Perioperative management of sarcopenia in patients undergoing major surgeries in Singapore: a modified delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND: Ageing population is a worldwide phenomenon with correspondingly higher proportion of older patients being treated in the hospital setting. Sarcopenia, which increases with age, has serious negative implications on health, hospitalization and overall postoperative recovery. There is no mutual consensus on perioperative management of sarcopenia in surgical patients in Singapore. The purpose of this study is to create greater clarity pertaining to the recognition of sarcopenia, the application of assessment criteria of sarcopenia and perioperative management of surgical patients in Singapore. METHODS: A modified Delphi consensus consisting of a panel of experts from Singapore forming a multidisciplinary team, including surgeons, geriatricians, anesthesiologists, physiotherapists and dieticians. Eight recommendations were proposed by the steering committee. Literature search from MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus for articles up till June 2023 were performed to support recommendation statements. The expert panel voted on agreement to recommendation statements and graded the level of evidence supporting each statement through surveys to achieve consensus, set at 85% a priori. RESULTS: The panelists underwent two rounds of anonymized, independent voting before reaching consensus for all eight statements. After the first round, seven statements reached consensus, including the corresponding grading for level of evidence. The statement which did not achieve consensus was revised with supporting literature and after the second round of survey, all eight statements and level of evidence reached consensus, completing the Delphi process. These eight statements covered themes to (1) encourage the identification of sarcopenia, (2) guide pre-operative and (3) post-operative management of sarcopenia. CONCLUSION: With the varying approaches in perioperative management, poor understanding of and identification of sarcopenia can result in suboptimal management of sarcopenia in surgical patients. Given the abundance of evidence linking beneficial impact on recovery and post-operative complications with prudent management of sarcopenia, it is imperative and urgent to achieve awareness and consensus.

Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive multivisceral resection for T4b rectal cancer: A 9-year review.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second highest cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. About 5%-10% of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) on presentation. For LARC invading into other structures (i.e. T4b), multivisceral resection (MVR) and/or pelvic exenteration (PE) remains the only potential curative surgical treatment. MVR and/or PE is a major and complex surgery with high post-operative morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been shown to improve short-term post-operative outcomes in other gastrointestinal malignancies, but there is little evidence on its use in MVR, especially so for robotic MVR. AIM: To assess the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive MVR (miMVR), and compare post-operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic MVR. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study from 1st January 2015 to 31st March 2023. Inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with cT4b rectal cancer and underwent MVR, or stage 4 disease with resectable systemic metastases. Patients who underwent curative MVR for locally recurrent rectal cancer, or metachronous rectal cancer were also included. Exclusion criteria were patients with systemic metastases with non-resectable disease. All patients planned for elective surgery were enrolled into the standard enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with standard peri-operative management for colorectal surgery. Complex surgery was defined based on technical difficulty of surgery (i.e. total PE, bladder-sparing prostatectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection or need for flap creation). Our primary outcomes were the margin status, and complication rates. Categorical values were described as percentages and analysed by the chi-square test. Continuous variables were expressed as median (range) and analysed by Mann-Whitney U test. Cumulative overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates with life table analysis. Log-rank test was performed to determine statistical significance between cumulative estimates. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were included in this study [open MVR (oMVR): 12 (26.1%), miMVR: 36 (73.9%)]. Patients' American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index and co-morbidities were comparable between oMVR and miMVR. There is an increasing trend towards robotic MVR from 2015 to 2023. MiMVR was associated with lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (median 450 vs 1200 mL, P = 0.008), major morbidity (14.7% vs 50.0%, P = 0.014), post-operative intra-abdominal collections (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006), post-operative ileus (32.4% vs 66.7%, P = 0.04) and surgical site infection (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006) compared with oMVR. Length of stay was also shorter for miMVR compared with oMVR (median 10 vs 30 d, P = 0.001). Oncological outcomes-R0 resection, recurrence, OS and RFS were comparable between miMVR and oMVR. There was no 30-d mortality. More patients underwent robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR for complex cases (robotic 57.1% vs laparoscopic 7.7%, P = 0.004). The operating time was longer for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR [robotic: 602 (400-900) min, laparoscopic: Median 455 (275-675) min, P < 0.001]. Incidence of R0 resection was similar (laparoscopic: 84.6% vs robotic: 76.2%, P = 0.555). Overall complication rates, major morbidity rates and 30-d readmission rates were similar between laparoscopic and robotic MVR. Interestingly, 3-year OS (robotic 83.1% vs 58.6%, P = 0.008) and RFS (robotic 72.9% vs 34.3%, P = 0.002) was superior for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR. CONCLUSION: MiMVR had lower post-operative complications compared to oMVR. Robotic MVR was also safe, with acceptable post-operative complication rates. Prospective studies should be conducted to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic vs laparoscopic MVR.

Propensity-score-matched analysis of D2 and D3 right hemicolectomy for colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Complete mesocolic excision with D3 lymph node dissection in right-sided colon cancer is associated with improved oncological outcomes, but can potentially be associated with higher rates of complications compared to conventional D2 right hemicolectomy. This study aims to evaluate the oncological and perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent D3 right hemicolectomy, comparing to conventional right hemicolectomy. METHODS: From 2015 to 2020, 360 patients underwent right hemicolectomy for colonic malignancies. Data was retrospectively analysed from a prospectively collected database. A propensity-score-matched analysis was performed between the two groups to evaluate their outcomes. RESULTS: About 88(24.4%) patients underwent D3 right hemicolectomy, with the rest undergoing D2 right hemicolectomy. After propensity-matched analysis, D3 right hemicolectomy had a higher lymph node yield (median of 26 versus 23, p = 0.005), lower overall recurrence rate (11.7% versus 25.7%, p = 0.03), and lower overall mortality rate (14.5% versus 30.1%, p = 0.02) There were no significant differences in the complication rates. There were no anastomotic leaks. D3 right hemicolectomy was associated with an improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) with a hazard ratio of 0.63 (P = 0.21), and also an improved 3-year overall survival (OS) with a hazard ratio of 0.68 (P = 0.31). CONCLUSION: D3 right hemicolectomy is associated with a higher lymph node yield, without increasing morbidity or mortality. It is also associated with significantly lower recurrence and overall mortality rates in this study. Short term 3-year DFS and OS also trend towards favouring D3 right hemicolectomy. However, this study is limited by the small sample size and retrospective nature.

Acute Kidney Injury within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Program for Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of acute kidney injury (AKI) within an ERAS program for colorectal surgery (CRS). METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study conducted from March 2016 to September 2018 at a single tertiary hospital in Singapore. All adult patients requiring CRS within our ERAS program were considered eligible. Exclusions were stage 5 chronic kidney disease or patients requiring a synchronous liver resection. The primary outcome was AKI as defined by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work Group. Secondary outcomes included mortality, major complications, and hospital length of stay. Patient, surgical, and anaesthesia-related data were analysed to determine factors associated with AKI. RESULTS: A total of 575 patients were eligible for the study. Twenty patients were excluded from the study leaving 555 patients for analysis. Mean age was 67.8 (SD 11.4) years. Seventy-four patients met the criteria for AKI (13.4%: stage 1-11.2%, stage 2-2.0%, stage 3-0.2%). One patient required renal replacement therapy (RRT). Patients with AKI had a longer length of stay (median [IQR], 11.0 [5.0-17.0] days vs 6.0 [4.0-8.0] days; P < .001), more major complications (OR, 6.55; 95% CI, 3.00-14.35, P < .001), and a trend towards higher mortality at one year (OR, 1.44; 95% CI 0.48-4.30; p = 0.511. After multivariable regression analysis, factors associated with AKI were preoperative creatinine (OR, 1.01 per 10 µmol/l; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = 0.01), robotic surgery vs open surgery (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06-0.39; P < 0.001), anaesthesia duration (OR, 1.38 per hour; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55; P < 0.001), and major complications (OR, 5.55; 95% CI, 2.63-11.70; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the present cohort, the implementation of an ERAS program for CRS was associated with a low prevalence of moderate to severe AKI despite a balanced intravenous fluid regimen. Patients having open surgery, longer procedures, and major complications are at increased risk of AKI.