A new surgical technique: robotic intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis in Crohn's - a safety and feasibility case series on short-term outcomes.

AIM: The Kono-S anastomosis was introduced as a possible solution to the high surgical recurrence rates in Crohn's disease. However, this technique is known to be challenging, which is why it was originally performed in an extracorporeal setting. The aim of this case series was to assess safety, in terms of intra-/postoperative complications, and feasibility, in terms of successful performance of anastomosis, of a robot-assisted intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis. METHOD: This is a prospective single-centre consecutive case series. Patients were considered eligible if they were diagnosed with refractory Crohn's disease with significant bowel stenosis of the terminal ileum. All patients underwent robot-assisted intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis. Perioperative care was provided according to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery® protocol. Follow-up for postoperative complications was 30 days. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included, of whom 11 (55%) were men. The median age was 30 years [interquartile range (IQR) 22-51 years] and the median BMI was 25 kg/m2 (IQR 19-28 kg/m2). Intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis was successfully performed in all cases. The median operating time was 155 min (IQR 144-176 min) and the median length of stay was 3 days (IQR 1-5 days). No conversions or 30-day mortality were observed. One patient experienced anastomotic leakage, which was treated with radiologically guided drainage. A total of three patients experienced postoperative complications in the first 30 days. CONCLUSION: Performance of intracorporeal robot-assisted Kono-S anastomosis seems safe and feasible in this case series for Crohn's disease. Since this is a first case series, further research is required to confirm results in a larger population-based cohort.

Better stoma care using the Stoma App: does it help? A first randomized double-blind clinical trial on the effect of mobile healthcare on quality of life in stoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Receiving a stoma significantly impacts patients' quality of life. Coping with this new situation can be difficult, which may result in a variety of physical and psychosocial problems. It is essential to provide adequate guidance to help patients cope with their stoma, as this positively influences self-efficacy in return. Higher self-efficacy reduces psychosocial problems increasing patient's quality of life. This study investigates whether a new mobile application, the Stoma App, improves quality of life. And if personalized guidance, timed support, and peer contact offered as an in-app surplus makes a difference. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted between March 2021 and April 2023. Patients aged > 18 years undergoing ileostomy or colostomy surgery, in possession of a compatible smartphone were included. The intervention group received the full version of the app containing personalized and time guidance, peer support, and generic (non-personalized) stoma-related information. The control group received a restricted version with only generic information. Primary outcome was stoma quality of life. Secondary outcomes included psychological adaption, complications, re-admittance, reoperations, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The intervention version of the app was used by 96 patients and the control version by 112 patients. After correction for confounding, the intervention group reported a significant 3.1-point improvement in stoma-related quality of life one month postoperatively (p = 0.038). On secondary outcomes, no significant improvements could be retrieved of the intervention group. CONCLUSION: The Stoma App improves the quality of life of stoma patients. Peer support and personalized guidance are of significant importance in building self-efficacy. It is to be recommended to implement Stoma app-freely available software qualifying as a medical device-in standard stoma care pathways for the benefits of both patients and healthcare providers.

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study).

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH. METHOD: Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923. CONCLUSION: Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).

Twenty-four hours stay after colorectal surgery: a systematic review

Introduction: The introduction of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery led to increasing twenty-four hours discharge pathways, for example in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and bariatric surgery. However, implementation in colorectal surgery still must set off. This systematic review assesses safety and feasibility of twenty-four hours discharge in colorectal surgery in terms of readmission and complications in current literature. Secondary outcome was identification of factors associated with success of twenty-four hours discharge. Methods: Pubmed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies investigating twenty-four hours discharge in colorectal surgery, without restriction of study type. Search strategy included keywords relating to ambulatory management and colorectal surgery. Studies were scored according to MINORS score. Results: Thirteen studies were included in this systematic review, consisting of six prospective and seven retrospective studies. Number of participants of the included prospective studies ranged from 5 to 157. Median success of discharge was 96% in the twenty-four hours discharge group. All prospective studies showed similar readmission and complication rates between twenty-four hours discharge and conventional postoperative management. Factors associated with success of twenty-four hours discharge were low ASA classification, younger age, minimally invasive approach, and relatively shorter operation time. Conclusions: Twenty-four hours discharge in colorectal surgery seems feasible and safe, based on retro- and prospective studies. Careful selection of patients and establishment of a clear and adequate protocol are key items to assure safety and feasibility. Results should be interpreted with caution, due to heterogeneity. To confirm results, an adequately powered prospective randomized study is needed. (AU)

Towards Response ADAptive Radiotherapy for organ preservation for intermediate-risk rectal cancer (preRADAR): protocol of a phase I dose-escalation trial.

INTRODUCTION: Organ preservation is associated with superior functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Only 10% of patients are eligible for organ preservation following short-course radiotherapy (SCRT, 25 Gy in five fractions) and a prolonged interval (4-8 weeks) to response evaluation. The organ preservation rate could potentially be increased by dose-escalated radiotherapy. Online adaptive magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is anticipated to reduce radiation-induced toxicity and enable radiotherapy dose escalation. This trial aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of dose-escalated SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The preRADAR is a multicentre phase I trial with a 6+3 dose-escalation design. Patients with intermediate-risk rectal cancer (cT3c-d(MRF-)N1M0 or cT1-3(MRF-)N1M0) interested in organ preservation are eligible. Patients are treated with a radiotherapy boost of 2×5 Gy (level 0), 3×5 Gy (level 1), 4×5 Gy (level 2) or 5×5 Gy (level 3) on the gross tumour volume in the week following standard SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT. The trial starts on dose level 1. The primary endpoint is the MTD based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) per dose level. DLT is a composite of maximum one in nine severe radiation-induced toxicities and maximum one in three severe postoperative complications, in patients treated with TME or local excision within 26 weeks following start of treatment. Secondary endpoints include the organ preservation rate, non-DLT, oncological outcomes, patient-reported QoL and functional outcomes up to 2 years following start of treatment. Imaging and laboratory biomarkers are explored for early response prediction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht. The primary and secondary trial results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: WHO International Clinical Trials Registry (NL8997; https://trialsearch.who.int).

Evaluation of National Surgical Practice for Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer in an Untrained Setting.

BACKGROUND: Involved lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) have been associated with increased local recurrence (LR) and ipsi-lateral LR (LLR) rates. However, consensus regarding the indication and type of surgical treatment for suspicious LLNs is lacking. This study evaluated the surgical treatment of LLNs in an untrained setting at a national level. METHODS: Patients who underwent additional LLN surgery were selected from a national cross-sectional cohort study regarding patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 69 Dutch hospitals in 2016. LLN surgery consisted of either 'node-picking' (the removal of an individual LLN) or 'partial regional node dissection' (PRND; an incomplete resection of the LLN area). For all patients with primarily enlarged (≥7 mm) LLNs, those undergoing rectal surgery with an additional LLN procedure were compared to those  undergoing only rectal resection. RESULTS: Out of 3057 patients, 64 underwent additional LLN surgery, with 4-year LR and LLR rates of 26% and 15%, respectively. Forty-eight patients (75%) had enlarged LLNs, with corresponding recurrence rates of 26% and 19%, respectively. Node-picking (n = 40) resulted in a 20% 4-year LLR, and a 14% LLR after PRND (n = 8; p = 0.677). Multivariable analysis of 158 patients with enlarged LLNs undergoing additional LLN surgery (n = 48) or rectal resection alone (n = 110) showed no significant association of LLN surgery with 4-year LR or LLR, but suggested higher recurrence risks after LLN surgery (LR: hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-3.2, p = 0.264; LLR: HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.2-2.5, p = 0.874). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of Dutch practice in 2016 revealed that approximately one-third of patients with primarily enlarged LLNs underwent surgical treatment, mostly consisting of node-picking. Recurrence rates were not significantly affected by LLN surgery, but did suggest worse outcomes. Outcomes of LLN surgery after adequate training requires further research.

Use of ileostomy versus colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer: retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer causes the majority of large bowel obstructions and surgical resection remains the gold standard for curative treatment. There is evidence that a deviating stoma as a bridge to surgery can reduce postoperative mortality rate; however, the optimal stoma type is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between ileostomy and colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer. METHODS: This was a national, retrospective population-based cohort study with 75 contributing hospitals. Patients with radiological left-sided obstructive colon cancer between 2009 and 2016, where a deviating stoma was used as a bridge to surgery, were included. Exclusion criteria were palliative treatment intent, perforation at presentation, emergency resection, and multivisceral resection. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients underwent a deviating stoma; 41 (12.7 per cent) ileostomies and 280 (87.2 per cent) colostomies. The ileostomy group had longer length of stay (median 13 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 10-16) versus 9 (i.q.r. 6-14) days, P = 0.003) and more nutritional support during the bridging interval. Both groups showed similar complication rates in the bridging interval and after primary resection, including anastomotic leakage. Stoma reversal during resection was more common in the colostomy group (9 (22.0 per cent) versus 129 (46.1 per cent) for ileostomy and colostomy respectively, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that patients having a colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer had a shorter length of stay and lower need for nutritional support. No difference in postoperative complications were found.

Detection of colon cancer recurrences during follow-up care by general practitioners vs surgeons.

BACKGROUND: In the I CARE study, colon cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive follow-up care from either a general practitioner (GP) or a surgeon. Here, we address a secondary outcome, namely, detection of recurrences and effect on time to detection of transferring care from surgeon to GP. METHODS: Pattern, stage, and treatment of recurrences were described after 3 years. Time to event was defined as date of surgery, until date of recurrence or last follow-up, with death as competing event. Effects on time to recurrence and death were estimated as hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression. Restricted mean survival times were estimated. RESULTS: Of 303 patients, 141 were randomly assigned to the GP and 162 to the surgeon. Patients were male (67%) with a mean age of 68.0 (8.4) years. During follow-up, 46 recurrences were detected; 18 (13%) in the GP vs 28 (17%) in the surgeon group. Most recurrences were detected via abnormal follow-up tests (74%) and treated with curative intent (59%). Hazard ratio for recurrence was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41 to 1.36) in GP vs surgeon group. Patients in the GP group remained in the disease-free state slightly longer (2.76 vs 2.71 years). Of the patients, 38 died during follow-up; 15 (11%) in the GP vs 23 (14%) in the surgeon group. Of these, 21 (55%) deaths were related to colon cancer. There were no differences in overall deaths between the groups (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.46). CONCLUSION: Follow-up provided by GPs vs surgeons leads to similar detection of recurrences. Also, no differences in mortality were found.

Impact of a diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis is debated. The aim of this study is to gain insight in the clinical consequences of a diverting ileostomy, with respect to stoma rate at one year and stoma-related morbidity. METHODS: Patients undergoing TME with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven participating hospitals were included. Retrospectively, two groups were compared: patients with or without diverting ileostomy construction during primary surgery. Primary endpoint was stoma rate at one year. Secondary endpoints were severity and rate of anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate within thirty days and stoma (reversal) related morbidity. RESULTS: In 353 out of 595 patients (59.3%) a diverting ileostomy was constructed during primary surgery. Stoma rate at one year was 9.9% in the non-ileostomy group and 18.7% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.003). After correction for confounders, multivariate analysis showed that the construction of a diverting ileostomy during primary surgery was an independent risk factor for stoma at one year (OR 2.563 (95%CI 1.424-4.611), p = 0.002). Anastomotic leakage rate was 17.8% in the non-ileostomy group and 17.2% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.913). Overall 30-days morbidity rate was 37.6% in the non-ileostomy group and 56.1% in the ileostomy group (p < 0.001). Stoma reversal related morbidity rate was 17.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The stoma rate at one year was higher in patients with ileostomy construction during primary surgery. The incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage were not reduced by construction of an ileostomy. The morbidity related to the presence and reversal of a diverting ileostomy was substantial.

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate. RESULTS: Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR.

Patient- and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity of short-course radiotherapy with a prolonged interval to surgery for rectal cancer.

AIM: A prolonged interval (>4 weeks) between short-course radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions) (SCRT-delay) and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has been associated with a decreased postoperative complication rate and offers the possibility of organ preservation in the case of a complete tumour response. This prospective cohort study systematically evaluated patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity for 8 weeks following SCRT-delay. METHOD: Patients who were referred for SCRT-delay for intermediate risk, oligometastatic or locally advanced rectal cancer were included. Repeated measurements were done for patient-reported bowel dysfunction (measured by the low anterior resection syndrome [LARS] questionnaire and categorized as no, minor or major LARS) and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0) before start of treatment (baseline), at completion of SCRT and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 weeks thereafter. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were included; 31 (61%) were men and the median age was 67 years (range 44-91). Patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity peaked at weeks 1-2 after completion of SCRT and gradually declined thereafter. Major LARS was reported by 44 patients (92%) at some time during SCRT-delay. Grade 3 radiation-induced toxicity was reported in 17 patients (33%) and concerned predominantly diarrhoea. No Grade 4-5 radiation-induced toxicity occurred. CONCLUSION: During SCRT-delay, almost every patient experiences temporary mild-moderate radiation-induced toxicity and major LARS, but life-threatening toxicity is rare. SCRT-delay is a safe alternative to SCRT-direct surgery that should be proposed when counselling rectal cancer patients on neoadjuvant strategies.

SPONGE-assisted versus Trendelenburg position surgery in laparoscopic sigmoid and rectal cancer surgery (SPONGE trial): randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In minimally invasive surgery of the sigmoid colon and rectum a retractor sponge has been introduced as an alternative to the Trendelenburg position. This randomized clinical trial (RCT) compared postoperative duration of hospital stay and perioperative outcomes in patients with sigmoid or rectal cancer undergoing sponge-assisted versus Trendelenburg position surgery. METHODS: The SPONGE trial is a single-centre RCT nested within the Dutch nationwide prospective observational cohort of patients with colorectal cancer, and follows the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design. Patients with sigmoid or rectal cancer undergoing elective laparoscopic or robotic surgery were randomized to either sponge-assisted or Trendelenburg surgery on a 1:1 basis using block randomization. Duration of postoperative hospital stay was the primary outcome and was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of complications, readmissions, or mortality versus the χ2 test in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial was not blinded for patients in the intervention arm or physicians. RESULTS: Between November 2015 and June 2021, 82 patients were randomized to sponge-assisted surgery and 81 to Trendelenburg surgery. After post-randomization exclusion, 150 patients remained for analyses (75 patients per arm). There was no statistically significant difference in median duration of hospital stay (5 days versus 4 days, respectively; P = 0.06), 30-day postoperative complications (30 per cent versus 31 per cent; P = 1.00), readmission rate (8 per cent versus 15 per cent; P = 0.30), or mortality (0 per cent versus 1 per cent, P = 1.00). The per-protocol analysis showed similar results. No adverse device events were seen. CONCLUSION: Sponge-assisted laparoscopic/robotic surgery does not reduce the duration of hospital stay, or perioperative morbidity or mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02574013 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Impact of Dose-Escalated Chemoradiation on Quality of Life in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: 2-Year Follow-Up of the Randomized RECTAL-BOOST Trial.

PURPOSE: Dose-escalated chemoradiation (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer did not result in higher complete response rates but initiated more tumor regression in the randomized RECTAL-BOOST trial (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01951521). This study compared patient reported outcomes between patients who received dose-escalated CRT (5 × 3 gray boost + CRT) or standard CRT for 2 years after randomization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were participating in the RECTAL-BOOST trial filled out European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after start of treatment. Between-group differences in functional QoL domains were estimated using a linear mixed-effects model and expressed as effect size (ES). Symptom scores were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Patients treated with dose-escalated CRT (boost group, n = 51) experienced a significantly stronger decline in global health at 3 and 6 months (ES -0.4 and ES -0.4), physical functioning at 6 months (ES -1.1), role functioning at 3 and 6 months (ES -0.8 and ES -0.6), and social functioning at 6 months (ES -0.6), compared with patients treated with standard CRT (control group, n = 64). The boost group reported significantly more fatigue at 3 and 6 months (83% vs 66% respectively 89% vs 76%), pain at 3 and 6 months (67% vs 36% respectively 80% vs 44%), and diarrhea at 3 months (45% vs 29%) compared with the control group. From 12 months onwards, QoL and symptoms were similar between groups, apart from more blood/mucus in stool in the boost group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, dose-escalated CRT resulted in a transient deterioration in global health, physical, role, and social functioning and more pain, fatigue and diarrhea at 3 and 6 months after start of treatment compared with standard CRT. From 12 months onwards, the effect of dose-escalated CRT on QoL largely resolved.

Frailty and health related quality of life three months after non-metastatic colorectal cancer diagnosis in older patients: A multi-centre prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Health related quality of life (HRQL) is an important outcome measure in geriatric oncology. Surgery is the main treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) but has been associated with a loss of HRQL in older patients. This study aimed to identify determinants for a decreased HRQL at three months after CRC diagnosis. METHOD: This multi-centre observational cohort study (NCT04443816) included 273 patients aged ≥70 years diagnosed with non-metastatic CRC. A multi-domain frailty screening was performed in each patient. A decreased HRQL was defined as a mean difference ≥ 10 on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire between baseline and three months after CRC diagnosis. Determinants of a decreased HRQL were analysed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A decrease in HRQL occurred in 63 patients (23.1%). Non-surgical patients had the highest risk of decreased HRQL three months after diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 6.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0-19.8)). The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (aOR 2.3 (95% (CI) 1.2-4.2)), the American Association of Anesthesiologists class (aOR 2.6 (95%CI 1.4-4.9)), impaired daily functioning (aOR 2.7 (95%CI 1.3-5.6)) and dependent living (aOR 1.9 (95%CI 1.1-4.5)) were associated with a decreased HRQL, mainly caused by non-surgical patients. In surgical patients, a major postoperative complication was a strong determinant of decreased HRQL and was associated with preoperative comorbidity and cognitive impairment (aOR 4.0 (95%CI 1.9-8.8)). CONCLUSION: Frailty characteristics are highly prevalent in older patients at time of CRC diagnosis but not strongly associated with a decreased HRQL after three months. Non-surgical patients and patients with major postoperative complications had the highest risk of decreased HRQL. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov trial number: NCT04443816.

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. SETTINGS: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS. ANTECEDENTES: No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica. DISEO: Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión. AJUSTES: El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017. INTERVENCIONES: Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo. RESULTADOS: Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo. LIMITACIONES: Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación. CONCLUSIONES: La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Increased long-term mortality after open colorectal cancer surgery: A multicentre population-based study.

AIM: Unlike meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, population-based studies in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have shown a significant association between open surgery and increased 30- and 90-day mortality compared with laparoscopic surgery. Long-term mortality, however, is scarcely reported. This retrospective population-based study aimed to compare long-term mortality after open and laparoscopic surgery for CRC. METHOD: The Dutch Colorectal Audit and the Dutch Cancer Centre registry were used to identify patients from three large nonacademic teaching hospitals who underwent curative resection for CRC between 2009 and 2018. Patients with relative contraindications for laparoscopic surgery (cT4 or pT4 tumours, distant metastasis requiring additional resection and emergency surgery) were excluded. Multivariable regression was used to assess the effect of laparoscopic surgery on long-term mortality with adjustment for gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, TNM stage, chemoradiation therapy and other confounders. RESULTS: We included 4531 patients, of whom 1298 (29%) underwent open surgery. The median follow-up was 43 months (interquartile range 23-71 months). Open surgery was associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.45, p = 0.001). Mixed-effects Cox regression with year of surgery as a random effect also showed an increased risk after open surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.52, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Open surgery seems to be associated with increased long-term mortality in the elective setting for CRC patients. A minimally invasive approach might improve long-term outcomes.

Effect of Intra-Operative Hypothermia on Post-Operative Morbidity in Patients with Colorectal Cancer.

Background: Current guidelines recommend maintaining intra-operative normothermia to avoid surgical site infections (SSI) after colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to assess whether compliance with normothermia as part of temperature management measures is an effective strategy to reduce post-operative SSI and complications. Patients and Methods: This was a cohort study of patients undergoing surgery for primary colorectal cancer in 2011-2017 in a large teaching hospital in which temperature management using the Bair Hugger™ system (3M™ Center, St. Paul, MN) was standard care. Data from the prospective Dutch Surgical Audit (DCRA) database were complemented by highly granular intra-operative central body temperature data. A multivariable logistic regression model was used. Results: A total of 1,015 patients undergoing surgery for primary colorectal cancer were included. Temperature outcomes for the entire study cohort were as follows: mean temperature was 36.3°C (standard deviation [SD] ±0.5°C), median temperature nadir was 35.8°C (interquartile range [IQR] 35.6°C-36.1°C), median percentage of time at nadir was 2.0% (IQR 0.8%-10.7%), and median percentage of time less than 36.0°C was 1.0% (IQR 0.0%-33.3%). Thirty-day SSI rate was 10% (n = 101). Logistic regression models adjusting for gender, diabetes mellitus, body mass index (BMI), rectal cancer, duration of surgery, open surgery, emergency surgery, and period of surgery showed no association between any of the four temperature outcomes and SSI. Multivariable analysis also failed to show an association between intra-operative hypothermia and 30-day complications, mortality, or re-admission. Conclusions: In a hospital in which temperature management is standard care, intra-operative hypothermia and SSI rates in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery were low. Compliance with normothermia appears to be an effective strategy to reduce SSI.

Detection of inadequate anastomotic perfusion with handheld vital microscopy in two patients during colorectal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Anastomotic leakage is one of the most feared complications after gastrointestinal surgery. Assessment of anastomotic viability during surgery remains challenging. Sufficient bowel tissue perfusion is a requisite for anastomotic healing. Handheld vital microscopy (HVM) is a non-invasive technique that can directly visualize the intestinal microcirculation during surgery. PRESENTATION OF TWO CASES: Two patients underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery. During surgery HVM was used to assess bowel perfusion prior to creation of a primary anastomosis. Although the bowel macroscopically appeared to be well perfused, HVM showed a severely compromised microcirculation. The colon was re-internalized and during the following minutes cyanosis of the bowel occurred which was visually determined by the surgeon. After dissection towards cranially, a new site for the primary anastomosis was chosen. The postoperative period was uncomplicated. DISCUSSION: Sufficient bowel tissue perfusion is often mentioned as key in the pathophysiology of anastomotic leakage. HVM is a technique that could potentially aid surgeons in the assessment of microcirculatory perfusion of the bowel during surgery. CONCLUSION: We report two cases undergoing colorectal surgery in which HVM showed merit in detecting compromised bowel perfusion before creation of a primary anastomosis.