Radical resection of locally advanced and recurrent colorectal carcinoma involving major nerve resection: a systematic review of surgical, oncological and functional outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore the surgical, oncological and quality of life outcomes in the setting of radical resection of colorectal carcinoma involving major nerve resection. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was registered with the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify papers relating to outcomes in radical resection of colorectal cancer where major nerve resection was undertaken. Papers were identified from OVID Medline, EMBASE Classic and Web of Science encompassing all publications in English from January 2010 to June 2023. A total of 1357 nonduplicate studies were identified and screened for relevance, with six studies included in the final review. RESULTS: A total of 354 major nerve resections were undertaken across the six included studies. Overall postoperative morbidity was reported at rates of up to 82%. Two studies considered nerve-resection-specific oncological outcomes, with complete pathological resection achieved at rates comparable to the wider pelvic exenteration cohort (65-68%) and without any overall survival disadvantage being conveyed by major nerve resection (p = 0.78). Two studies considered functional outcomes and noted a transient decrease in physical quality of life over the first 6 months postoperatively (p = 0.041) with significant loss to follow-up. One study considered postoperative pain in nerve resection and noted no significant increase in patient-reported pain scores associated with nerve resection (p = 0.184-0.618). CONCLUSIONS: Major nerve resections in locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer remain understudied but with encouraging initial oncological and functional outcomes. Multicentre collaborative prospective reviews are needed to better elucidate contributors to postoperative morbidity and functional deficits and further establish interventions to ameliorate them.

Does cancer type and adjuvant analgesic prescribing influence opioid dose?-a retrospective cross-sectional study.

Opioids are the backbone of cancer pain management. Minimal evidence exists examining the relationship between cancer type and opioid dose. Similarly, the use of adjuvant analgesics and its impact within an inpatient cancer setting is understudied. This study examined the influence of cancer type upon opioid dose, measured by oral morphine equivalent daily dose (oMEDD). The effect of adjuvant analgesics on patient oMEDD was also examined. This retrospective cross-sectional study examined records of 520 patients admitted to Royal Melbourne Hospital or Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre between 2016 and 2018 with advanced cancer. Number and dose of both opioid and adjuvant analgesics were collected along with demographic and cancer data. Comparisons of median oMEDD by cancer type [analysis of variance (ANOVA), non-parametric t-tests] and adjuvant analgesics (Kruskal-Wallis test) were performed. There were no statistically significant differences in oMEDD between the 12 cancer types (P=0.83; n=215). Patients co-prescribed pregabalin (n=102) and paracetamol (n=73) as adjuvant analgesics were on significantly higher daily oMEDD [60 mg (P=0.015), 90 mg (P<0.001), respectively]. Opioid dose did not differ significantly between cancer types. The observed use of adjuvant analgesics coincided with significantly higher oMEDD prescription which may relate to complex pain seen in this cohort of inpatients in a quarternary cancer centre. Future research should focus on pain type and aetiology, and pain scores in different cancer pain syndromes to determine the net effect of opioids and adjuvants in cancer pain prescribing.

Perioperative nutritional assessment and interventions in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal carcinomatosis is a catabolic state and cytoreductive surgery (CRS) is a high morbidity operation. Optimising perioperative nutrition is crucial to improve outcomes. This systematic review sought to examine literature describing clinical outcomes related to preoperative nutrition status and nutrition interventions in patients undergoing CRS with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). METHODS: A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (300326). A search of eight electronic databases was undertaken on 8th May 2022 and reported according to the PRISMA statement. Studies reporting nutrition status through use of screening and assessment tools, nutrition interventions or nutrition-related clinical outcomes for patients undergoing CRS with HIPEC were included. RESULTS: Of 276 screened studies, 25 studies were included for review. Commonly used nutrition assessment tools for CRS-HIPEC patients included Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), sarcopenia assessment with computed tomography, preoperative albumin, and body mass index (BMI). Three retrospective studies compared SGA with postoperative outcomes. Malnourished patients were more likely to have postoperative infectious complications (p = 0.042 SGA-B, p = 0.025 SGA-C). Malnutrition was significantly associated with increased hospital length of stay (LOS) in two studies (p = 0.006, p = 0.02), and with overall survival in another study (p = 0.006). Eight studies analysing preoperative albumin levels reported conflicting associations with postoperative outcomes. BMI in five studies was not associated with morbidity. One study did not support routine nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative nutritional assessment tools, including SGA and objective sarcopaenia measures, have a role in predicting nutritional status for CRS-HIPEC patients. Optimisation of nutrition is important for preventing complications.

A systematic review of the application of 3D-printed models to colorectal surgical training.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this review was to explore the role of three-dimensional (3D) printing in colorectal surgical education and procedural simulation, and to assess the effectiveness of 3D-printed models in anatomic and operative education in colorectal surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify relevant publications relating to the use of 3D-printed models in colorectal surgery in an educational context. The search encompassed OVID Medline, Web of Science and EMBASE including papers in English published from 1 January 1995 to 1 January 2023. A total of 1018 publications were screened, and 5 met the criteria for inclusion in this review. RESULTS: Four distinct 3D models were described across five studies. Two models demonstrated objective benefits in the use of 3D-printed models in anatomical education in academic outcomes at all levels of learner medical experience and were well accepted by learners. One model utilised for preoperative visualisation demonstrated improved operative outcomes in complete mesocolic excision compared with preoperative imaging review, with a 22.1% reduction in operative time (p < 0.001), 9.2% reduction in surgical duration (p = 0.035) and 37.3% reduction in intraoperative bleeding volume amongst novice surgeons (p < 0.01). Technical simulation has been demonstrated in a feasibility context in one model but remains limited in scope and application on account of the characteristics of available printing materials. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printing is well accepted and effective for anatomic education and preoperative procedural planning amongst colorectal surgeons, trainees and medical students but remains a technology in the early stages of its possible application. Technological advancements are required to improve the tissue realism of 3D-printed organ models to achieve greater fidelity and provide realistic colorectal surgical simulations.

Do Patient Demographics and Performance Status Influence Opioid Dose in Cancer Pain?

Context: There is limited evidence on the role of objective parameters in influencing analgesic use in cancer pain management.Objective: To investigate the significance of objective parameters (age, male/female and performance status) in influencing opioid dose. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional audit of adult inpatients with metastatic cancer at a major cancer centre from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018, who were prescribed slow release opioids for cancer pain on discharge. Main outcome measures were demographics (age, male/female and performance status), oral morphine equivalent daily dose (oMEDD) and adjuvant analgesic use. Results: Of the 7,747 eligible records, 215 patient records fulfilled inclusion criteria. Older patients (≥75 years) received half of the median oMEDD dose (30 mg) compared to their youngest counterparts (60 mg oMEDD in age ≤50 years) (P = .003). No significant differences were observed between oMEDD and male/female and performance status. Conclusion: Older patients are prescribed half the opioid dose compared to their younger counterparts. This highlights the importance of vigilance in opioid prescribing in the elderly in order to balance side effects with under treatment. Although no other significant relationships were observed, future studies comparing objective patient parameters with opioid prescription may uncover other at risk populations.