Direct intraoperative assessment of total mesorectal excision specimens by expert pathologists in patients with very low rectal cancer prevents unnecessary abdominoperineal resections.

PURPOSE: In patients with low rectal cancer, the intraoperative assessment of sufficient distal resection margins can be challenging. The assessment determines whether reconstruction can be performed or whether permanent colostomy is required. The goal of the present study was to evaluate intraoperative assessment of the total mesorectal excision (TME) specimen during an interruption of the operation. METHODS: The intraoperative strategy of eight patients with low rectal cancer was evaluated. In all cases, intraoperative pathological assessment of the TME specimen by an expert pathologist together with the surgeon was performed. Assessment of the distance of the tumor to the resection margin was measured macroscopically as well as microscopically. RESULTS: All patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The tumor was located at an average 4.8 ± 1.4 cm from the anal verge. In all cases, preoperative MRI revealed mrT3 tumors. The intraoperative assessment showed a median distal resection margin of 10 mm (2-15 mm). In six patients, sufficient margins allowed for reconstruction while in two patients APR was needed. In three patients (37.5%), the pathological assessment changed the operative strategy: In one patient APR could be avoided while two patients required APR instead of the anticipated TME. CONCLUSION: The intraoperative assessment of the TME specimen by an expert pathologist together with the surgeon is a valuable tool to avoid unnecessary APR or R1 resections. We therefore suggest routine intraoperative pathological assessment in all operations for borderline low rectal cancers.

Considering Value in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Analysis of Costs and Outcomes Based on the Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approach for Proctectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare value (outcomes/costs) of proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer by 3 approaches: open, laparoscopic, and robotic. BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive proctectomy in rectal cancer is controversial. In the era of value-based medicine, costs must be considered along with outcomes. METHODS: Primary rectal cancer patients undergoing curative intent proctectomy at our institution between 2010 and 2014 were included. Patients were grouped by approach [open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery (RS)] on an intent-to-treat basis. Groups were compared by direct costs of hospitalization for the primary resection, 30-day readmissions, and ileostomy closure and for short-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 488 patients were evaluated; 327 were men (67%), median age was 59 (27-93) years, and restorative procedures were performed in 333 (68.2%). Groups were similar in demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment details. Significant outcome differences between groups were found in operative and anesthesia times (longer in the RS group), and in estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, length of stay, and postoperative complications (all higher in the open surgery group). No significant differences were found in short-term oncologic outcomes. Direct cost of the hospitalization for primary resection and total direct cost (including readmission/ileostomy closure hospitalizations) were significantly greater in the RS group. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic and open approaches to proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer provide similar value. If robotic proctectomy is to be widely applied in the future, the costs of the procedure must be reduced.

Comparison of straight vs hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: an assessment from the NSQIP procedure-targeted cohort.

BACKGROUND: The perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent straight laparoscopic (LAP) vs hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) surgery were compared using a recently released procedure-targeted database. METHODS: The 2012 colectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used and patients were classified into 2 groups according to the final surgical approach: LAP vs HALS. Demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 7,843 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 4,656 (59%) patients in LAP colectomy and 3,187 (41%) in HALS colectomy groups. Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics and demographics. Mean operative time was slightly longer in LAP group (178 ± 86 vs 171 ± 84 minutes, P < .001). After covariate-adjustment analysis, the overall morbidity, superficial surgical site infection, and ileus rates remained slightly higher in HALS group. CONCLUSIONS: Both straight laparoscopic and hand-assisted approaches are used in colorectal surgery and may complement each other in challenging cases. Implementing the best approach to decrease postoperative complication rates and increase use of minimally invasive techniques may play a role in improving patient care and overall quality.