Association of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes in Total Mesorectal Excision and Margin Status for Rectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Despite being a key metric with a significant correlation with the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) has not yet been identified. The aim of this study was to assess the association of the surgical approach on the quality of TME and surgical margins and to characterize the surgical and long-term oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open TME for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with primary, nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent either lower anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection via robotic (Rob), laparoscopic (Lap), or open approaches were selected from the US Rectal Cancer Consortium database (2007-2017). Quasi-Poisson regression analysis with backward selection was used to investigate the relationship between the surgical approach and outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Among the 664 patients included in the study, the distribution of surgical approaches was as follows: 351 (52.9%) underwent TME via the open approach, 159 (23.9%) via the robotic approach, and 154 (23.2%) via the laparoscopic approach. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics among the three cohorts. The laparoscopic cohort had fewer patients with low rectal cancer (<6 cm from the anal verge) than the robotic and open cohorts (Lap 28.6% versus Rob 59.1% versus Open 45.6%, P = 0.015). Patients who underwent Rob and Lap TME had lower intraoperative blood loss compared with the Open approach (Rob 200 mL [Q1, Q3: 100.0, 300.0] versus Lap 150 mL [Q1, Q3: 75.0, 250.0] versus Open 300 mL [Q1, Q3: 150.0, 600.0], P < 0.001). There was no difference in the operative time (Rob 243 min [Q1, Q3: 203.8, 300.2] versus Lap 241 min [Q1, Q3: 186, 336] versus Open 226 min [Q1, Q3: 178, 315.8], P = 0.309) between the three approaches. Postoperative length of stay was shorter with robotic and laparoscopic approach compared to open approach (Rob 5.0 d [Q1, Q3: 4, 8.2] versus Lap 5 d [Q1, Q3: 4, 8] versus Open 7.0 d [Q1, Q3: 5, 9], P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the quality of TME between the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches (79.2%, 64.9%, and 64.7%, respectively; P = 0.46). The margin positivity rate, a composite of circumferential margin and distal margin, was higher with the robotic and open approaches than with the laparoscopic approach (Rob 8.2% versus Open 6.6% versus Lap 1.9%, P = 0.17), Rob versus Lap (odds ratio 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.05, 0.83) and Rob versus Open (odds ratio 0.5; 95% confidence interval 0.22, 1.12). There was no difference in long-term survival, including overall survival and recurrence-free survival, between patients who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open TME (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing surgery with curative intent for rectal cancer, we did not observe a difference in the quality of TME between the robotic, laparoscopic, or open approaches. Robotic and open TME compared to laparoscopic TME were associated with higher margin positivity rates in our study. This was likely due to the higher percentage of low rectal cancers in the robotic and open cohorts. We also reported no significant differences in overall survival and recurrence-free survival between the aforementioned surgical techniques.

Association of omental pedicled flap with anastomotic leak following low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Anastomotic leak following colorectal anastomosis adversely impacts short-term, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of omental pedicled flap (OPF) on anastomotic leak among patients undergoing low anastomotic resection (LAR) for rectal cancer using a multi-institutional database. METHODS: Adult rectal cancer patients in the US Rectal Cancer Consortium, who underwent a LAR for stage I-III rectal cancer with or without an OPF were included. Patients with missing data for surgery type and OPF use were excluded from the analysis. The primary outcome was the development of anastomotic leaks. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association. RESULTS: A total of 853 patients met the inclusion criteria and OPF was used in 106 (12.4%) patients. There was no difference in age, sex, or tumor stage of patients who underwent OPF versus those who did not. OPF use was not associated with an anastomotic leak (p = 0.82), or operative blood loss (p = 0.54) but was associated with an increase in the operative duration [ß = 21.42 (95% confidence interval = 1.16, 41.67) p = 0.04]. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer, OPF use was associated with an increase in operative duration without any impact on the rate of anastomotic leak.

Prophylactic defunctioning stomas improve clinical outcomes of anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resections: An analysis of the US Rectal Cancer Consortium.

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leak (AL) is a complication of low anterior resection (LAR) that results in substantial morbidity. There is immense interest in evaluating immediate postoperative and long-term oncologic outcomes in patients who undergo diverting loop ileostomies (DLI). The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between fecal diversion, AL, and oncologic outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study using patient data obtained from the US Rectal Cancer Consortium database compiled from six academic institutions. The study population included patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing LAR. The primary outcome was the incidence of AL among patients who did or did not receive DLI during LAR. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for AL, receipt of adjuvant therapy, 3-year overall survival, and 3-year recurrence. RESULTS: Of 815 patients, 38 (4.7%) suffered AL after LAR. Patients with AL were more likely to be male, have unintentional preoperative weight loss, and are less likely to undergo DLI. On multivariable analysis, DLI remained protective against AL (p < 0.001). Diverted patients were less likely to undergo future surgical procedures including additional ostomy creation, completion proctectomy, or pelvic washout for AL. Subgroup analysis of 456 patients with locally advanced disease showed that DLI was correlated with increased receipt of adjuvant therapy for patients with and without AL on univariate analysis (SHR:1.59; [95% CI 1.19-2.14]; p = 0.002), but significance was not met in multivariate models. CONCLUSION: Lack of DLI and preoperative weight loss was associated with anastomotic leak. Fecal diversion may improve the timely initiation of adjuvant oncologic therapy. The long-term outcomes following routine diverting stomas warrant further study.

Objective performance indicators during specific steps of robotic right colectomy can differentiate surgeon expertise.

BACKGROUND: Current surgical assessment tools are subjective and nonscalable. Objective performance indicators, calculated from robotic systems data, provide automated data regarding surgeon movements and robotic arm kinematics. We identified objective performance indicators that significantly differed among expert and trainee surgeons during specific steps of robotic right colectomy. METHODS: Endoscopic videos were annotated to delineate surgical steps during robotic right colectomies. Objective performance indicators were compared during mesenteric dissection, ascending colon mobilization, hepatic flexure mobilization, and bowel preparation for transection. RESULTS: Twenty-five robotic right colectomy procedures (461 total surgical steps) performed by 2 experts and 8 trainees were analyzed. Experts exhibited faster camera acceleration and jerk during all steps, as well as faster dominant and nondominant arm acceleration and dominant arm jerk during all steps except distal bowel preparation. During mesenteric dissection, experts used faster camera and dominant arm velocity. During medial-to-lateral ascending colon mobilization, experts used less-dominant wrist yaw and pitch, faster nondominant arm velocity, shorter dominant arm path length, and shorter moving times for camera, dominant arm, and nondominant arm. During lateral-to-medial ascending colon mobilization, experts had faster dominant and nondominant arm velocity and third-arm acceleration. During hepatic flexure mobilization, experts exhibited more camera movements, greater velocity for camera, dominant and nondominant arms, and faster third-arm acceleration. During distal bowel preparation, experts used greater dominant wrist articulation, faster camera velocity, and longer nondominant arm path length. During proximal bowel preparation, experts demonstrated faster nondominant arm velocity. CONCLUSION: Objective performance indicators can differentiate experts from trainees during distinct steps of robotic right colectomy. These automated, objective and scalable metrics can provide personalized feedback for trainees.

Comparison of outcomes of abdominoperineal resection vs low anterior resection in very-low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The 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 resection (APR) over low anterior resection (LAR) to optimize oncologic outcomes. This study aimed to determine differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer. METHODS: The United States Rectal Cancer Consortium (2010-2016) was queried for adults who underwent either APR or LAR for stage I-III rectal cancers < 5 cm from anorectal junction and met inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, length of stay, complications, recurrence location, and perioperative factors. RESULTS: A total of 431 patients with very-low rectal cancer who underwent APR or LAR were identified; 154 (35.7%) underwent APR. The overall recurrence rate was 19.6%. The 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-hazard ratio [HR] = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.53-1.52, P = .70). Secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant difference between operation types, including overall survival (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.71-2.32, P = .39), complications (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.94-2.50, P = .12), or length of stay (estimate: 0.04, SE = 0.25, P = .54). CONCLUSION: We observed no significant difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer. This analysis supports the treatment of very-low rectal cancer, without sphincter involvement, by either APR or LAR.