Current practice in Australia and New Zealand for defunctioning ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery with anastomosis: Analysis of the Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit.

AIM: This study aimed to investigate the use of defunctioning stomas after rectal cancer surgery in Australia and New Zealand, as current practice is unknown. METHODS: From the Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit database, data on rectal cancer patients who underwent a resection between 2007 and 2019 with the formation of an anastomosis were extracted and analysed. The primary outcome was the rate of defunctioning stoma formation. Secondary outcomes were anastomotic leakage (AL) rates and other postoperative complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), readmissions and 30-day mortality rates between stoma and no-stoma groups. Propensity score matching was performed to correct for differences in baseline characteristics between stoma and no-stoma groups. RESULTS: In total, 2581 (89%) received a defunctioning stoma and 319 (11%) did not. There were more male patients in the stoma group (65.5% vs. 57.7% for the no-stoma group; P = 0.006). The median age was 64 years in both groups. The stoma group underwent more ultra-low anterior resections (79.9% vs. 30.1%; P < 0.0001), included more American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage III patients (53.7% vs. 29.2%; P < 0.0001) and received more neoadjuvant therapy (66.9% vs. 16.3%; P < 0.0001). The AL rate was similar in both groups (5.1% vs. 6.0%; P = 0.52). LOS was longer in the stoma group (8 vs. 6 days; P < 0.0001) with higher 30-day readmission rates (14.9% vs. 8.3%; P = 0.003). After propensity score matching (n = 208 in both groups), AL rates remained similar (2.9% for stoma vs. 5.8% for no-stoma group; P = 0.15), but stoma patients required less reoperations (0% vs. 8%; P = 0.016). The stoma group had higher postoperative ileus rates and an increased LOS. CONCLUSION: In Australia and New Zealand, most patients who underwent rectal cancer resections with the formation of an anastomosis received a defunctioning stoma. A defunctioning stoma does not prevent AL from occurring but is mostly associated with a lower reoperation rate. Patients with a defunctioning stoma experienced a higher postoperative ileus rate and had an increased LOS.

PyRICo-Pilot: pyridostigmine to reduce the duration of postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery - a phase II study.

AIM: Postoperative ileus (POI) is a major problem after colorectal surgery. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as pyridostigmine increase gastrointestinal (GI) motility through a cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway. The purpose of this phase II pilot study is to determine the safety of oral pyridostigmine after elective colorectal surgery. METHOD: This is a Stage 2b safety study (IDEAL framework). All adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection or formation or reversal of stoma at the Royal Adelaide Hospital between September 2020 and January 2021 were eligible. The primary outcomes were 30-day postoperative complications, reported adverse events and GI-2 - a validated composite outcome measure of recovery of GI function after surgery, defined as the interval from surgery until first passage of stool and tolerance of a solid intake for 24 h (in whole days) in the absence of vomiting. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included in the study. The median age was 58 (range 50-82) years and seven (47%) were men. Most participants had an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥2 (53%) and the median body mass index was 27 (24-35) kg/m2 . There were 13 postoperative complications [seven were Clavien-Dindo (CD) 1, five CD 2 and one CD 3]. None appeared directly related to pyridostigmine administration, and none of the patients had any overt symptoms of excessive parasympathetic activity. Median GI-2 was 2 (1-4) days. CONCLUSION: Oral pyridostigmine appears to be safe to use after elective colorectal surgery in a select group of patients. However, considering this is a pilot study with a small sample size, larger controlled studies are needed to confirm this finding and establish efficacy for prevention of POI.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit Data.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery is commonly used in the treatment of rectal cancer, despite the lack of evidence to support oncological equivalence or improved recovery compared with open surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze prospectively collected data from a large Australasian colorectal cancer database. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching. SETTING: This study was conducted using data supplied by the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit. PATIENTS: A total of 3451 patients who underwent open (n = 1980), laparoscopic (n = 1269), robotic (n = 117), and transanal total mesorectal excision (n = 85) for rectal cancer were included in this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was positive margin rates (circumferential resection margin and/or distal resection margin) in patients treated with curative intent. RESULTS: Propensity score matching yielded 1132 patients in each of the open and minimally invasive surgery groups. Margin positivity rates and lymph node yields did not differ between groups. The open group had a significantly lower total complication rate (27.6% vs 35.8%, p < 0.0001), including a lower rate of postoperative small-bowel obstruction (1.2% vs 2.5%, p = 0.03). The minimally invasive surgery group had significantly lower wound infection rate (2.9% vs 5.0%, p = 0.02) and a shorter length of hospital stay (8 vs 9 days, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by the quality of registry data entries. CONCLUSION: In this patient population, minimally invasive proctectomy demonstrated similar margin rates in comparison with open proctectomy, with a reduced length of stay but a higher overall complication rate. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B190. RESULTADOS DE LA PROCTECTOMÍA MÍNIMA INVASIVA VERSUS ABIERTA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UN ANÁLISIS DE PROPENSIÓN DE LOS DATOS BINACIONALES DE AUDITORÍA DEL CÁNCER COLORRECTAL: La cirugía mínima invasiva, frecuentemente se utiliza en el tratamiento del cáncer rectal, a pesar de la falta de evidencia que respalde la equivalencia oncológica o la mejor recuperación, en comparación con la cirugía abierta.El estudio tiene como objetivo analizar datos prospectivamente obtenidos, de una gran base de datos de cáncer colorrectal de Australia.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo utilizando el emparejamiento de puntaje de propensión.Este estudio se realizó utilizando datos proporcionados por la Auditoría Binacional del Cáncer Colorrectal.Se incluyeron en este estudio un total de 3451 pacientes que se trataron de manera abierta (n = 1980), laparoscópica (n = 1269), robótica (n = 117) y taTME (n = 85) para cáncer rectal.Los resultados primarios fueron de tasas de margen positivas (margen de resección circunferencial y/o margen de resección distal) en pacientes con intención curativa.La coincidencia de puntaje de propensión arrojó 1132 pacientes en cada uno de los grupos de cirugía abierta y mínima invasiva. Las tasas de positividad del margen y los rendimientos de los ganglios linfáticos no difirieron entre los dos grupos. El grupo abierto tuvo una tasa de complicaciones totales significativamente menor (27.6% vs 35.8%, p <0.0001), incluida una tasa menor de obstrucción postoperatoria del intestino delgado (1.2% vs 2.5%, p = 0.03). El grupo de cirugía mínimamente invasiva tuvo una tasa de infección de la herida significativamente menor (2.9% frente a 5.0%, p = 0,02) y una estancia hospitalaria más corta (8 frente a 9 días, p <0.0001). No hubo diferencias en la mortalidad a los 30 días.Los resultados están limitados por la calidad de la entrada de datos de registro.En esta población de pacientes, la proctectomía mínima invasiva demostró tasas de margen similares en comparación con la proctectomía abierta, con una estadía reducida pero una tasa más alta de complicaciones en general. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B190. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Minimally invasive surgery in elderly patients with rectal cancer: An analysis of the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA).

BACKGROUND: Advanced age is associated with worse outcomes after open rectal cancer surgery. However, not much is known about outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the elderly. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of MIS in elderly rectal cancer patients using the Bi-national Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) data from Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). METHODS: 3451 patients were included, divided into three groups: <50 years (n = 364), 50-74 years (n = 2157) and ≥75 years (n = 930). Propensity-score matching was performed for the elderly group analysis to correct for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: MIS was performed in 52.9% of elderly patients, slightly lower than rates in <50 year and 50-74 year old groups (61% and 55.5%, respectively, p = 0.022). Elderly patients had more postoperative complications (p < 0.0001) and had a longer length of hospital stay (LOS; median 11 vs. 8 days for both other groups; p < 0.0001). Elderly patients had higher (y)pT-stages compared to both other groups (p < 0.0001) and were less likely to receive adjuvant therapy (p < 0.0001). Propensity-score matched analysis of the elderly group showed a higher rate of superficial wound dehiscence and a longer LOS after open surgery compared to MIS (10.3% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.030; 12 days vs. 9.5 days, p = 0.001, respectively), with comparable short-term oncological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: MIS is performed in just over half of elderly rectal cancer patients who are selected for elective rectal resection surgery in ANZ. When performed in the elderly, MIS appears safe and is associated with fewer wound complications and a shorter LOS.