The economic impact of anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains a burdensome complication following colorectal surgery, with increased morbidity, oncological compromise, and mortality. AL may impose a substantial financial burden on hospitals and society due to extensive resource utilization. Estimated costs associated with AL are important when exploring preventive measures and treatment strategies. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the existing literature on (socio)economic costs associated with AL after colorectal surgery, appraise their quality, compare reported outcomes, and identify knowledge gaps. METHODS: Health economic evaluations reporting costs related to AL after colorectal surgery were identified through searching multiple online databases until June 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated the quality using an adapted version of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. Extracted costs were converted to 2022 euros (€) and also adjusted for purchasing power disparities among countries. RESULTS: From 1980 unique abstracts, 59 full-text publications were assessed for eligibility, and 17 studies were included in the review. The incremental costs of AL after correcting for purchasing power disparity ranged from €2250 (+39.9%, Romania) to €83,633 (+ 513.1%, Brazil). Incremental costs were mainly driven by hospital (re)admission, intensive care stay, and reinterventions. Only one study estimated the economic societal burden of AL between €1.9 and €6.1 million. CONCLUSIONS: AL imposes a significant financial burden on hospitals and social care systems. The magnitude of costs varies greatly across countries and data on the societal burden and non-medical costs are scarce. Adherence to international reporting standards is essential to understand international disparities and to externally validate reported cost estimates.

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study).

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH. METHOD: Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923. CONCLUSION: Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).

A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres.

Background: Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview. Method: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis. Results: In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria. RESULTS: 12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used. CONCLUSION: Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.

Current practices concerning the assessment and treatment of lateral lymph nodes in low rectal cancer: a survey among colorectal surgeons in The Netherlands.

PURPOSE: The presence of lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) in patients with rectal cancer is not always acknowledged by the multidisciplinary team or treated in a standardized manner, and (inter)national guidelines concerning this topic are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate current practices regarding the assessment and treatment of LLNs in rectal cancer patients based on a survey among Dutch colorectal surgeons. METHODS: An online survey was sent to members of the Dutch Association of Coloproctology. The survey consisted of 16 questions addressing their views on diagnosis, restaging, and treatment approaches for suspicious LLNs. RESULTS: A total of 62 surgeons from 50 Dutch hospitals responded. For patients with a distal cT3/T4 rectal tumor; lateral lymph node compartments were routinely discussed during multidisciplinary meetings in only nine hospitals (18%). When defining what makes an LLN suspicious; the size threshold varied from >3 to >10 mm (median 7, SD 2), and MRI-based malignant features were mentioned by 29 surgeons (47%). Surgeons stated eight different treatment strategies as their designated treatment of suspicious LLNs. A total of 33 surgeons (53%) would add a radiotherapy boost to the neoadjuvant treatment. In cases of surgical resection; 12 surgeons (19%) would remove the suspicious LLN by 'node-picking' and 44 surgeons (71%) would perform a lateral lymph node dissection. The variation was not influenced by hospital type or surgeon's experience. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the vast variation in the awareness, definition of suspicious LLNs in rectal cancer, and different treatment approaches. International guidelines based on further research are warranted.

Prospective multicentre observational cohort to assess quality of life, functional outcomes and cost-effectiveness following minimally invasive surgical techniques for rectal cancer in 'dedicated centres' in the Netherlands (VANTAGE trial): a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for rectal cancer, which can be performed using open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal technique. Large prospective (randomised controlled) trials comparing these techniques are lacking, do not take into account the learning curve and have short-term or long-term oncological results as their primary endpoint, without addressing quality of life, functional outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Comparative data with regard to these outcomes are necessary to identify the optimal minimally invasive technique and provide guidelines for clinical application. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial will be a prospective observational multicentre cohort trial, aiming to compare laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision in adult patients with rectal cancer performed by experienced surgeons in dedicated centres. Data collection will be performed in collaboration with the prospective Dutch ColoRectal Audit and the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer Cohort. Quality of life at 1 year postoperatively will be the primary outcome. Functional outcomes, cost-effectiveness, short-term outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes will be the secondary outcomes. In total, 1200 patients will be enrolled over a period of 2 years in 26 dedicated centres in the Netherlands. The study is registered at https://www.trialregister.nl/9734 (NL9734). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Data will be collected through collaborating parties, who already obtained approval by their medical ethical committee. Participants will be included in the trial after having signed informed consent. Results of this study will be disseminated to participating centres, patient organisations, (inter)national society meetings and peer-reviewed journals.

Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: a protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, most rectal tumours are treated open or minimally invasive, using laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision. However, insight into the total costs of these techniques is limited. Since all three techniques are currently being performed, including cost considerations in the choice of treatment technique may significantly impact future healthcare costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of evidence regarding costs in patients with rectal cancer following open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted for papers between January 2000 and March 2022. Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by four reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria list will be used for assessing risk of bias. Total costs of the different techniques, consisting of but not limited to, theatre, in-hospital and postoperative costs, will be the primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required, as there is no collection of patient data at an individual level. Findings will be disseminated widely, through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021261125.

A comparative cost analysis of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Despite proven clinical benefits in the short term, technical difficulties limit utilization of laparoscopy in rectal cancer surgery (RCS). Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) overcomes many technical limitations of laparoscopic RCS. However, the costs of this procedure have not been addressed yet. Our goal was to perform a comparative cost analysis of taTME and laparoscopic TME (lapTME). Consecutive patients undergoing curative TME between 1 February 2014 and 31 October 2018 were selected from a prospectively maintained database and stratified, according to the type of procedure, into taTME and lapTME groups. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative parameters, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. The main outcome measure was intraoperative costs of the two procedures. Secondary outcomes were short-term outcome and the utilization of hospital resources to manage the postoperative course. Hundred and fifty-two patients with rectal cancer (66 lapTME, 86 taTME) were included in the study. Surgical supplies required for taTME procedure exceeded the cost of lapTME of 754,54 €. The duration of surgery was not significantly different between the two approaches (266 ± 92.85 vs 271 ± 83.63, p = 0.50). Short-term outcomes were comparable including postoperative complication rate (17 vs 20%, p = 0.68), reintervention rate, and length of stay. There was no difference in hospital resources utilization to manage postoperative course including blood test, diagnostics, consultations, and medications. TaTME has higher intraoperative costs in terms of supplies with respect to lapTME. Short-term outcomes and hospital resources to manage postoperative course are comparable.

CT assessment of the quality of omentoplasty and its implications for perineal wound healing.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to examine the impact of an omentoplasty and its quality on pelviperineal morbidity after abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive patients undergoing APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer between 2000 and 2018. Quality of omentoplasty was categorised (sufficient vs insufficient) based on postoperative CT scans. Main study endpoints were perineal wound healing and perineal hernia. RESULTS: This study included 100 patients: 16 with a sufficient omentoplasty, 16 with an insufficient omentoplasty, and 68 without omentoplasty. Rate of pelviperineal complications within 30 days was 44%, 69% and 64% (P = 0.283), and delayed wound healing at 3 months was 19%, 54% and 27%, respectively (P = 0.109). Sufficient omentoplasty was not significantly associated with less delayed healing in multivariable analysis (OR 0.597; 95% CI 0.149-2.397). An insufficient omentoplasty demonstrated significantly higher rates of delayed healing at 6 months (46% vs 14%; P = 0.016) and chronic perineal sinus at 12 months (31% vs 3%; P = 0.008) compared with no omentoplasty. CONCLUSION: This relatively small series suggest that even a sufficient omentoplasty, as determined by postoperative imaging, does not reduce pelviperineal morbidity after APR for rectal cancer. The methodology of CT-based assessment of an omentoplasty as well as the correlation with postoperative outcomes has to be validated in future studies.

Surgical Quality Assurance in COLOR III: Standardization and Competency Assessment in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop an objective and reliable surgical quality assurance system (SQA) for COLOR III, an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) with laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. BACKGROUND OF SUMMARY DATA: SQA influences outcome measures in RCTs such as lymph nodes harvest, in-hospital mortality, and locoregional cancer recurrence. However, levels of SQA are variable. METHOD: Hierarchical task analysis of TaTME was performed. A 4-round Delphi methodology was applied for standardization of TaTME steps. Semistructured interviews were conducted in round 1 to identify key steps and tasks, which were rated as mandatory, optional, or prohibited in rounds 2 to 4 using questionnaires. Competency assessment tool (CAT) was developed and its content validity was examined by expert surgeons. Twenty unedited videos were assessed to test reliability using generalizability theory. RESULTS: Eighty-three of 101 surgical tasks identified reached 70% agreement (26 mandatory, 56 optional, and 1 prohibited). An operative guide of standardized TaTME was created. CAT is matrix of 9 steps and 4 performance qualities: exposure, execution, adverse event, and end-product. The overall G-coefficient was 0.883. Inter-rater and interitem reliability were 0.883 and 0.986. To enter COLOR III, 2 unedited TaTME and 1 laparoscopic TME videos were submitted and assessed by 2 independent assessors using CAT. CONCLUSION: We described an iterative approach to develop an objective SQA within multicenter RCT. This approach provided standardization, the development of reliable and valid CAT, and the criteria for trial entry and monitoring surgical performance during the trial.

Intraoperative identification and analysis of lymph nodes at laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery using fluorescence imaging combined with rapid OSNA pathological assessment.

BACKGROUND: Standard surgical practice for colorectal cancer involves resection of the primary lesion and all draining lymph nodes. Accurate intraoperative assessment of nodal status could allow stratified resectional extent. One-step nucleic acid (OSNA) can provide a rapid method of interrogating nodal tissue, whilst near-infrared (NIR) laparoscopy together with indocyanine green (ICG) can identify relevant nodal tissue intraoperatively. METHODS: ICG was administered around the tumour endoscopically prior to the operation. Fluorescent nodes identified by NIR were marked and submitted for whole-node OSNA analysis. Further fresh lymph nodes dissected from the standard resection specimen were examined and analysed by both conventional histology and OSNA. In addition, the status of the fluorescent nodes was compared to that of non-ICG nodes to assess their predictive value. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were recruited with a total final lymph node count of 287. 78 fresh lymph nodes were identified on fresh dissection for both histological and OSNA assessment with an analytical concordance rate of 98.7% (77/78). OSNA sensitivity was 1 (0.81-1, 95% CI) and specificity 0.98 (0.91-1, 95% CI). Six patients had a total of nine nodes identified intraoperatively by ICG fluorescence. Of these nine nodes, one was positive for metastasis on OSNA. OSNA analysis of the ICG-labelled node matched the final histological nodal stage in 3/6 patients (two being N0 and one N1). The final pathological nodal stage of the other three was N1 or N2, while the ICG nodes were negative. CONCLUSION: OSNA is highly concordant with standard histology, although only a minority of nodes identifiable by full pathological analysis were found for OSNA on fresh dissection. OSNA can be combined with NIR and ICG lymphatic mapping to provide intraoperative assessment of nodal tissue in patients with colorectal cancer.