Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography could reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: Several papers have shown that use of indocyanine green (ICG) decreases incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) during colonic surgery, but no clear evidence has been found for rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, with this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) we aimed to assess if ICG could also reduce risk of AL in rectal cancer surgery. METHOD: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched for RCTs assessing the effect of intraoperative ICG on the incidence of AL of the colorectal anastomosis. Pooled relative risk (RR) and pooled risk difference (RD) were obtained using models with random effects. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Rob2 tool and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE Pro tool. RESULTS: Four RCTs were included for analysis, with a total of 1510 patients (743 controls and 767 ICG patients). The rate of AL was 9% in the ICG group (69/767) and 13.9% (103/743) in the control group (p = 0.003, RR -0.5, 95% CI -0.827 to -0.172, heterogeneity test 0%, p = 0.460). The RD in terms of incidence of AL was significantly decreased by 4.51% (p = 0.031, 95% CI -0.086 to -0.004, heterogeneity test 28%, p = 0.182) when using ICG. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggested that use of ICG during rectal cancer surgery could reduce the rate of AL.

Stenosis of the colorectal anastomosis after surgery for diverticulitis: A national retrospective cohort study.

AIM: The aim of this work was to investigate the association between early postoperative anastomotic leakage or pelvic abscess (AL/PA) and symptomatic anastomotic stenosis (SAS) in patients after surgery for left colonic diverticulitis. METHOD: This is a retrospective study based on a national cohort of diverticulitis surgery patients carried out by the Association Française de Chirurgie. The assessment was performed using path analyses. The database included 7053 patients operated on for colonic diverticulitis, with surgery performed electively or in an emergency, by open access or laparoscopically. Patients were excluded from the study analysis where there was (i) right-sided diverticulitis (the initial database included all consecutive patients operated on for colonic diverticulitis), (ii) no anastomosis was performed during the first procedure or (iii) missing information about stenosis, postoperative abscess or anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: Of the 4441 patients who were included in the final analysis, AL/PA occurred in 327 (4.6%) and SAS occurred in 82 (1.8%). AL/PA was a significant independent factor associated with a risk for occurrence of SAS (OR = 3.41, 95% CI = 1.75-6.66), as was the case for diverting stoma for ≥100 days (OR = 2.77, 95% CI = 1.32-5.82), while central vessel ligation proximal to the inferior mesenteric artery was associated with a reduced risk (OR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.19-0.88). Diverting stoma created for <100 days or ≥100 days was also a factor associated with a risk for AL/PA (OR = 3.08, 95% CI = 2-4.75 and OR = 12.95, 95% CI = 9.11-18.50). Interestingly, no significant association between radiological drainage or surgical management of AL/PA and SAS could be highlighted. CONCLUSION: AL/PA was an independent factor associated with the risk for SAS. The treatment of AL/PA was not associated with the occurrence of anastomotic stenosis. Diverting stoma was associated with an increased risk of both AL/PA and SAS, especially if it was left for ≥100 days. Physicians must be aware of this information in order to decide on the best course of action when creating a stoma during elective or emergency surgery.

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL). BACKGROUND: AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma. METHODS: This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated. RESULTS: This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies.

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. METHODS: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2 : 1). RESULTS: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). CONCLUSION: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding.

Standardization of the Definition and Surgical Management of Splenic Flexure Carcinoma by an International Expert Consensus Using the Delphi Technique: Room for Improvement?

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of splenic flexure carcinoma remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish an expert international consensus on splenic flexure carcinoma management. DESIGN: A 3-round online-based Delphi study was conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. SETTING: The first round included 18 experts from 12 different countries. For the second and third rounds, each expert in the first round was asked to invite 2 more colorectal surgeons (n = 47). Out of 47 invited experts, 89% (n = 42) participated in the second and third rounds of the consensus. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 35 questions were created and sent via the online questionnaire tool. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels of recommendation based on voting concordance were graded as follows: more than 75% agreement was defined as strong, between 50% and 75% as moderate, and below 50% as weak. RESULTS: There was moderate consensus on the definition of splenic flexure (55%) as 10 cm from either side where the distal transverse colon turns into the proximal descending colon. Also, experts recommended an abdominopelvic CT scan plus intraoperative exploration (moderate consensus, 72%) for tumor localization and cancer registry. Segmental colectomy was the preferred technique for the management of splenic flexure carcinoma in the elective setting (72%). Moderate consensus was achieved on the technique of complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation principles for splenic flexure carcinoma (74%). Only strong consensus was achieved on the surgical approach for minimally invasive surgery (88%). LIMITATIONS: Subjective decisions are based on individual expert clinical experience and not evidence based. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first internationally conducted Delphi consensus study regarding splenic flexure carcinoma. The definition of splenic flexure remains ambiguous. To more effectively compare oncologic outcomes among different cancer registries, guidelines need to be developed to standardize each domain and avoid arbitrary definitions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C143 . ESTANDARIZACIN DE LA DEFINICIN Y MANEJO QUIRRGICO DEL CARCINOMA DE NGULO ESPLNICO ESTABLECIDO POR UN CONSENSO INTERNACIONAL DE EXPERTOS UTILIZANDO LA TCNICA DELPHI ESPACIO PARA MEJORAR: ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer de ángulo esplénico sigue siendo controvertido.OBJETIVO:Establecer un consenso internacional de expertos sobre el manejo del cáncer del ángulo esplénico.DISEÑO:Se condujo un estudio Delphi en línea de 3 rondas entre septiembre de 2020 y febrero de 2021.ESCENARIO:La primera ronda incluyó a 18 expertos de 12 países distintos. Para la segunda y tercera rondas, a cada experto de la primera ronda se le pidió que invitara a 2 cirujanos colorrectales más de su región (n = 47). De los 47 expertos invitados, el 89% (n = 42) participó en la segunda y tercera ronda del consenso.INTERVENCIONES:Se crearon y enviaron un total de 35 preguntas a través de la herramienta de cuestionario en línea.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los niveles de recomendación basados en la concordancia de votos fueron jerarquizados de la siguiente manera: más del 75% de acuerdo se definió como fuerte, entre 50 y 75% como moderado y por debajo del 50% como débil.RESULTADOS:Hubo un consenso moderado sobre la definición de ángulo esplénico (55%) como 10 cm desde cualquier lado donde el colon transverso distal se convierte en el colon descendente proximal. Así también, los expertos recomendaron la tomografía computarizada abdominopélvica más la exploración intraoperatoria (consenso moderado, 72%) para la localización del tumor y el registro del ángulo esplénico. La colectomía segmentaria fue la técnica preferida para el tratamiento del cáncer de ángulo esplénico en el caso de ser electivo (72%). Se logró un consenso moderado sobre la técnica de escisión completa del mesocolon y los principios de ligadura vascular a nivel central para el cáncer de ángulo esplénico (74%). Solo se logró un fuerte consenso sobre el abordaje quirúrgico para la cirugía mínimamente invasiva (88%).LIMITACIONES:Decisiones subjetivas basadas en la experiencia clínica de expertos individuales y no basadas en evidencia.CONCLUSIONES:Este es el primer estudio internacional de consenso Delphi realizado sobre el cáncer de ángulo esplénico. Si bien encontramos un consenso moderado sobre las modalidades de diagnóstico preoperatorio y el manejo quirúrgico, la definición de ángulo esplénico sigue siendo ambigua. Para comparar de manera más efectiva los resultados oncológicos entre diferentes registros de cáncer, se deben desarrollar pautas para estandarizar cada dominio y evitar definiciones arbitrarias. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C143 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Impact of the first wave of COVID-19 epidemy on the surgical management of sigmoid diverticular disease in France: National French retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the surgical management of sigmoid diverticular disease (SDD) before, during, and after the first containment rules (CR) for the first wave of COVID-19. METHODS: From the French Surgical Association multicenter series, this study included all patients operated on between January 2018 and September 2021. Three groups were compared: A (before CR period: 01/01/18-03/16/20), B (CR period: 03/17/20-05/03/20), and C (post CR period: 05/04/20-09/30/21). RESULTS: A total of 1965 patients (A n = 1517, B n = 52, C n = 396) were included. The A group had significantly more previous SDD compared to the two other groups (p = 0.007), especially complicated (p = 0.0004). The rate of peritonitis was significantly higher in the B (46.1%) and C (38.4%) groups compared to the A group (31.7%) (p = 0.034 and p = 0.014). As regards surgical treatment, Hartmann's procedure was more often performed in the B group (44.2%, vs A 25.5% and C 26.8%, p = 0.01). Mortality at 90 days was significantly higher in the B group (9.6%, vs A 4% and C 6.3%, p = 0.034). This difference was also significant between the A and B groups (p = 0.048), as well as between the A and C groups (p = 0.05). There was no significant difference between the three groups in terms of postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the management of SDD was impacted by COVID-19 at CR, but also after and until September 2021, both on the initial clinical presentation and on postoperative mortality.

Recurrence of diverticulitis after prophylactic sigmoidectomy: an underestimated problem?

AIM: Several papers have been published about the risk of recurrence after an attack of diverticulitis treated conservatively. However, very few papers have been devoted to the risk of postoperative recurrence of diverticulitis (PRD) after prophylactic sigmoidectomy (PS). The aim of this work was to report the rate of PRD after PS and to assess possible risk factors for recurrence after surgery. METHOD: All consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic PS for diverticulitis between 2005 and 2019 were retrospectively included. PRD was assessed. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty four patients (199 men, mean age 54 ± 13 years) were included. Among these, 26 (7%) presented with 1.7 ± 1 (range 1-4) episodes of recurrence of diverticulitis after a mean delay of 44 ± 39 months (1 month-11 years) after surgery. Patients who presented with postoperative recurrence of diverticulitis were younger (46 ± 11 vs. 55 ± 13 years, p = 0.002) and more frequently had uncomplicated diverticulitis [15/26 (58%) vs. 97/338 (29%), p = 0.002] and more than two previous episodes before PS [17/26 (65%) vs. 132/338 (39%), p = 0.009] than patients without PRD. After multivariate analysis, two independent risk factors for PRD were identified: patients with more than two episodes before PS (OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 1.2-9, p = 0.005) and age < 50 years (OR = 4.5, 95% CI = 2-11, p = 0.001). If both factors were present, recurrence reached 18% (9/51). CONCLUSION: Postoperative recurrence of diverticulitis is rare (7%) after PS for diverticulitis. Some patients (i.e. those with more than two episodes before PS and/or age <50 years) could be exposed to a higher risk of recurrence (up to 18%), making prophylactic surgery questionable in these patients.

Ambulatory laparoscopic colectomies: a systematic review.

AIM: Ambulatory laparoscopic colectomy (ALC), meaning discharge within 24 h of surgical colonic resection, has recently been proposed in a few, selected patients. This systematic review was performed with the aim of reviewing protocols for ALC and assessing feasibility, safety and outcomes after ALC. METHOD: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and pooled analysis was performed searching all English studies published until October 2022 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (PROSPERO, CRD42022334463). Inclusion criteria were original articles including patients undergoing ALC, specifying at least one outcome of interest. Exclusion criteria were articles reporting a robotic-assisted procedure; unable to retrieve patient data from articles; the same patient series included in different studies. Primary outcomes were success, overall complications and readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included mortality and specific complications such us surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, ileus, bleeding, rate of ALC acceptance, and unscheduled consultation and reoperation rate. RESULTS: Among 1087 studies imported for screening, 11 were included (1296 patients). The success rate was 47% with an overall morbidity of 14%. Readmission and reoperation rates were 5% and 1%, respectively. No mortality was recorded. Protocols of ALC differ significantly among published studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ALC appears to be safe and feasible in selected cases with an acceptable success rate and a low risk of readmission after hospital discharge. Future studies should evaluate patients' benefits and discharge criteria, as well as uniformity and standardization of eligibility criteria. This systematic review may help inform on ALC adoption in clinical practice.

Local excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for mid and low rectal cancer: a multicentric French study from the GRECCAR group.

AIM: A complete or subcomplete tumour response (CTR) is observed in 10%-25% of patients with mid/low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The aim of our study was to report a multicentric French experience in local excision (LE) after CRT. METHOD: All patients who underwent LE for mid/low rectal cancer with suspected CTR after CRT, from 2006 to 2019 in seven GRECCAR centres were included. LE was considered adequate if the specimen showed a ypT0/Tis/T1R0 tumour, otherwise, a completion total mesorectal excision (TME) was discussed. Morbi-mortality, functional results and oncological outcomes were studied. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were included. LE specimens showed 36% ypT0, 4% ypTis and 19% ypT1. Thus, 108 patients (42%) had theoretical indication of completion TME, which was performed in only 42 patients. Overall, 30-day morbidity after LE was 11%, including 2% Clavien-Dindo grade III or IV complications. After completion TME, 47% described major low anterior resection syndrome versus 5% after LE alone (p < 0.001). After a mean follow-up of 4 years (range 2-6 years), the recurrence rate was 11% after LE, 32% after completion TME and 20% in patients for whom completion TME was indicated but not performed (p = 0.021). CONCLUSION: TME remains the gold standard for mid/low rectal cancer after CRT. LE in selected patients is safe for operative and functional, but also oncological, results. However, completion TME was indicated in 42% of patients after LE, highlighting the difficulty of the preoperative diagnosis of CTR after CRT.

Iatrogenic ureteral injury during colorectal surgery has a significant impact on patient outcomes: a French multicentric retrospective cohort study.

AIM: The long-term urological sequelae after iatrogenic ureteral injury (IUI) during colorectal surgery are not clearly known. The aims of this work were to report the incidence of IUI and to analyse the long-term consequences of urological late complications and their impact on oncological results of IUI occurring during colorectal surgery through a French multicentric experience (GRECCAR group). METHOD: All the patients who presented with IUI during colorectal surgery between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively included. Patients with ureteral involvement needing en bloc resection, delayed ureteral stricture or noncolorectal surgery were not considered. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients (93 men, mean age 63 ± 14 years) were identified in 29 centres, corresponding to 0.32% of colorectal surgeries (n = 63 562). Index colorectal surgery was mainly oncological (n = 130, 64%). IUI was diagnosed postoperatively in 112 patients (55%) after a mean delay of 11 ± 9 days. Intraoperative diagnosis of IUI was significantly associated with shorter length of stay (21 ± 22 days vs. 34 ± 22 days, p < 0.0001), lower rates of postoperative hydronephrosis (2% vs. 10%, p = 0.04), anastomotic complication (7% vs. 22.5%, p = 0.002) and thromboembolic event (0% vs. 6%, p = 0.02) than postoperative diagnosis of IUI. Delayed chemotherapy because of IUI was reported in 27% of patients. At the end of the follow-up [3 ± 2.6 years (1 month-13 years)], 72 patients presented with urological sequalae (36%). Six patients (3%) required a nephrectomy. CONCLUSION: IUI during colorectal surgery has few consequences for the patients if recognized early. Long-term urological sequelae can occur in a third of patients. IUI may affect oncological outcomes in colorectal surgery by delaying adjuvant chemotherapy, especially when the ureteral injury is not diagnosed peroperatively.

International standardization and optimization group for intersphincteric resection (ISOG-ISR): modified Delphi consensus on anatomy, definition, indication, surgical technique, specimen description and functional outcome.

AIM: Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an oncologically complex operation for very low-lying rectal cancers. Yet, definition, anatomical description, operative indications and operative approaches to ISR are not standardized. The aim of this study was to standardize the definition of ISR by reaching international consensus from the experts in the field. This standardization will allow meaningful comparison in the literature in the future. METHOD: A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol. RESULTS: Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements. CONCLUSION: This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

AIM: The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR. METHOD: Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed. RESULTS: Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%). CONCLUSION: The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma.

Benchmarks in colorectal surgery: multinational study to define quality thresholds in high and low anterior resection.

BACKGROUND: Benchmark comparisons in surgery allow identification of gaps in the quality of care provided. The aim of this study was to determine quality thresholds for high (HAR) and low (LAR) anterior resections in colorectal cancer surgery by applying the concept of benchmarking. METHODS: This 5-year multinational retrospective study included patients who underwent anterior resection for cancer in 19 high-volume centres on five continents. Benchmarks were defined for 11 relevant postoperative variables at discharge, 3 months, and 6 months (for LAR). Benchmarks were calculated for two separate cohorts: patients without (ideal) and those with (non-ideal) outcome-relevant co-morbidities. Benchmark cut-offs were defined as the 75th percentile of each centre's median value. RESULTS: A total of 3903 patients who underwent HAR and 3726 who had LAR for cancer were analysed. After 3 months' follow-up, the mortality benchmark in HAR for ideal and non-ideal patients was 0.0 versus 3.0 per cent, and in LAR it was 0.0 versus 2.2 per cent. Benchmark results for anastomotic leakage were 5.0 versus 6.9 per cent for HAR, and 13.6 versus 11.8 per cent for LAR. The overall morbidity benchmark in HAR was a Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) score of 8.6 versus 14.7, and that for LAR was CCI® score 11.9 versus 18.3. CONCLUSION: Regular comparison of individual-surgeon or -unit outcome data against benchmark thresholds may identify gaps in care quality that can improve patient outcome.

Endovascular revascularization of acute arterial mesenteric ischemia: report of a 3-year experience from an intestinal stroke center unit.

OBJECTIVE: To report the 3-year experience of endovascular revascularization of acute arterial mesenteric ischemia (AMI) from an intestinal stroke center unit (ISCU). METHOD: All data from patients admitted to the ISCU between January 2016 and January 2019 for arterial AMI who underwent endovascular recanalization were prospectively acquired and retrospectively analyzed. Patient demographics, clinical and laboratory characteristics at presentation, and CT scans were reviewed. The type (thrombolysis, thrombectomy, stenting) and the outcome of endovascular procedures (technical success or failure, complications) were noted. Care pathways were described focusing on post-procedural treatments (surgical revascularization, bowel resection) and the mortality rate was evaluated in subgroups. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (34 men [59%], mean 69 ± 29 years) were included. Endovascular revascularization was technically successful in 51/58 (88%) patients, and 10 (17%) patients had post-procedural complications. Stenting and in situ thrombolysis were performed in most patients (n = 33 and n = 19, respectively). Thirty-two patients (55%) were recurrence-free and required no further treatment after the procedure, while 9 (16%), 5 (9%), and 5 (9%) patients underwent 2nd-line bowel resection, surgical revascularization, or both. Overall, 46 (79%), 45 (78%), and 34 patients (63%) were alive at 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years. No significant difference in survival was found in care pathways or baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Endovascular revascularization is highly feasible for the treatment of arterial AMI, and is associated with an acceptable rate of complications. Results of endovascular revascularization shall only be interpreted as part of a multidisciplinary patient management strategy. KEY POINTS: • Endovascular revascularization is highly feasible for the treatment of arterial AMI, and is associated with an acceptable rate of complications. • Several techniques are available to perform endovascular revascularization, and their use depends on the cause, the location, and the quality of underlying arteries of patients. • Results of endovascular revascularization shall only be interpreted in relation to its role in an integrated multidisciplinary and patient management strategy.

Colonic involvement in acute mesenteric ischemia: prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of colonic involvement in patients with acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI). METHODS: CT scans from a prospective cohort of 114 AMI patients treated in an intestinal stroke center between 2009 and 2018 were blindly reviewed by two radiologists. Colon involvement was defined on CT scan by the presence of at least one of the following CT colonic features: wall thickening, pneumatosis, decreased wall enhancement, dilatation, or perforation. In addition, the clinical, biological, and radiological characteristics of patients with and without colonic involvement were compared to identify risk factors for colonic involvement on CT and its impact on morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Colonic involvement was identified in 32/114 (28%) patients with AMI, the right colon being more frequently involved (n = 29/32, 91%). Wall thickening (n = 27/32) was the most common CT finding. Occlusion of the inferior mesenteric artery was the only statistically significant risk factor for colonic involvement (35% vs. 15%, p = 0.02). Patients with colonic involvement on CT vs. those without had more frequently transmural colonic necrosis (13% vs. 0%, p = 0.006), short bowel syndrome (16% vs. 4%, p = 0.04), need for long-term parenteral support (19% vs. 5%, p = 0.03), and death during follow-up (22% vs. 10%, p = 0.03). DISCUSSION: In patients with AMI, colonic involvement is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and should be carefully searched for during initial CT scan assessment. KEY POINTS: • In a prospective cohort of acute mesenteric ischemia patients from an intestinal stroke center, 28% had an associated colonic involvement on CT. • Colonic involvement on CT most commonly affected the right colon, and the occlusion of the inferior mesenteric artery was the only risk factor. • Colonic involvement on CT was associated with increased morbidity and mortality and should be carefully searched for during initial CT scan assessment.

What Is the Optimal Elective Colectomy for Splenic Flexure Cancer: End of the Debate? A Multicenter Study From the GRECCAR Group With a Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal elective colectomy in patients with splenic flexure tumor is debated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare splenic flexure colectomy, left hemicolectomy, and subtotal colectomy for perioperative, histological, and survival outcomes in this setting. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor who underwent elective colectomy were included. PATIENTS: Between 2006 and 2014, 313 consecutive patients were operated on in 15 French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery centers. INTERVENTIONS: Propensity score weighting was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, quality of surgical resection, overall postoperative morbidity, surgical postoperative morbidity, and rate of anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: The most performed surgery was splenic flexure colectomy (59%), followed by subtotal colectomy (23%) and left hemicolectomy (18%). Subtotal colectomy was more often performed by laparotomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (93% vs 61% vs 56%, p < 0.0001), and was associated with a longer operative time (260 minutes (120-460) vs 180 minutes (68-440) vs 217 minutes (149-480), p < 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity was similar between the 3 groups, but the median length of hospital stay was significantly longer after subtotal colectomy (13 days (5-56) vs 10 (4-175) vs 9 (4-55), p = 0.0007). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher after subtotal colectomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (24 (8-90) vs 15 (1-81) vs 16 (3-52), p < 0.0001). The rate of stage III disease and the number of patients treated by adjuvant chemotherapy were similar between the 3 groups. There was no difference in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival between the 3 procedures. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: In the elective setting, splenic flexure colectomy is safe and oncologically adequate for patients with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor. However, given the oncological clearance after splenic flexure colectomy, it seems that the debate is not completely closed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703. CUL ES LA COLECTOMA ELECTIVA PTIMA PARA EL CNCER DE NGULO ESPLNICO FIN DEL DEBATE UN ESTUDIO MULTICNTRICO DEL GRUPO GRECCAR CON UN ANLISIS DE PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN: ANTECEDENTES:La colectomía electiva óptima en pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico continua en debate.OBJETIVO:Comparar la colectomía de ángulo esplénico, hemicolectomía izquierda y colectomía subtotal para los resultados perioperatorios, histológicos y de supervivencia en este escenario.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico.ESCENARIO:Se incluyeron pacientes diagnosticados de tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos que se sometieron a colectomía electiva.PACIENTES:Entre 2006 y 2014, 313 pacientes consecutivos fueron intervenidos en 15 centros GRECCAR.INTERVENCIONES:Se realizó una ponderación del puntaje de propensión para comparar los resultados a corto y largo plazo.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El criterio de valoración principal fue la supervivencia libre de enfermedad. Los criterios de valoración secundarios incluyeron la supervivencia general, la calidad de la resección quirúrgica, la morbilidad posoperatoria general, la morbilidad posoperatoria quirúrgica y la tasa de fuga anastomótica.RESULTADOS:La cirugía más realizada fue la colectomía del ángulo esplénico (59%), seguida de la colectomía subtotal (23%) y la hemicolectomía izquierda (18%). La colectomía subtotal se realizó con mayor frecuencia mediante laparotomía en comparación con la colectomía de ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (93% frente a 61% frente a 56%, p <0.0001), y se asoció con un tiempo quirúrgico más prolongado (260 min [120-460] frente a 180 min [68-440] frente a 217 min [149-480], p <0.0001). La morbilidad posoperatoria fue similar entre los tres grupos, pero la duración media de la estancia hospitalaria fue significativamente más prolongada después de la colectomía subtotal (13 días [5-56] frente a 10 [4-175] frente a 9 [4-55], p = 0.0007). La mediana del número de ganglios linfáticos extraídos fue significativamente mayor después de la colectomía subtotal en comparación con la colectomía del ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (24 [8-90] frente a 15 [1-81] frente a 16 [3-52], p <0.0001). La tasa de enfermedad en estadio III y el número de pacientes tratados con quimioterapia adyuvante fueron similares entre los 3 grupos. No hubo diferencias en términos de supervivencia libre de enfermedad y supervivencia general entre los 3 procedimientos.LIMITACIONES:El estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:En un escenario electivo, la colectomía del ángulo esplénico es segura y oncológicamente adecuada para pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos. Sin embargo, dado el aclaramiento oncológico tras la colectomía del ángulo esplénico, parece que el debate no está completamente cerrado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703.

Systematic C-reactive protein monitoring reduces hospital stay after laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. A comparative study of 158 consecutive patients with ulcerative colitis.

AIM: C-reactive protein (CRP) is a common biomarker of inflammation which has largely been used to predict the risk of postoperative septic complications after colorectal surgery. However, no data exist concerning its potential benefit after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis (UC). The aim of this study was to evaluate a CRP-driven monitoring discharge strategy after laparoscopic IPAA for UC. METHODS: Since 2012, 158 patients undergoing a laparoscopic IPAA for UC have been included: 66 patients (CRP group) operated since 2016 had a CRP-driven monitoring discharge on postoperative day 5 (POD 5) and were discharged on POD 6 if CRP < 100 mg/L; these patients were matched (according to age, gender, body mass index, IPAA in two or three steps) to 92 patients operated between 2012 and 2016 without any CRP monitoring (control group). RESULTS: Median length of hospital stay was shorter in the CRP than the control group (7 vs. 9 days; P < 0.001) and discharge on POD 6 occurred more frequently in the CRP group (47% vs. 7%, P < 0.001). No difference was observed between the two groups concerning overall morbidity (P = 0.980), surgical site infection (P = 0.554), Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIa morbidity (P = 0.523), unplanned rehospitalization (P = 0.734) and 30-day reoperation (P = 0.240). CONCLUSION: CRP-driven monitoring discharge strategy after laparoscopic IPAA for UC is associated with a significant reduction in length of hospital stay, without increasing morbidity, reoperation or rehospitalization rates.

Delayed pull-through coloanal anastomosis without temporary stoma: an alternative to the standard manual side-to-end coloanal anastomosis with temporary stoma? A comparative study in 223 patients with low rectal cancer.

AIM: After total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer, current guideline recommendations for sphincter-saving surgery are to perform a side-to-end manual coloanal anastomosis (CAA) (or with J-pouch) with a temporary stoma. Our study aimed to evaluate if delayed pull-through coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) without a temporary stoma could represent a safe alternative in low rectal cancer. METHOD: From 2003 to 2020, 223 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer undergoing TME were compared: CAA and diverting stoma (n = 190) versus DCAA without stoma (n = 33). RESULTS: Overall 3-month and severe (Dindo ≥ IIIb) morbidity rates were similar in CAA versus DCAA groups: 34% (65/190) vs. 36% (12/33) and 2.6% (5/190) vs. 3% (1/33), respectively. In the DCAA group, only one patient (3%) underwent reoperation (Hartmann's procedure) at day 3 due to colon necrosis. The anastomotic leakage rate (both clinical and radiological) was significantly higher after CAA than DCAA: 28% (53/190) vs. 3% (1/33; p = 0.00138). Failure of the procedure (with return to stoma) was observed in 8% (15/190) vs. 6% (2/33) of patients after CAA and DCAA respectively (not significant). CONCLUSION: Our comparative study suggested that in patients with low rectal cancer, DCAA without a temporary stoma could represent an interesting alternative to the actual recommended CAA with a temporary ileostomy. DCAA could offer two major advantages over CAA: a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leakage and absence of a temporary stoma and its potential complications (rehospitalization, dehydration, wound hernia after stoma closure).

Postoperative rectovaginal fistula: Can colonic pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis avoid the need for definitive stoma? An experience of 28 consecutives cases.

AIM: Management of rectovaginal fistula (RVF) remains a challenge, especially in cases of postoperative RVF as they are often large and surrounded by inflammatory and fibrotic tissue, making local repair difficult or even impossible. In this situation, colonic pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) could be an interesting option. The aim of this study was to assess the results of DCAA for RVF observed after rectal surgery. METHODS: All patients who underwent DCAA for RVF were reviewed. Success was defined as a patient without stoma and without any symptoms of recurrent RVF at the end of follow-up. RESULTS: From January 2010 to December 2020, 28 DCAA were performed for RVF after rectal surgery for rectal cancer (n = 21) or endometriosis (n = 7). Ten patients (36%) had at least one previous local procedure before DCAA. DCAA was associated with temporary ileostomy in 22/28 cases (79%). After a mean follow-up of 23 ± 23 (2-82) months, the success rate was 86% (24/28): three patients (11%) required a definitive stoma because of poor functional results (n = 1), chronic pelvic sepsis with anastomotic leakage (n = 1) or stoma reversal refused (n = 1). Another patient (3%) presented with recurrence of RVF, 26 months after DCAA. Although not significant, the success rate was higher in cases of DCAA with diverting stoma (20/22, 91%) than without (4/6, 67%) (p = 0.191). CONCLUSION: In cases of postoperative RVF, DCAA is a safe option which can avoid definitive stoma in the great majority of the patients. Concomitant use of a temporary stoma appears to slightly increase the success rate.

Is it safe to perform an anastomosis for rectal cancer after prostate cancer? A multicentre study of 126 patients from the GRECCAR group.

AIM: To determine the safety of performing an anastomosis after rectal cancer (RC) resection in patients with a previously treated prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: Patients with a previously treated PC who underwent rectal resection from 2008 to 2018 were retrospectively included. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent rectal resection with anastomosis (restorative surgery, RS+ group) and those with a definitive stoma (RS- group). In the RS+ group, anastomotic leak (AL) rates were assessed according to the type of reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent rectal surgery for mid-low RC after a previous PC treated by radiotherapy (RT) and/or radical prostatectomy. Overall, 80 patients (63%) underwent a RS and 46 patients (37%) underwent rectal surgery with a definitive stoma. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of intraoperative data, except for the type of resection with more multivisceral resection in the RS- group (p < 0.01). In the RS+group, a diverting stoma was performed in 74% of cases. No difference between the two groups in terms of overall morbidity was found. In the RS+group (n = 80), 17 patients (21%) experienced AL. Of these, none was observed when delayed coloanal anastomosis was performed (p = 0.16). Long-term permanent stoma in the RS+ group was 16% (n = 13). CONCLUSION: Restorative surgery after resection for RC in patients with a previous history of RT and/or radical prostatectomy for PC is safe without additional morbidity. In selected patients for restorative surgery, performing delayed coloanal anastomosis may represent a promising option.