Robotic-assisted surgery for left-sided colon and rectal resections is associated with reduction in the postoperative surgical stress response and improved short-term outcomes: a cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing evidence that the use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in colorectal cancer resections is associated with improved short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery (OS), possibly through a reduced systemic inflammatory response (SIR). Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) is a sensitive SIR biomarker and its utility in the early identification of post-operative complications has been validated in a variety of surgical procedures. There remains a paucity of studies characterising post-operative SIR in RAS. METHODS: Retrospective study of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients undergoing OS, LS and RAS for left-sided and rectal cancer in a single high-volume unit. Patient and disease characteristics, post-operative CRP levels, and clinical outcomes were reviewed, and their relationships explored within binary logistic regression and propensity scores matched models. RESULTS: A total of 1031 patients were included (483 OS, 376 LS, and 172 RAS). RAS and LS were associated with lower CRP levels across the first 4 post-operative days (p < 0.001) as well as reduced complications and length of stay compared to OS in unadjusted analyses. In binary logistic regression models, RAS was independently associated with lower CRP levels at Day 3 post-operatively (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.59, p < 0.001) and a reduction in the rate of all complications (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26-0.56, p < 0.001) and major complications (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p = 0.036). Within a propensity scores matched model comparing LS versus RAS specifically, RAS was associated with lower post-operative CRP levels in the first two post-operative days, a lower proportion of patients with a CRP ≥ 150 mg/L at Day 3 (20.9% versus 30.5%, p = 0.036) and a lower rate of all complications (34.7% versus 46.7%, p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: The present observational study shows that an RAS approach was associated with lower postoperative SIR, and a better postoperative complications profile.

The Role of Appendicectomy in Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This updated systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the putative role of the appendix in ulcerative colitis as a therapeutic target. METHODS: Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed and CENTRAL were searched with MeSH terms ("appendectomy" OR "appendicitis" OR "appendix") AND ("colitis, ulcerative") through October 2020, producing 1469 references. Thirty studies, including 118 733 patients, were included for qualitative synthesis and 11 for quantitative synthesis. Subgroup analysis was performed on timing of appendicectomy. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Appendicectomy before UC diagnosis reduces the risk of future colectomy (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.89; I2 = 5%; P = .0009). Corresponding increased risk of colorectal cancer and high-grade dysplasia are identified (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.11-4.66; P = .02). Significance is lost when appendicectomy is performed after disease onset. Appendicectomy does not affect hospital admission rates (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68-1.12; I2 = 93%; P = .27), steroid use (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.78-1.49; I2 = 36%; P = .64), immunomodulator use (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.76-1.42; I2 = 19%; P = .79), or biological therapy use (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.30; I2 = 0%; P = .32). Disease extent and risk of proximal progression are unaffected by appendicectomy. The majority (71% to 100%) of patients with refractory UC avoid colectomy following therapeutic appendicectomy at 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Prior appendicectomy reduces risk of future colectomy. A reciprocal increased risk of CRC/HGD may be due to prolonged exposure to subclinical colonic inflammation. The results warrant further research, as consideration may be put toward incorporating a history of appendicectomy into IBD surveillance guidelines. A potential role for therapeutic appendicectomy in refractory left-sided UC is also identified.

This article was written as part of a higher degree with the University of Edinburgh. The first author received the Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) Edinburgh Surgery Online Bursary during the completion of the degree and this journal article. This updated systematic review finds appendicectomy before ulcerative colitis (UC) diagnosis reduces risk of future colectomy but increases the risk of colorectal malignancy. Incorporating a history of appendicectomy into IBD surveillance guidelines could be considered. A potential role for therapeutic appendicectomy in left-sided treatment refractory UC is also identified.

Outcomes following completion and salvage surgery for early rectal cancer: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To establish outcomes after completion and salvage surgery following local excision in literature published since 2005, to inform decision-making when offering local excision. BACKGROUND: Local excision of early rectal cancer aims to offer cure while maintaining quality of life through organ preservation. However, some patients will require radical surgery, prompted by unexpected poor pathology or local recurrence. Consistent definition and reporting of these scenarios is poor. We propose the term "salvage surgery" for recurrence after local excision and "completion surgery" for poor pathology. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched in February 2016. Studies since 2005 describing outcomes for radical surgery following local excision of rectal cancer were included. Pooled and average values were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies included 262 completion and 165 salvage operations. Most completion operations were done within 4 weeks; local recurrence rate was 5% and overall disease recurrence rate was 14%. The majority of salvage operations for local recurrence were within 15 months of local excision, often following adjuvant treatment. Re-do local excision was used in 15%; APR was the most common radical procedure. Further local recurrence was uncommon (3%) but overall disease recurrence rate was 13%. Estimated 5-year survival was in the order of 50%. Heterogeneity was high among the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing local excision must be informed of risks and expected outcomes, but better data on completion and salvage surgery are required to achieve this. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014014758.

Transanal total mesorectal excision: A valid option for rectal cancer?

Low anterior resection can be a challenging operation, especially in obese male patients and in particular after radiotherapy. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) might offer technical advantages over laparoscopic or open approaches particularly for tumors in the distal third of the rectum. The aim of this article is to review the current experience with TaTME. The limits and future developments are also explored. Although the experience with TaTME is still limited, it might be a promising alternative to laparoscopic TME, especially for difficult cases where laparoscopy is too demanding. The preliminary data on complications and short-term oncological outcomes are good, but also emphasize the importance of careful patient selection. Finally, there is a need for large-scale trials focusing on long-term outcomes and oncological safety before widespread adoption can be recommended.

The impact of surgical specialisation on survival following elective colon cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Reorganisation of cancer services in the UK and across Europe has led to elective surgery for colon cancer being increasingly, but not exclusively, delivered by specialist colorectal surgeons. This study examines survival after elective colon cancer surgery performed by specialist compared to non-specialist surgeons. METHOD: Patients undergoing elective surgery for colon cancer in 16 hospitals between 2001 and 2004 were identified from a prospectively maintained regional audit database. Post-operative mortality (<30 days) and 5-year relative survival in those receiving surgery under the care of a specialist or non-specialist surgeon were compared. RESULTS: A total of 1,856 patients were included, of which, 1,367 (73.7%) were treated by a specialist and 489 (26.4%) by a non-specialist surgeon. Those treated by a specialist were more likely to be deprived, undergo surgery in a high volume unit and have higher lymph node yields than those treated by a non-specialist. Post-operative mortality was lower (4.5 versus 7.0%; P = 0.032) and 5-year relative survival was higher (72.2 versus 65.6%; P = 0.012) among those treated by a specialist surgeon. In multivariate analysis, surgery by non-specialists was independently associated with increased post-operative mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.69; P < 0.001) and poorer 5-year relative survival (adjusted relative excess risk (RER) 1.17; P = 0.045). After exclusion of post-operative deaths, there was no difference in long-term survival (adjusted RER 1.08; P = 0.505). CONCLUSION: Five-year relative survival after elective colon cancer surgery was higher among those treated by specialist colorectal surgeons due to increased post-operative mortality among those treated by non-specialists.

Emergency presentation of node-negative colorectal cancer treated with curative surgery is associated with poorer short and longer-term survival.

PURPOSE: The majority of patients with node-negative colorectal cancer have excellent 5-year survival prospects, but up to a third relapse. Strategies to identify patients at higher risk of adverse outcomes are desirable to enable optimal treatment and follow-up. The aim of this study was to examine postoperative mortality and longer-term survival by mode of presentation for patients with node-negative colorectal cancer undergoing surgery with curative intent. METHODS: Patients from 16 hospitals in the west of Scotland between 2001 and 2004 were identified from a prospectively maintained regional clinical audit database. Postoperative mortality and 5-year relative survival by mode of presentation were recorded. RESULTS: Of 1,877 patients with node-negative disease, 251 (13.4%) presented as an emergency. Those presenting as an emergency were more likely to be older (P = 0.023), have colon rather than rectal cancer (P < 0.001), have pT4 stage disease (P < 0.001), have extramural vascular invasion (P = 0.001), and receive surgery under the care of a nonspecialist surgeon (P < 0.001) compared to those presenting electively. The postoperative mortality rate was 3.3% after elective and 12.8% after emergency presentation (P < 0.001). Five-year relative survival was 91.8% after elective and 66.8% after emergency presentation (P < 0.001). The adjusted relative excess risk ratio for 5-year relative survival after emergency relative to elective presentation was 2.59 (95% CI 1.67-4.01; P < 0.001) and 1.90 (95% CI 1.00-3.62; P = 0.049) after exclusion of postoperative deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency presentation of node-negative colorectal cancer treated with curative intent was independently associated with higher postoperative mortality and poorer 5-year relative survival compared to elective presentation.

Deprivation and colorectal cancer surgery: longer-term survival inequalities are due to differential postoperative mortality between socioeconomic groups.

BACKGROUND: Deprivation is associated with poorer survival after surgery for colorectal cancer, but determinants of this socioeconomic inequality are poorly understood. METHODS: A total of 4,296 patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer in 16 hospitals in the West of Scotland between 2001 and 2004 were identified from a prospectively maintained regional audit database. Postoperative mortality (<30 days) and 5-year relative survival by socioeconomic circumstances, measured by the area-based Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2006, were examined. RESULTS: There was no difference in age, gender, or tumor characteristics between socioeconomic groups. Compared with the most affluent group, patients from the most deprived group were more likely to present as an emergency (23.5 vs 19.5 %; p = .033), undergo palliative surgery (20.0 vs 14.5 %; p < .001), have higher levels of comorbidity (p = .03), have <12 lymph nodes examined (56.7 vs 53.1 %; p = .016) but were more likely to receive surgery under the care of a specialist surgeon (76.3 vs 72.0 %; p = .001). In multivariate analysis, deprivation was independently associated with increased postoperative mortality [adjusted odds ratio 2.26 (95 % CI, 1.45-3.53; p < .001)], and poorer 5-year relative survival [adjusted relative excess risk (RER) 1.25 (95 % CI, 1.03-1.51; p = .024)] but not after exclusion of postoperative deaths [adjusted RER 1.08 (95 %, CI .87-1.34; p = .472)]. CONCLUSIONS: The observed socioeconomic gradient in long-term survival after surgery for colorectal cancer was due to higher early postoperative mortality among more deprived groups.