Comparing pathologic outcomes for robotic versus laparoscopic Surgery in rectal cancer resection: a propensity adjusted analysis of 7616 patients.

BACKGROUND: Margin negative resection of rectal cancer with minimally invasive techniques remains technically challenging. Robotic surgery has potential advantages over traditional laparoscopy. We hypothesize that the difference in the rate of negative margin status will be < 6% between laparoscopic and robotic approach. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (2010-2014) was queried for adults with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and curative resection to conduct an observational retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database. Patients were grouped by either robotic (ROB) or laparoscopic (LAP) approach in an intent-to-treat analysis. Primary outcome was negative margin status, defined as a composite of circumferential resection margin and distal margin. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), readmission, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. RESULTS: 7616 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent minimally invasive resection were identified. 2472 (32%) underwent attempted robotic approach. The overall conversion rate was 13% and was increased in the laparoscopic group [LAP: 15% vs. ROB: 8%; OR 0.47; 95% CI (0.39, 0.57)]. Differences in margin negative resection rate were within the prespecified range of practical equivalence (LAP: 93% vs.: ROB 94%; 95% CI (0.69, 1.06); [Formula: see text] = 1). For secondary outcomes, there was no difference in 30-day readmission [LAP: 9% vs.: ROB 8%; 95% CI (0.84, 1.24)] and 90-day mortality [LAP: 1% vs.: ROB 1%; 95% CI (0.38, 1.24)]. While the median LOS was 5 days in both groups, the mean LOS was 0.6 (95% CI: 0.24, 0.89) days shorter in the robotic group. CONCLUSION: This robust analysis supports either robotic or laparoscopic approach for resection of locally advanced rectal cancer from a margin perspective. Both have similar readmission and 5-year overall survival rates. Patients undergoing robotic surgery have a 0.6-day decrease in LOS and decreased conversion rate.

Comparing Chest Tube Thoracostomy in East Tennessee Trauma Centers: A Prospective Study Highlighting Differences in Urban vs Rural Locations.

Chest tube thoracostomy (CTT) is essential for lung expansion, but protocol discrepancies exist across trauma centers. This prospective study compared CTT protocols between an urban (center 1) and rural (center 2) level 1 trauma center in East Tennessee from June to August 2023. 66 trauma patients required CTT (51 from center 1 and 15 from center 2). Diagnostic practices and post-pull chest X-rays (CXR) differed significantly. Center 1 favored CXR for diagnosis (P = 0.012), while center 2 relied more on clinical presentation (P = 0.012). Post-pull CXR was less common at center 2 (P = 0.012). Center 2 had lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (P = 0.028), shorter tube duration (P = 0.044), and more needle thoracostomy use (P = 0.393). These findings underscore the need for regional protocols considering pre-arrival factors, hospital practices, and injury patterns. Protocol adjustments aim to improve adherence and patient outcomes, with ongoing data collection exploring factors influencing protocol evolution.

Comparison of Outcomes for Abdominoperineal Resection versus Low Anterior Resection for Very-Low Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Management of very-low rectal cancer is one of the most challenging issues faced by general and colorectal surgeons. Many feel compelled to pursue abdominoperineal over low anterior resection to optimize oncologic outcomes. This study aims to determine differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between patients undergoing abdominoperineal or low anterior resection for very-low rectal cancer. METHODS: The US Rectal Cancer Consortium (2010-2016) was queried for adults who underwent either abdominoperineal resection (APR) or low anterior resection (LAR) for Stage I-III rectal cancers <5cm from anorectal junction and met inclusion criteria. Primary outcome was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, length of stay, complications, recurrence location, and perioperative factors. RESULTS: 431 patients with very-low rectal cancer who underwent APR or LAR were identified. 154 (35.7%) underwent abdominoperineal resection. The overall recurrence rate was 19.6%. Median follow-up was 42.5 months. An analysis adjusted for demographics and pathologic stage observed no difference in disease-free survival between operative types (APR-HR=0.90, 95% CI [0.53-1.52], p=0.70). Secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant difference between operation types, including overall survival (HR=1.29, 95% CI [0.71-2.32], p=0.39), complications (OR = 1.53, 95% CI [0.94 - 2.50], p=0.12) or length of stay (Estimate: 0.04, Std. error = 0.25, p=0.54). CONCLUSIONS: We observed no significant difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between patients undergoing abdominoperineal or low anterior resection for very-low rectal cancer. This analysis supports the treatment of very-low rectal cancer, without sphincter involvement, by either abdominoperineal or low anterior resection.

Change in Total Body Water as a Metric for Predicting Need for Outpatient Intravenous Fluids in Postoperative Bariatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: Dehydration drives a significant proportion of readmissions following bariatric surgery. Routinely performed body composition testing and total body water (TBW) calculations may present a novel method for diagnosing dehydration for outpatient intervention. We sought to determine if a change in TBW from preoperative baseline could help identify bariatric patients requiring outpatient intravenous fluid (IVF) administration for dehydration. METHODS: The VUMC Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database was retroactively queried for all patients undergoing bariatric surgery at an accredited bariatric surgery center from January 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018. Body composition test results presurgery and postsurgery were extracted from the electronic health record. Change in TBW was compared between patients requiring outpatient IVF and those who did not use multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 583 patients underwent surgery over the study period (388 laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 195 sleeve). 62 (10.6%) required outpatient fluid administration for dehydration. After multivariable analysis, patients with an increased hospital length of stay at index operation were more likely to require outpatient IVF (odds ratio [OR] 1.65, 95% CI 1.22-2.2). Preexisting diabetes diagnosis was protective (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16-0.74). Neither 1-week nor 1-month change in TBW from preoperative baseline was significantly different between patients receiving outpatient IVF and those who did not. CONCLUSION: Increased hospital length of stay predicts patients at risk of postoperative dehydration requiring IVF administration. Body composition testing and TBW were not useful in distinguishing between populations. Further research is needed to examine the efficacy of outpatient IVF in preventing hospital readmissions for dehydration.