Local Regrowth and the Risk of Distant Metastases Among Patients Undergoing Watch-and-Wait for Rectal Cancer: What Is the Best Control Group? Multicenter Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of rectal cancer patients who achieve a clinical complete response may develop local regrowth. Although salvage appears to provide appropriate local control, the risk of distant metastases is less known. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of distant metastases between patients who achieve a clinical complete response (watch-and-wait strategy) and subsequent local regrowth and patients managed by surgery after chemoradiation. DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter cohort study. SETTINGS: This study used data of patients from 3 institutions who were treated between 1993 and 2019. PATIENTS: Patients with initial clinical complete response (after neoadjuvant therapy) followed by local regrowth and patients with near-complete pathological response (≤10%) after straightforward surgery after chemoradiation were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for distant metastases. Kaplan-Meier curves were created (log-rank test) to compare survival outcomes. Analyses were performed using time zero as last day of radiation therapy or as date of salvage resection in the local regrowth group. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 79 patients with local regrowth developed distant metastases, whereas only 10 of 74 after upfront total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy ( p = 0.04). Local regrowth and final pathology (ypT3-4) were the only independent risk factors associated with distant metastases. When using date of salvage resection as time zero, distant metastases-free survival rates were significantly inferior for patients with local regrowth (70% vs 86%; p = 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Small number of patients, many neoadjuvant therapies, and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing watch-and-wait strategy who develop local regrowth are at higher risk for development of distant metastases compared to patients with near-complete pathological response managed by upfront surgery after chemoradiation. See Video Abstract. NUEVO CRECIMIENTO LOCAL Y EL RIESGO DE METSTASIS A DISTANCIA ENTRE PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A OBSERVACIN Y ESPERA POR CNCER DE RECTO CUL ES EL MEJOR GRUPO DE CONTROL ESTUDIO RETROSPECTIVO MUTICNTRICO: ANTECEDENTES:Una proporción de pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa pueden desarrollar un nuevo crecimiento local. Si bien el rescate parece proporcionar un control local apropiado, el riesgo de metástasis a distancia es menos conocido.OBJETIVO:Comparar el riesgo de metástasis a distancia entre los pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa (estrategia de observación y espera) y el nuevo crecimiento local posterior con los pacientes tratados con cirugía después de la quimiorradiación.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte multicéntrico retrospectivo.CONFIGURACIÓN:Este estudio utilizó datos de pacientes de 3 instituciones que fueron tratados entre 1993 y 2019.PACIENTES:Pacientes con respuesta clínica completa inicial (después de la terapia neoadyuvante) seguida de crecimiento local nuevo y pacientes con respuesta patológica casi completa (≤10 %) después de cirugía directa después de quimiorradiación.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se realizó un análisis univariante/multivariante para identificar los factores de riesgo de metástasis a distancia. Se crearon curvas de Kaplan-Meier (prueba de rango logarítmico) para comparar los resultados de supervivencia. El análisis se realizó utilizando el tiempo cero como último día de radioterapia (1) o como fecha de resección de rescate (2) en el grupo de recrecimiento local.RESULTADOS:Veintiuno de 79 pacientes con recrecimiento local desarrollaron metástasis a distancia, mientras que solo 10 de 74 después de una cirugía sencilla (p = 0,04). El recrecimiento local y la patología final (ypT3-4) fueron los únicos factores de riesgo independientes asociados con las metástasis a distancia. Cuando se utilizó la fecha de la resección de rescate como tiempo cero, las tasas de supervivencia sin metástasis a distancia fueron significativamente inferiores para los pacientes con recrecimiento local (70 frente a 86 %; p = 0,01).LIMITACIONES:Pequeño número de pacientes, muchas terapias neoadyuvantes, sesgo de selección.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes sometidos a observación y espera que desarrollan un nuevo crecimiento local tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar metástasis a distancia en comparación con los pacientes con una respuesta patológica casi completa manejados con cirugía por adelantado después de la quimiorradiación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

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 ).

Short-term outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery: a propensity score match study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery offers improved short-term outcomes over open surgery but can be technically challenging. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used for IPAA surgery, but there is limited evidence supporting its use. This study aims to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic IPAA procedures. METHODS: All consecutive patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic IPAA surgery at 3 centres, from 3 countries, between 2008 and 2019 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for gender, previous abdominal surgery, ASA grade (I, II vs III, IV) and procedure performed (proctocolectomy vs completion proctectomy). Their short-term outcomes were examined. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were identified (73 laparoscopic, 16 robotic). The 16 patients that received robotic surgery were matched with 15 laparoscopic patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated short-term outcomes. Length of stay trend was higher for laparoscopic surgery (9 vs 7 days, p = 0.072) CONCLUSION: Robotic IPAA surgery is safe and feasible and offers similar short-term outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Length of stay may be lower for robotic IPAA surgery, but further larger scale studies are required in order to demonstrate this.

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Outcomes Improved After National Training Program (LAPCO) for Specialists in England.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of The National Training Program for Lapco on the rate of laparoscopic surgery and clinical outcomes of cases performed by Lapco surgeons after completion of training. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lapco provided competency-based supervised clinical training for specialist colorectal surgeons in England. METHODS: We compared the rate of laparoscopic surgery, mortality, and morbidity for colorectal cancer resections by Lapco delegates and non-Lapco surgeons in 3-year periods preceding and following Lapco using difference in differences analysis. The changes in the rate of post-Lapco laparoscopic surgery with the Lapco sign-off competency assessment and in-training global assessment scores were examined using risk-adjusted cumulative sum to determine their predictive clinical validity with predefined competent scores of 3 and 5 respectively. RESULTS: One hundred eight Lapco delegates performed 4586 elective colo-rectal resections pre-Lapco and 5115 post-Lapco while non-Lapco surgeons performed 72,930 matched cases. Lapco delegates had a 37.8% increase in laparoscopic surgery which was greater than non-Lapco surgeons by 20.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 18.5-23.3, P < 0.001) with a relative decrease in 30-day mortality by -1.6% (95% CI, -3.4 to -0.2, P = 0.039) and 90-day mortality by -2.3% (95% CI, -4.3 to -0.4, P = 0.018). The change point of risk-adjusted cumulative sum was 3.12 for competency assessment tool and 4.74 for global assessment score whereas laparoscopic rate increased from 44% to 66% and 40% to 56%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lapco increased the rate of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and reduced mortality and morbidity in England. In-training competency assessment tools predicted clinical performance after training.

Choice of specimen's extraction site affects wound morbidity in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The choice for an ideal site of specimen extraction following laparoscopic colorectal surgery remains debatable. However, midline incision (MI) is usually employed for right and left-sided colonic resections while left iliac fossa or suprapubic transverse incision (STI) were reserved for sigmoid and rectal cancer resections. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and incisional hernia (IH) in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer and specimen extraction via MI or STI. METHOD: Prospectively collected data of elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections between January 2017 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. MI was employed for right and left-sided colonic resections while STI was used for sigmoid and rectal resections. SSI is defined according to the US CDC criteria. IH was diagnosed clinically and confirmed by CT scan at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal resections. MI was used in 90 patients while 78 patients had STI as an extraction site. Demographic and preoperative data is similar for two groups. The rate of IH was 13.3% for MI and 0% in the STI (p = 0.001). SSI was seen in 16.7% of MI vs 11.5% of STI (p = 0.34). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that the choice of extraction site is associated with statistically significant higher incisional hernia rate. CONCLUSION: MI for specimen extraction is associated with higher incidence of both SSI and IH. The choice of incision for extraction site is an independent predicative factor for significantly higher IH and increased SSI rates.

Supervised training of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections does not adversely affect short- and long-term outcomes: a Propensity-score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Supervised training of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery to fellows and consultants (trainees) may raise doubts regarding safety and oncological adequacy. This study investigated these concerns by comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of matched supervised training cases to cases performed by the trainer himself. METHODS: A prospective database was analysed retrospectively. All elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections in curative intent of adult patients (≥ 18 years) which were performed (non-training cases) or supervised to trainees (training cases) by a single laparoscopic expert surgeon (trainer) were identified. All trainees were specialist surgeons in training for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Supervised training was standardised. Training cases were 1:1 propensity-score matched to non-training cases using age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, tumour site (rectum, left and right colon) and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumour stage. The resulting groups were analysed for both short- (operative, oncological, complications) and long-term (time to recurrence, overall and disease-free survival) outcomes. RESULTS: From 10/2006 to 2/2016, a total of 675 resections met the inclusion criteria, of which 95 were training cases. These resections were matched to 95 non-training cases. None of the matched covariates exhibited an imbalance greater than 0.25 (│d│>0.25). There were no significant differences in short- (length of procedure, conversion rate, blood loss, postoperative complications, R0 resections, lymph node harvest) and long-term outcomes. When comparing training cases to non-training cases, 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 71.6% (62.4-82.2) versus 81.9% (74.2-90.4) and 70.0% (60.8-80.6) versus 73.6% (64.9-83.3), respectively (not significant). The corresponding hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals, p) were 0.57 (0.32-1.02, p = 0.057) and 0.87 (0.51-1.48, p = 0.61), respectively (univariate Cox proportional hazard model). CONCLUSIONS: Standardised supervised training of laparoscopic colorectal cancer procedures to specialist surgeons may not adversely impact short- and long-term outcomes. This result may also apply to newer surgical techniques as long as standardised teaching methods are followed.

A meta-analysis of the role of diverting ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leak is a feared complication of rectal cancer surgery. A diverting stoma is believed to act as a safety mechanism against this undesirable outcome. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the role of loop ileostomy in the prevention of this complication. METHODS: The Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anastomotic complications after rectal cancer surgery in the presence or absence of diverting ileostomy. The need for reoperation and postoperative complications were also analysed. The length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss and operating time were analysed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A significantly higher number of anastomotic leaks was detected in patients with no diverting ileostomies than in those with diversion (odds ratio (OR) 0.292 and 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.177-0.481), and more patients required reoperations in this group (OR 0.219 and 95% CI 0.114-0.422). The rate of complications other than anastomotic leak was significantly higher in patients with diverting ileostomies than in those without (OR 3.337 and 95% CI of 1.570-7.093). The operating time was longer in the ileostomy group than in the no ileostomy group (P 0.001), but no significant differences in the intraoperative blood loss or postoperative hospital stay length were observed between the two groups(P 0.199 and 0.191 respectively). CONCLUSION: A lower leak rate in the presence of diverting ileostomy is supported by relatively weak evidence. While mitigating the consequences of leakage, diverting ileostomies lead to numerous other complications. High-quality RCTs are needed before routine ileostomy diversions can be recommended after rectal cancer surgery.

Meta-analysis of biological mesh reconstruction versus primary perineal closure after abdominoperineal excision of rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of rectal cancer has been proposed to achieve better oncological outcomes. The resultant wide perineal wound, however, presents a challenge for primary closure and subsequent wound healing. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of primary perineal closure with those of biological mesh reconstruction. METHODS: The Medline and Embase search was performed for the publications comparing primary perineal closure to biological mesh reconstruction. Early perineal wound complications (seroma, infection, dehiscence) and late perineal wound complications (perineal hernia, chronic pain, and chronic sinus) were analyzed as primary endpoints. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay were compared as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the overall early wound complications after primary closure or biological mesh reconstruction (odds ratio (OR) of 0.575 with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.241 to 1.373 and a P value of 0.213). The incidence of perineal hernia after 1 year was significantly high after primary closure of the perineal wounds (OR of 0.400 with 95% CI of 0.240 to 0.665 and a P value of 0.001). No significant differences were observed among other early and late perineal wound complications. The operation time and hospital stay were shorter after primary perineal closure (p 0.001). CONCLUSION: A lower incidence of perineal hernia and comparable early perineal wound complications after biological mesh reconstruction show a relative superiority over primary closure. More randomized studies are required before a routine biological mesh reconstruction can be recommended for closure of perineal wounds after ELAPE.

Short-term clinical outcomes of a European training programme for robotic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Despite there being a considerable amount of published studies on robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) over the last few years, there is a lack of evidence regarding RCS training pathways. This study examines the short-term clinical outcomes of an international RCS training programme (the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery-EARCS). METHODS: Consecutive cases from 26 European colorectal units who conducted RCS between 2014 and 2018 were included in this study. The baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes of cases performed by EARCS delegates during training were analysed and compared with cases performed by EARCS graduates and proctors. RESULTS: Data from 1130 RCS procedures were collected and classified into three cohort groups (323 training, 626 graduates and 181 proctors). The training cases conversion rate was 2.2% and R1 resection rate was 1.5%. The three groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics with the exception of malignant cases and rectal resections performed. With the exception of operative time, blood loss and hospital stay (training vs. graduate vs. proctor: operative time 302, 265, 255 min, p < 0.001; blood loss 50, 50, 30 ml, p < 0.001; hospital stay 7, 6, 6 days, p = 0.003), all remaining short-term outcomes (conversion, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, complications, R1 resection and lymph node yield) were comparable between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal surgeons learning how to perform RCS under the EARCS-structured training pathway can safely achieve short-term clinical outcomes comparable to their trainers and overcome the learning process in a way that minimises patient harm.

Salvage Surgery With Organ Preservation for Patients With Local Regrowth After Watch and Wait: Is It Still Possible?

BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal cancer who achieve complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation have been managed nonoperatively. Thirty percent of these patients may develop a local regrowth, and salvage resection with radical surgery is usually recommended. However, selected patients could be offered additional organ preservation by local excision. We hypothesized that patients with baseline T2 who underwent neoadjuvant therapy (for the specific purpose of achieving a complete clinical response) were more likely to harbor recurrent disease at an earlier stage and amenable to organ preservation strategies (local excision) when compared with T3/T4 (undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation for oncologic reasons). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare patients with local regrowth requiring salvage resection according to their baseline stage. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients with nonmetastatic distal rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation. SETTINGS: The study included 2 independent tertiary centers with institutional watch-and-wait organ preservation programs. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with distal rectal cancer (cT2-4N1-2M0) managed by watch and wait and local regrowth from 2 institutions were included. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Final pathologic features and surgical and oncologic outcomes were compared according to baseline staging. RESULTS: A total of 73 of 257 patients experienced local regrowth. cT2 presented similar to ypT, ypN, R0, and abdominal perineal resection rates (p > 0.05) at the time of salvage when compared with cT3 to cT4. Patients with cT2 at baseline were more likely to undergo an organ preservation procedure for salvage (56.2% vs 26.5%; p = 0.03). Overall and disease-free survival after salvage were similar between groups irrespective of the type of surgery for the regrowth. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, small sample size, and possible inaccurate baseline staging. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with baseline cT2 rectal cancer had similar pathologic stage at the time of recurrence, these patients were more likely to continue an organ preservation pathway after local regrowth through transanal local excision when compared with cT3 to cT4. Despite differences in the use of radical salvage resection, there were no differences in oncologic outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B254. CIRUGÍA DE RESCATE CON PRESERVACIÓN DE ORGANO PARA PACIENTES CON RECIDIVA LOCAL LUEGO DE WATCH & WAIT: ¿SIGUE SIENDO POSIBLE?: Los pacientes con cáncer rectal que logran una respuesta clínica completa luego de la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante han sido tratados de forma no quirúrgica. El treinta por ciento de estos pacientes pueden desarrollar un nuevo crecimiento local y generalmente se recomienda la resección de rescate con cirugía radical. Sin embargo, en pacientes seleccionados se podría ofrecer la posibilidad de preservación de órgano mediante escisión local. Se formuló la hipótesis de que los pacientes con estadio clinico inicial T2 y sometidos a terapia neoadyuvante (con el propósito específico de lograr una respuesta clínica completa) tenían más probabilidades de presentar una recurrencia local en una etapa más temprana y suceptibles de estrategias de preservación de órgano (escisión local) en comparación con T3 / T4 (sometidos a nCRT por razones oncológicas).Comparar los pacientes con recidiva local que requirieron cirugia de rescate de acuerdo con su estadio inicial.Revisión retrospectiva de pacientes consecutivos con cáncer de recto distal no metastásico sometidos a quimiorradiación neoadyuvante.Dos centros terciarios independientes con programas institucionales de preservación de órgano - Watch & Wait.Pacientes consecutivos con cáncer rectal distal (cT2-4N1-2M0) manejados por Watch & Wait y recidiva local.Las características patológicas finales, los resultados quirúrgicos y oncológicos se compararon de acuerdo con la estadificación inicial.Un total de 73 de 257 pacientes presentaron recidiva local. cT2 presentaron similares ypT, ypN, R0 y tasas de resección abdominoperineal (p>0,05) en el momento del rescate en comparación con cT3-4.Los pacientes con cT2 de base tuvieron más probabilidades de someterse a un procedimiento de preservación de órgano durante el rescate (56,2% frente a 26,5%; p = 0,03). Supervivencia general y DFS después del rescate fueron similares entre los grupos, independientemente del tipo de cirugía para la recidiva.Estudio retrospectivo, tamaño de muestra pequeño, la posible estadificación basal inexacta.Aunque los pacientes con cáncer rectal cT2 de base presentaron estadio patologico similar en el momento de la recidiva, estos pacientes tuvieron más probabilidades de continuar una vía de preservación de órgano luego de una recidiva local a través de la escisión local transanal en comparación con cT3-4. A pesar de las diferencias en el uso de la resección radical de rescate, no hubo diferencias en los resultados oncológicos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B254.

Correction to: Results of laparoscopic resection in high-risk rectal cancer patients.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake on the co-author name.

Results of laparoscopic resection in high-risk rectal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Obesity, neoadjuvant-radiotherapy, tumour proximity to the anal verge and previous abdominal surgery are factors that might increase the intra-operative difficulty of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether patients with these 'high-risk' characteristics are subject to worse short- or long-term outcomes is debated. The aim of this study is to examine the short- and long-term clinical and oncological outcomes of patients receiving laparoscopic rectal surgery with any of these high-risk characteristics and compare them with patients that do not possess any of these high-risk features. METHODS: For the purpose of this study data from consecutive patients receiving laparoscopic rectal cancer resections between 2006 and 2016 from two centres were analysed. High-risk patients were defined as patients with either one of the following characteristics: BMI ≥ 30, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, tumour < 8 cm from the anal verge and previous abdominal surgery. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients were identified (227 high risk, 86 low risk). Short-term outcomes were similar between the two groups with the exception of blood loss and length of stay, which were higher in the high-risk group (10 vs 2.5 ml, p = 0.045; 7 vs 5 days, p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in 5-year overall survival (79.7% vs 79.8%, p = 0.757), disease-free survival (76.8% vs 69.3%, p = 0.175), distant disease-free interval (84.8% vs 79.7%, p = 0.231) and local recurrence-free interval (100%, 97.4%, p = 0.162) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Similar short- and long-term outcomes can be achieved in high-risk and low-risk patients receiving laparoscopic rectal surgery. The presented data support the suitability of laparoscopic surgery for this group of patients.

Standardised approach to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective multi-centre analysis.

PURPOSE: Two non-inferiority randomised control trials have questioned the utility of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer by failing to prove that pathological markers of high-quality surgery are equivalent to those achieved by open technique. We present short- and long-term post-operative outcomes from the largest single surgeon series of consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer. We describe the standardised laparoscopic technique developed by the principal surgeon, and the short-term outcomes from three surgeons who were trained in and subsequently adopted the same approach. METHODS: Prospectively acquired data from consecutive patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer by the principal surgeon at the minimally invasive colorectal unit in Portsmouth between 2006 and 2014 were analysed along with data acquired between 2010 and 2017 from surgeons at three further international centres. Endpoints were overall and disease-free survival at 5 years, and early post-operative clinical and pathological outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-three consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic TME surgery by the principal surgeon. At 5 years, overall survival was 82.9% (Dukes' A = 94.4%; B = 81.6%; C = 73.7%); disease-free survival was 84.0% (Dukes' A = 93.3%; B = 86.8%; C = 72.6%). Post-operative length of stay, lymph node harvest, mean operating time, rate of conversion, major morbidity and 30-day mortality were not significantly different between the principal surgeon and those he had trained when subsequently in independent practices. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic TME produces excellent long-term survival outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. A standardised approach has the potential to improve outcomes by setting benchmarks for surgical quality, and providing a step-by-step method for surgical training.

TaTME: analysis of the evacuatory outcomes and EUS anal sphincter.

Introduction: Some patients undergoing transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) may experience post-surgical complications, such as impaired bowel function and urogenital and sexual dysfunction. The present work aims to evaluate the one-year impact of TaTME surgery on bowel function, quality of life, and outcomes.Material and methods: Twenty patients undergoing TaTME with cancer in the mid and lower rectum were assessed prospectively by endoscopic transanal ultrasound (EUS) and three physiological function degrees, along with different clinical outcome questionnaires.Results: EUS sphincter evaluation revealed no structural impact in follow-up. For evacuatory evaluation, differences in the scores of the first postoperative month of Wexner questionnaires were shown when compared to a 12-month period. At least 10% of patients remain with major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after one year. The (Fecal incontinence Quality of Life) FiQoL questionnaire revealed that the cases in which values were worse in the first month posteriorly recovered to baseline preoperative values.Conclusions: TaTME does not seem to impact sphincter structure and evacuatory function, with a good recovery rate one year post-surgery, but does not seem to interfere with patients' evacuatory function quality of life.

Robotic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients may lead to better short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopy: a comparative propensity scored match study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese patients is technically challenging. The technological advantages of robotic instruments can help overcome some of those challenges, but whether this translates to superior short-term outcomes is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of obese (BMI ≥ 30) robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery patients. METHODS: All consecutive obese patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer resection surgery from three centres, two from the UK and one from Portugal, between 2006 and 2017 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and pathological T stage. Their short-term outcomes were examined. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients were identified (63 robotic, 159 laparoscopic). The 63 patients who received robotic surgery were matched with 61 laparoscopic patients. Cohort characteristics were similar between the two groups. In the robotic group, operative time was longer (260 vs 215 min; p = 0.000), but length of stay was shorter (6 vs 8 days; p = 0.014), and thirty-day readmission rate was lower (6.3% vs 19.7%; p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, robotic rectal surgery in obese patients resulted in a shorter length of stay and lower 30-day readmission rate but longer operative time when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Robotic rectal surgery in the obese may be associated with a quicker post-operative recovery and reduced morbidity profile. Larger-scale multi-centre prospective observational studies are required to validate these results.