SAGES masters program: the top 10 seminal articles for the laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy pathway for complex disease.

BACKGROUND: The SAGES University Colorectal Masters Program is a structured educational curriculum that is designed to aid practicing surgeons develop and maintain knowledge and technical skills for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The Colorectal Pathway is based on three anchoring procedures (laparoscopic right colectomy, laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy for uncomplicated and complex disease, and intracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive right colectomy) corresponding to three levels of performance (competency, proficiency and mastery). This manuscript presents focused summaries of the top 10 seminal articles selected for laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy for complex benign and malignant disease. METHODS: A systematic literature search of Web of Science for the most cited articles on the topic of laparoscopic complex left/sigmoid colectomy yielded 30 citations. These articles were reviewed and ranked by the SAGES Colorectal Task Force and invited subject experts according to their citation index. The top 10 ranked articles were then reviewed and summarized, with emphasis on relevance and impact in the field, study findings, strength and limitations and conclusions. RESULTS: The top 10 seminal articles selected for the laparoscopic left/sigmoid colectomy for complex disease anchoring procedure include advanced procedures such as minimally invasive splenic flexure mobilization techniques, laparoscopic surgery for complicated and/or diverticulitis, splenic flexure tumors, complete mesocolic excision, and other techniques (e.g., Deloyers or colonic transposition in cases with limited colonic reach after extended left-sided resection). CONCLUSIONS: The SAGES Colorectal Masters Program top 10 seminal articles selected for laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy for complex benign and malignant disease anchoring procedure are presented. These procedures were the most essential in the armamentarium of practicing surgeons that perform minimally invasive surgery for complex left and sigmoid colon pathology.

Establishing core outcome sets for gastrointestinal recovery in studies of postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction: protocol for a nested methodological study.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal recovery describes the restoration of normal bowel function in patients with bowel disease. This may be prolonged in two common clinical settings: postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction. Improving gastrointestinal recovery is a research priority but researchers are limited by variation in outcome reporting across clinical studies. This protocol describes the development of core outcome sets for gastrointestinal recovery in the contexts of postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction. METHOD: An international Steering Group consisting of patient and clinician representatives has been established. As overlap between clinical contexts is anticipated, both outcome sets will be co-developed and may be combined to form a common output with disease-specific domains. The development process will comprise three phases, including definition of outcomes relevant to postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction from systematic literature reviews and nominal-group stakeholder discussions; online-facilitated Delphi surveys via international networks; and a consensus meeting to ratify the final output. A nested study will explore if the development of overlapping outcome sets can be rationalized. DISSEMINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION: The final output will be registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. A multi-faceted, quality improvement campaign for the reporting of gastrointestinal recovery in clinical studies will be launched, targeting international professional and patient groups, charitable organizations and editorial committees. Success will be explored via an updated systematic review of outcomes 5 years after registration of the core outcome set.

Ileal pouch revision vs excision: short-term (30-day) outcomes from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

AIM: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) failure occurs in approximately 5%-10% of patients. We aimed to compare short-term (30-day) postoperative outcomes associated with pouch revision and pouch excision using a large international database. Our null hypothesis was that there is no statistically significant difference in overall postoperative complications between patients selected for pouch revision vs pouch excision. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant User File from 2005 to 2016 we identified patients who underwent either IPAA revision via the combined abdominoperineal approach [Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 46712] or IPAA excision (CPT 45136). Differences in baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes between groups were assessed with univariate and matched analyses. RESULTS: We identified 593 reoperative IPAA procedures: revision group 78 (13%) and excision group 515 (86%). The groups had similar age and body mass index (kg/m2 ), but the revision group had more women (65.4% vs 51.8%, P = 0.02) and fewer were on chronic steroids (3.9% vs 17.9%, P = 0.0008) relative to the excision group. Revision IPAA patients were more likely to have received a preoperative transfusion (5.1% vs 0.97%, P = 0.02). Revision and excision were associated with similar postoperative length of stay (9.3 vs 8.6 days, 0.44), mortality (nil vs 0.58%, respectively; P = 0.99) and short-term morbidity (34.6% vs 40.2%, respectively; P = 0.88) at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Pouch revision and excision have comparable short-term postoperative outcomes, but pouch excision appears to be more commonly utilized. Increased awareness of the indications for pouch revision or referral to specialized centres may improve pouch revision rates.

The relationship between mesorectal grading and oncological outcome in rectal adenocarcinoma.

AIM: The prognostic association between mesorectal grading and oncological outcome in patients undergoing resection for rectal adenocarcinoma is controversial. The aim of this retrospective chart review was to determine the individual impact of mesorectal grading on rectal cancer outcomes. METHOD: We compared oncological outcomes in patients with complete, near-complete and incomplete mesorectum who underwent rectal excision with curative intent from 2009 to 2014 for Stage cI-III rectal adenocarcinoma. We also assessed the independent association of mesorectal grading and oncological outcome using multivariate models including other relevant variables. RESULTS: Out of 505 patients (339 men, median age of 60 years), 347 (69%) underwent a restorative procedure. There were 452 (89.5%), 33 (6.5%) and 20 (4%) patients with a complete, near-complete and incomplete mesorectum, respectively. Local recurrence was seen in 2.4% (n = 12) patients after a mean follow-up of 3.1 ± 1.7 years. Unadjusted 3-year Kaplan-Meier analysis by mesorectal grade showed decreased rates of overall, disease-free and cancer-specific survival and increased rates of overall and distant recurrence with a near-complete mesorectum, while local recurrence was increased in cases of an incomplete mesorectum (all P < 0.05). On multivariate analyses, a near-complete mesorectum was independently associated with decreased cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.1-0.7; P = 0.007). There were no associations between mesorectal grading and overall survival, disease-free survival, overall recurrence or distant recurrence (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Mesorectal grading is independently associated with oncological outcome. It provides unique information for optimizing surgical quality in rectal cancer.

Factors associated with hospital readmission following diverting ileostomy creation.

BACKGROUND: The creation of a diverting loop ileostomy is associated with the risk of readmission due to stoma-related complications. We hypothesized that the assessment of our institution-specific readmissions following ileostomy creation would help identifying at-risk groups which should be the focus of future preventative strategies. METHODS: Patients who underwent loop ileostomy formation from 2009 to 2013 were reviewed. We evaluated readmissions within 30 days after discharge following loop ileostomy construction. Possible associations between readmission and demographic, disease-related and treatment-related factors were assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Out of 1267 patients undergoing loop ileostomy construction, 163 patients (12.9%) were readmitted. The main causes of readmissions were organ/space infections (43, 3.4%), small bowel obstruction/ileus (42, 3.3%) and dehydration (38, 3%). Independent factors associated with overall readmission were cardiovascular (OR = 2.0) and renal comorbidity (OR = 2.9), preoperative chemo/radiotherapy (OR = 4.0), laparoscopic approach (OR = 1.7) and longer operative time (OR = 1.2). Cancer diagnosis was associated with reduced readmission rates (OR = 0.2). Independent factors associated with readmission due to dehydration were chemo/radiotherapy (OR = 4.7) and laparoscopic approach (OR = 2.6). CONCLUSIONS: Dehydration associated with diverting ileostomy creation was relevant as an individual cause of readmission, but its overall incidence was relatively rare. Dedicated strategies to prevent dehydration should be directed to patients who received chemoradiotherapy and/or laparoscopic surgery.

Metastatic spread pattern after curative colorectal cancer surgery. A retrospective, longitudinal analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The most common sites of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence are the local tissues, liver or lungs. The objective was to identify risk factors associated with the primary CRC tumor and cancer recurrence in these anatomical sites. METHODS: Retrospective, longitudinal analyses of data on CRC survivors. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the association between possible cofounders with recurrence to various anatomical sites. RESULTS: Data for 10,398CRC survivors (tumor location right colon=3870, left colon=2898, high rectum=2569, low rectum=1061) were analyzed; follow up time was up to five years. Mean age at curative surgery was 71.5 (SD 11.8) years, 20.2% received radio-chemotherapy, stage T3 (64.4%) and N0 (65.1%) were most common. Overall 1632 (15.7%) had cancer recurrence (Isolated liver n=412, 3,8%; isolated lung n=252, 2,4%; isolated local n=223, 2.1%). Risk factors associated with recurrent CRC were identified, i.e. isolated liver metastases (male: Adjusted Hazard Ratio (AHR) 1,45; colon left: AHR 1,63; N2 disease: AHR 3,35; T2 disease: AHR 2,82), isolated lung metastases (colon left: AHR 1,53; rectum high: AHR 2,48; rectum low: AHR 2,65; N2 disease 3,76), and local recurrence (glands examined<12: AHR 1,51; CRM <3mm: AHR 1,60; rectum high: AHR 2,15; N2 disease: AHR 2,58) (all p values <0001). CONCLUSION: Our study finds that the site of the primary CRC tumor is associated with location of subsequent metastasis. Left sided colon cancers have increased risk of metastatic spread to the liver, whereas rectal cancers have increased risk of local recurrence and metastatic spread to the lungs. These results, in combination with other risk factors for CRC recurrence, should be taken into consideration when designing risk adapted post-treatment CRC surveillance programs.

Transanal total mesorectal excision: a systematic review of the experimental and clinical evidence.

Achieving a clear distal or circumferential resection margins with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) may be laborious, especially in obese males and when operating on advanced distal rectal tumors with a poor response to neoadjuvant treatment. Transanal (TaTME) is a new natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery modality in which the rectum is mobilized transanally using endoscopic techniques with or without laparoscopic assistance. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of publications on this new technique in PubMed and Embase databases from January, 2008, to July, 2014. Experimental and clinical studies written in English were included. Experimental research with TaTME was done on pigs with and without survival models and on human cadavers. In these studies, laparoscopic or transgastric assistance was frequently used resulting in an easier upper rectal dissection and in a longer rectal specimen. To date, 150 patients in 16 clinical studies have undergone TaTME. In all but 15 cases, transabdominal assistance was used. A rigid transanal endoscopic operations/transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEO/TEM) platform was used in 37 patients. Rectal adenocarcinoma was the indication in all except for nine cases of benign diseases. Operative times ranged from 90 to 460 min. TME quality was deemed intact, satisfactory, or complete. Involvement in circumferential resection margins was detected in 16 (11.8 %) patients. The mean lymph node harvest was equal or greater than 12 in all studies. Regarding morbidity, pneumoretroperitoneum, damage to the urethra, and air embolism were reported intraoperatively. Mean hospital stay varied from 4 to 14 days. Postoperative complications occurred in 34 (22.7 %) patients. TaTME with TEM is feasible in selected cases. Oncologic safety parameters seem to be adequate although the evidence relies on small retrospective series conducted by highly trained surgeons. Further studies are expected.

MRI-defined height of rectal tumours.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard for reporting rectal cancer distances from the distal resection margin in the literature. The objective was to demonstrate the importance of rectal cancer measurement from a standardized point. METHODS: Review of databases at two international institutions identified 50 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma within 15 cm of the anal verge (AV), who had preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and underwent surgery with curative intent. Expert radiologists reviewed the magnetic resonance images for anatomical distances from the anorectal ring (ARR) to the AV, from the ARR to the dentate line (DL), and from the DL to the AV. Anatomical measurements were compared with preoperative measurements to assess reporting inconsistencies. RESULTS: Fifty patients with rectal adenocarcinoma were included in the study. The mean(s.d.) anatomical distance was 1.66(0.61) cm from the ARR to the DL, 3.78(0.61) cm from the ARR to the AV (maximum 5.5 cm) and 2.11(0.10) cm from the DL to the AV. The mean radiological distance from the distal tumour was 2.90(1.60) (median 3.2, range 0-7.5) cm to the ARR, 4.36(3.20) (median 4.2, range -0.5 to 12.8) cm to the DL and 6.13(3.39) (median 6.0, range 0-14.1) cm to the AV. There was a significant difference in the distal tumour margin between measurements made by the expert radiologists and reported preoperative measurements (P < 0.001). Significant differences were also found between the expert radiologists' MRI and rigid proctoscopic measurements (P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: There was up to 5.5 cm variation, depending on which landmark was chosen for reporting the distal margin of rectal cancer. This has potential implications for surgical planning, interpreting radiological images and comparative studies.

Tailored rectal cancer treatment--a time for implementing contemporary prognostic factors?

AIM: To report data supporting the development of tailored treatment strategies for rectal cancer. METHOD: A comprehensive review of the literature on the impact of prognostic factors cur-rently not included in international guidelines in rectal cancer management. RESULTS: There is considerable variation in treatment guidelines for rectal cancer worldwide, especially for Stage II and Stage III disease. Long-term side effects of chemoradiotherapy are not considered in any guideline. Detailed knowledge, and the prognostic impact, of the circumferential resection margin, tumour grade and venous invasion should be factored into the development of a treatment strategy. CONCLUSION: Factors additional to the TNM system should improve decision making for contemporary rectal cancer treatment. Optimized radiological and pathological evaluations, and a focus on detailed clinical factors, should be the basis for treatment decisions. International guidelines should consider all known prognostic factors for long-term oncological and functional outcomes.

System-based factors influencing intraoperative decision-making in rectal cancer by surgeons: an international assessment.

AIM: Sound surgical judgement is the goal of training and experience; however, system-based factors may also colour selection of options by a surgeon. We analysed potential organizational characteristics that might influence rectal cancer decision-making by an experienced surgeon. METHOD: One hundred and seventy-three international centres treating rectal cancer were invited to participate in a survey assessment of key treatment options for patients undergoing curative rectal-cancer surgery. The key organizational characteristics were analysed using multivariate methods for association with intra-operative surgical decision-making. RESULTS: The response rate was 71% (123 centres). Sphincter-saving surgery was more likely to be performed at university hospitals (OR=3.63, P=0.01) and by high-caseload surgeons (OR=2.77 P=0.05). A diverting stoma was performed more frequently in departments with clinical audits (OR=3.06, P=0.02), and a diverting stoma with coloanal anastomosis was more likely in European centres (OR=4.14, P=0.004). One-stage surgery was less likely where there was assessment by a multidisciplinary team (OR=0.24, P=0.02). Multivariate analysis showed that university hospital, clinical audit, European centre, multidisciplinary team and high caseload significantly impacted on surgical decision-making. CONCLUSION: Treatment variance of rectal cancer surgeons appears to be significantly influenced by organizational characteristics and complex team-based decision-making. System-based factors may need to be considered as a source of outcome variation that may impact on quality metrics.

Randomized clinical trial comparing the cost and effectiveness of bipolar vessel sealers versus clips and vascular staplers for laparoscopic colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of laparoscopy has resulted in a variety of instruments being used routinely for vascular control. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the cost-effectiveness of bipolar vessel sealer (BVS) compared with clips and vascular stapler (CVS) in straight laparoscopic colorectal resection. METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective colorectal resection, including benign and malignant diseases, were randomized to either BVS or CVS for vascular control. Patients whose operation was converted to an open approach before pedicle ligation were excluded. The primary endpoints were duration of operation, including time taken to control vascular pedicles, and cost of disposable instruments for vascular control. RESULTS: Of 114 patients randomized to BVS (60 patients) or CVS (54), 14 did not receive the allocated vascular control device, leaving 55 and 45 respectively for analysis. The BVS reduced the time spent for vascular control by a mean of 6·9 min (P = 0·031) and reduced the cost of disposable instruments for vascular control by US $ 80·7 per patient (P = 0·043). For total colectomy, the BVS reduced the operating time by 103·6 min (P = 0·023) and the time taken for vascular control by 16·8 min (P = 0·022). For left colectomy, it decreased the time to vascular control by 9·3 min (P = 0·021). In multivariable analysis, the cost of disposable instruments for vascular control was independently reduced by randomization to BVS, type of procedure, female sex and estimated blood loss. The mean cost reduction was $ 88·2 for left colectomy (P = 0·037), $ 377·7 (P = 0·005) for total colectomy and $ 366·9 (P = 0·012) for proctectomy. Conversely, use of the BVS increased the cost of instruments used for vascular control in right colectomy by $ 92·6 (P = 0·012). CONCLUSION: BVS devices are expedient and cost-efficient in proctectomy, left and total colectomy procedures.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is coming out of age with recent publications highlighting its safety, feasibility, sound oncological outcomes, and improved quality of life. Nevertheless, laparoscopic proctectomy remains a challenging procedure. An embedded didactic video demonstrates a step-by-step laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with coloanal anastomosis for a low rectal cancer. METHODS: A five-trocar technique is shown. The key steps demonstrated are: high division of the inferior mesenteric artery, medial-to-lateral mobilization of the descending colon, high division of the inferior mesenteric vein, take-down of the splenic flexure, total mesorectal excision with division of the rectum at the pelvic floor, and side-to-end coloanal anastomosis. Principles of a good anastomosis and potential pitfalls are described, including protection of the ureter and pelvic autonomic nerves. RESULTS: A series of ten consecutive patients operated for low rectal cancer with total mesorectal excision is reported. Median (range) operative time and estimated blood loss were 274 (135-360) minutes and 25 (10-50) ml. Median tumor height from the anal verge was 7 (4-10) cm. Reconstruction included three coloanal J-pouch and seven side-to-end anastomosis. Nine anastomoses were performed by using a double-stapled technique. One patient with an intersphincteric dissection required a handsewn anastomosis. A diverting ileostomy protected all coloanal anastomosis. Median length of stay was 3 (range, 2-7) days. One of ten patients was readmitted for a small bowel obstruction. The embedded video demonstrates a total mesorectal excision down to the pelvic floor in a patient who had a T2 cancer 6 cm from the anal verge with prior open cholecystectomy and hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is a safe and effective procedure. Patient selection and advanced laparoscopic skills are paramount. It is hoped that this didactic video will contribute to a wider and safer practice of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer.

Single-incision vs straight laparoscopic segmental colectomy: a case-controlled study.

PURPOSE: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is gaining momentum in general surgery but it is essentially unstudied for laparoscopic colectomy. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy with laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy were prospectively entered into an institutional review board-approved database. Those that underwent single-incision laparoscopic colectomy were case matched for sex, age, disease, surgery, body mass index, previous surgeries, and surgeon with patients undergoing LAC. RESULTS: Twenty-nine single-incision laparoscopic segmental colectomies were performed for polyps (4), adenocarcinoma (12), diverticulitis (6), and Crohn's disease (7) and were case matched to laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for the same indications. Mean body mass index was 28.8 ± 3 kg/m². Operative time was longer for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (134.4 ± 40 vs 103.8 ± 54 min; P = .0002). Four single-incision laparoscopic colectomies were converted to LAC requiring either one extra port (2) or 2 extra ports (2), and there was one conversion to laparotomy. Extraction scar length (millimeters) was similar (38 ± 6.0 vs 45 ± 6.2; P = .746). Postoperative morbidity (5/29 vs 7/29; P = .284) and length of stay (day) (3.7 ± 1.1 vs 3.9 ± 1.1; P = .445) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy is feasible and safe but takes more time than laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Although results approximate those for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, an additional learning curve is involved, and extra incisions are sometimes required. Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy requires further prospective validation so that the cost of the device can be justified by an improved clinical outcome.

Single incision laparoscopic total colectomy and proctocolectomy for benign disease: initial experience.

AIM: This paper presents our initial experience of single incision laparoscopic total colectomy and proctocolectomy. METHOD: Four female patients (mean age 35.5 years; mean body mass index 24.7 kg/m(2) ) underwent total colectomy with end ileostomy (n = 2) and proctocolectomy with stapled ileum pouch-anal (n = 1) and rectal (n = 1) anastomosis with loop ileostomy, for benign disease, using a single-incision laparoscopic approach. The single port was placed at the umbilicus or the ileostomy site. Specimen extraction was through the port site. RESULTS: Operative procedures were performed with a mean operative time of 212 min, mean blood loss of 30 ml and no intraoperative complication. No additional abdominal ports were required. A postoperative ileus (n = 1) on day three resolved spontaneously and the. mean hospital stay was 4.5 days. CONCLUSION: Single-incision laparoscopic total colectomy or proctocolectomy is feasible for benign disease in selected patients.

Assessment of comparative skills between hand-assisted and straight laparoscopic colorectal training on an augmented reality simulator.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare skills sets during a hand-assisted and straight laparoscopic colectomy on an augmented reality simulator. METHODS: Twenty-nine surgeons, assigned randomly in 2 groups, performed laparoscopic sigmoid colectomies on a simulator: group A (n = 15) performed hand-assisted then straight procedures; group B (n = 14) performed straight then hand-assisted procedures. Groups were compared according to prior laparoscopic colorectal experience, performance (time, instrument path length, and instrument velocity changes), technical skills, and operative error. RESULTS: Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was similar in both groups. Both groups had better performances with the hand-assisted approach, although technical skill scores were similar between approaches. The error rate was higher with the hand-assisted approach in group A, but similar between both approaches in group B. CONCLUSIONS: These data define the metrics of performance for hand-assisted and straight laparoscopic colectomy on an augmented reality simulator. The improved scores with the hand-assisted approach suggest that with this simulator a hand-assisted model may be technically easier to perform, although it is associated with increased intraoperative errors.