Comparative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer at High Risk of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin.

BACKGROUND: Concerns persist regarding the effectiveness of robotic proctectomy when compared with open proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer with a high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of surrogate cancer outcomes following robotic versus open proctectomy in this subpopulation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three academic hospitals (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Rochester) through the Mayo Data Explorer platform. PATIENTS: Patients at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement were selected based on the magnetic resonance imaging-based definition from Mercury I and II trials. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (≤1 mm), mesorectal grading, rate of distal margin involvement. RESULTS: Out of 413 patients, 125 (30%) underwent open and 288 (70%) robotic proctectomy. Open proctectomy was significantly associated with a greater proportion of cT4 tumors (39.3% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.021), multivisceral/concomitant resections (40.8% vs. 18.4%, p < 0.001) and less frequent total neoadjuvant therapy use (17.1% vs. 47.1%, p = 0.001). Robotic proctectomy was less commonly associated with pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (7.3% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.002), including after adjustment for cT stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and multivisceral resection (OR 0.326, 95% CI, 0.157-0.670, p = 0.002). Propensity score-matching on 66 patients per group and related multivariable analysis no longer indicated any reduction of circumferential positive margin rate associated with robotic surgery (p = 0.86 and p = 0.18). Mesorectal grading was comparable (incomplete mesorectum in 6% RP patients vs. 11.8% OP patients, p = 0.327). All cases had negative distal resection margins. LIMITATION: Retrospective design. CONCLUSION: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement, robotic proctectomy is an effective approach and could be pursued when technically possible as an alternative to open proctectomy. See Video Abstract.

Trends and Distribution of IPAAs in the United States: Becoming Harder to Find in Colon and Rectal Surgery Residency Training?

BACKGROUND: There has been concern among colon and rectal surgery residency programs in the United States that IPAA procedures have been decreasing, but evidence is limited. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the number of IPAAs performed by colon and rectal surgery residents in the United States and analyze the distribution of these cases on a national level. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTINGS: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Case Log National Data Reports were used to evaluate the number of IPAAs performed by residents from 2005 to 2021. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to identify all patients undergoing these procedures from 2005 to 2019. PATIENTS: All IPAA procedures regardless of indication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of IPAAs performed by residents yearly. The secondary outcome was the national distribution of these procedures. RESULTS: Among colon and rectal surgery residents, case log data revealed an increase in mean and total number of IPAAs from 2005 to 2013, followed by a decline in both metrics after 2013. Despite the decrease, the mean number of cases per resident remained fewer than 6 between 2011 and 2021. A weighted national estimate of 48,532 IPAA patients were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. A significant decrease was noted in the number of IPAAs after 2015 that persisted through 2019. There was a significant decrease in rural and urban nonteaching hospitals (from 2.1% to 1.6% and 25.6% to 4.3%, respectively; p < 0.001) and an increase in urbanteaching hospitals (from 72.4% to 94.1%; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Nonrandomized retrospective study design. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the recent increase in the percentage of IPAAs performed at urban academic centers, there has been a decrease in cases performed by colon and rectal surgery residents. This can have significant implications for residents who graduate without adequate experience in performing this complex procedure independently, as well as training programs that may face challenges with maintaining accreditation. See Video Abstract. TENDENCIAS Y DISTRIBUCIN DE LA ANASTOMOSIS ANAL CON BOLSA ILEAL EN LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS SE EST VOLVIENDO MS DIFCIL DE ENCONTRAR EN LA CAPACITACIN DE RESIDENCIA EN CIRUGA DE COLON Y RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:Ha habido preocupación entre los programas de capacitación de residencia en cirugía de colon y recto en los Estados Unidos porque los procedimientos de anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal han estado disminuyendo; sin embargo, la evidencia es limitada.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el número de anastomosis anales con bolsa ileal realizadas por residentes de cirugía de colon y recto en los Estados Unidos y examinar la distribución de estos casos a nivel nacional.DISEÑO:Retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Se utilizaron los informes de datos nacionales del registro de casos de educación médica de posgrado del Consejo de Acreditación para examinar el número de anastomosis anales con bolsa ileal realizadas por residentes de 2005 a 2021. Se utilizó la base de datos de muestra nacional de pacientes hospitalizados para identificar a todos los pacientes sometidos a estos procedimientos de 2005 a 2019.PACIENTES:Todos los procedimientos de anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal independientemente de la indicación.MEDIDA DE RESULTADO PRINCIPAL:El resultado primario es el número de anastomosis anales con bolsa ileal realizadas por los residentes anualmente. El resultado secundario es la distribución nacional de estos procedimientos.RESULTADOS:Entre los residentes de cirugía de colon y recto, los datos de los registros de casos revelaron un aumento en el número medio y total de anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal de 2005 a 2013, seguido de una disminución en ambas métricas después de 2013. A pesar de la disminución, el número medio de casos por El residente permaneció >6 entre 2011 y 2021. Se identificó una estimación nacional ponderada de 48 532 pacientes con anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal en la base de datos de la Muestra Nacional de Pacientes Hospitalizados. Se observó una disminución significativa en el número de anastomosis anales con bolsa ileal después de 2015 que persistió hasta 2019. Hubo una disminución significativa en los hospitales no docentes rurales y urbanos (del 2,1% al 1,6% y del 25,6% al 4,3% respectivamente, p < 0,001) y un aumento en los hospitales universitarios urbanos (del 72,4% al 94,1%, p < 0,001).LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo no aleatorizado.CONCLUSIÓN:A pesar del reciente aumento en el porcentaje de anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal realizadas en centros académicos urbanos, ha habido una disminución en los casos realizados por residentes de cirugía de colon y recto. Esto puede tener implicaciones significativas para los residentes que se gradúan sin la experiencia adecuada en la realización de este complejo procedimiento de forma independiente, así como para los programas de capacitación que pueden enfrentar desafíos para mantener la acreditación. (Traduccion-AI-generated).

Room for Improvement: The Impact of Guideline-Recommended Extended Thromboprophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Surgery for Colorectal and Anal Cancer at a Tertiary Referral Center.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism occurs in approximately 2% of patients undergoing abdominal and pelvic surgery for cancers of the colon, rectum, and anus and is considered preventable. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons recommends extended prophylaxis in high-risk patients, but there is low adherence to the guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the impact of venous thromboembolism risk-guided prophylaxis in patients undergoing elective abdominal and pelvic surgeries for colorectal and anal cancers from 2016 to 2021. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis. SETTING: The study was conducted at a multisite tertiary referral academic health care system. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent elective abdominal or pelvic surgery for colon, rectal, or anal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receipt of Caprini-guided venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, 90-day postoperative rate of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism, and bleeding events. RESULTS: A total of 3504 patients underwent elective operations, of whom 2224 (63%) received appropriate thromboprophylaxis in the inpatient setting. In the postdischarged cohort of 2769 patients, only 2% received appropriate thromboprophylaxis and no thromboembolic events were observed. In the group receiving inappropriate thromboprophylaxis, at 90 days postdischarge, the deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and venous thromboembolism rates were 0.60%, 0.40%, and 0.88%, respectively. Postoperative bleeding was not different between the 2 groups. LIMITATIONS: Limitations to our study include its retrospective nature, use of aggregated electronic medical records, and single health care system experience. CONCLUSION: Most patients in our health care system undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancers of the colon, rectum, and anus were discharged without appropriate Caprini-guided venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Risk-guided prophylaxis was associated with decreased rates of inhospital and postdischarge venous thromboembolism without increased bleeding complications. See Video Abstract . MARGEN DE MEJORA EL IMPACTO DE LA TROMBOPROFILAXIS RECOMENDADA POR LAS DIRECTRICES EN PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A CIRUGA ABDOMINAL POR CNCER COLORRECTAL Y ANAL EN UN CENTRO DE REFERENCIA TERCIARIO: ANTECEDENTES:El tromboembolismo venoso ocurre en aproximadamente el 2% de los pacientes sometidos a cirugía abdominal y pélvica por cánceres de colon, recto y ano, y se considera prevenible. La Sociedad Estadounidense de Cirujanos de Colon y Recto recomienda una profilaxis prolongada en pacientes de alto riesgo, pero el cumplimiento de las directrices es bajo.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar el impacto de la profilaxis guiada por el riesgo de tromboembolismo venoso (TEV) en pacientes sometidos a cirugías abdominales y pélvicas electivas por cáncer colorrectal y anal entre 2016 y 2021.DISEÑO:Este fue un análisis retrospectivo.AJUSTE:El estudio se llevó a cabo en un sistema de salud académico de referencia terciaria de múltiples sitios.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a cirugía abdominal o pélvica electiva por cáncer de colon, recto o ano.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Recepción de profilaxis de tromboembolismo venoso guiada por Caprini, tasa postoperatoria de 90 días de trombosis venosa profunda, embolia pulmonar, tromboembolismo venoso y eventos de sangrado.RESULTADOS:Un total de 3.504 pacientes se sometieron a operaciones electivas, de los cuales 2.224 (63%) recibieron tromboprofilaxis adecuada en el ámbito hospitalario. En el cohorte de 2.769 pacientes después del alta, solo el 2% recibió tromboprofilaxis adecuada en la que no se observaron eventos tromboembólicos. En el grupo que recibió tromboprofilaxis inadecuada, a los 90 días después del alta, las tasas de trombosis venosa profunda, embolia pulmonar y tromboembolia venosa fueron del 0,60%, 0,40% y 0,88%, respectivamente. El sangrado posoperatorio no fue diferente entre los dos grupos.LIMITACIONES:Las limitaciones de nuestro estudio incluyen su naturaleza retrospectiva, el uso de registros médicos electrónicos agregados y la experiencia de un solo sistema de atención médica.CONCLUSIÓN:La mayoría de los pacientes en nuestro sistema de salud sometidos a cirugía abdominal o pélvica por cánceres de colon, recto y ano fueron dados de alta sin una profilaxis adecuada de TEV guiada por Caprini. La profilaxis guiada por el riesgo se asoció con menores tasas de tromboembolismo venoso hospitalario y dado de alta sin un aumento de las complicaciones de sangrado. (Traducción-Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez ).