Functional Outcomes After Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) for Rectal Cancer: Results from the Phase II North American Multicenter Prospective Observational Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate fecal incontinence and defecatory, urinary, and sexual functional outcomes after taTME. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Proctectomy for rectal cancer may result in alterations in defecatory, urinary, and sexual function that persist beyond 12 months. The recent multicenter Phase II taTME trial demonstrated the safety of taTME in patients with stage I-III tumors. METHODS: Prospectively registered self-reported questionnaires were collected from 100 taTME patients. Fecal continence (FIQL, Wexner), defecatory function (COREFO), urinary function (IPSS), and sexual function (FSFI-female, IIEF-male) were assessed preoperatively (PQ), 3-4 months post-ileostomy closure (FQ1), and 12-18 months post-taTME (FQ2). RESULTS: Among 83 patients who responded at all three time points, FIQL, Wexner, and COREFO significantly worsened post-ileostomy closure. Between FQ1 and FQ2, FIQL lifestyle and coping, Wexner, and COREFO incontinence, social impact, frequency, and need for medication significantly improved, while FIQL depression and embarrassment did not change. IPSS did not change relative to preoperative scores. For females, FSFI declined for desire, orgasm, and satisfaction between PQ and FQ1, and did not improve between FQ1 and FQ2. In males, IIEF declined with no change between FQ1 and FQ2. CONCLUSIONS: Although taTME resulted in initial decline in defecatory function and fecal continence, most functional domains improved by 12 months after ileostomy closure, without returning to preoperative status. Urinary function was preserved while sexual function declined without improvement by 18 months post-taTME. Our results address patient expectations and inform shared decision-making regarding taTME.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological outcomes with transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

AIM: Transanal total mesorectal (taTME) excision is a method used to assist in the radical removal of the rectum. By adopting the concept of natural orifice surgery, it offers potential benefits over conventional techniques. Early enthusiasm for this strategy led to its rapid and widespread adoption. The imposing of a local moratorium was precipitated by the discovery in Norway of an uncommon multifocal pattern of locoregional recurrence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the incidence of local recurrence after taTME for rectal cancer. METHOD: Conforming to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines checklist, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. This included case series and comparative studies between taTME and preferentially laparoscopic procedures published between 2010 and 2021. RESULTS: There were a total of 1175 studies retrieved. After removal and screening for quality and relevance, the final analysis contained 40 studies. The local recurrence rate following taTME was 3.4% (95% CI 2.9%-3.9%, I2 = 0%) in 4987 patients with follow-up durations ranging from 0.7 to 5.5 years. Compared with laparoscopic TME, local recurrence was not statistically different for the taTME group (p = 0.076); however, it was less probable (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.24-1.09, I2 = 0%). Systemic recurrence and circumferential resection margin status were secondary outcomes; however, the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the local recurrence for regular laparoscopic and transanal TME surgeries may be comparable, suggesting that taTME can be performed without influencing locoregional oncological outcomes in patients treated at specialized institutions and who have been cautiously selected.

External validation of the Codman score in colorectal surgery: a pragmatic tool to drive quality improvement.

AIM: The simple six-variable Codman score is a tool designed to reduce the complexity of contemporary risk-adjusted postoperative mortality rate predictions. We sought to externally validate the Codman score in colorectal surgery. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) participant user file and colectomy targeted dataset of 2020 were merged. A Codman score (composed of six variables: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, emergency status, degree of sepsis, functional status and preoperative blood transfusion) was assigned to every patient. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcome was morbidity at 30 days. Logistic regression analyses were performed using the Codman score and the ACS NSQIP mortality and morbidity algorithms as independent variables for the primary and secondary outcomes. The predictive performance of discrimination area under receiver operating curve (AUC) and calibration of the Codman score and these algorithms were compared. RESULTS: A total of 40 589 patients were included and a Codman score was generated for 40 557 (99.02%) patients. The median Codman score was 3 (interquartile range 1-4). To predict mortality, the Codman score had an AUC of 0.92 (95% CI 0.91-0.93) compared to the NSQIP mortality score 0.93 (95% CI 0.92-0.94). To predict morbidity, the Codman score had an AUC of 0.68 (95% CI 0.66-0.68) compared to the NSQIP morbidity score 0.72 (95% CI 0.71-0.73). When body mass index and surgical approach was added to the Codman score, the performance was no different to the NSQIP morbidity score. The calibration of observed versus expected predictions was almost perfect for both the morbidity and mortality NSQIP predictions, and only well fitted for Codman scores of less than 4 and greater than 7. CONCLUSION: We propose that the six-variable Codman score is an efficient and actionable method for generating validated risk-adjusted outcome predictions and comparative benchmarks to drive quality improvement in colorectal surgery.

The SAGES MASTERS program presents: the top 10 seminal articles for laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy pathway for uncomplicated disease.

BACKGROUND: As one of the 8 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Masters Program clinical pathways, the Colorectal Pathway aims to deliver educational content for the general surgeon organized along 3 levels of performance (competency, proficiency and mastery) each represented by an anchoring procedure. In this article, the SAGES Colorectal Task Force presents focused summaries of the top 10 seminal articles selected for laparoscopic left/sigmoid colectomy for uncomplicated disease. METHODS: Using a systematic literature search of Web of Science, the most cited articles on laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy were identified, reviewed, and ranked by members of the SAGES Colorectal Task Force. Additional articles not identified in the literature search were included if deemed impactful by expert consensus. The top 10 ranked articles were then summarized, including their findings, strengths and limitations with emphasis on relevance and impact in the field. RESULTS: The top 10 articles selected focus on variations in minimally invasive surgical techniques, video demonstrations, stratified approaches for benign and malignant disease as well as assessments of the learning curve. CONCLUSIONS: The selected top 10 seminal articles for laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy in uncomplicated disease are considered by the SAGES colorectal task force to be fundamental to the knowledge base of minimally invasive surgeons as they progress to mastery in these procedures.

Bowel stimulation before loop ileostomy closure to reduce postoperative ileus: a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of preoperative bowel stimulation on the development of postoperative ileus (POI) after loop ileostomy closure. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (NCT025596350) including adult (≥ 18 years old) patients who underwent elective loop ileostomy closure at 7 participating hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralized computer-generated sequence with block randomization to either preoperative bowel stimulation or no stimulation (control group). Bowel stimulation consisted of 10 outpatient sessions within the 3 weeks prior to ileostomy closure and was performed by trained Enterostomal Therapy nurses. The primary outcome was POI, defined as an intolerance to oral food in the absence of clinical or radiological signs of obstruction, on or after postoperative day 3, that either (a) required nasogastric tube insertion; or (b) was associated with two of the following: nausea/vomiting, abdominal distension, or the absence of flatus. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and November 2020, 101 patients were randomized, and 5 patients never underwent ileostomy closure; thus, 96 patients (47 stimulated vs. 49 control) were analyzed according to a modified intention-to-treat protocol. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. The incidence of POI was lower among patients randomized to stimulation (6.4% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.034; unadjusted RR: 0.26, 95% CI 0.078-0.87). Stimulated patients also had earlier median time to first flatus (2.0 days (1.0-2.0) vs. 2.0 days (2.0-3.0), p = 0.025), were more likely to pass flatus on postoperative day 1 (46.8% vs. 22.4%, p = 0.022), and had a shorter median postoperative hospital stay (3.0 days (2.0-3.5) vs. 4.0 days (2.0-6.0), p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative bowel stimulation via the efferent limb of the ileostomy reduced POI after elective loop ileostomy closure.

Patient and surgeon preferences for early ileostomy closure following restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer: why aren't we doing it?

BACKGROUND: Early ileostomy closure (EIC), ≤ 2 weeks from creation, is a relatively new practice. Multiple studies have demonstrated that this approach is safe, feasible, and cost-effective. Despite the demonstrated benefits, this is neither routine practice, nor has it been studied, in North America. This study aimed to assess patient and surgeon perspectives about EIC. METHODS: A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of patients and surgeons was performed. Rectal cancer survivors from a single institution who underwent restorative proctectomy with diverting loop ileostomy and subsequent closure within the last 5 years were contacted. North American surgeons with high rectal cancer volumes (> 20 cases/year) were included. Surveys (patients) and semi-structured interviews (surgeons) were conducted. Analysis employed descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were surveyed (mean age 65.1 ± 11.8 years; 54.2% male). Stoma closure occurred after a median of 7.7 months (IQR 4.8-10.9) and 50.0% (24) found it "difficult" or "very difficult" to live with their stoma. Patients considered improvement in quality of life and quicker return to normal function the most important advantages of EIC, whereas the idea of two operations in two weeks being too taxing on the body was deemed the biggest disadvantage. Most patients (35, 72.9%) would have opted for EIC. Surgeon interviews (15) revealed 4 overarching themes: (1) there are many benefits to EIC; (2) specific patient characteristics would make EIC an appropriate option; (3) many barriers to implementing EIC exist; and (4) many logistical hurdles need to be addressed for successful implementation. Most surgeons (12, 80.0%) would "definitely want to participate" in a North American randomized-controlled trial (RCT) on EIC for rectal cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing EIC poses many logistical challenges. Both patients and surgeons are interested in further exploring EIC and believe it warrants a North American RCT to motivate a change in practice.

Anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery: does timing affect failure to rescue?

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common complication after colectomy with a relatively high failure to rescue rate (FTR), or death after major complications. There is emerging evidence to suggest an early AL may be associated with increased technical difficulty. Whether the timing of an AL is associated with higher FTR has not been established. METHODS: Patients who underwent a colectomy between 2012 and 2017 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP database). The primary outcome was FTR after AL. The predictor variable used was day of post-operative leak (POD) categorized into early (POD ≤ 3), intermediate (3 < POD ≤ 20) and late (20 < POD ≤ 30) AL. These POD groups were compared to generate hypotheses to explain any association observed between timing of AL and FTR. RESULTS: Of 135,539 identified patients, 4613 patients experienced an AL (3.4%) with an overall FTR of 6.4%. FTR differed by timing of AL: early AL was found to have a FTR of 28/195 (12.6%), with a FTR in intermediate AL of 152/2550 (5.6%) and 3/356 (0.8%) in late AL patients (p < 0.0001). When compared by timing of AL, patients differed by sex, pre-operative bowel preparation, de-functioning ostomy rates and re-operation rates (p < 0.05). Controlling for age, ASA, sex, emergency status, operative approach, indication, de-functioning ostomy, re-operation and concurrent procedure, an early AL was found to have a 2.3-fold increased risk of FTR (95% CI 1.38-3.84, p = 0.001), with a late AL having a 0.15-fold decreased risk (95% CI 0.04-0.49, p = 0.002), both compared to an intermediate AL. CONCLUSION: Early ALs, occurring within three days of surgery, may carry a significant risk of FTR. Given the findings identified here, this may support the use of early detection algorithms and interventions of AL to minimize the risk of FTR.

Mesentery in Transanal TME.

Oncological adequacy in rectal cancer surgery mandates not only a clear distal and circumferential resection margin but also resection of the entire ontogenetic mesorectal package. Incomplete removal of the mesentery is one of the commonest causes of local recurrences. The completeness of the resection is not only determined by tumor and patient related factors but also by the patient-tailored treatment selected by the multidisciplinary team. This is performed in the context of the technical ability and experience of the surgeon to ensure an optimal total mesorectal excision (TME). In TME, popularized by Professor Heald in the early 1980s as a sharp dissection through the avascular embryologic plane, the midline pedicle of tumor and mesorectum is separated from the surrounding, mostly paired structures of the retroperitoneum. Although TME significantly improved the oncological and functional results of rectal cancer surgery, the difficulty of the procedure is still mainly dependent on and determined by the dissection of the most distal part of the rectum and mesorectum. To overcome some of the limitations of working in the narrowest part of the pelvis, robotic and transanal surgery have been shown to improve the access and quality of resection in minimally invasive techniques. Whatever technique is chosen to perform a TME, embryologically derived planes and anatomical points of reference should be identified to guide the surgery. Standardization of the chosen technique, widespread education, and training of surgeons, as well as caseloads per surgeon, are important factors to optimize outcomes. In this article, we discuss the introduction of transanal TME, with emphasis on the mesentery, relevant anatomy, standard procedural steps, and importance of a training pathway.

Will My Patient Survive an Anastomotic Leak? Predicting Failure to Rescue Using the Modified Frailty Index.

IMPORTANCE: Failure to rescue (FTR), or death after major complications, has emerged as a marker of hospital-level quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive performance of the ACS-NSQIP modified frailty index (mFI) in determining FTR following an anastomotic leak (AL) after a colectomy for colorectal cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Multicenter interrogation of the 2012-2016 American College of Surgeons (ACS) colectomy procedure targeted National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 50,944 patients who underwent colectomy for colorectal cancer. EXPOSURE: Frailty as measured by: (1) Age, ASA, and emergency status (model 1), (2) Age, ASA, emergency status, and mFI (model 2), (3) ACS-NSQIP mortality prediction (model 3). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Primary outcome was FTR after AL. RESULTS: A total of 1755 patients experienced an AL (3.46%) with a FTR rate of 6.44%. The mean age was 65.6 years (95% CI 65.28-65.58 years), median ASA was 3 (IQR 2-3), 51 patients (2.92%) were partially or totally dependent, 366 (20.86%) were diabetic, 105 (5.98%) had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 32 (1.82%) had a history of congestive heart disease (CHD), and 966 (55.04%) were on hypertensive treatment. The performance of model 1 (AUROC 0.77; 95% CI 0.72-0.81), model 2 (AUROC 0.77; 95% CI 0.73-0.82), and model 3 (AUROC 0.79; 95% CI 0.75-0.83) to predict FTR was not different (p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Age and ASA remain the most reliable predictors of failure to rescue anastomotic leak after colectomy for colorectal cancer. Addition of the modified frailty index, or all variables collected by NSQIP, did not significantly improve predictive performance.

Neoadjuvant therapy versus direct to surgery for T4 colon cancer: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite persistently poor oncological outcomes, approaches to the management of T4 colonic cancer remain variable, with the role of neoadjuvant therapy unclear. The aim of this review was to compare oncological outcomes between direct-to-surgery and neoadjuvant therapy approaches to T4 colon cancer. METHODS: A librarian-led systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL up to 11 February 2020 was performed. Inclusion criteria were primary research articles comparing oncological outcomes between neoadjuvant therapies or direct to surgery for primary T4 colonic cancer. Based on PRISMA guidelines, screening and data abstraction were undertaken in duplicate. Quality assessment was carried out using Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. Random-effects models were used to pool effect estimates. This study compared pathological resection margins, postoperative morbidity, and oncological outcomes of cancer recurrence and overall survival. RESULTS: Four studies with a total of 43 063 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with direct to surgery, neoadjuvant therapy was associated with increased rates of margin-negative resection (odds ratio (OR) 2.60, 95 per cent c.i. 1.12 to 6.02; n = 15 487) and 5-year overall survival (pooled hazard ratio 1.42, 1.10 to 1.82, I2 = 0 per cent; n = 15 338). No difference was observed in rates of cancer recurrence (OR 0.42, 0.15 to 1.22; n = 131), 30-day minor (OR 1.12, 0.68 to 1.84; n = 15 488) or major (OR 0.62, 0.27 to 1.44; n = 15 488) morbidity, or rates of treatment-related adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Compared with direct to surgery, neoadjuvant therapy improves margin-negative resection rates and overall survival.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches Are Safe and Appropriate in N2 Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is emerging evidence of the oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery in T4 colorectal cancer; however, such support is lacking in N2 disease. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare oncological and perioperative outcomes of surgical resection for N2 colorectal cancer using an open versus minimally invasive approach. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program's generic and targeted colectomy data sets. SETTINGS: Data about surgery for N2 colorectal cancer were obtained regarding North American hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing elective surgical resection for N2 colorectal cancer in participating hospitals between 2014 and 2018 were selected. INTERVENTIONS: Surgical resection of N2 colorectal cancer was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was nodal yield. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1837 patients underwent open and 3907 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery colectomies for N2 colorectal cancer (n = 5744). Median nodal yield was 20 (interquartile range, 15-27) in the open group and 21 (interquartile range, 16-28) in the minimally invasive group (p < 0.0001); however, nodal harvest between the 2 groups was not significantly different on multivariate analysis. Perioperative complications were higher on univariate analysis in the open surgery group, with respect to key outcomes including anastomotic leak and death (p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its retrospective design and by the fact that the staging data collected by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program are pathological rather than clinical; however, prior studies found a 97% concordance between pathological and clinical N2 determination. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery approaches to colorectal cancer with N2 disease result in equivalent nodal harvests compared with open approaches. Our group supports the use of a minimally invasive approach in advanced nodal stage colorectal cancer in the appropriately selected patient. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B417. LOS ABORDAJES QUIRRGICOS MNIMAMENTE INVASIVOS SON SEGUROS Y APROPIADOS EN EL CNCER COLORRECTAL N: ANTECEDENTES:Existe evidencia emergente de la seguridad oncológica de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en el cáncer colorrectal T4; sin embargo, semenjante apoyo falta en la enfermedad N2.OBJETIVO:comparar los resultados oncológicos y perioperatorios de la resección quirúrgica para el cáncer colorrectal N2 utilizando un abordaje abierto versus mínimamente invasivo.DISEÑO:Realizamos un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo utilizando los conjuntos de datos de colectomía genéricos y específicos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica.AJUSTE:Hospitales de Norte America que participan en el Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes sometidos a resección quirúrgica electiva por cáncer colorrectal N2 en los hospitales participantes entre 2014 y 2018.INTERVENCIONES:Resección quirúrgica de cáncer colorrectal N2.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VOLORACION:Nuestro resultado principal fue el rendimiento nodal. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron complicaciones perioperatorias y mortalidad.RESULTADOS:1837 pacientes fueron sometidos a cirugía abierta y 3907 pacientes fueron sometidos a colectomías de cirugía mínimamente invasiva por cáncer colorrectal N2 (n = 5744). La mediana del rendimiento nodal fue 20 (IQR 15-27) en el grupo abierto y 21 (IQR 16-28) en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p <0,0001); sin embargo, el rendimiento nodal entre los dos grupos no fue significativamente diferente en el análisis multivariado. Las complicaciones perioperatorias fueron mayores en el análisis univariado en el grupo de cirugía abierta, con respecto a los resultados clave, incluida la fuga anastomótica y la muerte (p <0,001).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio está limitado por su diseño retrospectivo y por el hecho de que los datos de estadificación recopilados por NSQIP son patológicos más que clínicos; sin embargo, estudios previos encontraron una concordancia del 97% entre la determinación patológica y clínica de N2.CONCLUSIONES:Los enfoques de cirugía mínimamente invasiva para el cáncer colorrectal con enfermedad N2 dan rendimientos nodales equivalentes a abordajes abiertos. Nuestro grupo apoya el uso de abordaje mínimamente invasivo en el cáncer colorrectal avanzado en estadio ganglionar en el paciente adecuadamente seleccionado. Consulte Video Resumenhttp://links.lww.com/DCR/B417.

Adequacy of lymph node harvest following colectomy for obstructed and nonobstructed colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Technical and clinical differences in resection of obstructed and non-obstructed colon cancers may result in differences in lymph node retrieval. The objective of this study is to compare the lymph node harvest following resection of obstructed and nonobstructed colon cancer patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis utilizing the 2014-2018 NSQIP colectomy targeted data set was conducted. One-to-one coarsened exact matching (CEM) was utilized between patients undergoing resection for obstructed and non-obstructed colon cancer. The primary outcome was the adequacy of lymph node retrieval (LNR, ≥12 nodes). RESULTS: CEM resulted in 9412 patients. Patients with obstructed tumors were more likely to have inadequate LNR (13.3% vs 8.2%, p < .001) compared to those with nonobstructed tumors. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with obstructing tumors had worse LNR compared to non-obstructed tumors (odds ratio [OR]: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.87; p < .005). Increased age (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.098-0.99), presence of preoperative sepsis (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.055-0.90), left-sided and sigmoid tumors compared to right-sided (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.51-0.81; OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.82, respectively), and open surgical resection compared to an minimally invasive surgical approach were associated with inadequate LNR (p < .05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that resection for obstructing colon cancer compared to non-obstructed colon cancer is associated with increased odds of inadequate lymph node harvest.

Extended duration of faecal diversion is associated with increased ileus upon loop ileostomy reversal.

AIM: The timing of ileostomy reversal has been the subject of controversy, with researchers investigating the safety of early versus late stoma closure. Anecdotally, a longer duration of faecal diversion is associated with a greater incidence of postoperative ileus. We sought to investigate the association between duration of diversion and postoperative ileus. METHOD: We conducted an institutional retrospective cohort study on 173 patients undergoing ileostomy closure between 2012 and 2018. Our primary outcome was ileus; secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and descriptive factors. We investigated the association between duration of diversion and ileus using several analyses to ensure that time was treated appropriately as a continuous, nonlinear variable. RESULTS: In all, 20.2% of patients had an ileus. Multivariate analysis did not identify a significant association between any independent predictors and ileus, although there was a trend towards increased risk of ileus with increasing duration of diversion. When treated as a categorical variable, a duration of diversion >328 days independently increased the odds of ileus (OR = 3.25, P = 0.033). Duration of diversion was associated with days to first flatus and to first diet (P = 0.025 and P = 0.004, respectively). When patients received nasogastric intubation, the mean duration of intubation was 3.2 days. CONCLUSION: Greater duration of diversion was associated with a trend towards increased risk of ileus; this risk tripled when diversion lasted more than 328 days.

A Snapshot of the International Views of the Treatment of Rectal Cancer Patients, a Multi-regional Survey: International Tendencies in Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Management of rectal cancer has a number of potentially appropriate alternatives for each patient. Despite acceptance of standards, practices may vary among regions. There is significant paucity of data in this area. The objective was to create a snapshot of the regional differences. DESIGN: This online survey included 10 questions. Enquiries focused on controversial topics, on surgeon and hospital volume, surgical margins, appropriateness of surgical approaches and techniques, watch-and-wait strategies, and total neoadjuvant therapy. Major colorectal surgery societies around the world were asked to invite their members to complete the survey. OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of responses across regions within each question was compared by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-three participants from 60 countries responded. Eight regions were identified, and four had sufficient representation for comparisons. Similarities and differences in the therapies among these regions were identified. Robotic surgery penetrance is higher in North America, and watch and wait is more accepted in South America. Patients in Oceania are more likely to be diverted; Europe has more usage of taTME. DISCUSSION: This online survey was practical as a mean to provide a rapid assessment of the international picture on consistency and variability of rectal cancer patients' care, and to potentially identify opportunities to standardized care to patients. Medical surveys have inherent limitations; pertinence to our study is selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: The management of rectal cancer varies among different regions. Identification of differences is important when considering global efforts to improve management and interpret data.

Current Evidence for Minimally Invasive Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Risk Mitigation Strategies: A Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to review the literature surrounding the risks of viral transmission during laparoscopic surgery and propose mitigation measures to address these risks. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused surgeons the world over to re-evaluate their approach to surgical procedures given concerns over the risk of aerosolization of viral particles and exposure of operating room staff to infection. International society guidelines advise against the use of laparoscopy; however, the evidence on this topic is scant and recommendations are based on the perceived most cautious course of action. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of the existing literature surrounding the risks of viral transmission during laparoscopic surgery and balance these risks against the benefits of minimally invasive approaches. We also propose mitigation measures to address these risks that we have adopted in our institution. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: While it is currently assumed that open surgery minimizes operating room staff exposure to the virus, our findings reveal that this may not be the case. A well-informed, evidence-based opinion is critical when making decisions regarding which operative approach to pursue, for the safety and well-being of the patient, the operating room staff, and the healthcare system at large. Minimally invasive surgical approaches offer significant advantages with respect to both patient care, and the mitigation of the risk of viral transmission during surgery, provided the appropriate equipment and expertise are present.

Association of high ligation versus low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery on anastomotic leak, postoperative complications, and mortality after minimally invasive surgery for distal sigmoid and rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of distal sigmoid and rectal cancer, the appropriate level for the ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) remains unresolved. High ligation divides the IMA proximally at its origin, and low ligation ligates the IMA distal to the origin of left colic artery. We assessed the association of level of ligation in scheduled minimally invasive resection of sigmoid and rectal cancers on anastomotic leak, postoperative complications, and death within 30 days. METHODS: We identified all patients with primary sigmoid and rectal cancer treated with scheduled minimally invasive resection and primary anastomosis between January 2002 and June 2018 using linked institutional and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program databases. We assessed the association of level of ligation with each outcome by fitting individual univariable and multivariable logistic regression models, adjusting for surgical approach, tumor location, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and Charlson comorbidity index. RESULTS: We included 158 patients treated with high ligation and 123 patients treated with low ligation. Overall, 12 patients had an anastomotic leak requiring intervention within 30 days: 5 in the high ligation group (3.2%, 95% CI 1.4-7.2%) and 7 in the low ligation group (5.7%, 95% CI 2.8-11.3%). There was no association between the level of ligation and anastomotic leak (unadjusted OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.58-6.38; adjusted OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.16-2.55). Similarly, there was no association between the level of ligation and reoperation for anastomotic leak (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.15-10.9), major complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V; OR 2.22, 95% CI 0.90-5.77), minor complications (Clavien-Dindo I-II; OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.88-2.60), and all complications (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.94-2.67). No deaths occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no association of level of ligation of the IMA with anastomotic leak, postoperative complications as a composite, or death. The choice of high or low ligation of the IMA should be made based on technical factors such as length for the creation of a tension-free anastomosis.

Canadian taTME expert collaboration (CaTaCO) position statement.

INTRODUCTION: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a novel approach to surgery for rectal cancer. The technique has gained significant popularity in the surgical community due to the promising ability to overcome technical difficulties related to the access of the distal pelvis. Recently, Norwegian surgeons issued a local moratorium related to potential issues with the safety of the procedure. Early adopters of taTME in Canada have recognized the need to create guidelines for its adoption and supervision. The objective of the statement is to provide expert opinion based on the best available evidence and authors' experience. METHODS: The procedure has been performed in Canada since 2014 at different institutions. In 2016, the first Canadian taTME congress was held in the city of Toronto, organized by two of the authors. In early 2019, a multicentric collaborative was established [The Canadian taTME expert Collaboration] which aimed at ensuring safe performance and adoption of taTME in Canada. Recently surgeons from 8 major Canadian rectal cancer centers met in the city of Toronto on December 7 of 2019, to discuss and develop a position statement. There in person, meeting was followed by 4 rounds of Delphi methodology. RESULTS: The generated document focused on the need to ensure a unified approach among rectal cancer surgeons across the country considering its technical complexity and potential morbidity. The position statement addressed four domains: surgical setting, surgeons' requirements, patient selection, and quality assurance. CONCLUSIONS: Authors agree transanal total mesorectal excision is technically demanding and has a significant risk for morbidity. As of now, there is uncertainty for some of the outcomes. We consider it is possible to safely adopt this operation and obtain adequate results, however for this purpose it is necessary to meet specific requirements in different domains.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Use to Decrease Surgical Nosocomial Events in Colorectal Resections (NEPTUNE): A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Determine if negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) reduces surgical site infection (SSI) in primarily closed incision after open and laparoscopic-converted colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: SSIs after colorectal surgery are a common cause of morbidity. The prophylactic effect of NPWT has not been established. We undertook this study to evaluate if, among patients undergoing open colorectal resection, NPWT, as compared with standard postoperative dressings, is associated with a reduction in the rate of postoperative SSI. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial, 300 patients undergoing elective open colorectal surgery were assigned to receive prophylactic NPWT or standard gauze dressing. The primary end-point was 30-day SSI, as assessed by wound care experts blinded to treatment arm. Secondary outcomes included length of stay. Statistical analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. A priori subgroup analysis was planned for patients who received a stoma at the time of initial operation. RESULTS: The incidence of SSI at 30-days postoperatively was no different between experimental and control groups (32% vs 34% respectively, P = 0.68). Length of stay was also no different at a median of 7 days (IQR 5) for both groups. Among patients receiving a stoma, there was also no difference in SSI between the experimental and control groups (38% vs 33% respectively, P = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic use of NPWT on primarily closed incisions after open colorectal surgery was not associated with a decrease in SSI rate when compared with standard gauze dressing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02007018).

Consequences of Increasing Complexity in Anorectal Surgery Performed at an Academic Center.

BACKGROUND: Anorectal surgery encompasses a wide range of procedures with varying complexity. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Review Committee for Colon and Rectal Surgery recommends minimum case numbers (60) for 1-year specialty trainees in 6 categories of anorectal surgery, with definitions for procedural complexity. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the scope of anorectal procedures and propose a stratification of procedures based on a consensus of levels of difficulty, as well as to identify a predictive charge cutoff suggestive of procedural complexity. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary academic center. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing anorectal procedures between January 2011 and December 2014 identified by Current Procedural Terminology coding were entered into 6 categories. Codes were stratified as routine or complex based on an assessment of perioperative care and technical expertise required. Patients with an abdominal portion to any procedure were excluded. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The study measured distribution of complexity in anorectal surgical procedures and procedural charge associated with differentiating routine from complex procedures. RESULTS: Seven colorectal surgeons performed 2483 anorectal procedures (mean = 620 per year). Mean age was 48 ± 16 years. Forty six (64%) of 71 procedures were classified as routine and 25 (36%) of 71 as complex. Most disease processes had subsets with routine or complex procedures, whereas all of the procedures performed for fecal incontinence or advanced anorectal techniques were considered complex. Fistula procedures and transanal excisions were most heterogeneous, with a high procedural complexity rate (37% and 50%). After a procedural complexity rating, intraclass correlation by 6 surgeons was 0.70, demonstrating good correlation. Receiver operating curve assessments of consensus categorization according to billing codes revealed $553 as the optimal cutoff between routine and complex procedures. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-institution retrospective review. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal residents may benefit from anorectal case stratification, because it serves as a dialogue for those interested in complex anorectal surgery during training. Surgeon categorization of procedures correlates well with a charge-based model of complexity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A806.