Suprapubic versus transurethral catheterization for bladder drainage in male rectal cancer surgery (GRECCAR10), a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Bladder drainage is systematically used in rectal cancer surgery; however, the optimal type of drainage, transurethral catheterization (TUC) or suprapubic catheterization (SPC), is still controversial. The aim was to compare the rates of urinary tract infection on the fourth postoperative day (POD4) between TUC and SPC, after rectal cancer surgery regardless of the day of removal of the urinary drain. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial in 19 expert colorectal surgery centers in France and Belgium was performed between October 2016 and October 2019 and included 240 men (with normal or subnormal voiding function) undergoing mesorectal excision with low anastomosis for rectal cancer. Patients were followed at postoperative days 4, 30, and 180. RESULTS: In 208 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 58-71]) randomized to TUC (n = 99) or SPC (n = 109), the rate of urinary infection at POD4 was not significantly different whatever the type of drainage (11/99 (11.1%) vs. 8/109 (7.3%), 95% CI, - 4.2% to 11.7%; p = 0.35). There was significantly more pyuria in the TUC group (79/99 (79.0%) vs. (60/109 (60.9%), 95% CI, 5.7-30.0%; p = 0.004). No difference in bacteriuria was observed between the groups. Patients in the TUC group had a shorter duration of catheterization (median 4 [2-5] vs. 4 [3-5] days; p = 0.002). Drainage complications were more frequent in the SPC group at all followup visits. CONCLUSIONS: TUC should be preferred over SPC in male patients undergoing surgery for mid and/or lower rectal cancers, owing to the lower rate of complications and shorter duration of catheterization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02922647.

Minimally invasive laparo-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with semi-mechanical triangular anastomosis: Short-term outcomes of 114 consecutive patients.

INTRODUCTION: Several surgical teams have developed so-called minimally invasive esophagectomy techniques with the intention of decreasing post-operative complications. The goal of this report is to determine the feasibility, reproducibility, morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy and intrathoracic anastomosis via thoracoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective series included 114 consecutive non-selected patients who underwent Lewis Santy type esophagectomy between 2016 and 2020. The procedure was performed via abdominal laparoscopy, thoracoscopy with the patient in a supine position, without selective intubation, with intra-thoracic semi-mechanical triangular esophagogastric anastomosis. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 62.8years. Conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy was required in three patients (2.6%); no patient required conversion from thoracoscopy to thoracotomy. A semi-mechanical triangular esophagogastric anastomosis was successfully performed in all patients. Median duration of hospital stay was 16 (8-116) days. Mortality was 2.6%; 34 patients (29.8%) had major complications, 55 (48%) had a respiratory complication. The leakage rate was 12.3%; most were type I. Only 5.2% required an additional procedure. There was no mortality. CONCLUSION: The analysis of this consecutive series found that this operative technique was reproducible and reliable. These results need to be confirmed by other studies. Pulmonary morbidity was high and remains the main challenge in this type of surgery.

Long-term outcomes of Hartmann's procedure versus primary anastomosis for generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis: follow-up of a prospective multicenter randomized trial (DIVERTI).

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis involves Hartmann's procedure (HP) or primary resection anastomosis (PRA) with or without fecal diversion. These procedures were evaluated in four randomized controlled trials. Early results from these trials demonstrated similar rates of complications but higher rates of colonic restoration after PRA than HP. Long-term follow-up has not been reported to date. The aim of this study was to analyze long-term outcomes and quality of life (QoL) in patients previously enrolled in a prospective randomized trial comparing HP and PRA for generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis (DIVERTI trial). STUDY DESIGN: Follow-up data were available for 78 of 102 patients. Demographic data, incisional hernia rate, need for additional surgery related to the primary procedure, and QoL were recorded. RESULTS: The overall survival rate was 76% and did not differ between the two groups. Incisional hernia was reported in 21 (52%) patients in the HP arm and in 11 (29%) patients in the PRA arm (p = 0.035). The HP arm demonstrated significantly lower SF-36 physical and mental component scores. The mean general QoL (EQ-VAS) and mean EQ-5D index scores were better after PRA than after HP, but this difference was not statistically significant. The results of GIQLI, which measures intestine-specific QOL, did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This follow-up study with a median follow-up time of > 9 years among living patients indicates that PRA for perforated diverticulitis is associated with fewer long-term complications and better QoL than HP. PRA significantly reduced the incisional hernia rate and the need for reoperation. Long-term survival was not jeopardized by the PRA approach. Future studies are needed to address the utility of protective stoma.

Early and late morbidity of local excision after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Local excision (LE) after chemoradiotherapy is a new option in low rectal cancer, but morbidity has never been compared prospectively with total mesorectal excision (TME). Early and late morbidity were compared in patients treated either by LE or TME after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. METHOD: This was a post-hoc analysis from a randomized trial. Patients with clinical T2/T3 low rectal cancer with good response to the chemoradiotherapy and having either LE, LE with eventual completion TME, or TME were considered. Early (1 month) and late (2 years) morbidities were compared between the three groups. RESULTS: There were no deaths following surgery in any of the three groups. Early surgical morbidity (20 per cent LE versus 36 per cent TME versus 43 per cent completion TME, P = 0.025) and late surgical morbidity (4 per cent versus 33 per cent versus 57 per cent, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the LE group than in the TME or the completion TME group. of LE, was associated with the lowest rate of early (10 versus 18 versus 21 per cent, P = 0.217) and late medical morbidities (0 versus 7 versus 7 per cent, P = 0.154), although this did not represent a significant difference between the groups. The severity of overall morbidity was significantly lower at 2 years after LE compared with TME or completion TME (4 versus 28 versus 43 per cent grade 3-5, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The rate of surgical complications after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the LE group was half that of TME group at 1 month and 10 times lower at 2 years. LE is a safe approach for organ preservation and should be considered as an alternative to watch-and-wait in complete clinical responders and to TME in subcomplete responders.

Crude complication rate is not an accurate marker of a surgeon's skill: A single surgeon retrospective series of 1060 procedures for colorectal endometriosis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between the rate of postoperative bowel fistula and surgeon experience. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Two referral centers. PATIENTS: 1060 women managed for colorectal deep endometriosis by one gynecologist surgeon from January 2005 to March 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Shaving, disc excision and segmental colorectal resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of bowel fistula stratified according to 4 time periods: P1 from 2005 to 2009, P2 from 2010 to 2014, P3 from 2015 to June 2018 and P4 from September 2018 to March 2020. RESULTS: 68 patients (6.4%) were managed during P1, 299 patients (28.2%) during P2, 422 patients (39.8%) during P3 and 271 patients (25.6%) during P4. Both diameter of rectal infiltration and rate of complex surgical procedures progressively increased from P1 to P4. Bowel fistula rate was comparable between all 4 time periods, respectively 2.9, 3.3, 4 and 4.4%. Logistic regression model revealed that risk of fistula decreased when shaving was performed when compared to segmental resection (adj OR 0.1, 95% CI 0-0.5) and increased when deep endometriosis nodules also involved sacral roots (adjOR 4.9, 95%CI 1.8-13.3) and infiltration of the vagina (adj OR 3, 95%CI 1.3-7). No statistically significant relationship was found between surgery time period and risk of fistula. CONCLUSION: Crude rates of bowel fistula following surgical management of deep endometriosis infiltrating the colon and the rectum are not an accurate marker of surgeon expertise and should be considered in conjunction with expected higher risks related to challenging procedures performed by experienced surgeons.

Combined vaginal-laparoscopic approach vs. laparoscopy alone for prevention of bladder voiding dysfunction after removal of large rectovaginal endometriosis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the combined vaginal-laparoscopic route may reduce the risk of postoperative bladder atony, when compared to an exclusively laparoscopic approach, in patients presenting with deeply infiltrating rectovaginal endometriosis with extensive vaginal infiltration. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative cohort study using data prospectively recorded in the CIRENDO database. SETTING: Academic Tertiary Care Centre. PATIENTS: One hundred and thirty-two consecutive patients who underwent surgery of rectovaginal endometriosis with vaginal infiltration measuring greater than 3cm diameter. INTERVENTIONS: Combined vaginal-laparoscopic versus laparoscopic approach. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-two patients underwent excision of endometriosis via a combined vaginal-laparoscopic approach (study group, or cases), while 71 patients underwent surgery via an exclusively laparoscopic route (controls). Rates of preoperative cyclical voiding difficulty and sensation of incomplete bladder emptying were comparable between the two groups. Preoperative urodynamic assessment was carried out in 18% of cases and 38% of controls, with abnormal results in 27.3% and 11.1% of cases and controls respectively. Early postoperative voiding difficulty (post-void residual>100mL) occurred in 14.7% and 24.3% of cases and controls respectively. There was a significant reduction in risk of intermittent self-catheterisation of 13% at time of discharge in the study cases. Three months postoperatively, one case and 6 controls had persistent voiding dysfunction requiring prolonged self-catheterisation. CONCLUSION: The combined vaginal-laparoscopic approach for large rectovaginal endometriotic nodules could reduce the risk of postoperative bladder dysfunction, when compared to an exclusively laparoscopic approach, most likely due to a reduced risk of damage to the pelvic splanchnic nerves at the paravaginal level.

Successful outcome following resection of metachronous pancreatic metastasis from a rhabdomyosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic metastases (PM) are rare, comprising 3% of pancreatic tumours removed in sizable series of operations. This report presents the first case of metachronous pancreatic metastases from rhabdomyosarcoma successfully treated by pancreaticoduodenectomy. CASE REPORT: A 19-year old man was admitted with a tumor in the head of the pancreas, 1 year after undergoing removal of an alveolar RMS from the right hand. . Computed tomography (CT) scan demonstrates a solitary hypodence tumour of the pancreas. The patient underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy and the postoperative course was uneventful. Pathologic examination confirmed the metastatic alveolar RMS without lymph node involvement. At most recent follow-up, 36 months after pancreaticoduodenectomy, the patient has no evidence of disease. CONCLUSION: Although rare, rhabdomyosarcoma can metastasize to the pancreas. The surgeons must be aware of this complication, and that such pancreatic metastases are potentially resectable with a good long term outcome.

International variation in managing locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer: prospective benchmark analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tumour extension beyond the mesorectal plane (ymrT4) occurs in 5-10 per cent of patients with rectal cancer and 10 per cent of patients develop locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) after primary surgery. There is global variation in healthcare delivery for these conditions. METHODS: An international benchmark trial of the management of ymrT4 tumours and LRRC was undertaken in France and Australia between 2015 and 2017. Heterogeneity in management and operative decision-making were analysed by comparison of surgical resection rates, blinded intercountry reading of pelvic MRI, quality-of-life assessment and qualitative evaluations. RESULTS: Among 154 patients (97 in France and 57 in Australia), 31·8 per cent had ymrT4 disease and 68·2 per cent LRRC. The surgical resection rates were 88 and 79 per cent in France and Australia respectively (P = 0·112). The concordance in operative planning was low (κ = 0·314); the rate of pelvic exenteration was lower in France than Australia both in clinical practice (36 of 78 versus 34 of 40; P < 0·001) and in theoretical conditions (10 of 25 versus 50 of 57; P = 0·002). The R0 resection rate was lower in France than Australia for LRRC (25 of 49 versus 18 of 21; P = 0·007) but not for ymrT4 tumours (21 of 26 versus 15 of 15; P = 0·139). Morbidity rates were similar. Patients who underwent non-exenterative procedures had higher scores on the mental functioning subscale at 12 months (P = 0·047), and a lower level of distress at 6 months (P = 0·049). Qualitative analysis highlighted five categories of psychosocial factors influencing treatment decisions: patient, strategy, specialist, organization and culture. CONCLUSION: This international benchmark trial has highlighted the differences in worldwide treatment of locally advanced and LRRC. Standardized care should improve outcomes for these patients.

ANTECEDENTES: La extensión del tumor más allá del plano del meso-rrecto (ymrT4) ocurre en el 5-10% de los pacientes con cáncer de recto y el 10% de los pacientes desarrollan recidiva local del cáncer de recto (locally recurrent rectal cáncer, LRRC) después de una cirugía primaria. Existe una variación global en la prestación de la asistencia sanitaria para esta pato-logía. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un ensayo de referencia internacional sobre el manejo de ymrT4 y LRRC en Francia y Australia entre 2015 y 2017. La heterogeneidad en el manejo y la toma de decisiones quirúrgicas se analizaron mediante la comparación de las tasas de resección quirúrgica, la lectura a ciegas de la resonancia magnética (RM) pélvica entre países, la evaluación de la calidad de vida y las evaluaciones cualitativas. RESULTADOS: De 154 pacientes (97 en Francia versus 57 en Australia), el 32% tenía ymrT4 y el 68% tenía cáncer de recto con recidiva local. Las tasas de resección quirúrgica fueron del 87,6% versus 77,8% (P = 0,112). La tasa de concordancia en la decisión quirúrgica fue baja (coeficiente kappa = 0,314) con una tasa más baja de exenteración pélvica en Francia, tanto en la práctica clínica (46% versus 85%; P < 0,0001) como en condiciones teóricas (40% versus 88%; P = 0,002). La tasa de resección R0 fue menor en Francia para la LRRC (51% versus 86%, P = 0,007) pero no para el ymrT4 (81% versus 100%, P = 0,139). Las tasas de morbilidad fueron similares. Los pacientes que se sometieron a procedimientos no exenterativos tuvieron una subescala de funcionamiento mental más alta a los 12 meses (P = 0,04) y un nivel de angustia más bajo a los 6 meses (P = 0,04). El análisis cualitativo destacó 5 categorías de factores psicosociales que afectaron a la decisión del tratamiento: paciente, estrategia, especialista, organización y cultura. CONCLUSIÓN: Este ensayo de referencia internacional destaca las diferencias en el tratamiento mundial del cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y de la LRR. La aten-ción estandarizada debería mejorar los resultados para estos pacientes.

[Strategy for the practice of digestive and oncologic surgery in COVID-19 epidemic situation]. / Stratégie pour la pratique de la chirurgie digestive et oncologique en situation d'épidémie de COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic is changing the organization of healthcare and has a direct impact on digestive surgery. Healthcare priorities and circuits are being modified. Emergency surgery is still a priority. Functional surgery is to be deferred. Laparoscopic surgery must follow strict rules so as not to expose healthcare professionals (HCPs) to added risk. The question looms large in cancer surgery - go ahead or defer? There is probably an added risk due to the pandemic that must be balanced against the risk incurred by deferring surgery. For each type of cancer - colon, pancreas, oesogastric, hepatocellular carcinoma - morbidity and mortality rates are stated and compared with the oncological risk incurred by deferring surgery and/or the tumour doubling time. Strategies can be proposed based on this comparison. For colonic cancers T1-2, N0, it is advisable to defer surgery. For advanced colonic lesions, it seems judicious to undertake neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then wait. For rectal cancers T3-4 and /or N+, chemoradiotherapy is indicated, short radiotherapy must be discussed (followed by a waiting period) to reduce time of exposure in the hospital and to prevent infections. Most complex surgery with high morbidity and mortality - oesogastric, hepatic or pancreatic - is most often best deferred.

Colon sparing resection versus extended colectomy for left-sided obstructing colon cancer with caecal ischaemia or perforation: a nationwide study from the French Surgical Association.

AIM: It is not known whether patients with obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) with caecal ischaemia or diastatic perforation (defined as a blowout of the caecal wall related to colonic overdistension) should undergo a (sub)total colectomy (STC) or an ileo-caecal resection with double-barrelled ileo-colostomy. We aimed to compare the results of these two strategies. METHOD: From 2000 to 2015, 1220 patients with OLCC underwent surgery by clinicians who were members of the French Surgical Association. Of these cases, 201 (16%) were found to have caecal ischaemia or diastatic perforation intra-operatively: 174 patients (87%) underwent a STC (extended colectomy group) and 27 (13%) an ileo-caecal resection with double-end stoma (colon-sparing group). Outcomes were compared retrospectively. RESULTS: In the extended colectomy group, 95 patients (55%) had primary anastomosis and 79 (45%) had a STC with an end ileostomy. In the colon-sparing group, 10 patients (37%) had simultaneous resection of their primary tumour with segmental colectomy and an anastomosis which was protected by a double-barrelled ileo-colostomy. The demographic data for the two groups were comparable. Median operative time was longer in the STC group (P = 0.0044). There was a decrease in postoperative mortality (7% vs 12%, P = 0.75) and overall morbidity (56% vs 67%, P = 0.37) including surgical (30% vs 40%, P = 0.29) and severe complications (17% vs 27%, P = 0.29) in the colon-sparing group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. Cumulative morbidity included all surgical stages and the rate of permanent stoma was 66% and 37%, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups. Overall survival and disease-free survival were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The colon-sparing strategy may represent a valid and safe alternative to STC in OLCC patients with caecal ischaemia or diastatic perforation.

Strategy for the practice of digestive and oncological surgery during the Covid-19 epidemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic is changing the organization of healthcare and has a direct impact on digestive surgery. Healthcare priorities and circuits are being modified. Emergency surgery is still a priority. Functional surgery is to be deferred. Laparoscopic surgery must follow strict rules so as not to expose healthcare professionals (HCPs) to added risk. The question looms large in cancer surgery-go ahead or defer? There is probably an added risk due to the pandemic that must be balanced against the risk incurred by deferring surgery. For each type of cancer-colon, pancreas, oesogastric, hepatocellular carcinoma-morbidity and mortality rates are stated and compared with the oncological risk incurred by deferring surgery and/or the tumour doubling time. Strategies can be proposed based on this comparison. For colonic cancers T1-2, N0, it is advisable to defer surgery. For advanced colonic lesions, it seems judicious to undertake neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then wait. For rectal cancers T3-4 and/or N+, chemoradiotherapy is indicated, short radiotherapy must be discussed (followed by a waiting period) to reduce time of exposure in the hospital and to prevent infections. Most complex surgery with high morbidity and mortality-oesogastric, hepatic or pancreatic-is most often best deferred.

Primary anastomosis and nonrestorative resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIM: The aim of this meta-analysis was to comparatively evaluate the outcomes of primary anastomosis (PRA) and nonrestorative resection (NRR) as emergency surgery and ostomy reversal in patients with perforated diverticulitis and peritonitis. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Postoperative morbidity following emergency resection was the primary end-point. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Cochrane Quality Assessment Tool including recruitment bias and crossover with intention-to-treat analysis. The Haenszel-Mantel method with odds ratios (OR, 95% CI) and the inverse variance method with mean difference (MD, 95% CI) as effect measures were utilized for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials totaling 382 patients (180 PRA vs 204 NRR) were included. Morbidity rates following emergency resection did not differ (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.65, 1.51; P = 0.95; number needed to treat/harm (NNT) 96). Organ/space surgical site infection rates were 3.3% in PRA vs 11.3% in NRR (OR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.12, 0.74; P = 0.009; NNT = 13). Postoperative morbidity rates following ostomy reversal were significantly lower in PRA (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.15, 0.64; P = 0.001; NNT = 7). Pooled ostomy non-reversal rates were 16% in PRA vs 35.5% in NRR (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.22, 0.62; P = 0.0001; NNT = 6) with high heterogeneity (I2  = 63%; τ2  = 8.17). Meta-regression analysis revealed significant negative correlation between the PRA-to-NRR crossover rate and the ostomy non-reversal rate (P = 0.029). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found that PRA was associated with better short- and long-term outcomes at the cost of significantly longer operating time at emergency surgery.