Assessing the Association Between Endoscopic Tattooing and Lymph Node Yield in Rectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative endoscopic tattooing is an effective tool for intraoperative tumor localization in colon cancer. Endoscopic tattooing in rectal cancer may have unidentified benefits on lymph node yield, making it easier for pathologists to identify nodes during histopathologic assessment. There remains concern that tattoo ink may alter anatomical planes, increasing surgical difficulty. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews from 2016 to 2021 of n = 170 patients presenting with rectal cancer were divided into two groups: with (n = 79) and without (n = 91) endoscopic tattoos. Demographics, operative details, tumor characteristics, prior chemoradiation, and pathologic details were collected. Primary outcome was total lymph node yield. Secondary outcomes were rates of adequate (> 12) nodes, margin status, and operative variables including operative time. RESULTS: No differences between pathologic stage, tumor height, high inferior mesenteric artery ligation, operative times, conversion rate, or surgical approach (open versus minimally invasive) were noted between groups. Receipt of neoadjuvant chemoradiation was less frequent in the endoscopic tattooing group (53.2% versus 76.9%, P ≤ 0.001). Total node number and rate of adequate lymph node yield were higher with endoscopic tattooing (20.5 ± 7.6 versus 16.8 ± 6.6 lymph nodes and 100.0% versus 83.5% adequate lymph node harvest, both P ≤ 0.001). Rates of positive circumferential and distal margins and complete total mesorectal excision were also similar. Regression analysis identified endoscopic tattooing (Incidence Risk Ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.31) and operative time more than 300 min (Incidence Risk Ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.77-0.99) had significant effects on lymph node harvest. Removal of patients with inadequate lymph node yield resulted in similar rates of total and positive lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic rectal tattooing is associated with increased lymph node yield (including after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy) without sacrificing oncologic or perioperative outcomes, although this effect is inconsistent when only considering patients with an adequate lymph node yield.

Gastric electric stimulator versus gastrectomy for the treatment of medically refractory gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) are known therapeutic options for medically refractory gastroparesis (MRG) although there are limited data comparing their outcomes. We aim to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing GES vs upfront LG for the treatment of MRG while examining factors associated with GES failure and conversion to LG. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 181 consecutive patients who underwent GES or LG for MRG at our institution from January 2003 to December 2017. Data collection consisted of chart review and follow-up telephone survey. Statistical analysis utilized Chi-squared, ANOVA, and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 130 (72%) patients underwent GES and 51 (28%) LG as primary intervention. GES patients were more likely to have diabetic gastroparesis (GES 67% vs LG 39%, p < 0.001), while primary LG patients were more likely to have post-surgical gastroparesis (GES 5% vs LG 43%, p < 0.001). Postoperatively, primary LG patients had higher rates of major in-hospital morbidity events (GES 5% vs LG 18%, p = 0.017) and longer hospital stays (GES 3 vs LG 9 days, p < 0.001). However, over a mean 35-month follow-up period, there were no differences in the rates of major morbidity, readmissions, or mortality. Multivariable regression analysis revealed patients undergoing GES as a primary intervention were less likely to report improvement in symptoms on follow-up compared to primary LG patients OR 0.160 (95% CI 0.048-0.532). Additionally, patients who converted to LG from GES were more likely to have post-surgical gastroparesis as the primary etiology. CONCLUSION: GES as a first-line surgical treatment of MRG was associated with worse outcomes compared to LG. Post-surgical etiology was associated with an increased likelihood of GES failure, and in such patients, upfront gastrectomy may be a superior alternative to GES. Further studies are needed to determine patient selection for operative treatment of MRG.