Are risk factors for anastomotic leakage influencing long-term oncological outcomes after low anterior resection of locally advanced rectal cancer with neoadjuvant therapy? A single-centre cohort study.

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leakage (AL) poses the most serious problem following low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer independent of surgical approach or technique. The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors for the occurrence of AL and how they affect the oncological long-term outcome of patients who received neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: A single centre cohort study of 163 consecutive locally advanced rectal cancer patients (cT3, cT4, N +) that received neoadjuvant therapy followed by resection with primary anastomosis between January 1998 and December 2020 were included in this study. Short- and long-term findings were compared between patients with AL (Leakage +) and without AL (Leakage -). RESULTS: A complete follow-up was obtained from 163 patients; thereby, 33 patients (20%) developed an AL. We observed more patients with comorbidities (38% vs. 61%, p = 0.049) which developed a leakage in the course. Permanent stoma rate (36% vs. 18%, p = 0.03) was higher, and time between primary operation and stoma reversal was longer (219 days [172-309] vs. 93 days [50-182], p < 0.001) in this leakage group as well. Tumour distance lower than 6 cm from the anal verge (OR: 2.81 [95%CI: 1.08-7.29], p = 0.04) and comorbidities (OR: 2.22 [95%CI: 1.01-4.90], p = 0.049) was evaluated to be independent risk factors for developing an AL after rectal cancer surgery. Oncological outcome was not influenced by AL nor by other associated risk factors. CONCLUSION: We could clearly detect the distance of tumour from the anal verge and comorbidities independent risk factors for the occurrence of AL. Oncological findings and long-term outcome were not influenced by these particular risk factors.

Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61−18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28−2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29−1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.

Incidence and risk factors for umbilical incisional hernia after reduced port colorectal surgery (SIL + 1 additional port)-is an umbilical midline approach really a problem?

PURPOSE: Umbilical midline incisions for single incision- or reduced port laparoscopic surgery are still discussed controversially because of a higher rate of incisional hernia compared to conventional laparoscopic techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia after reduced port colorectal surgery. METHODS: A total 241 patients underwent elective reduced port colorectal surgery between 2014 and 2020. Follow-up was achieved through telephone interview or clinical examination. The study collective was examined using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients with complete follow-up were included into this study. Mean follow-up time was 36 (IQR 24-50) months. The study collective consists of 77 (51.3%) female and 73 (48.7%) male patients with an average BMI of 26 kg/m2 (IQR 23-28) and an average age of 61 (± 14). Indication for surgery was diverticulitis in 55 (36.6%) cases, colorectal cancer in 65 (43.3%) patients, and other benign reasons in 30 (20.0%) cases. An incisional hernia was observed 9 times (6.0%). Obesity (OR 5.8, 95% CI 1.5-23.1, p = 0.02) and pre-existent umbilical hernia (OR 161.0, 95% CI 23.1-1124.5, p < 0.01) were significant risk factors for incisional hernia in the univariate analysis. Furthermore, pre-existent hernia is shown to be a risk factor also in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: We could demonstrate that reduced port colorectal surgery using an umbilical single port access is feasible and safe with a low rate of incisional hernia. Obesity and pre-existing umbilical hernia are significant risk factors for incisional hernia.

Chest drains: purse string suture 4.0.

There are many discussions about the technique of removal of chest drains. In our hospital, we have used an intracutaneous suture technique with non-absorbable suture material for the purse-string suture for a few years now. Thus the cosmetic results improved considerably. Nevertheless, the thread has to be removed after 10-14 days. To further improve patient comfort we developed a purse-string suture technique using an absorbable barbed suture. We noticed better cosmetic results and less painfull drain removal. Furthermore, there is no more need for a stitch removal which reduces material costs and also pain.

Evaluation of BRCA1/2 mutational status among German and Austrian women with triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in breast cancer patients is used to identify the risk of second primary cancers and the risk of cancer in the patients' family. Women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) are thought to be more likely to be BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, but most national guidelines for genetic testing, including those used in Germany and Austria, do not consider receptor triple negativity. METHODS: We determined the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations within a cohort of 100 unselected TNBC cases, including patients from Germany and Austria to identify those BRCA-positive patients with a masked family history and who would have been missed due to respective current national guidelines. Double-stranded Sanger sequencing of all exons of BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively, was performed. RESULTS: We identified a total of 13 deleterious mutations in BRCA1 and a total of four deleterious mutations in BRCA2. The total rate of deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation carriers was 21 % in our cohort. Six novel mutations, including two deleterious mutations, have been identified, which have not been described in public mutation databases so far. According to current German and Austrian national guidelines for genetic testing, 38.1 and 52.4 %, respectively, of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers would have been overlooked. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is high in TNBC patients and that BRCA1/2 mutations are not restricted to young women or patients with a positive family history. Receptor triple negativity should therefore be considered in BRCA1/2 genetic testing guidelines.