How to compensate for frailty? The real life impact of geriatric co-management on morbi-mortality after colorectal cancer surgery in patients aged 70 years or older.

In Europe, CRC is the second most common cause of cancer death, and surgery remains the mainstay curative treatment. Age and frailty are associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and 1-year mortality. Chronological age is not sufficient to assess the risk of postoperative complications. The CGA has been developed to better identify frail patients. Geriatric co-management have been developed to optimize the post-operative outcomes. We analyzed the real-life of geriatric co-management within an ERAS program on surgical outcomes at 90 days and oncologic outcomes at 1 year in patients aged 70 years or older after surgery for CRC. This was a retrospective study based on a prospective cohort. Fifty-one patients with a G8 score ≤ 14 were referred to geriatricians for preoperative CGA (Frail Group). They were compared with 151 patients with a G8 score ≥ 15 (Robust Group). In the Frail Group, patients were significantly older with more comorbidities than the patients in the Robust Group. Oncologic characteristics, treatments and global post-operative outcomes were comparable between the two groups. One year after surgery mortality and recurrence rates were similar between the two groups. Our study suggests that geriatric co-management is feasible and contributes to the reduction of postoperative morbimortality. Moreover, performing the CGA after G8 score screening and completion of geriatric interventions resulted in similar 90-day postoperative outcomes, in frail patients than in robust patients. Our results confirmed the benefit of geriatric co-management, involving G8 screening, CGA, and ERAS, for frail older patients undergoing surgery for CRC.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Severity of Postoperative Ileus After Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective Registry Data Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Defining severe postoperative ileus in terms of consequences could help physicians standardize the management of this condition. The recently described classification based on consequences requires further investigation. The aim of this study was to obtain a snapshot of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing colorectal surgery within enhanced recovery programs and to identify factors associated with non-severe and severe postoperative ileus. METHODS: This prospective registry data analysis was conducted in 40 centers in five different countries. A total of 786 patients scheduled for colorectal surgery within enhanced recovery programs were included. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of postoperative ileus as defined by Vather et al. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients experienced postoperative ileus (15.4%). Non-severe POI occurred in 48 patients (6.1%), and severe postoperative ileus occurred in 73 patients (9.3%). In multivariate analysis, the male gender and intra-abdominal complications were associated with severe postoperative ileus: odd ratio (OR) = 2.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14-3.59], p = 0.01 and OR = 3.60 [95% CI 1.75-7.40], p < 0.0001, respectively. Conversely, open laparotomy and urinary retention were associated with non-severe POI: OR = 3.03 [95% CI 1.37-6.72], p = 0.006 and OR = 2.70 [95% CI 0.89-8.23], p = 0.08, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative ileus occurred in 15% of patients after colorectal surgery within enhanced recovery programs. For 60% of patients, this was considered severe. The physiopathology of these two entities could be different, severe POI being linked to intraabdominal complication, while non-severe POI being linked with risk factors for "primary" POI. The physician should pay attention to male patients having POI after colorectal surgery and look for features evocating intraabdominal complications.

Correction to: Incidence and Risk Factors for Severity of Postoperative Ileus After Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective Registry Data Analysis.

In the list of participating investigators that appears in Acknowledgements, one of the investigators names appears incorrectly.

Combined NOTES total mesorectal excision and single-incision laparoscopy principles for conservative proctectomy: a single-centre study.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for low rectal cancer remains a challenge when a standard laparoscopic approach is used. Transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has been shown to be feasible and to be associated with a low conversion rate. Combining the transanal and transabdominal single-port approaches (with an abdominal single port implanted in the future stoma and extraction site) could allow TME with minimal wound trauma, low morbidity, and faster recovery. The aim of the current study was to assess the short- and mid-term results of this technique. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single-centre study of consecutive patients presenting with low rectal cancer requiring a conservative proctectomy with a manual coloanal anastomosis between January 2012 and April 2015. RESULTS: During the study period, 41 patients were recruited. Conversion to open surgery was required in only one patient (2.4%). The median operating time was 358.5 min (range 300-600 min). Partial intersphincteric resection was necessary for 15 patients (36.6%). The specimens were mostly extracted via the abdominal access (n = 34) without wound complications. The mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 12.7 (range 6-24 lymph nodes). Specimens were graded as complete (n = 31) or nearly complete (n = 10) in all of the patients, and the circumferential resection margin positivity was 4.9%. Intraoperative morbidity rate was 4.9%, and the 30-day morbidity rate was 24.4% (n = 10). Sixty per cent (n = 6) of the patients with 30-day morbidity were Dindo I-II. At a median follow-up of 29 months, overall and disease-free survival rates were 97.5 and 80.5%, respectively. The stoma-free survival rate was 95.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Combining an endoscopic transanal TME and a single laparoscopic ileostomy-site proctectomy is a promising minimally invasive approach for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

Real-world implementation of a geriatric-specific ERAS protocol in patients undergoing colonic cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this single-center observational study was to evaluate the impact of implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, combined with systematic geriatric assessment and support, on surgical and oncological outcomes in patients aged 70 or older undergoing colonic cancer surgery. METHODS: Two groups were formed from an actively maintained database from all patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic surgery for neoplasms during a defined period before (standard group) or after (ERAS group) the introduction of an ERAS program associated with systematic geriatric assessment. The primary outcome was postoperative 90-day morbidity. Secondary outcomes were total length of hospital stay, initiated and completed adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) rate, and 1-year mortality rate. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients (135 standard and 131 ERAS) were included in the study. Overall 90-day morbidity and mean hospital stay were significantly lower in the ERAS group than in the standard group (22.1% vs. 35.6%, p = 0.02; and 6.2 vs. 9.3 days, p < 0.01, respectively). There were no differences in readmission rates and anastomotic complications. AC was recommended in 114 patients. The rate of initiated treatment was comparable between the groups (66.6% vs. 77.7%, p = 0.69). The rate of completed AC was significantly higher in the ERAS group (50% vs. 20%, p < 0.01) with a lower toxicity rate (57.1% vs. 87.5%, p = 0.002). The 1-year mortality rate was higher in the standard group (7.4% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ERAS protocols and geriatric assessment and support reduces the overall morbidity rate and improves 12-month oncologic outcomes.