Segmental Colectomy in Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Segmental colectomy in ulcerative colitis is performed in select patients who may be at increased risk for postoperative morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To identify ulcerative colitis patients who underwent segmental colectomy and assess their postoperative and long-term outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: A tertiary-care inflammatory bowel disease center. PATIENTS: Ulcerative colitis patients who underwent surgery between 1995 and 2022. INTERVENTION: Segmental colectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative complications, early and late colitis, metachronous cancer development, completion proctocolectomy-free survival rates and stoma at follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were included [20 (36.4%) female; 67.8 (57.4-77.1) years of age at surgery; body mass index 27.7 (24.2-31.1) kg/m2; median follow-up 37.3 months]. ASA score was III in 32 (58.2%) patients, 48 (87.3%) had at least one comorbidity, 48 (87.3%) had Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0-1. Patients underwent right hemicolectomy (28, 50.9%), sigmoidectomy (17, 30.9%), left hemicolectomy (6, 10.9%), low anterior resection (2, 3.6%), or a non-anatomic resection (2, 3.6%) for; endoscopically unresectable polyps (21, 38.2%), colorectal cancer (15, 27.3%), symptomatic diverticular disease (13, 23.6%), and stricture (6, 10.9%). Postoperative complications occurred in 16 (29.1%) patients [7 (12.7%) Clavien-Dindo Class III-V]. Early and late postoperative colitis rates were 9.1% and 14.5%, respectively. Metachronous cancer developed in 1 patient. 4 (7.3%) patients underwent subsequent completion proctocolectomy with ileostomy. Six (10.9%) patients had stoma at the follow-up. Two and 5-year completion proctocolectomy-free survival rates were 91% and 88%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Segmental colectomy in ulcerative colitis is associated with low postoperative complication rates, symptomatic early colitis and late colitis rates, metachronous cancer development and the need for subsequent completion proctocolectomy. Therefore, it can be safe to consider select patients, such as the elderly with quiescent colitis and other indications for colectomy. See Video Abstract.

Impact of neoadjuvant therapy on nodal harvest in clinical stage III rectal cancer: Establishing optimum cut-offs by disease response.

INTRODUCTION: A minimum lymph node harvest (LNH) of 12 is the current standard for appropriate nodal staging in resectable rectal cancer. However, the rise of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) and total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) has been associated with decreasing number of LNH. We hypothesize that as tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy increases, the optimum for LNH to achieve appropriate nodal staging should decrease. METHODS: Patients with clinical stage III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent NCRT/TNT followed by resection were identified from the National Cancer Database. A JoinPoint regression analysis was used to determine the LNH for each tumor regression grade (TRG) category beyond which the rate of positive nodes does not significantly change. RESULTS: Thirteen thousand four hundred and twenty-six patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 2406 (17.9%) achieved TRG 0 or ypT0 and 8210 (61.2%) achieved ypN0. Collectively, 2043 patients (15.2%) were reported to have a pathologic complete response (ypT0 ypN0). Positive pathologic nodes were found in 15%, 23%, 31%, 54%, and 53% as ypT stage increased from ypT0 to ypT4, respectively. Similarly, ypN+ rates were 15%, 36%, 41%, and 55% in TRG 0-3. No JoinPoint was identified for TRG 0, whereas inflection points were found at 6-10 nodes for TRG1 (p = 0.002) and TRG 2 (p = 0.016), and at 11-15 nodes for TRG 3. CONCLUSION: The benchmark of retrieving 12 nodes in resectable stage III rectal cancer is not consistently achieved after NCRT/TNT. We demonstrate that the LNH requirement to establish accurate pathologic nodal staging can vary depending on the tumor response to neoadjuvant therapies.

Impact of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy on Postoperative Outcomes After Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Total neoadjuvant therapy is an alternative to neoadjuvant chemoradiation alone for rectal cancer and has the benefits of more completion of planned therapy, increased downstaging, earlier treatment of micrometastases, and assessment of chemosensitivity; however, it may increase surgical complications, especially with increased radiation-to-surgery interval. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to determine the impact of total neoadjuvant therapy on postoperative complications compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation alone. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Single tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: The patient included was a stage II/III rectal cancer patient who underwent total neoadjuvant therapy or long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgical resection from 2018-2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures included severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3). RESULTS: Of 181 patients, 86 (47.5%) underwent total neoadjuvant therapy and 95 (52.5%) underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation. There was no difference in severe postoperative complications or any complications. There was also no difference in the rate of complete total mesorectal excision or negative circumferential margin. Total neoadjuvant therapy had a mean operative time of 355.5 minutes and estimated blood loss of 263.6 mL compared with 326.7 minutes and 297.5 mL in the neoadjuvant chemoradiation group. Total neoadjuvant therapy patients had a lower mean lymph node yield than neoadjuvant chemoradiation patients. On multivariable analysis, total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with increased operative time (OR, 1.19; p < 0.001) and estimated blood loss (OR, 1.22; p < 0.001) and decreased lymph node yield (OR, 0.67; p < 0.001). There was no difference in severe complications or any complications. LIMITATIONS: Selection bias uncontrolled by modeling. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in risk of postoperative complications between patients who received total neoadjuvant therapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Total neoadjuvant therapy patients had longer operations and greater estimated blood loss. This may be a reflection of increased operative difficulty because of increased radiation-to-surgery interval and/or the effects of chemotherapy; however, the absolute differences were small and, therefore, should be interpreted cautiously. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C44 . IMPACTO DE LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL EN LOS RESULTADOS POSOPERATORIOS DESPUS DE UNA PROCTECTOMA POR CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:La terapia neoadyuvante total es una alternativa a la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante sola para el cáncer de recto y tiene los beneficios de una mayor finalización de la terapia planificada, mayor reducción del estadiage, tratamiento más temprano de las micrometástasis y evaluación de la quimiosensibilidad; sin embargo, puede aumentar las complicaciones quirúrgicas, especialmente con un mayor intervalo entre la radiación y la cirugía.OBJETIVO:Determinar el impacto de la terapia neoadyuvante total sobre las complicaciones posoperatorias en comparación con la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante sola.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Centro único de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Paciente con cáncer de recto en estadio II/III que se sometieron a terapia neoadyuvante total o quimiorradiación neoadyuvante de larga duración seguida de resección quirúrgica entre 2018 y 2020.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Complicaciones postoperatorias graves (grado de Clavien-Dindo ≥3).RESULTADOS:De 181 pacientes, 86 (47,5%) se sometieron a terapia neoadyuvante total y 95 (52,5%) se sometieron a quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante. No hubo diferencia en las complicaciones postoperatorias graves o cualquier otra complicación. Tampoco hubo diferencia en la tasa de escisión mesorrectal total completa o margen circunferencial negativo. La terapia neoadyuvante total tuvo un tiempo operatorio promedio de 355,5 minutos y una pérdida de sangre estimada de 263,6 ml en comparación con 326,7 minutos y 297,5 ml en el grupo de quimiorradiación neoadyuvante. Los pacientes con terapia neoadyuvante total tuvieron una media de ganglios linfáticos más bajo en comparación con los pacientes con quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante. En el análisis multivariable, la terapia neoadyuvante total se asoció con un mayor tiempo operatorio (OR = 1,19, p < 0,001) y pérdida de sangre estimada (OR = 1,22, p < 0,001) y menor cantidad los ganglios linfáticos (OR = 0,67, p < 0,001). No hubo diferencia en las complicaciones graves o cualquier complicación.LIMITACIONES:Sesgo de selección no controlado por modelado.CONCLUSIONES:No encontramos diferencias en el riesgo de complicaciones postoperatorias entre los pacientes que recibieron terapia neoadyuvante total versus quimiorradiación neoadyuvante. Los pacientes con terapia neoadyuvante total tuvieron operaciones más prolongadas y una mayor pérdida de sangre estimada. Esto puede ser un reflejo de una mayor dificultad quirúrgica como resultado de un mayor intervalo entre la radiación y la cirugía y/o los efectos de la quimioterapia; sin embargo, las diferencias absolutas fueron pequeñas y, por lo tanto, deben interpretarse con cautela. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C44 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Thoracic Epidural Analgesia: Does It Enhance Recovery?

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia has been shown to be an effective method of pain control. The utility of epidural analgesia as part of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol is debatable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if the use of thoracic epidural analgesia in an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol decreases hospital length of stay or inpatient opioid consumption after elective colorectal resection. DESIGN: This is a single-institution retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was performed at a high-volume, tertiary care center in the Midwest. An institutional database was used to identify patients. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing elective transabdominal colon or rectal resection by board-certified colon and rectal surgeons from 2013 to 2017 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was length of stay. The secondary outcome was oral morphine milligram equivalents consumed during the first 48 hours. RESULTS: There were 1006 patients (n = 815 epidural, 191 no epidural) included. All patients received multimodal analgesia with opioid-sparing agents. Univariate analysis demonstrated no difference in length of stay between those who received thoracic epidural analgesia and those who did not (median, 4 vs 5 days; p = 0.16), which was substantiated by multivariable linear regression. Subgroup analysis showed that the addition of epidural analgesia resulted in no difference in length of stay regardless of an open (n = 362; p = 0.66) or minimally invasive (n = 644; p = 0.46) approach. Opioid consumption data were available after 2015 (n = 497 patients). Univariate analysis demonstrated no difference in morphine milligram equivalents consumed in the first 48 hours between patients who received epidural analgesia and those who did not (median, 135 vs 110 oral morphine milligram equivalents; p = 0.35). This was also confirmed by multivariable linear regression. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective observational design was a limitation of this study. CONCLUSION: The use of thoracic epidural analgesia within an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol was not found to be associated with a reduction in length of stay or morphine milligram equivalents consumed within the first 48 hours. We cannot recommend routine use of thoracic epidural analgesia within enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A765.

Long-term follow-up of Fournier's Gangrene in a tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: After surgical debridement, the use of fecal diversion systems (such as an endo-rectal tube or surgical colostomy) in Fournier's Gangrene (FG) to assist with wound healing remains controversial. METHODS: A 6-y retrospective review of a tertiary medical center emergency surgery database was conducted. Variables abstracted from the database include patient demographics, laboratory and physiological profiles, hospital length-of-stay, intensive care unit length-of-stay, operative data, time to healing, morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were treated. Seventy-seven percent (n = 27) required some form of fecal diversion (21 patients using an endo-rectal tube and six patients undergoing construction of a surgical colostomy). One patient had a pre-existing colostomy before the development of FG. The remaining seven patients underwent conservative wound care with multiple daily dressing changes (no diversion system). Twenty-eight of the 35 patients (80.0%) had long-term follow-up with 100% having completely healed surgical wounds at the final clinic visit. Average time to complete wound healing was 4.8 ± 1.0 mo (range, 1.0-31.0). Of the six patients who underwent colostomy formation, two had their colostomies reversed, two were unacceptable surgical risk and did not undergo reversal (due to uncontrolled diabetes and cardiovascular disease), and two were lost to follow-up. Of the two patients who had their colostomies reversed both had complications from their reversal (leak and urinary retention). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical colostomy may not be mandatory (and might be associated with a high additional morbidity) in FG. With appropriate patient selection, it may be possible to avoid colostomy formation using a less-invasive diversion technology without compromising patient outcomes.

Close margin of adverse histologic factors with a negative primary tumor margin is not associated with increased locoregional recurrence in colon cancer.

PURPOSE: Locoregional recurrence after resection of colon cancer is increased when primary tumor margin is positive (<1 â€‹mm). Data is limited regarding the risk of locoregional recurrence with close margin (<1 â€‹mm) of histologic factors, such as intravascular tumor, intranodal tumor, tumor deposits, or extranodal extension. We hypothesized that close margin of these factors doesn't affect locoregional recurrence. METHODS: A retrospective review of all colon cancer surgical resections for adenocarcinoma from 2007 to 2020 was performed. Inclusion criteria were specimens with a negative primary tumor margin but a close margin of adverse histologic factors, defined as intravascular tumor, intranodal tumor, tumor deposits, or extranodal extension within 1 â€‹mm of a mesenteric or circumferential margin. RESULTS: Among 4435 pathology reports reviewed, 45 (1 â€‹%) of cases met inclusion criteria. Average follow-up was 38 months. The adverse histologic factor was identified as intranodal tumor in 24 (53 â€‹%) cases, intravascular tumor in 8 (17.8 â€‹%), tumor deposits in 5 (11.1 â€‹%), and more than one pathologic feature in 6 (13.3 â€‹%). There were 9 (20 â€‹%) recurrences; 6 (13 â€‹%) had distant recurrences only, 2 (4 â€‹%) patients had locoregional recurrences only, and 1 (2 â€‹%) patient had both locoregional and distant recurrence. The adverse histologic factor in these three patients was intravascular in two and both intravascular and intranodal in one. CONCLUSION: Based on our results, we do not have evidence that the presence of intravascular tumor, intranodal tumor, tumor deposits, or extranodal extension within 1 â€‹mm of a mesenteric or circumferential margin is associated with increased risk of locoregional recurrence.

Percutaneous drainage for hinchey Ib and II acute diverticulitis with abscess improves outcomes.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The role of percutaneous drainage in Hinchey Ib and II diverticulitis is controversial. The aim of the present study was to clarify the indications for percutaneous drainage in such circumstances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective review at an academic tertiary care hospital. All Hinchey Ib and II diverticulitis cases admitted from 2012 to 2014 were considered. RESULTS: Overall, 104 (78%) patients underwent successful conservative treatment, whereas 30 (22%) patients underwent surgery during admission. During the index admission, abscess drainage was performed in 21 patients, of which 19 patients were successfully managed without surgery on the index admission and two patients ultimately required surgery. Elective versus same-admission surgery resulted in an increase use of laparoscopy (p=0.01), higher rate of restoration of gastrointestinal continuity with the index operation (p=0.04), and lower rate of diverting stoma formation (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous drainage may diminish the need for emergent surgery for Hinchey Ib and II diverticulitis. Elective surgery following conservative management increases the use of laparoscopy and decreases the rates of stoma formation.

Operative management of diverticulitis in a tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: Diverticulitis has become a medically managed disease process; the indications and timing of surgical intervention have evolved. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent surgical intervention due to diverticular disease by the Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery from 2012 to 2014. RESULTS: Ninety-eight surgeries were performed. Indications included colovesicular fistula, multiple recurrences of diverticulitis, medically refractory diverticulitis, stricture, abscess, colocutaneous fistula, and colovaginal fistula. Average length of stay was 5.7 ± 5.9 days (range, 1 to 51). Eighteen patients (18%) required an ostomy. Postoperative complications occurred in 18% of patients, including anastomotic leak (3.3%), wound infection (7.1%), acute kidney injury (5.1%), and urinary tract infection (2.0%). Thirty-day readmission rate was 7.2%; unplanned 30-day reoperation rate was 3.1%. There were no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The type of patient undergoing surgery for diverticulitis has changed, with selection bias toward chronic, advanced disease due to the proliferation of medical management strategies.

Outpatient Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Feasible in a Public County Hospital?

BACKGROUND: Outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy is being used increasingly as a treatment option for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis. This was a prospective validation study in a large, urban, public safety-net hospital. STUDY DESIGN: From 2014 to 2016, all patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis were enrolled in a prospective observational trial. Standard baseline perioperative practice (control group) was documented for 1 year. An outpatient appendectomy protocol was then introduced. Inclusion criteria required intraoperative confirmation of uncomplicated appendicitis and strict discharge criteria, including physician assessment before discharge. Data collection then continued for 1 year (outpatient group). The outcomes measures examined included complications, length of stay, nursing transitions, emergency department visits, readmissions, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The study enrolled 351 patients (178 control, 173 outpatient). Of the 173 candidates for outpatient appendectomy, 113 went home. Reasons for admission included surgeon discretion due to intraoperative findings/medical comorbidities and lack of transportation home. The outpatient group had shorter operative time (69 vs 83 minutes; p < 0.001), longer time in recovery (242 vs 141 minutes; p < 0.001), fewer nursing transitions (4 vs 5; p < 0.001), and shorter postoperative length of stay (9 vs 19 hours; p < 0.001). There was no difference in complications, emergency department visits, or readmissions. In the outpatient group, none of the patients sent home from recovery had postoperative complications or required readmission. Satisfaction surveys revealed no change in satisfaction with either protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient appendectomy is safe in a public hospital and results in shorter hospital length of stay and decreased healthcare costs. Strict criteria for discharge are important to identify patients who should be admitted for observation.

Factors Associated with a Short (<2 Days) or Long (>10 Days) Length of Stay after Colectomy: A Multivariate Analysis of over 400 Patients.

A prospectively maintained database of 415 patients undergoing colectomy was evaluated. We performed a logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with 1) length of stay (LOS) of 2 days or less and 2) LOS of 10 days or more. Investigated variables included demographics, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, diagnosis, operative procedure, approach and time, transfusion requirements, and occurrence of any complications. Factors associated with a LOS of two days or less included ASA [odds ratio (OR): 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.208-0.576], use of transversus abdominis plane block (OR: 5.259, 95% CI: 2.825-9.791), and operative time (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.974-0.986). Age >65 had an OR of 1.73, though this did not reach statistical significance. Factors associated with LOS >10 days included ASA (OR: 2.152, 95% CI: 1.245-3.721), anastomotic leak (OR: 2.163, 95% CI: 1.486-3.148), ileus (OR: 8.790, 95% CI: 4.501-17.165), and surgical site infection (OR: 5.846, 95% CI: 2.764-12.362). Cancer and transfusion status were associated but did not reach statistical significance. Although operative time was longer in left-sided resections, no differences in LOS were observed. In conclusion, numerous factors are associated with short or long LOS and may help stratify resource utilization after colectomy. Further study is needed to confirm our findings.