Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive multivisceral resection for T4b rectal cancer: A 9-year review.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second highest cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. About 5%-10% of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) on presentation. For LARC invading into other structures (i.e. T4b), multivisceral resection (MVR) and/or pelvic exenteration (PE) remains the only potential curative surgical treatment. MVR and/or PE is a major and complex surgery with high post-operative morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been shown to improve short-term post-operative outcomes in other gastrointestinal malignancies, but there is little evidence on its use in MVR, especially so for robotic MVR. AIM: To assess the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive MVR (miMVR), and compare post-operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic MVR. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study from 1st January 2015 to 31st March 2023. Inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with cT4b rectal cancer and underwent MVR, or stage 4 disease with resectable systemic metastases. Patients who underwent curative MVR for locally recurrent rectal cancer, or metachronous rectal cancer were also included. Exclusion criteria were patients with systemic metastases with non-resectable disease. All patients planned for elective surgery were enrolled into the standard enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with standard peri-operative management for colorectal surgery. Complex surgery was defined based on technical difficulty of surgery (i.e. total PE, bladder-sparing prostatectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection or need for flap creation). Our primary outcomes were the margin status, and complication rates. Categorical values were described as percentages and analysed by the chi-square test. Continuous variables were expressed as median (range) and analysed by Mann-Whitney U test. Cumulative overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates with life table analysis. Log-rank test was performed to determine statistical significance between cumulative estimates. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were included in this study [open MVR (oMVR): 12 (26.1%), miMVR: 36 (73.9%)]. Patients' American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index and co-morbidities were comparable between oMVR and miMVR. There is an increasing trend towards robotic MVR from 2015 to 2023. MiMVR was associated with lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (median 450 vs 1200 mL, P = 0.008), major morbidity (14.7% vs 50.0%, P = 0.014), post-operative intra-abdominal collections (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006), post-operative ileus (32.4% vs 66.7%, P = 0.04) and surgical site infection (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006) compared with oMVR. Length of stay was also shorter for miMVR compared with oMVR (median 10 vs 30 d, P = 0.001). Oncological outcomes-R0 resection, recurrence, OS and RFS were comparable between miMVR and oMVR. There was no 30-d mortality. More patients underwent robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR for complex cases (robotic 57.1% vs laparoscopic 7.7%, P = 0.004). The operating time was longer for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR [robotic: 602 (400-900) min, laparoscopic: Median 455 (275-675) min, P < 0.001]. Incidence of R0 resection was similar (laparoscopic: 84.6% vs robotic: 76.2%, P = 0.555). Overall complication rates, major morbidity rates and 30-d readmission rates were similar between laparoscopic and robotic MVR. Interestingly, 3-year OS (robotic 83.1% vs 58.6%, P = 0.008) and RFS (robotic 72.9% vs 34.3%, P = 0.002) was superior for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR. CONCLUSION: MiMVR had lower post-operative complications compared to oMVR. Robotic MVR was also safe, with acceptable post-operative complication rates. Prospective studies should be conducted to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic vs laparoscopic MVR.

Propensity-score-matched analysis of D2 and D3 right hemicolectomy for colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Complete mesocolic excision with D3 lymph node dissection in right-sided colon cancer is associated with improved oncological outcomes, but can potentially be associated with higher rates of complications compared to conventional D2 right hemicolectomy. This study aims to evaluate the oncological and perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent D3 right hemicolectomy, comparing to conventional right hemicolectomy. METHODS: From 2015 to 2020, 360 patients underwent right hemicolectomy for colonic malignancies. Data was retrospectively analysed from a prospectively collected database. A propensity-score-matched analysis was performed between the two groups to evaluate their outcomes. RESULTS: About 88(24.4%) patients underwent D3 right hemicolectomy, with the rest undergoing D2 right hemicolectomy. After propensity-matched analysis, D3 right hemicolectomy had a higher lymph node yield (median of 26 versus 23, p = 0.005), lower overall recurrence rate (11.7% versus 25.7%, p = 0.03), and lower overall mortality rate (14.5% versus 30.1%, p = 0.02) There were no significant differences in the complication rates. There were no anastomotic leaks. D3 right hemicolectomy was associated with an improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) with a hazard ratio of 0.63 (P = 0.21), and also an improved 3-year overall survival (OS) with a hazard ratio of 0.68 (P = 0.31). CONCLUSION: D3 right hemicolectomy is associated with a higher lymph node yield, without increasing morbidity or mortality. It is also associated with significantly lower recurrence and overall mortality rates in this study. Short term 3-year DFS and OS also trend towards favouring D3 right hemicolectomy. However, this study is limited by the small sample size and retrospective nature.

Is colonic lavage a suitable alternative for left-sided colonic emergencies?

BACKGROUND: The use of intra-operative colonic lavage (IOCL) with primary anastomosis remains controversial in the emergency left-sided large bowel pathologies, with alternatives including Hartmann's procedure, manual decompression and subtotal colectomy. AIM: To compare the peri-operative outcomes of IOCL to other procedures. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for articles employing IOCL from inception till July 13, 2020. Odds ratio and weighted mean differences (WMD) were estimated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes respectively. Single-arm meta-analysis was conducted using DerSimonian and Laird random effects. RESULTS: Of 28 studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 1142 undergoing IOCL, and 634 other interventions. IOCL leads to comparable rates of wound infection when compared to Hartmann's procedure, and anastomotic leak and wound infection when compared to manual decompression. There was a decreased length of hospital stay (WMD = -7.750; 95%CI: -13.504 to -1.996; P = 0.008) compared to manual decompression and an increased operating time. Single-arm meta-analysis found that overall mortality rates with IOCL was 4% (CI: 0.03-0.05). Rates of anastomotic leak and wound infection were 3% (CI: 0.02-0.04) and 12% (CI: 0.09-0.16) respectively. CONCLUSION: IOCL leads to similar rates of post-operative complications compared to other procedures. More extensive studies are needed to assess the outcomes of IOCL for emergency left-sided colonic surgeries.

Short term outcomes of minimally invasive selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic recurrence after rectal cancer surgery is still a significant problem despite the introduction of total mesorectal excision and chemoradiation treatment (CRT), and one of the most common areas of recurrence is in the lateral pelvic lymph nodes. Hence, there is a possible role for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) in rectal cancer. AIM: To evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive LPND during rectal cancer surgery. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate for any predictive factors to determine lymph node metastases based on pre-operative scans. METHODS: From October 2016 to November 2019, 22 patients with stage II or III rectal cancer underwent minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery and LPND. These patients were all discussed at a multidisciplinary tumor board meeting and most of them received neoadjuvant chemoradiation prior to surgery. All patients had radiologically positive lateral pelvic lymph nodes on the initial staging scans, defined as lymph nodes larger than 7 mm in long axis measurement, or abnormal radiological morphology. LPND was only performed on the involved side. RESULTS: Majority of the patients were male (18/22, 81.8%), with a median age of 65 years (44-81). Eighteen patients completed neoadjuvant CRT pre-operatively. 18 patients (81.8%) had unilateral LPND, with the others receiving bilateral surgery. The median number of lateral pelvic lymph nodes harvested was 10 (3-22) per pelvic side wall. 8 patients (36.4%) had positive metastases identified in the lymph nodes harvested. The median pre-CRT size of these positive lymph nodes was 10mm. Median length of stay was 7.5 d (3-76), and only 2 patients failed initial removal of their urinary catheter. Complication rates were low, with only 1 lymphocele and 1 anastomotic leak. There was only 1 mortality (4.5%). There have been no recurrences so far. CONCLUSION: Chemoradiation is inadequate in completely eradicating lateral wall metastasis and there are still technical limitations in accurately diagnosing metastases in these areas. A pre-CRT lymph node size of ≥ 10 mm is suggestive of metastases. LPND may be performed safely with minimally invasive surgery.

Feasibility of robotic assisted bladder sparing pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer: A single institution case series.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer involving prostate has been performed via open surgery. Robotic pelvic exenteration offers benefits of better pelvic visualisation and dissection for bladder preserving prostatectomy with vesicourethral anastomosis, while achieving clear margins. AIM: To determine the feasibility of robotic assisted bladder sparing pelvic exenteration. METHODS: We describe robotic assisted pelvic exenteration in three cases of locally advanced rectal cancer involving prostate and seminal vesicles (SV). The da Vinci S robotic system was used. Robotic console was docked at left oblique position for abdominal phase and redocked to between the patient's legs for pelvic phase. All three cases were performed fully robotically at Tan Tock Seng Hospital by colorectal and urological teams. RESULTS: Case 1: 67-year-old with low rectal tumour 3cm from anal verge involving the prostate. He underwent neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and robotic abdominoperineal resection with en-bloc prostatectomy. Case 2: 66-year-old with low rectal tumour 3cm from anal verge involving prostate and bilateral SV. He underwent neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and robot assisted ultra-low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis and en-bloc prostatectomy. Case 3: 57-year-old with metachronous rectal tumour in the rectovesical pouch inseparable from the anterior mid rectum, prostate and bilateral SV. He underwent robot assisted ultra-low anterior resection with en-bloc prostatectomy. Bladder neck margin revealed cauterized tumour cells, and he underwent total cystectomy and ileal conduit creation. Histology revealed no residual tumour. All patients are currently disease free. CONCLUSION: Robot assisted bladder sparing pelvic exenteration can be safely performed in locally advanced rectal cancer with acceptable surgical outcome while preserving benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

The use of traditional Chinese medicine among breast cancer patients: implications for the clinician.

INTRODUCTION: Traditional Chinese Medicine or Traditional Complementary Medicine (TCM) is commonly used in our culture. There are several concerns regarding its use in patients undergoing conventional treatments for breast cancer. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the prevalence and pattern of TCM use among our breast cancer patients, and to identify patients who were most likely to choose TCM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 300 patients on active follow-up with Breast Service at Tan Tock Seng Hospital were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 35% (104 of 296) of patients reported using TCM. The majority of the patients were introduced to TCM by family and friends following the diagnosis of breast cancer. All except 3 patients continued with recommended conventional therapy although most did not inform their clinicians of TCM use. None of the patients reported any serious adverse events and 75% of them perceived a benefit from TCM use. Younger patients and those of Chinese ethnicity were more likely to use TCM (P <0.01 and P = 0.03 respectively). There was no significant difference in the dialect group, religious beliefs and educational level between the 2 groups (P >0.05). CONCLUSION: TCM use is common among our breast cancer patients, particularly the younger women. However, most patients do not inform their clinicians of TCM use while on recommended conventional therapies. It is therefore important for clinicians to initiate discussions regarding TCM use in order to be aware of potential unwanted drug interactions.

Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy: our institution's 5-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Application of minimally invasive techniques in the surgical management of distal pancreatic lesions is increasing. Despite this, numbers of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy remain low and limited to treatment of benign and premalignant lesions. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 31 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2005 to 2010. Patients were grouped according to mode of surgical access: open (ODP) or laparoscopic (LDP). Perioperative parameters were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-one (67.7%) patients underwent ODP and 10 (32.3%) LDP (median age 61; 80.0% females in LDP group, p = 0.030). Postoperative morbidity rate were comparable between the two groups. In the LDP group, there were significantly lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.001) and amount of blood transfusion (p = 0.001), smaller tumor size (p = 0.010) and fewer lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.020), shorter postoperative length of stay (p = 0.020), and shorter length of stay in surgical high dependency (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: LDP is a safe, efficient technique for resection of benign and premalignant pancreatic lesions. Indices reflecting perioperative outcomes in this study are highly competitive with those in other major centers.