Early discharge after enhanced recovery rectal resection does not increase emergency department visits and readmissions: a single institution analysis.

BACKGROUND: Same-day discharge after colectomy in enhanced recovery pathways has been shown to be feasible. It is not clear how early patients with rectal resections may be safely discharged. The study aim was to determine if patients discharged ≤ 3 days after rectal resections are associated with increased rates of emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of enhanced recovery low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection, and proctocolectomy patients in a prospectively maintained single institution colorectal surgery database from 01/01/2018 to 07/15/2022. Clinic visits were scheduled within 4-7 days and at 30 days after discharge, and every 1-2 weeks for stoma patients until no longer needed. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the association of discharge on postoperative days (POD)-1-3, POD-4-5, and POD ≥ 6 days with incidence of ED visits and readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients met inclusion criteria, 76 with stomas. Median postoperative length of stay was 5 [IQR 6.5] days. Mean age was 58.6 years; 59.3% were ASA-3; and 69.5% had a minimally invasive surgical approach. ED visits were not significantly different between discharge-day groups (p = 0.096). No patients were discharged same-day, one without a stoma was discharged on POD-1, ten patients (2 with stomas) on POD-2, and twenty-four patients (13 with stomas) on POD-3. ED visits were lowest for the POD-1-3 group (14.3%) but not significantly different than later discharge groups (p = 0.166). Readmission rate was also lowest for the POD-1-3 group (11.4%) and also not significantly different than later discharge groups (p = 0.261) and this was confirmed with logistic regression. Complication rate was lowest in the POD-1-3 group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Early discharge after enhanced recovery partial or complete proctectomy is not associated with increased ED visits and readmissions. Follow up studies should identify post-discharge resources that allow safe early discharge and that may be standardized and generalizable.

Operative trends following the adoption of nonoperative management of rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Differentiating clinical near-complete and complete responses (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is challenging in rectal cancer patients. We hypothesized that magnetic resonance imaging staging limitations for low rectal cancers may increase the proportion of abdominoperineal resection (APR) with permanent colostomy for those without a cCR. METHODS: Single institution retrospective analysis of rectal cancer cases before and after adoption of nonoperative "watch and wait" (W&W) pathway. APR as a percentage of rectal resections was the primary outcome. RESULTS: There were 76 total mesorectal excisions (TME) in the pre-W&W group and 98 in the post-W&W group. NT was significantly more common in the post-W&W group. There was no significant difference in the APR primary outcome (pre-W&W APR 33.3% vs. post-W&W APR 26.5%, p = 0.482). APR patients had fewer complete TME grades (69.2% vs. 46.2%) and more pathologic complete responses (0% vs. 26.9%) in the post-W&W period. The cCR rate for patients with nonoperative management was 51.4% (n = 37) and 13.5% (n = 5) had regrowths, all of whom underwent salvage surgery. CONCLUSION: APR for those without a cCR to NT has not increased in the nonoperative management era. Balancing the pathologic complete response rate may require restaging some patients with clinical near-complete responses.

Case report: An unusual case of cecal mucosal bleeding.

Cecal mucosal bleeding is an undocumented and rare cause of lower gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. We present a case of a 73-year-old woman with end-stage renal disease and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation on apixaban who presented with lower gastrointestinal bleed. She was found to have symptomatic, acute chronic anemia requiring multiple packed red blood cell transfusions. Colonoscopy revealed a localized area of active, cecal mucosal bleeding without evidence of Dieulafoy lesion, ulcer, mass, arteriovenous malformation, or diverticula. Hemostasis was achieved with epinephrine injection and the use of bipolar electrocautery. She was later resumed on her therapeutic anticoagulation without recurrence of bleeding. Therapeutic anticoagulation in our patient with ESRD increased her risk for gastrointestinal bleeding. Had this transient, mucosal-limited bleeding not been active during endoscopic evaluation, the etiology of her massive gastrointestinal bleeding would have been missed. This case expands the differential of acute, lower GI bleeding to include cecal mucosal bleeding, which is a rare, intermittent, cause of bleeding that is amenable to endoscopic management.