National trends and outcomes of total proctocolectomy and completion proctectomy ileal pouch-anal anastomosis procedures for ulcerative colitis.

AIM: The purpose of this study is to assess US operative trends and outcomes of ulcerative colitis (UC) patients undergoing total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (TPC-IPAA) or completion proctectomy with IPAA (CP-IPAA). METHODS: Adult UC patients who underwent TPC-IPAA or CP-IPAA were analysed retrospectively using the 2016-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Factors associated with 30-day overall and serious morbidity were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 1696 patients were identified, with 958 patients (56.5%) undergoing TPC-IPAA and 738 (43.5%) undergoing CP-IPAA. A greater proportion of TPC-IPAAs were performed each year (except in 2019) compared to CP-IPAAs over the study period (P trend <0.001). Unadjusted analysis showed comparable rates of overall (20.8% vs. 24.4%, P = 0.076) and serious morbidity (14.3% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.352) between TPC-IPAA and CP-IPAA patients. Robotic TPC-IPAA had no differences in complications compared to laparoscopic and open approaches. Robotic CP-IPAA had higher anastomotic leak rates and longer hospital length of stay compared to laparoscopic and open approaches. Obesity was associated with increased odds of overall and serious morbidity for patients who underwent TPC-IPAA. Steroid/immunosuppressive therapy was associated with increased odds of overall and serious morbidity for patients who underwent CP-IPAA. CONCLUSIONS: Obese patients should be informed of their increased morbidity risk and offered counselling on weight loss prior to surgery when feasible. Patients on steroid/immunosuppressive therapy within 30 days preoperatively should not undergo CP-IPAA or should delay surgery until they can be safely off those medications.

Prevalence of cannabis use disorder and perioperative outcomes in adult colectomy patients: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The decriminalization of cannabis across the United States has led to an increased number of patients reporting cannabis use prior to surgery. However, it is unknown whether preoperative cannabis use disorder (CUD) increases the risk of postoperative complications among adult colectomy patients. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing an elective colectomy were retrospectively analyzed from the National Inpatient Sample database (2004-2018). To control for potential confounders, patients with CUD, defined using ICD-9/10 codes, were propensity score matched to patients without CUD in a 1:1 ratio. The association between preoperative CUD and composite morbidity, the primary outcome of interest, was assessed. Subgroup analyses were performed after stratification by age (≥50 years). RESULTS: Among 432,018 adult colectomy patients, 816 (0.19%) reported preoperative CUD. The prevalence of CUD increased nearly three-fold during the study period from 0.8/1000 patients in 2004 to 2.0/1000 patients in 2018 (P-trend<0.001). After propensity score matching, patients with CUD exhibited similar rates of composite morbidity (140 of 816; 17.2%) as those without CUD (151 of 816; 18.5%) (p = 0.477). Patients with CUD also had similar anastomotic leak rates (CUD: 5.64% vs. No CUD: 6.25%; p = 0.601), hospital lengths of stay (CUD: 5 days, IQR 4-7 vs. No CUD: 5 days, IQR 4-7) (p = 0.415), and hospital charges as those without CUD. Similar findings were seen among patients aged ≥50 years in the subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Though the prevalence of CUD has increased drastically over the past 15 years, preoperative CUD was not associated with an increased risk of composite morbidity among adult patients undergoing an elective colectomy.

Colorectal Surgery Outcomes in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess colorectal surgery outcomes, discharge destination, and readmission in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Adult colorectal surgery patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2019-2020) and its colectomy and proctectomy procedure-targeted files were included. The prepandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The pandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 in quarterly intervals (Q2 April-June; Q3 July-September; Q4 October-December). Factors associated with morbidity and in-hospital mortality were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 62,393 patients, 34,810 patients (55.8%) underwent colorectal surgery prepandemic and 27,583 (44.2%) during the pandemic. Patients who had surgery during the pandemic had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and presented more frequently with dependent functional status. The proportion of emergent surgeries increased (12.7% prepandemic versus 15.2% pandemic, P < 0.001), with less laparoscopic cases (54.0% versus 51.0%, P < 0.001). Higher rates of morbidity with a greater proportion of discharges to home and lesser proportion of discharges to skilled care facilities were observed with no considerable differences in length of stay or worsening readmission rates. Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased odds of overall and serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality, during Q3 and/or Q4 of the 2020 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in hospital presentation, inpatient care, and discharge disposition of colorectal surgery patients were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemic responses should emphasize balancing resource allocation, educating patients and providers on timely medical workup and management, and optimizing discharge coordination pathways.

Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastases: A risk stratified analysis of the NSQIP database.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Over 25% of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) will develop colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Controversy exists over the surgical management of these patients. This study aims to investigate the safety of a simultaneous surgical approach by stratifying patients based on procedure risk and operative approach. METHODS: Using ACS-NSQIP (2016-2020), patients with CRC who underwent isolated colorectal, isolated hepatic, or simultaneous resections were identified. Colorectal and hepatic procedures were stratified by morbidity risk (high vs. low) and operative approach (open vs. minimally invasive). Thirty-day overall morbidity was compared between risk matched isolated and simultaneous resection groups. RESULTS: A total of 65 417 patients were identified, with 1550 (2.4%) undergoing simultaneous resections. A total of 1207 (77.9%) underwent a low-risk colorectal and low-risk liver resection. On multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in overall morbidity between patients who had a simultaneous open high-risk colorectal/low-risk hepatic procedure compared to patients who had an isolated open high-risk colorectal procedure (odds ratio: 1.19; 95% confidence interval: 0.94-1.50; p = 0.148). All other combinations of simultaneous procedures had statistically significant higher rates of morbidity than the isolated group. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous resection of colorectal and synchronous CRLM is associated with an increased risk of morbidity in most circumstances in a risk stratified analysis, although rates of readmission and reoperation were not increased. Minimally invasive surgical approaches may significantly mitigate this morbidity.

Safety and Feasibility of ≤24-h Short-Stay Right Colectomies for Primary Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hospital length of stay (LOS) has been used as a surgical quality metric. This study seeks to determine the safety and feasibility of right colectomy as a ≤24-h short-stay procedure for colon cancer patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the ACS-NSQIP database and its Procedure Targeted Colectomy database (2012-2020). Adult patients with colon cancer who underwent right colectomies were identified. Patients were categorized into LOS ≤1 day (≤24-h short-stay), LOS 2-4 days, LOS 5-6 days, and LOS ≥7 days groups. Primary outcomes were 30-day overall and serious morbidity. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, readmission, and anastomotic leak. The association between LOS and overall and serious morbidity was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 19,401 adult patients were identified, with 371 patients (1.9%) undergoing short-stay right colectomies. Patients undergoing short-stay surgery were generally younger with fewer comorbidities. Overall morbidity for the short-stay group was 6.5%, compared to 11.3%, 23.4%, and 42.0% for LOS 2-4 days, LOS 5-6 days, and LOS ≥7 days groups, respectively (p < 0.001). There were no differences in anastomotic leak, mortality, and readmission rates in the short-stay group compared to patients with LOS 2-4 days. Patients with LOS 2-4 days had increased odds of overall morbidity (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.10-2.65, p = 0.016) compared to patients with short-stay but no differences in odds of serious morbidity (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.61-2.36, p = 0.590). CONCLUSIONS: ≤24-h short-stay right colectomy is safe and feasible for a highly-select group of colon cancer patients. Optimizing patients preoperatively and implementing targeted readmission prevention strategies may aid patient selection.

Perioperative Complications After Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Does Neoadjuvant Regimen Matter?

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the association between neoadjuvant treatment strategy and perioperative complications in patients undergoing proctectomy for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neoadjuvant SC-TNT is an alternative to neoadjuvant CRT for rectal cancer. Some have argued that short-course radiation and extended radiation-to-surgery intervals increase operative difficulty and complication risk. However, the association between SC-TNT and surgical complications has not been previously investigated. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for nonmetastatic rectal cancer after SC-TNT or CRT between 2010 and 2018. Univariate analysis of severe POM and multiple secondary outcomes, including overall POM, intraoperative complications, and resection margins, was performed. Logistic regression of severe POM was also performed. RESULTS: Of 415 included patients, 156 (38%) received SC-TNT and 259 (62%) received CRT. The cohorts were largely similar, though patients with higher tumors (69.9% vs 47.5%, P < 0.0001) or node-positive disease (76.9% vs 62.6%, P = 0.004) were more likely to receive SC-TNT. We found no difference in incidence of severe POM (9.6% SC-TNT vs 12.0% CRT, P = 0.46) or overall POM (39.7% SC-TNT vs 37.5% CRT, P = 0.64) between cohorts. Neoadjuvant regimen was also not associated with a difference in severe POM (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.04-4.70, P = 0.48) in multivariate analysis. There was no significant association between neoadjuvant regimen and any secondary outcome. CONCLUSION: In rectal cancer patients treated with SC-TNT and proctectomy, we found no significant association with POM compared to patients undergoing CRT. SC-TNT does not significantly increase the risk of POM compared to CRT.

Decreasing Readmissions After Ileostomy Creation Through a Perioperative Quality Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: Readmission after ileostomy creation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery creates a significant burden on health care cost and patient quality of care, with a 30-day readmission rate of 40%. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of our perioperative quality improvement program, Decreasing Readmissions After Ileostomy Creation. DESIGN: Perioperative interventions were administered to patients who underwent ileostomy creation. SETTINGS: A single tertiary care academic center. PATIENTS: Eighty patients participated in this program from February 2020 to January 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were 30-day readmission rates and causes of readmission, which were compared to a historical national database. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the effectiveness of this quality improvement program. RESULTS: Eighty patients were enrolled in this prospective quality improvement program. The mean age was 52 (±15.06) years. The most common indication for patients undergoing creation of an ileostomy was colorectal cancer (40%; n = 32). The overall 30-day readmission rate was 8.75% (n = 7) throughout the study period, which was significantly lower than historical cohort data (20.10%; p = 0.01). Among the 7 readmitted patients, 3 (3.75%) were readmitted due to dehydration. The most significant associated risk factor for all-cause readmission was urgent/emergent operative status, which was associated with an increased risk of readmission ( p = 0.01). The 3 readmitted patients with dehydration had a mean Dehydration Readmission After Ileostomy Prediction risk score of 11.71 points, compared to 9.59 points in nondehydrated patients, who did not require readmission ( p = 0.38). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its small sample size (N = 80). CONCLUSIONS: The Decreasing Readmissions After Ileostomy Creation program has been successful in reducing both the all-cause readmission rate and readmission due to dehydration both within an academic tertiary care referral center and in comparison with historical readmission rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B894 . DISMINUCIN DE LA READMISIN DESPUS DE LA CREACIN DE UNA ILEOSTOMA MEDIANTE UN PROGRAMA DE MEJORA DE LA CALIDAD PERIOPERATORIA: ANTECEDENTES:La readmisión después de la creación de una ileostomía en pacientes de cirugía colorrectal crea una carga significativa sobre el costo de la atención médica y la calidad de la atención del paciente, con una tasa de readmisión a los 30 días que llega al 40%.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar la implementación de nuestro programa de mejora de la calidad perioperatoria que disminuyen los reingresos después de la creación de ileostomía.DISEÑO:Se administraron intervenciones perioperatorias a pacientes que se sometieron a la creación de una ileostomía.AJUSTE:Se trataba de un único centro académico de atención terciaria.PACIENTES:Participaron 80 pacientes en este programa desde febrero de 2020 hasta enero de 2021.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los principales resultados medidos fueron las tasas de reingreso a los 30 días y las causas de reingreso, que se compararon con una base de datos histórica nacional. Se utilizaron estadísticas descriptivas para evaluar la eficacia de este programa de mejora de la calidad.RESULTADOS:Ochenta pacientes se inscribieron en este programa prospectivo de mejora de la calidad. La edad media fue de 52 (± 15,06) años. La indicación más común para los pacientes que se sometieron a la creación de una ileostomía fue el cáncer colorrectal (40%, n = 32). La tasa general de reingreso a los 30 días fue del 8,75% (n = 7) durante todo el período de estudio, lo que fue significativamente más bajo que los datos históricos de la cohorte (20,10%, p = 0,01). Entre los 7 pacientes readmitidos, tres (3,75%) fueron readmitidos por deshidratación. El factor de riesgo asociado más significativo para la readmisión por todas las causas fue el estado operatorio urgente / emergencia, que se asoció con un mayor riesgo de readmisión (p = 0,01). Los tres pacientes readmitidos con deshidratación tuvieron una puntuación de riesgo promedio de readmisión por deshidratación después de la predicción de ileostomía de 11,71 puntos, en comparación con los pacientes no deshidratados, que no requirieron readmisión (media, 9,59 puntos, p = 0,38).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio está limitado por su pequeño tamaño de muestra (n = 80).CONCLUSIONES:El programa de disminución de las readmisiones después de la creación de una ileostomía ha logrado reducir tanto la tasa de readmisión por todas las causas como la readmisión por deshidratación, tanto dentro de un centro académico de referencia de atención terciaria como en comparación con las tasas históricas de readmisión. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B894 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Converting laparoscopic colectomies to open is associated with similar outcomes as a planned open approach among Crohn's disease patients.

PURPOSE: There has been a noted reluctance to offer laparoscopic surgery to Crohn's Disease patients due to the potential risks, and high rate, of converting the procedure to open. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between Crohn's Disease patients undergoing a planned open colectomy, to those undergoing a laparoscopic colectomy that was converted to open. METHODS: Crohn's Disease patients undergoing an elective colectomy were identified using the ACS-NSQIP database (2012-2019). Patients were stratified based on operative approach: open, laparoscopic, and laparoscopic converted to open. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the impact of conversion to open on overall and serious postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Among 8039 elective colectomies, 40.5% were performed open, 46.9% were completed laparoscopically, and 12.6% were converted to open. The conversion rate among all laparoscopic cases was 21.3%. On unadjusted analysis, conversion to open demonstrated similar rates of overall morbidity (P = 0.355) and serious morbidity (P = 0.724) compared to a planned open approach. On multivariable analysis, conversion to open was not associated with increased odds of overall morbidity (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.94-1.30, P = 0.238) or serious morbidity (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98-1.46, P = 0.074), when compared to an open approach. CONCLUSION: Among Crohn's Disease patients, cases converted from laparoscopic to open exhibited similar outcomes as a planned open approach. Despite the limitations associated with this retrospective study, our findings suggest that laparoscopic surgery may be safely pursued among Crohn's Disease patients, as the risks of conversion are potentially balanced by the benefits of laparoscopic surgery.

What Does a Diagnosis of Depression Mean for Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Depression has been linked to increased morbidity and mortality in patients after surgery. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of documented depression diagnosis on in-hospital postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from the National Inpatient Sample (2002-2017) who underwent proctectomies and colectomies were included. The outcomes measured included total hospital charge, length of stay, delirium, wound infection, urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, mortality, paralytic ileus, leak, and discharge trends. Multivariable logistic and Poisson regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 4,212,125 patients, depression diagnosis was present in 6.72% of patients who underwent colectomy and 6.54% of patients who underwent proctectomy. Regardless of procedure type, patients with depression had higher total hospital charges and greater rates of delirium, wound infection, UTI, leak, and nonroutine discharge, with no difference in length of stay. On adjusted analysis, patients with a depression diagnosis who underwent colectomies had increased risk of delirium (odds ratio (OR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93-2.32), wound infection (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.12), UTI (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.20), paralytic ileus (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09), and leak (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.30-1.43). Patients who underwent proctectomy showed similar results, with the addition of significantly increased total hospital charges among the depression group. Depression diagnosis was independently associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (colectomy OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.53-0.62; proctectomy OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a diagnosis of depression suffer worse in-hospital outcomes but experience lower risk of in-hospital mortality after undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are needed to validate and fully understand the driving factors behind this.

Update on Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to clarify the current role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer, highlighting short- and long-term outcomes from the latest trials and studies. RECENT FINDINGS: Data from previous trials has been conflicting, with some failing to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection of rectal cancer compared to an open approach and others demonstrating similar clinical outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery was thought to be a promising solution to the challenges faced by laparoscopic surgery, and even though the only randomized controlled trial to date comparing these two techniques did not show superiority of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopy, more recent retrospective data suggests a statistically significant higher negative circumferential resection margin rate, decreased frequency of conversion to open, and less sexual and urinary complications. Minimally invasive surgery techniques for resection of rectal cancer, particularly robot-assisted, offer clear short-term peri-operative benefits over an open approach; however, current data has yet to display non-inferiority in terms of oncological outcomes.

History of depression is associated with worsened postoperative outcomes following colectomy.

AIM: Depression is a prevalent disorder that is associated with adverse health outcomes, but an understanding of its effect in colorectal surgery remains limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of history of depression among patients undergoing colectomy. METHOD: United States patients from Marketscan (2010-2017) who underwent colectomy were included and stratified by whether they had a history of depression within the past year, defined as (1) a diagnosis of depression during the index admission, (2) a diagnosis of depression during any inpatient or (3) outpatient admission within the year, and/or (4) a pharmacy claim for an antidepressant within the year. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) and inpatient hospital charge. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications. Logistic, negative binomial, and quantile regressions were performed. RESULTS: Among 88 981 patients, 21 878 (24.6%) had a history of depression. Compared to those without, patients with a history of depression had significantly longer LOS (IRR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.05, 1.07]), increased inpatient charge (ß = 467, 95% CI [167, 767]), and increased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.37, 95% CI [1.08, 1.73]) after adjustment. History of depression was also independently associated with increased odds of respiratory complication, pneumonia, and delirium (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: History of depression was prevalent among individuals undergoing colectomy, and associated with greater mortality and inpatient charge, longer LOS, and higher odds of postoperative complication. These findings highlight the impact of depression in colorectal surgery patients and suggest that proper identification and treatment may reduce postoperative morbidity.

Do specific operative approaches and insurance status impact timely access to colorectal cancer care?

INTRODUCTION: The increased use of minimally invasive surgery in the management of colorectal cancer has led to a renewed focus on how certain factors, such as insurance status, impact the equitable distribution of both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Our goal was to analyze surgical wait times between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches, and to determine whether insurance status impacts timely access to treatment. METHODS: After IRB approval, adult patients from the National Cancer Database with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer were identified (2010-2016). Patients who underwent radiation therapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, had wait times of 0 days from diagnosis to surgery, or had metastatic disease were excluded. Primary outcomes were days from cancer diagnosis to surgery and days from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Poisson regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Among 324,784 patients, 5.9% underwent robotic, 47.5% laparoscopic, and 46.7% open surgery. Patients undergoing robotic surgery incurred the longest wait times from diagnosis to surgery (29.5 days [robotic] vs. 21.7 [laparoscopic] vs. 17.2 [open], p < 0.001), but the shortest wait times from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy (48.9 days [robotic] vs. 49.9 [laparoscopic] vs. 54.8 [open], p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was associated with a 1.46 × longer wait time to surgery (IRR 1.462, 95% CI 1.458-1.467, p < 0.001), but decreased wait time to adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.909, 95% CI 0.905-0.913, p < 0.001) compared to an open approach. Private insurance was associated with decreased wait times to surgery (IRR 0.966, 95% CI 0.962-0.969, p < 0.001) and adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.862, 95% CI 0.858-0.865, p < 0.001) compared to Medicaid. CONCLUSION: Though patients undergoing robotic surgery experienced delays from diagnosis to surgery, they tended to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy sooner compared to those undergoing open or laparoscopic approaches. Private insurance was independently associated not only with access to robotic surgery, but also shorter wait times during all stages of treatment.

Operative Approach Does Not Impact Radial Margin Positivity in Distal Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is attractive for resection of low rectal cancer due to greater dexterity and visualization, but its benefit is poorly understood. We aimed to determine if operative approach impacts radial margin positivity (RMP) and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent APR for low rectal cancer from 2016 to 2019. Patients were stratified by operative approach: robotic, laparoscopic, and open APR (R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR). Emergent cases were excluded. The primary outcome was RMP. 30-day postoperative outcomes were also evaluated, using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 1,807 patients, 452 (25.0%) underwent R-APR, 474 (26.2%) L-APR, and 881 (48.8%) O-APR. No differences regarding RMP (13.5% R-APR vs. 10.8% L-APR vs. 12.3% O-APR, p = 0.44), distal margin positivity, positive nodes, readmission, or operative time were observed between operative approaches. Adjusted analysis confirmed that operative approach did not predict RMP (p > 0.05 for all). Risk factors for RMP included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III (ASA I-II ref; OR 1.46, p = 0.039), pT3-4 stage (T0-2 ref, OR 4.02, p < 0.001), pN2 stage (OR 1.98, p = 0.004), disseminated cancer (OR 1.90, p = 0.002), and lack of preoperative radiation (OR 1.98, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in RMP was observed among R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR. Postoperatively, R-APR yielded greater benefit when compared to O-APR, but was comparable to that of L-APR. Minimally invasive surgery may be an appropriate option and worthy consideration for patients with distal rectal cancer requiring APR.

Frailer Patients Undergoing Robotic Colectomies for Colon Cancer Experience Increased Complication Rates Compared With Open or Laparoscopic Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgical techniques are routinely promoted as alternatives to open surgery because of improved outcomes. However, the impact of robotic surgery on certain subsets of the population, such as frail patients, is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to examine the association between frailty and minimally invasive surgical approaches with colon cancer surgery. DESIGN: This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected outcomes data. Thirty-day surgical outcomes were compared by frailty and surgical approach using doubly robust multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting, and testing for interaction effects between frailty and surgical approach. SETTING: Patients undergoing an open, laparoscopic, or robotic colectomy for primary colon cancer, 2012 to 2016, were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing a colectomy with an operative indication for primary colon cancer were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were 30-day postoperative complications. RESULTS: After propensity score weighting of patients undergoing colectomy, 33.8% (n = 27,649) underwent an open approach versus 34.3% (n = 28,058) underwent laparoscopic surgery versus 31.9% (n = 26,096) underwent robotic surgery. Robotic (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) and laparoscopic (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) surgeries were independently associated with decreased rates of major complications. Frailer patients had increased complication rates (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). When considering the interaction effects between surgical approach and frailty, frailer patients undergoing robotic surgery were more likely to develop a major complication (combined adjusted OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) compared with patients undergoing open surgery. LIMITATIONS: Use of the modified Frailty Index as an associative proxy for frailty was a limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Although minimally invasive surgical approaches have decreased postoperative complications, this effect may be reversed in frail patients. These findings challenge the belief that robotic surgery provides a favorable alternative to open surgery in frail patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. LOS PACIENTES MÁS FRÁGILES SOMETIDOS A COLECTOMÍA ROBÓTICA POR CÁNCER DE COLON EXPERIMENTAN MAYORES TASAS DE COMPLICACIONES EN COMPARACIÓN CON ABORDAJES LAPAROSCÓPICO O ABIERTO: Las técnicas quirúrgicas mínimamente invasivas estan frecuentement promovidas como alternativas a la cirugía abierta debido a sus mejores resultados. Sin embargo, el impacto de la cirugía robótica en ciertos subgrupos de población, como el caso de los pacientes endebles, es poco conocido.El propósito de nuestro estudio fue examinar la asociación entre la fragilidad de los pacientes y el aborgaje quirúrgico mínimamente invasivo para la cirugía de cáncer de colon.Estudio retrospectivo de datos de resultados recolectados prospectivamente. Los resultados quirúrgicos a 30 días se compararon entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico utilizando la regresión logística multivariable doblemente robusta con ponderación de puntaje de propensión y pruebas de efectos de interacción entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico.Los pacientes identificados en la base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos, que fueron sometidos a una colectomía abierta, laparoscópica o robótica por cáncer de colon primario, de 2012 a 2016.Todos aquellos pacientes seleccionados con indicación quirúrgica de cáncer primario de colon que fueron sometidos a una colectomía.Las complicaciones postoperatorias a 30 días.Luego de ponderar el puntaje de propensión de los pacientes colectomizados, el 33.8% (n = 27,649) fué sometido a laparotomía versus el 34.3% (n = 28,058) operados por laparoscopía versus el 31.9% (n = 26,096) operados con tecnica robótica. Las cirugías robóticas (OR 0.53, IC 95% 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) y laparoscópicas (OR 0.58, IC 95% 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) se asociaron de forma independiente con una disminución de las tasas de complicaciones mayores. Los pacientes más delicados tenían mayores tasas de complicaciones (OR 1.56, IC 95% 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). Al considerar los efectos de interacción entre el abordaje quirúrgico y la fragilidad, los pacientes más débiles sometidos a cirugía robótica tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar una complicación mayor (OR ajustado combinado 3.15, IC 95% 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) en comparación con los pacientes sometidos a cirugía abierta.El uso del índice de fragilidad modificado como apoderado asociativo de la fragilidad.Si bien los abordajes quirúrgicos mínimamente invasivos han disminuido las complicaciones postoperatorias, este efecto puede revertirse en pacientes lábiles. Estos hallazgos desafían la creencia de que la cirugía robótica proporciona una alternativa favorable a la cirugía abierta en pacientes frágiles. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

Thoracic Epidural Analgesia: Does It Enhance Recovery?

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia has been shown to be an effective method of pain control. The utility of epidural analgesia as part of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol is debatable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if the use of thoracic epidural analgesia in an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol decreases hospital length of stay or inpatient opioid consumption after elective colorectal resection. DESIGN: This is a single-institution retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was performed at a high-volume, tertiary care center in the Midwest. An institutional database was used to identify patients. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing elective transabdominal colon or rectal resection by board-certified colon and rectal surgeons from 2013 to 2017 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was length of stay. The secondary outcome was oral morphine milligram equivalents consumed during the first 48 hours. RESULTS: There were 1006 patients (n = 815 epidural, 191 no epidural) included. All patients received multimodal analgesia with opioid-sparing agents. Univariate analysis demonstrated no difference in length of stay between those who received thoracic epidural analgesia and those who did not (median, 4 vs 5 days; p = 0.16), which was substantiated by multivariable linear regression. Subgroup analysis showed that the addition of epidural analgesia resulted in no difference in length of stay regardless of an open (n = 362; p = 0.66) or minimally invasive (n = 644; p = 0.46) approach. Opioid consumption data were available after 2015 (n = 497 patients). Univariate analysis demonstrated no difference in morphine milligram equivalents consumed in the first 48 hours between patients who received epidural analgesia and those who did not (median, 135 vs 110 oral morphine milligram equivalents; p = 0.35). This was also confirmed by multivariable linear regression. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective observational design was a limitation of this study. CONCLUSION: The use of thoracic epidural analgesia within an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol was not found to be associated with a reduction in length of stay or morphine milligram equivalents consumed within the first 48 hours. We cannot recommend routine use of thoracic epidural analgesia within enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A765.

Accuracy of clinical fetal weight estimation by Midwives.

BACKGROUND: Clinical fetal weight estimation is a common practice in obstetrics. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of fetal weight estimation by midwives, and to identify factors that may lead to overestimation or underestimation of fetal weight. METHODS: A cohort prospective study in a Lebanese university hospital, included weight estimation of singleton pregnancies above 35 weeks. Multiple pregnancies, unclear dating, growth retardation, malformations and stillbirths cases are excluded. The estimated fetal weight is recorded by midwives in a sealed envelope and compared to true weight later. The effects of BMI, weight gain, parity, diabetes, hypertension, neonate's sex and weight, uterine contractions, rupture of membranes and daytime or nighttime shift on these estimations were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-six patients were included. Mean birth weight was 3246 ± 362 g. Mean absolute percentage error of weight estimation was 8.5 ± 6.7% (0-30.9%). Estimation was within the correct range of ±10% in 63% of cases. Maternal and fetal factors did not significantly change weight estimation. Fetuses with birth weights more than 4000 tended to be underestimated by midwives. Estimation improved over time (nonsignificant). CONCLUSIONS: Maternal and fetal factors, except for macrosomia, have limited impact on estimation of fetal birth weight. Macrosomia is challenging because of a consistent tendency of underestimation by midwives.

Laparoscopy for Rectal Cancer.

It is evident that the use of laparoscopy in the management of rectal cancer has gained popularity in the last few years. It is still, however, not widely accepted as the standard of care. Multiple randomized trials have shown that short-term outcomes and perioperative morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic proctectomy are equivalent to open surgery. However, data regarding long-term oncologic outcomes are still scarce, with only a few randomized trials reporting similar outcomes in both laparoscopic and open group. A more recent trial failed to replicate those results in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. In this article, we will look at the most recent evidence regarding the use of laparoscopy for patients with rectal cancer. We will also briefly discuss the different approaches and new minimally invasive techniques used in this field, and we will talk about the challenges facing the widespread adoption of laparoscopic surgery in the management of rectal cancer.

Surgical and local control outcomes after sequential short-course radiation therapy and chemotherapy for rectal cancer.

Background: Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is an accepted approach for the management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and is associated with a decreased risk of development of metastatic disease compared to standard neoadjuvant therapy. However, questions remain regarding surgical outcomes and local control in patients who proceed to surgery, particularly when radiation is given first in the neoadjuvant sequence. We report on our institution's experience with patients who underwent short-course radiation therapy, consolidation chemotherapy, and surgery. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed surgical specimen outcomes, postoperative complications, and local/pelvic control in a large cohort of patients with LARC who underwent neoadjuvant therapy incorporating upfront short-course radiation therapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy. Results: In our cohort of 83 patients who proceeded to surgery, a complete/near-complete mesorectal specimen was achieved in 90 % of patients. This outcome was not associated with the time interval from completion of radiation to surgery. Postoperative complications were acceptably low. Local control at two years was 93.4 % for all patients- 97.6 % for those with low-risk disease and 90.4 % for high-risk disease. Conclusion: Upfront short-course radiation therapy and consolidation chemotherapy is an effective treatment course. Extended interval from completion of short-course radiation therapy did not impact surgical specimen quality.

Impact of preoperative chemotherapy on perioperative morbidity in combined resection of colon cancer and liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemotherapy, or neoadjuvant therapy (NAC) can be used to improve resectability but can also have hepatotoxic effects on the future liver remnant. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of NAC on 30-day morbidity among patients undergoing a resection of primary colon cancer and synchronous liver metastases (sLM). METHODS: This was a retrospective study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2012-2020). The association between NAC and 30-day overall morbidity, the primary outcome, was assessed. Subgroup analyses for low and high-risk procedures were performed. RESULTS: Among 968 patients who underwent the combined resection, 571 (58.99%) received NAC. There was a lower rate of 30-day overall morbidity among patients who received NAC (34.50% vs. 41.56%, p = 0.026) and no difference in rates of postoperative liver failure, bile leak, need for invasive intervention for hepatic procedure, and anastomotic leak. On adjusted analyses, patients who received NAC had decreased odds of overall morbidity (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.97, p = 0.031) compared to patients who did not receive NAC. On subgroup analyses, patients who received NAC prior to a low risk combined resection had lower rates of overall morbidity on both adjusted and unadjusted analyses. Among those undergoing high-risk combined resections, there was no difference in overall morbidity. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Patients who are deemed to be candidates for preoperative chemotherapy can proceed with planned neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to combined resection of primary colon cancer and sLM as preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not appear to be associated with increased postoperative morbidity.