Search

Previous solid organ transplantation has been associated with worse survival among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. This study investigates the contribution of CRC characteristics and treatment-related factors to the differential survival. Using the Swedish register-linkage CRCBaSe, all patients with solid organ transplantation before CRC diagnosis were identified and matched with non-transplanted CRC patients. Associations between transplantation history and clinical CRC factors and survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and logistic, multinomial, and Cox regression, respectively. Ninety-eight transplanted and 474 non-transplanted CRC patients were followed for 5 years after diagnosis. Among patients with stage I-III cancer, transplanted patients had lower odds of treatment with abdominal surgery [odds ratio (OR):0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI):0.08-0.90], than non-transplanted patients. Among those treated with surgery, transplanted colon cancer patients had lower odds of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (OR:0.31, 95% CI:0.11-0.85), and transplanted rectal cancer patients had higher rate of relapse (hazard ratio:9.60, 95% CI:1.84-50.1), than non-transplanted patients. Five-year cancer-specific and overall survival was 56% and 35% among transplanted CRC patients, and 68% and 57% among non-transplanted. Accordingly, transplanted CRC patients were treated less intensely than non-transplanted patients, and had worse cancer-specific and overall survival. These patients might benefit from multidisciplinary evaluation including transplantation specialists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Pelviperineal complications after abdominoperineal resections are tough to treat. None of the available prophylactic methods has proven efficacy besides being technically challenging and expensive to perform. The present study aims to describe the technical details and short-term outcomes using mobilised umbilical ligaments to cover the pelvic inlet. Technique: After completing the rectal resection, the bladder with umbilical ligaments is mobilised anteriorly into the space of Retzius until the free edge can reach the sacral midline. Hitching stitches are taken to fix the umbilical ligaments into the new position. Seven consecutive patients had the umbilical ligament flap used for pelvic inlet closure. Results: Cross-sectional imaging on day 30 demonstrated the viable flap in all patients, and the small bowel descent was prevented. None of the seven patients had small bowel obstruction till day 90 after the operation. No patient required re-catheterisation, experienced major complications or wound infections that would necessitate re-intervention. Conclusion: Using mobilised umbilical ligaments hitched to the pelvic inlet is a technically safe and feasible procedure to prevent pelviperineal complications after APR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perineal defects following abdominoperineal resections (APRs) for rectal cancer may require myocutaneous or omental flaps depending upon anatomic, clinical and oncologic variables. However, studies comparing their efficacy have shown contradictory results. We aim to compare postoperative complication rates of APR closure techniques in rectal cancer using propensity score-matching. The American College of Surgeons Proctectomy Targeted Data File was queried from 2016 to 2019. The study population was defined using CPT and ICD-10 codes for patients with rectal cancer undergoing APR, stratified by repair technique. Perioperative demographic and oncologic variables were controlled for by propensity-score matching. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed for wound and major complications (MCs). Of the 3291 patients included in the study, 85% underwent primary closure (PC), 8.3% rectus abdominis myocutaneous (RAM) flap, 4.9% pedicled omental flap with PC, and 1.9% lower extremity (LE) flap repair. Primary closure rates were significantly higher for patients with stage T1 and T2 tumors (p < 0.001). RAM and LE flaps were most used with multi-organ resections, 24% and 25%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similarly, cases with T4 tumors used these flaps more frequently, 30% and 40%, respectively (p < 0.001). After propensity score matching for comorbidities and oncologic variables, there was no significant difference in 30-day postoperative wound or MC rates between perineal closure techniques. The complication rates of the different closure techniques are comparable when tumor stage is considered. Therefore, tumor staging and concurrent procedures should guide clinical decision making regarding the appropriate use of each technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Perineal wound morbidity following abdominoperineal resection (APR) is a significant challenge. Myocutaneous flap‐based techniques have been developed to overcome morbidity associated with perineal reconstruction. We reviewed outcomes for patients undergoing APR in a hospital that performs inferior gluteal artery myocutaneous (IGAM) island transposition flaps and primary closure (PC) for perineal reconstruction. Methods: A retrospective study of patients who underwent APR for malignancy between January 2012 and March 2020 was performed and outcomes between IGAM reconstruction and PC compared. Primary outcomes were wound infection and dehiscence. Secondary outcomes included return to theatre, operative time, length of stay, flap loss and perineal hernia incidence. Results: One‐hundred and two patients underwent APR, with 50 (49%) who had PC and 52 (51%) had IGAM flap reconstructions. There were no differences between each group with regards to wound infection (23 vs. 22%, P = 0.55) or wound dehiscence (25 vs. 24%, P = 0.92). Thirteen (25%) IGAM patients required a return to theatre compared to three PC patients (6%) (P = 0.008). IGAM procedures required twice the overall operative time (506 vs. 240 min, P = 0.001) with no differences between groups when comparing the APR component (250 vs. 240 min, P = 0.225). The IGAM group had a longer length of stay (median 13 days vs. 9 days, P = 0.001). Only one IGAM flap was lost and no symptomatic hernias were identified. Conclusion: Perineal closure technique did not affect the incidence of wound infection or dehiscence. Closure technique should be tailored to underlying patient characteristics and surgical pathology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for rectal cancer is technically challenging, and its clinical impact is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of SILS for rectal cancer compared with multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS). Patients and methods: We retrospectively analyzed 357 consecutive patients with stage I–III rectal cancer located in the rectosigmoid or upper rectum who underwent SILS or MPLS between January 2012 and December 2016, using propensity score-matched analysis. Results: After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 204 patients (n = 102 per group). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in tumor location (p < 0.001). After matching, preoperative clinical factors were similar between groups. SILS was successful in 73.5% of cases, an additional port was required in 23.5%, and 2.9% were converted to open surgery. Compared to the MPLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operative time (192 vs. 211 min, p = 0.015) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (9 vs. 11 days, p = 0.038). Other operative factors and morbidity rates did not differ significantly between groups. The number of harvested lymph nodes was smaller in the SILS group (24) than in the MPLS group (27, p = 0.008). Postoperative recurrence did not differ between groups, either before or after matching. No significant differences in 3-year disease-free, 3-year local recurrence-free, or 5-year overall survival were found between groups. Conclusions: SILS is safe, is feasible, and offers satisfactory oncological outcomes in selected patients with rectosigmoid or upper rectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Although robotic surgery for rectal cancer can overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery, studies focusing on abdominoperineal resection are limited. The aim of this study was to compare the operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted from April 2010 to March 2020. Patients with rectal cancer who underwent robotic or laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection without lateral lymph node dissection were enrolled. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared. Results: We evaluated 33 and 20 patients in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The median operative time and blood loss were comparable between the two groups. No significant differences in the overall complication rates were noted, whereas the rates of urinary dysfunction (3% vs. 26%, p = 0.02) and perineal wound infection (9% vs. 35%, p = 0.03) in the robotic group were significantly lower in comparison to the laparoscopic group. The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robotic group (8 days vs. 11 days, p < 0.01). The positive resection margin rates were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: Robotic abdominoperineal resection demonstrated better short-term outcomes than laparoscopic surgery, suggesting that it could be a useful approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anal metastasis of colorectal adenocarcinoma is very rare, represented by only a handful of case reports in the literature. Previously, reports of metastasis to this region had occurred following a history of anorectal disease, such as anal fistulae. Antecedent trauma to the area from hemorrhoidectomy, fissures, or perineal retractor injury have also been implicated. Case Presentation: Herein we report the case of 69-year-old man without any history of anal disease presenting with a metachronous metastasis of a colorectal-type adenocarcinoma to the anal verge. He was previously treated for T1N0 rectal adenocarcinoma at the rectosigmoid junction with a low anterior resection 5 years prior, then had a T3N0 local recurrence at the colorectal anastomosis treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and eventually a Hartmann's procedure 4 years later. Subsequently, on surveillance flexible sigmoidoscopy, a new tumor was identified on the perianal skin extending from the anal verge. Histopathology demonstrated colorectal-type adenocarcinoma. Flexible endoscopy identified no other residual or recurrent disease in the colon or rectal stump. The patient was treated with wide local excision and advancement flap reconstruction. Conclusion: Isolated metastasis to the anus is an extremely rare occurrence for colorectal adenocarcinoma. There exists little evidence to inform management. One option is to treat like a locally recurrent rectal cancer with aggressive tri-modality management consisting of chemoradiation, abdominal perineal resection, and adjuvant chemotherapy. In the absence of metastatic disease, local resection and close surveillance remain an option. As always, patient factors should guide management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the characteristics and prognosis of de novo CRC patients who underwent liver or kidney transplantation. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 66 de novo CRC patients selected from 8,734 liver transplant (LT) or kidney transplant (KT) recipients. We analyzed characteristics and survival outcomes of de novo CRC patients and sporadic CRC patients who underwent radical surgery with stage I-III in Asan Medical Center between 2005 and 2016. Survival outcomes were analyzed via the 1:4 matching method. Results: The standard incidence ratio (SIR) of de novo CRC in KT recipients is 1.67 in men and 2.54 in women. That in LT recipients is 3.10 in men and 2.25 in women. Compared with sporadic CRC patients, de novo CRC patients had more colon cancer than rectal cancer (p=0.041). In 9 patients (13.6%), CRC was diagnosed within one year after transplantation, 21 patients (31.8%) were diagnosed between 1–5 years, and the remaining 36 patients (54.6%) were diagnosed thereafter. There were no significant differences in recurrence-free survival and overall survival between the two groups (p=0.211 and p=0.324, respectively). Conclusions: The risk of developing de novo CRC in transplant recipients was higher than in the general population. The survival outcome of de novo CRC was no different compared with the sporadic CRC. Therefore, regular surveillance is essential for timely diagnosis and treatment for transplantation patients. A large prospective study for an intense CRC surveillance program in transplantation patients is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite new medical and surgical strategies, 5-year local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma was reported in up to 25% of cases. Therefore, we aimed to review surgical strategies for the prevention of local recurrences in rectal cancer. Summary: After implementation of the total mesorectal excision (TME), surgical resection of rectal adenocarcinoma with anterior resection or abdominoperineal excision (APE) allowed decrease in local recurrence (3% at 5 years). More recently, extralevator APE was described as an alternative to APE, decreasing specimen perforation and recurrence rate. Moreover, technique modifications were developed to optimize rectal resection, such as the laparoscopic or robotic approach, and transanal TME. However, the technical advantages conferred by these techniques did not translate into a decreased recurrence rate. Lateral lymph node dissection is another technique, which aimed at improving the long-term outcomes; nevertheless, there is currently no evidence to recommend its routine use. Strategies to preserve the rectum are also emerging, such as local excision, and may be beneficial for subgroups of patients. Key Messages: Rectal cancer management requires a multidisciplinary approach, and surgical strategy should be tailored to patient factors: general health, previous perineal intervention, anatomy, preference, and tumor characteristics such as stage and localization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Closed perineal wounds often fail to heal by primary intention after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and are often complicated by surgical site infection (SSI) and/or wound dehiscence. Recent evidence showed encouraging results of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) for prevention of wound-related complications in surgery. Our objective was to gather and discuss the early existing literature regarding the use of pNPWT to prevent wound-related complications on perineal wounds after APR. Methods: Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for original publications and congress abstracts reporting the use of pNPWT after APR on closed perineal wounds. Results: Seven publications were included for analysis. Two publications reported significantly lower incidence of SSI in pNPWT patients than in controls with a risk reduction of about 25–30%. Two other publications described similar incidences of SSI between the two groups of patients but described SSI in pNPWT patients to be less severe. One study reported significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence in pNPWT patients than in controls. Conclusion: The largest non-randomized studies investigating the effect of pNPWT on the prevention of wound-related complications after APR showed encouraging results in terms of reduction of SSI and wound dehiscence that deserve further investigation and confirmation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer is associated with a relatively high risk of positive margins and postoperative morbidity, particularly related to perineal wound healing problems. It is unknown whether the use of a minimally invasive approach for the perineal part of these procedures can improve postoperative outcomes without oncological compromise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of minimally invasive transperineal abdominoperineal excision (TpAPE) Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included all patients having TpAPE for primary low rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was the intraoperative complication rate. Secondary endpoints included major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3), histopathology results, and perineal wound healing. Results: A total of 32 TpAPE procedures were performed in five centers. A bilateral extralevator APE (ELAPE) was performed in 17 patients (53%), a unilateral ELAPE in 7 (22%), and an APE in 8 (25%). Intraoperative complications occurred in five cases (16%) and severe postoperative morbidity in three cases (9%). There were no perioperative deaths. A positive margin (R1) was observed in four patients (13%) and specimen perforation occurred in two (6%). The unilateral extralevator TpAPE group had worse specimen quality and a higher proportion of R1 resections than the bilateral ELAPE or standard APE groups. The rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing was 53% (n = 17) and three patients (9%) required surgical reintervention. Conclusions: TpAPE seems to be feasible with acceptable perioperative morbidity and a relatively low rate of perineal wound dehiscence, while histopathological outcomes remain suboptimal. Additional evaluation of the viability of this technique is needed in the form of a prospective trial with standardization of the procedure, indication, audit of outcomes and performed by surgeons with vast experience in transanal total mesorectal excision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: High stoma output and dehydration is common following ileostomy formation. However, the impact of this on renal function, both in the short term and after ileostomy reversal, remains poorly defined. We aimed to assess the independent impact on kidney function of an ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery and subsequent reversibility after ileostomy closure. Methods: This retrospective single‐site cohort study identified patients undergoing rectal cancer resection from 2003 to 2017, with or without a diverting ileostomy. Renal function was calculated preoperatively, before ileostomy closure, and 6 months after ileostomy reversal (or matched times for patients without ileostomy). Demographics, oncological treatments and nephrotoxic drug prescriptions were assessed. Outcome measures were deterioration from baseline renal function and development of moderate/severe chronic kidney disease (CKD ≥ 3). Multivariate analysis was performed to assess independent risk factors for postoperative renal impairment. Results: Five hundred and eighty‐three of 1213 patients had an ileostomy. Postoperative renal impairment occurred more frequently in ileostomates (9.5% absolute increase in rate of CKD ≥ 3; P < 0.0001) vs no change in patients without an ileostomy (P = 0.757). Multivariate analysis identified ileostomy formation, age, anastomotic leak and renin–angiotensin system inhibitors as independently associated with postoperative renal decline. Despite stoma closure, ileostomates remained at increased risk of progression to new or worse CKD [74/438 (16.9%)] compared to patients without an ileostomy [36/437 (8.2%), P = 0.0001, OR 2.264 (1.49–3.46)]. Conclusions: Ileostomy formation is independently associated with kidney injury, with an increased risk persisting after stoma closure. Strategies to protect against kidney injury may be important in higher risk patients (elderly, receiving renin–angiotensin system antihypertensives, or following anastomotic leakage). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer, perineal wound complications are common. Omental flap creation may allow for decreased morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess wound complications in rectal cancer patients undergoing APR with and without the addition of an omental flap. Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Proctectomy targeted database from 2016 to 2017 was used to identify all patients undergoing APR for rectal cancer. The primary outcomes were wound complications such as superficial site infection, deep wound infection, organ space infection, and wound dehiscence. Results: There were 3063 patients identified. One hundred seventy-three (5.6%) patients underwent APR with an omental flap repair while 2890 (94.4%) patients underwent APR without an omental flap repair. Patients in both groups were similar with regard to age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesia class, and neoadjuvant cancer treatment (all p > 0.05). Patients who underwent an omental flap repair were significantly more likely to have a postoperative organ space infection (10.4% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in rates of superficial site infection, deep wound infection, wound dehiscence, or reoperation between the two patient groups. In multivariable analysis, omental flap creation was independently associated with organ space infection (OR 1.72, 95%CI 1.02–2.90, p = 0.04). Conclusions: This is the largest study to evaluate omental flap use in rectal cancer patients undergoing APR. Omental flaps are independently associated with organ space infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: Pathological complete response is seen in approximately one fifth of rectal cancer patients following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Since these patients have excellent oncological outcomes, there has been a rapidly growing interest in organ preservation for those who develop a clinical complete response. We review the watch-and-wait strategy and focus on all aspects of this hot topic, including who should be considered for this approach, how should we identify treatment response and what are the expected outcomes.Recent Findings: The major challenges in interpreting the data on watch-and-wait are the significant heterogeneity of patients selected for this approach and of methods employed to identify them. The evidence available comes mostly from retrospective cohort studies, but has shown good oncological outcomes, including the rate of successful salvage surgery, locoregional control and overall survival.Summary: There is currently not enough and not robust enough evidence to support watch-and-wait as a standard approach, outside a clinical trial, for patients achieving clinical complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Furthermore, there is a lack of data on long-term outcomes. However, the results we have so far are promising, and there is therefore an urgent need for randomised control studies such as the TRIGGER trial to confirm the safety of this strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The previously reported SECA study demonstrated a dramatic 5‐year survival improvement in patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CLM) treated with liver transplantation (LT) compared with chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to assess whether immunosuppressive therapy accelerates the growth of pulmonary metastases in patients transplanted for unresectable CLM. Methods: Chest CT scans from 11 patients in the SECA study resected for 18 pulmonary metastases were reviewed retrospectively. Tumour diameter, volume and CT characteristics were registered and tumour volume doubling time was calculated. Findings in the SECA group were compared with those of a control group consisting of 12 patients with non‐transplanted rectal cancer resected for 26 pulmonary metastases. Disease‐free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) after first pulmonary resection were determined. Results: Median doubling time based on tumour diameter and volume in the SECA and control groups were 125 and 130 days (P = 0·658) and 110 and 129 days (P = 0·632) respectively. The metastases in both groups were distributed to all lung lobes and were mostly peripheral. Median DFS after LT in the SECA group and after primary pelvic surgery in the control group was 17 (range 6–42) and 18 (2–57) months respectively (P = 0·532). In the SECA group, estimated 5‐year DFS and OS rates after first pulmonary resection were 39 and 51 per cent respectively. Conclusion: Patients treated by LT for unresectable CLM have a good prognosis following resection of pulmonary metastases. Doubling time did not appear to be worse with the immunosuppression used after LT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is currently a paucity of research comparing the clinical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) with those obtained with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC). This meta-analysis aimed to examine whether SILC shows real benefits over MLC, especially in terms of feasibility, safety, and oncological adequacy.Methods: A literature review of studies comparing SILC and MLC has been performed which looked at the following outcomes: mortality, morbidity, and oncological parameters of adequacy, as well as other potential benefits and drawbacks. Standardized mean difference for continuous variables and odds ratios for qualitative variables were calculated.Results: Thirty studies comparing SILC and MLC were reviewed: two prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs), eight prospective studies, and 20 retrospective comparative observational studies. Overall, in a cohort of 3502 patients who underwent surgery, SILC was used in 1068 cases (30.5 %) and MLC was used in 2434 cases (69.5 %). Mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower when the SILC procedure had been used (75.06 vs. 91.45 ml, P = 0.03); bowel function recovered significantly earlier in the SILC patients (1.96 vs. 2.15 days, P = 0.03); mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (5.55 vs. 6.60 days, P = 0.0005); and length of skin incision was significantly shorter in SILC patients (3.98 vs. 5.28 cm, P = 0.01). However, in the latter four outcomes, evidence of heterogeneity was found. In contrast, MLC showed significantly better results when compared to SILC in terms of distal free margins (12.26 vs. 10.98 cm, P = 0.01).Conclusions: SILC could be considered as a safe and feasible alternative to MLC in experienced hands. Further evidence for this surgical procedure should be assessed in the form of high-quality RCTs, with additional focus on its use in low rectal cancer resection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The optimal management of the perineal defect following abdominoperineal excision for anorectal malignancy remains a source of debate. The repopularization of extralevator resection means colorectal surgeons are confronted with larger perineal wounds. There are several surgical options available--primary perineal closure and drainage, omentoplasty, biological or synthetic mesh placement, musculocutaneous flap repair, and negative wound pressure therapy. These options are discussed along with the potential benefits and complications of each. There remains no consensus on which management strategy is superior; thus, each case must be tailored for each individual patient. Surgical expertise and availability of a multidisciplinary team approach are important considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to reveal the short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colorectal resection (SILC) compared with multi-incision laparoscopic colorectal resection (MILC) for colorectal cancer using propensity score matching analysis.Methods: The study group included 235 patients who underwent SILC and 730 patients who underwent MILC for colorectal cancer between April 2009 and September 2014. The propensity score matching for age, gender, body mass index, tumor location (right-sided colon/sigmoid colon/upper rectum), lymph node dissection (D1/D2/D3), pathologic T (≤T3) stage and TNM (0-I/II/III) stage produced 107 matched pairs. The exclusion criteria for SILC were as follows: (1) tumors located at the transverse, descending colon or lower rectum, (2) stage IV tumors, synchronous or previous malignancies, (3) locally advanced tumors >T4, (4) acute obstructions or previous major abdominal surgery and (5) obese patients: BMI > 30.Results: No significant differences were observed in operating time, bleeding volumes, starting time of liquid diet and length of hospital stay between the SILC and MILC groups. However, the SILC group showed less analgesic requirements (1.1 vs. 1.9 times; p = 0.0006) and shorter length of incision (2.7 vs. 4.3 cm; p = 0.0000) compared to MILC group. The overall rate of postoperative complications was similar in both groups (2.8 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.70). The 5-year overall survival rate of SILC and MILC was 100 and 95% (p = 0.125) and 5-year disease-free survival rates in stages 0-III were 97 and 94% (p = 0.189), 100 and 92% in stage II and 90 and 85% in stage III, respectively.Conclusions: This study suggests that SILC for colorectal cancer is a safe and feasible option with better cosmetic results and less pain in strictly selected patients. SILC can also produce good oncological results with similar postoperative outcomes to MILC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Single-port (SP) surgery has been characterized as having limited applicability regarding procedure, disease, and patient characteristics. There is a question if SP procedures offer disadvantages or advantages to multiport (MP) colorectal surgery. We hypothesize that SP is equivalent to MP and is a safe alternative in the full spectrum of colorectal disease and procedures. Methods: A case-matched analysis of a prospectively maintained database to compare perioperative outcomes in SP versus MP was performed. Criteria included age, gender, BMI, previous abdominal surgery, previous XRT, disease process, and procedure. 95 exact matches for all 7 criteria were found between 159 SP and 1,617 MP cases. Perioperative outcomes, surgical technique, morbidity, mortality, local recurrence, and 5-year survival were analyzed. Results: There was lower mean EBL in SP but no difference in transfusion requirement. OR time for SP left colectomy was shorter, with a trend to shorter OR times found in all procedures. 99 % SP and 98 % MP had no intra-operative complications. Conversion to open was equivalent (0/1). Mean largest incision was smaller for SP. There were no differences in return of bowel function or length of hospital stay. There were no mortalities. There were no differences in perioperative morbidity, local recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall 5-year survival. Conclusions: SP is a safe alternative to MP colorectal surgery across the full array of procedures in equivalent patients. This study demonstrates SP has less blood loss, smaller incisions, is quicker in left colectomy, and tends to be quicker across all procedures. Conversion and morbidity rates are equivalent to MP, without compromise in quality of surgical technique. While proper training is essential, concerns regarding the inability to use SP laparoscopic colorectal surgery safely are unfounded in nearly exactly matched patients. These issues will require further study as SP laparoscopic colorectal surgery is practiced more widely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Potential benefits of single-port laparoscopic surgery may include improved cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, surgical trauma and faster recovery. Results of randomized prospective studies with a focus on single-port rectal surgery have not yet been presented. The aim of the present study was to compare single-port and conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in terms of short-term outcomes including postoperative pain and trauma-induced changes in certain bioactive substances. Methods: Patients with non-metastasized rectal cancer were prospectively randomized to single-port ( n = 20) or conventional laparoscopic rectal surgery ( n = 20). Postoperative pain was assessed at rest, at coughing and during mobilization, with a numeric pain ranking score and was recorded at 6 h after the operation and subsequently every morning daily for 4 days. Levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 (TIMP-1) were determined. Blood samples were collected preoperatively (baseline), and 6, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h after skin incision. Results: Pain scores were significantly reduced in the single-port group on postoperative days 2, 3 and 4 during coughing and mobilization. In addition, the patients in the single-port group suffered significantly less pain at rest at 6 h after surgery and on postoperative days 1, 3 and 4. The levels of the three markers increased significantly after surgery. The increase was similar between groups for plasma IL-6 and TIMP-1 at all time points, while the CRP levels were significantly lower in the single-port group at 6 ( p < 0.001) and 24 h ( p < 0.05) after skin incision. Abdominal incisions lengths were significantly shorter in the single-port group ( p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between groups in operating time and blood loss, morbidity or mortality rate. The short-term oncological outcome in the two groups was similar. Conclusions: Single-port rectal surgery may reduce postoperative pain. Although CRP levels were lower at some time points, results of the present randomized, pilot study suggest that the trauma-induced inflammatory response of single-port operations may be similar to the trauma-induced inflammatory response of conventional laparoscopic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Perineal wounds after complete proctectomy are at risk for failure, with dramatic consequences on patients' health and quality of life. This study is aimed at identifying risk factors for wound complications in patients undergoing primary closure of the perineal defect after total proctectomy. Methods: Data from 284 patients undergoing total proctectomy from 2002 to 2012 either at the University of Chicago Medical Center or the Catholic University of Rome Hospital were collected and analyzed. Results: Overall, the perineal wound complication rate was 21.8 %. Successful conservative management was accomplished in 45.2 % of cases. Complications occurred significantly more often in patients with a higher Charlson score index, with the diagnosis of rectal cancer, who had received preoperative radiation and who had a surgical drain placed at the time of initial surgery. Neoadjuvant radiation was the only significant risk factor at multivariate analysis (OR 4.40). In the rectal cancer subgroup, younger age, female gender, and preoperative radiation were predictors of wound complications. Based on that, a 3-point score (radiation, age, and gender (RAG)) was developed. Patients with a score of 3 had a 50 % risk of developing a perineal wound complication. Conclusions: Perineal wound complications are a common and burdensome problem after total proctectomy. Preoperative radiation is the single most significant and controllable risk factor predicting perineal wound failure. In the presence of multiple, non-modifiable risk factors, alternative approaches to primary closure should be considered in managing complex perineal defects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the current systematic review was to compare the short-term clinical and oncological outcomes of single-port surgery (SPS) to multi-port surgery (MPS) for rectal cancer in MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Library from January 2010 to December 2018. A total of 5 clinical controlled studies composed one randomized pilot study and four non-randomized studies with a total of 461 patients were analyzed after a systematic review. A total of 125 patients (27.1%) underwent SPS and 336 patients (72.9%) underwent MPS for rectal cancer. The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower in the SPS group compared with the MPS group (0.8 vs. 5.4%, respectively). A total of 16.8% of patients in the SPS group required an additional port to complete the operation. The morbidity rate was lower in the SPS group compared with the MPS group (28.0 vs. 39.0%, respectively). The other short-term clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. The R0 resection rate was 99.0% in the SPS group and 98.7% in the MPS group. The oncological clearance was satisfactory and similar in both groups. The current study concluded that SPS can be performed safely and provide satisfactory oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer. However, further studies are required to determine the role of SPS in the long-term clinical and oncological outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]