score <8 were associated with improved OS. CONCLUSION: In this national cohort, TNT was not associated with better survival and/or CRM negative status in comparison with nCRT, despite numerically higher downstaging rates. Further refinement of patient selection and treatment regimens are needed to establish effective neoadjuvant platforms to improve outcomes of patients with rectal cancer.

Rectovaginal Fistulas Secondary to Obstetrical Injury.

Rectovaginal fistula (RVF), defined as any abnormal connection between the rectum and the vagina, is a complex and debilitating condition. RVF can occur for a variety of reasons, but frequently develops following obstetric injury. Patients with suspected RVF require thorough evaluation, including history and physical examination, imaging, and objective evaluation of the anal sphincter complex. Prior to attempting repair, sepsis must be controlled and the tract allowed to mature over a period of 3 to 6 months. All repair techniques involve reestablishing a healthy, well-vascularized rectovaginal septum, either through reconstruction with local tissue or tissue transfer via a pedicled flap. The selection of a specific repair technique is determined by the level of the fistula tract and the status of the anal sphincter. Despite best efforts, recurrence is common and should be discussed with patients prior to repair. As the ultimate goal of RVF repair is to minimize symptoms and maximize quality of life, patients should help to direct their own care based on the risks and benefits of available treatment options.

A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Surgical Approaches to Proctectomy.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is increasingly used for proctectomy, but the cost-effectiveness of this approach is uncertain. Robotic surgery is considered more expensive than open or laparoscopic approaches, but in certain situations has been demonstrated to be cost-effective. We examined the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches to proctectomy from societal and healthcare system perspectives. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate one-year costs and outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open proctectomy based on data from the available literature. The robustness of our results was tested with one-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Open proctectomy had increased cost and lower quality of life (QOL) compared with laparoscopy and robotic approaches. In the societal perspective, robotic proctectomy costs $497/case more than laparoscopy, with minimal QOL improvements, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $751,056 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). In the healthcare sector perspective, robotic proctectomy resulted in $983/case more and an ICER of $1,485,139/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated factors influencing cost-effectiveness primarily pertained to the operative cost and the postoperative length of stay (LOS). In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the cost-effective approach to proctectomy was laparoscopic in 42% of cases, robotic in 39%, and open in 19% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy cost less and have higher QALY than the open approach. Based on current data, laparoscopy is the most cost-effective approach. Robotic proctectomy can be cost-effective if modest differences in costs or postoperative LOS can be achieved.

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Minimally Invasive Colectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomy. BACKGROUND: The use of robotic-assisted colon surgery is increasing. Robotic technology is more expensive and whether a robotically assisted approach is cost-effective remains to be determined. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the 1-year costs and quality-adjusted time between robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy. Model inputs were derived from available literature for costs, quality of life (QOL), and outcomes. Results are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the effect of clinically reasonable variations in the inputs on our results. RESULTS: Open colectomy cost more and achieved lower QOL than robotic and laparoscopic approaches. From the societal perspective, robotic colectomy costs $745 more per case than laparoscopy, resulting in an ICER of $2,322,715/QALY because of minimal differences in QOL. From the healthcare sector perspective, robotics cost $1339 more per case with an ICER of $4,174,849/QALY. In both models, laparoscopic colectomy was more frequently cost-effective across a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses suggest robotic colectomy becomes cost-effective at $100,000/QALY if robotic disposable instrument costs decrease below $1341 per case, robotic operating room time falls below 172 minutes, or robotic hernia rate is less than 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robotic colectomy are more cost-effective than open resection. Robotics can surpass laparoscopy in cost-effectiveness by achieving certain thresholds in QOL, instrument costs, and postoperative outcomes. With increased use of robotic technology in colorectal surgery, there is a burden to demonstrate these benefits.

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia is important for postoperative recovery in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Multiple randomized controlled trials have investigated the use of transversus abdominis plane local anesthetic infiltration as a method of decreasing postoperative pain and opioid consumption, with variable results. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the overall effect of transversus abdominis plane block in postoperative pain, opioid use, and speed of recovery in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was done with PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Library. Only randomized controlled trials were selected for review. INTERVENTIONS: Transversus abdominis plane local anesthetic infiltration versus no intervention, saline, or other techniques in laparoscopic colorectal surgeries was investigated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was postoperative pain on day 1, at rest or with activity. The secondary outcomes measured were postoperative pain beyond day 1, consumptions of opioid, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Eight clinical trials including 649 patients between 2013 and 2018 were included. Resting pain scores within 2 hours (standardized mean difference, -0.53; p = 0.01), 4 hours (standardized mean difference, -0.42; p = 0.004), and 6 hours (standardized mean difference, -0.47; p = 0.03) showed statistically significant reduction. Six studies including 413 patients demonstrated lower cumulative opioid consumption within 24 hours after surgery (standardized mean difference, -0.82; p = 0.01). Five studies including 357 patients did not show a significant difference in length of stay (standardized mean difference, -0.04; p = 0.82). LIMITATIONS: Local anesthetic used in block varied in type and quantity across different studies. There were heterogeneities in pain score measurements and opioid consumption. Patient populations may be different among studies. CONCLUSIONS: Transversus abdominis block can lead to a lower pain score at rest within the first 6 hours and reduce opioid consumption within the first 24 hours. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A997.

Locally Excised T1 Rectal Cancers: Need for Specialized Surveillance Protocols.

BACKGROUND: Local excision of T1 rectal cancers helps avoid major surgery, but the frequency and pattern of recurrence may be different than for patients treated with total mesorectal excision. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate pattern, frequency, and means of detection of recurrence in a closely followed cohort of patients with locally excised T1 rectal cancer. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review. SETTINGS: Patients treated by University of Minnesota-affiliated physicians, 1994 to 2014, were selected. PATIENTS: Patients had pathologically confirmed T1 rectal cancer treated with local excision and had at least 3 months of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent local excision of T1 rectal cancer, followed by multimodality follow-up with physical examination, CEA, CT, endorectal ultrasound, and proctoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the presence of local recurrence and the means of detection of recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients met the inclusion criteria. The local recurrence rate was 11.4%, and the rate of distant metastasis was 2.6%. Local recurrences occurred up to 7 years after local excision. Of the 14 patients with recurrence, 10 of the recurrences were found by ultrasound and/or proctoscopy rather than by traditional methods of surveillance such as CEA or imaging. Of these 10 patients, 4 had an apparent scar on proctoscopy, and ultrasound alone revealed findings concerning for recurrent malignancy. One had recurrent malignancy demonstrated on ultrasound, but no concurrent proctoscopy was performed. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective review, and the study was conducted at an institution where endorectal ultrasound is readily available. CONCLUSIONS: Locally excised T1 rectal cancers should have specific surveillance guidelines distinct from stage I cancers treated with total mesorectal excision. These guidelines should incorporate a method of local surveillance that should be extended beyond the traditional 5-year interval of surveillance. An ultrasound or MRI in addition to or instead of flexible sigmoidoscopy or proctoscopy should also be strongly considered. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A979. CÁNCERES RECTALES T1 EXTIRPADOS LOCALMENTE: NECESIDAD DE PROTOCOLOS DE VIGILANCIA ESPECIALIZADOS: La escisión local de los cánceres de recto T1 ayuda a evitar una cirugía mayor, pero la frecuencia y el patrón de recurrencia pueden ser diferentes a los de los pacientes tratados con escisión mesorectal total. OBJETIVO: Evaluar el patrón, la frecuencia y los medios de detección de recidiva en una cohorte de pacientes con cáncer de recto T1 extirpado localmente bajo un régimen de seguimiento especifico. DISEÑO:: Revisión retrospectiva. AJUSTES: Pacientes tratados por hospitales afiliados a la Universidad de Minnesota, 1994-2014 PACIENTES:: Pacientes con cáncer de recto T1 confirmado patológicamente, tratados con escisión local y con al menos 3 meses de seguimiento. INTERVENCIONES: Extirpación local del cáncer de recto T1, con un seguimiento multimodal incluyendo examen físico, antígeno carcinoembrionario (CEA), TC, ecografía endorrectal y proctoscopia. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Presencia de recurrencia local y medios de detección de recurrencia. RESULTADOS: Un total de 114 pacientes cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. La tasa de recurrencia local fue del 11,4% y la tasa de metástasis a distancia fue del 2,6%. Las recurrencias locales se presentaron hasta 7 años después de la escisión local. De los 14 pacientes con recurrencia, 10 de las recurrencias se detectaron por ultrasonido y / o proctoscopia en lugar de los métodos tradicionales de vigilancia, como CEA o imágenes. De estos diez pacientes, cuatro tenían una cicatriz aparente en la proctoscopia y el ultrasonido solo reveló hallazgos relacionados con tumores malignos recurrentes. En una ecografía se demostró malignidad recurrente, pero no se realizó proctoscopia concurrente. LIMITACIONES: Revisión retrospectiva; estudio realizado en una institución donde se dispone fácilmente de ultrasonido endorrectal CONCLUSIONES:: Los cánceres de recto T1 extirpados localmente deben tener una vigilancia específica distinta de los cánceres en etapa I tratados con TME. El régimen de seguimiento deberá de extender más allá del intervalo tradicional de 5 años de vigilancia. También se debe considerar la posibilidad de realizar una ecografía o una resonancia magnética (IRM) además de la sigmoidoscopía flexible o la proctoscopía. Vea el Resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A979.

Combined Hartmann's Reversal and Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: Defining Postoperative Morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernias are common after Hartmann's procedure and add complexity to Hartmann's reversal. Colostomy reversal and abdominal wall reconstruction may be performed in a staged or concurrent fashion, although data are limited as to which strategy is optimal. We aimed to define the complication profile of concurrent abdominal wall reconstruction with colostomy reversal as compared to either procedure alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, we used the National Surgery Quality Improvement Project Database from 2012 to 2015. All patients undergoing elective colostomy reversal, abdominal wall reconstruction with component separation, or combined colostomy reversal with component separation were identified. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes among similar patients undergoing colostomy reversal alone versus combined procedure. Groups were evaluated for postoperative morbidity including reoperation. RESULTS: We identified 11,689 patients; 6951 (64%) underwent component separation alone, 4563 (35%) colostomy reversal alone, and 175 (1%) combined component separation and colostomy reversal. The combined group, as compared to colostomy reversal alone, showed an increased overall complication rate (39% versus 25%; P < 0.01) and increased rate of reoperation (9% versus 5%; P = 0.03). Differences in overall complication rate (43% versus 24%; P < 0.01) and reoperation rate (9% versus 3%; P = 0.03) persisted on propensity matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that in patients undergoing colostomy takedown, concurrent abdominal wall reconstruction is associated with increased morbidity including increased rate of reoperation, even when controlling for patient factors. Consideration may be given to a staged approach.

Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life with Enhanced Recovery Protocols.

While studies have demonstrated the benefits of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) programs in reducing length of stay and costs without increasing complications, fewer studies have evaluated patient satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) with enhanced recovery protocols. The aim of this project was to summarize the literature comparing satisfaction and quality of life after colorectal surgery following treatment within an ERAS protocol to standard postoperative care. The available evidence suggests patients suffer no detriment to satisfaction or quality of life with use of ERAS protocols, and may suffer less fatigue and return to activities sooner. Most publications reported no adverse effects on postoperative pain. However, a limited number of studies suggest patients may experience increased early postoperative pain with ERAS pathways, particularly following open colorectal procedures. Future research should focus on potential improvements in ERAS protocols to better manage postoperative pain. Overall, the evidence supports more widespread implementation of ERAS pathways in colorectal surgery.

Elective Colectomy for Diverticulitis in Transplant Patients: Is It Worth the Risk?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine morbidity and mortality for transplant patients undergoing elective colectomy for diverticulitis and determine the impact of recurrent diverticulitis on postoperative complications. METHODS: We identified transplant recipients that underwent elective colectomy for diverticulitis between 2000 and 2015 at a tertiary care institution. Patient and procedure variables, postoperative complications, length of stay, 30-day readmission, and mortality were identified through retrospective chart review. Complication rates were compared between patients with one previous episode of diverticulitis versus two or more. RESULTS: Thirty transplant recipients underwent colectomy for primary (n = 13) or recurrent (n = 17) diverticulitis. Primary anastomosis was performed in 26 (87%) with proximal diversion in 10 (38%). The overall complication rate was 57%, with surgical site infection being the most common (23%). There were no anastomotic leaks at the colorectal anastomosis or reoperations. Median length of stay was 8 days (range 4-23). Postoperative complications were not significantly different between groups (54 vs. 59%, p = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative morbidity after elective colectomy for diverticulitis in transplant recipients was common. There were no differences in complications for patients with primary versus recurrent diverticulitis. Fear of postoperative complications from recurrent diverticulitis should not be a reason to recommend elective colectomy after an initial attack of diverticulitis in transplant patients.

Does Hospital Transfer Impact Outcomes After Colorectal Surgery?

BACKGROUND: With increasing public reporting of outcomes and bundled payments, hospitals and providers are scrutinized for morbidity and mortality. The impact of patient transfer before colorectal surgery has not been well characterized in a risk-adjusted fashion. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that hospital-to-hospital transfer would independently predict morbidity and mortality beyond traditional predictor variables. DESIGN: We constructed a retrospective cohort of 158,446 patients who underwent colorectal surgery using the 2009-2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: All of the patients who underwent colorectal surgery during the study period were included. Patients were excluded for unknown transfer status or transfer from a chronic care facility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline characteristics were compared by transfer status. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of transfer on major complications and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 7259 operations (4.6%) were performed after transfer. Transferred patients had higher rates of complications (p < 0.0001) with significant differences in unplanned endotracheal reintubation, bleeding, organ-space surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, postoperative sepsis, cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation, deep venous thrombosis, and myocardial infarction. Transferred patients also had longer hospital stays (9 vs 6 days; p < 0.0001) and a higher risk of death (13.2% vs 2.6%; p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, transferred patients had higher mortality rates despite risk adjustment (OR = 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.25); p = 0.019) and were also more likely to have serious complications (OR = 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19); p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: We were unable to analyze outcomes beyond 30 days, and we did not have information on preoperative evaluation or the reason for patient transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-to-hospital transfer independently contributed to patient morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. The impact of hospital transfer must be considered when evaluating surgeon and hospital performance, because the increased risk of serious complications or death is not fully accounted for by traditional methods.

Relationship between model for end-stage liver disease score and 30-day outcomes for patients undergoing elective colorectal resections: an American college of surgeons-national surgical quality improvement program study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with liver disease face significant risk of complications and death when considering elective colorectal resection for benign or malignant indications. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the relationship between Model of End-Stage Liver Disease score and 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing elective colorectal resections. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study included hospitals participating in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. PATIENTS: Adult patients who underwent elective colorectal resection from 2005 to 2011 were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients missing laboratory values necessary to calculate the Model of End-Stage Liver Disease score were excluded (61% of 81,346 patients identified). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in patient- and disease-related characteristics by Model of End-Stage Liver Disease categories were assessed with χ analyses. Thirty-day mortality and major morbidity were examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 31,950 patients undergoing elective colorectal resections (14% including proctectomy), most (60%) were performed for colon or rectal cancer; other benign indications included diverticulitis (20%), polyp (10%), and IBD (10%). A total of 58% of patients had a Model of End-Stage Liver Disease score of ≥7. Increasing scores were associated with older age; higher BMI; higher ASA class; lower albumin level; and higher incidence of diabetes mellitus, pulmonary and cardiac disease, hypertension, and dependent functional status. In univariate analysis, patients with higher scores had a greater risk of 30-day mortality (score = 6 (0.69%); 7-11 (1.62%); 11-15 (4.52%); >15, (5.01%); p < 0.0001). After controlling for other comorbidities, Model of End-Stage Liver Disease score remained a significant predictor of 30-day mortality, major complications, and respiratory complications. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective analysis of administrative data, limiting some access to clinically relevant data. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous reports, patients with higher Model of End-Stage Liver Disease scores have a significantly higher risk of death and major morbidity in the 30 days after elective colorectal resection (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A180).

Comparative effectiveness in colon and rectal cancer.

Treatment of colorectal cancer is becoming more uniform, with wider acceptance of standardized guidelines. However, areas of controversy exist where the appropriate treatment is not clear, including: should a segmental colectomy or a more extensive resection be performed in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer? should an asymptomatic primary cancer be resected in the presence of unresectable metastatic disease? what is the role of extended lymph node resection in colon and rectal cancer? are there clinically significant benefits for a robotic approach to colorectal resection versus a laparoscopic approach? This chapter will examine these issues and discuss how they may be resolved.

Clinical outcomes of perineal proctectomy among patients of advanced age.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse occurs primarily in older patients who often have significant comorbidities. With the aging population, increasing numbers of elderly patients are presenting with rectal prolapse. The perineal approach is preferred for these patients because it involves less perioperative risk than an abdominal procedure, but the outcomes of this procedure in elderly patients are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine whether clinical outcomes after perineal proctectomy are similar among elderly patients versus patients of younger age. DESIGN: This study was a retrospective review. SETTING: This study was conducted in mixed academic and private practice; the operations were performed at 16 hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients who had perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse from 1994 to 2012 were grouped according to age: <70 (group A), 70 to 79 (group B), 80 to 89 (group C), and ≥90 years (group D). INTERVENTIONS: Perineal proctectomy with or without concurrent levatorplasty was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were postoperative complications, recurrence, and survival after perineal proctectomy. RESULTS: Four hundred patients underwent 518 perineal proctectomies: group A, N = 113; group B, N = 113; group C, N = 208; and group D, N = 84. The immediate and late complication rates were 5.6% and 3.5% and did not vary by age. Recurrence was 22.6% and was significantly different between groups, with the lowest recurrence in group D, 14.3% (p = 0.007). Reoperation after recurrence was less likely in group D. The main type of reoperation was perineal proctectomy (41.5%), but, for group D, recurrence was usually managed nonoperatively (58.3%). Median survival after operation was more than 4 years in the advanced age group. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective data, which did not allow analysis of patients with rectal prolapse who did not undergo surgery, were used in this study. CONCLUSIONS: When selected appropriately, patients 90 years of age or older have outcomes similar to younger patients; therefore, age alone should not be a contraindication to surgery. In addition, elderly patients have a median survival of more than 4 years after surgery, so the operative risk can be worth the benefit accrued.

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic vs open resection for colon and rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Whether laparoscopic surgery for colon and rectal cancer is cost-effective in comparison with open surgery remains unclear, because laparoscopic surgery results in shorter hospital stays but is associated with increased equipment costs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon and rectal cancer, incorporating factors not included in previous cost-effectiveness studies. DESIGN: A decision analysis model was constructed, and extensive sensitivity analyses were performed to test the assumptions of the model. SETTING: Data were taken from previously published studies; data from large randomized trials were used whenever possible as inputs into the model. PATIENTS: Patients enrolled in the trials from which data were gathered for the model. INTERVENTIONS: There were no interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon and rectal cancer, expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: Laparoscopic resection results in savings of $4283 and essentially no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (0.001 more quality-adjusted life-years than open resection). Sensitivity analyses indicate that laparoscopic surgery is cost-effective at <$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year under almost all conditions. The only circumstance that affects the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery is postoperative hernia rates. Because of the additional time off work for hernia repair, laparoscopic resection is cost-effective only if it results in a hernia rate less than or equal to open surgery. For all other variables, the laparoscopic approach remains less costly than the open approach with no difference in quality of life. LIMITATIONS: The model relies on data from other studies, rather than being an independent trial designed to specifically collect these data. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer results in decreased costs and equivalent quality of life, making it the preferred approach in suitable patients.