Search

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of MIS approaches for rectal cancer with long-term postoperative bowel dysfunction., Materials and Methods: This was an Institutional Review Board-approved observational cohort study including consecutive patients with rectal or rectosigmoid cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2007 and 2017. The primary exposure was surgical approach, defined as open surgery or MIS (laparoscopy or robotic surgery). The primary outcome was major LARS, defined as a LARS score of ≥30. Subgroup analyses were performed by tumor height and type of MIS approach., Results: Among 749 potentially eligible patients, 514 (68.6 %) responded to the survey and were included for analysis. In total, 195 (37.9 %) patients underwent an MIS approach - 117 (60.0 %) laparoscopic and 78 (40.0 %) robotic. At a median follow-up of 6.1 (3.7-9.6) years from surgery, 222 patients (43.2 %) had major LARS (MIS: 41.0 % vs. open: 44.5 %, p = 0.44). On multivariable logistic regression, surgical approach had no association with major LARS (MIS, aOR: 1.21, 0.79-1.86). Older age (aOR: 1.03, 1.01-1.04), female sex (aOR: 1.75, 1.16-2.67), TME (aOR: 1.74, 1.01-3.02), diverting ileostomy (aOR: 2.74, 1.49-5.02) and radiation therapy (aOR: 2.63, 1.60-4.33) were all associated with major LARS. On subgroup analysis of patients with mid and low rectal cancers (n = 197), there remained no association between surgical approach and major LARS (MIS, aOR: 1.50, 0.68-3.33)., Conclusions: MIS approach to rectal cancer surgery was not associated with decreased risk of major LARS and should not be touted as a reason to offer MIS., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background and Rationale: Recent research has called for further resident training in coping with errors and adverse events in the operating room. To the best of our knowledge, there currently exists no evidence-based curriculum or training on this topic., Materials and Methods: Synthesizing three prior studies on how experienced surgeons react to errors and adverse events, we developed the STOPS framework for handling surgical errors and adverse events (Stop, Talk to your team, Obtain help, Plan, Succeed). This material was presented to residents in two teaching sessions., Results and Conclusion: In this paper, we describe the presentation of, and the uniformly positive resident reaction to, the STOPS framework: an empirically based psychological tool for surgeons who experience operative errors or adverse events., (Copyright © 2023 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Open combined resections of colorectal primary tumors and synchronous liver metastases have become common in selected cases. However, evidences favoring a minimally invasive (MIS) approach are still limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of MIS vs. open synchronous liver and colorectal resections., Methods: 384 cases of synchronous colorectal and liver resections performed at one institution were identified during the study period. MIS vs open approach were compared after a propensity score matching; surgical outcomes were analyzed., Results: MIS cases featured longer operative time (399 vs 300 min, p < 0.001), fewer blood loss (200 vs 500 ml, p = 0.003), and shorter hospitalization (median LOS 4 vs 6 days, p = 0.001). No difference was observed between the two groups for use of Pringle maneuver (p = 0.083), intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.061), achievement of negative colorectal (p = 0.176) and liver margins (p = 1.000), postoperative complications (p = 1.000) and significant (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3a) complications (p = 0.817), delay of adjuvant therapy due to complications (p = 0.555), 30- and 90-day mortality., Conclusion: Synchronous colorectal and liver metastases resections via a minimally-invasive approach in high-volume centers with appropriate expertise result in significantly lower blood loss and length of stay despite longer operative time in comparison to open, with no oncological inferiority., (Copyright © 2023 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: To highlight different surgical approaches for managing deep infiltrating endometriosis involving the rectosigmoid colon., Design: Demonstration of specific surgical techniques with educational narrated video footage., Setting: Bowel endometriosis is reported in 3.8% to 37% of patients with endometriosis [1]. Most commonly, the rectosigmoid colon is involved. Pelvic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging may be useful in diagnosis and for surgical planning [2]. Treatment options include observation, medications, or surgery. There are various surgical techniques that can be used for excision of deep infiltrating endometriosis involving the rectosigmoid colon. Serosal shaving, discoid resection, and complete resection are the possible types of surgical interventions that are demonstrated in this surgical education video at an academic medical center. Serosal shaving is used for lesions with minimal involvement of the muscularis. It can be done sharply or with electrosurgery and it is imperative to assess bowel integrity after shaving. Discoid resection is used for lesions with muscularis involvement, <3 cm in size, and encompassing less than one-third to a half of the bowel circumference. Full-thickness discoid bowel resection can be done in various ways including manual resection with primary suture closure, regular stapler transabdominally, or EEA stapler (Medtronic EEA Circular Stapler, Minneapolis, MN) transrectally. Segmental resection is used for lesions >3 cm in size, involving >50% of the bowel circumference, or for multifocal lesions. Various suture and stapler methods exist for this technique., Interventions: Based on the imaging and intraoperative findings, a surgical technique was chosen and demonstrated. The types of surgical techniques demonstrated include laparoscopic serosal shaving, discoid resection with manual resection and primary suture closure, discoid resection with EEA stapler, and segmental resection., Conclusion: Knowledge of different surgical approaches to excise endometriosis is essential to appropriately address a patient's unique pathology. The choice of which surgical technique to use should include consideration of the location of the lesion, depth and circumference of involvement, and the number of nodules present., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Prior to 2015 residents in our Accreditation Council for Graduation Medical Education (ACGME) colon and rectal surgery training program were in charge of managing, with faculty oversight, the outpatient anorectal clinic at our institution. Starting in 2015 advanced practice providers (APPs) working in the division assumed management of the clinic. The effect of APPs on ACGME resident index diagnostic case volumes has not been explored. Herein we examine ACGME case log graduate statistics to determine if the inclusion of APPs into our anorectal clinic practice has negatively affected resident index diagnostic anorectal case volumes., Design: ACGME year-end program reports were obtained for the years 2011 to 2019. Program anorectal diagnostic index volumes were recorded and compared to division volumes. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests were conducted to assess whether the number of cases per year (for each respective case type) prior to the introduction of APPs into the anorectal clinic (2011-2014) differed from the number of cases per year with the APP clinic in place (2015-2018). A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant., Setting: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (quaternary referral center)., Participants: Colon and rectal surgery resident year-end ACGME reports (2011-2019)., Results: ANOVAs revealed a marginally significant (p = 0.007) downtrend for hemorrhoid diagnostic codes, and a significant uptrend (p = 0.000) for fistula cases. Controlling for overall division volume, ANCOVA only reveled significance for fistula cases (p = 0.004) with the involvement of APPs., Conclusions: At our institution we found the inclusion of APPs into our anorectal clinic practice did not negatively affect colon and rectal surgery resident ACGME index diagnostic anorectal case volumes. Inclusion of APPs into a multidisciplinary practice can promote resident education by allowing trainees to pursue other educational opportunities without hindering ACGME index case volumes., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest None for all authors., (Copyright © 2021 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There is limited data about the safety of colorectal surgery after immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We aimed to share our experience about postoperative outcomes of colorectal surgery for patients treated with ICI. Overall, 31 patients were identified, 22 (71%) underwent elective and nine (29%) underwent emergent/urgent surgery. The 30-day Clavien Dindo class ≥ III complication rates were 27.3% (n = 6) for elective and 55.5% (n = 5) for emergent/urgent cases. Four patients underwent emergency surgery for immune-related colonic perforation and developed postoperative septic shock; two died. Considering patients' comorbidities, cancer stage, and surgical complexity, elective colorectal surgery after ICI seems relatively safe. However, emergent/urgent colorectal surgery was associated with high postoperative morbidity. Indeed, colonic perforation in the setting of ICI treatment has a significant risk of postoperative mortality. Therefore, for patients on ICI with any acute abdominal symptoms, surgical consult should be involved, and colon perforation should be ruled out., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest This research did not receive external funding. Authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement is widely considered the strongest predictor of local recurrence after TME. This study aimed to determine preoperative factors associated with a higher risk of pathological CRM involvement in robotic rectal cancer surgery., Methods: This was a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive adult patients who underwent elective, curative robotic low anterior or abdominoperineal resection with curative intent for primary rectal adenocarcinoma in a tertiary referral cancer center from March 2012 to September 2019. Pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports were reviewed for all the patients. Risk factors for pathological CRM involvement were investigated using Firth's logistic regression and a predictive model based on preoperative radiological features was formulated., Results: A total of 305 patients were included, and 14 (4.6%) had CRM involvement. Multivariable logistic regression found both T3 >5 mm (OR 6.12, CI 1.35-36.44) and threatened or involved mesorectal fascia (OR 4.54, CI 1.33-17.55) on baseline MRI to be preoperative predictors of pathologic CRM positivity, while anterior location (OR 3.44, CI 0.72-33.13) was significant only on univariate analysis. The predictive model showed good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve >0.80) and predicted a 32% risk of positive CRM if all risk factors were present., Conclusion: Patients with pre-operatively assessed threatened radiological margin, T3 tumors with greater than 5 mm extension and anterior location are at risk for a positive CRM. The predictive model can preoperatively estimate the CRM positivity risk for each patient, allowing surgeons to tailor management to improve oncological outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: While minimally invasive surgery contributed to improved outcomes in bariatric surgery, less is known about current utilization trends and outcomes related to surgical technique for colorectal resections in super-obese patients (body mass index ≥50 kg/m 2 )., Objective: The aim of this study was to compare surgical modalities and short-term outcomes of patients with super obesity who underwent elective colectomy in the United States., Setting: A retrospective review was performed of patients with super obesity who underwent elective colectomy between 2012 to 2018 using the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program data pool., Methods: Patients were categorized into an open, laparoscopic, or robotic group. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes including 30-day complications and length of stay were compared between the 3 groups. Furthermore, utilization trends of surgical modalities were assessed., Results: Of 1199 patients, 338 (28.2%) had open, 735 (61.3%) laparoscopic, and 126 (10.5%) robotic colectomy during the study period, primarily for colon cancer (50.8%). Patients in the open group tended to have more baseline co-morbidities. Laparoscopic approach showed better risk-adjusted outcomes compared with open for postoperative ileus (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: .6, 95% confidence interval [CI; .383-.965]), overall medical complications (aOR: .4, 95%CI [.3-.8]), and length of stay (OR .6, 95% CI [.394-.968]). Trend utilization showed increasing utilization of the robotic platform over the study period, which was associated with less unplanned conversion to open (aOR .417, 95%CI [.199-.872])., Conclusion: Laparoscopic colectomy provides advantageous outcomes over open surgery for colectomy in super-obese patients. The robotic platform has been increasingly used over time, and potential benefits need to be further studied., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess the impact of delay from diagnosis to curative surgery on survival in patients with non-metastatic colon cancer., Methods: National Cancer database (NCDB) analysis (2004-2013) including all consecutive patients diagnosed with stage I-III colon cancer and treated with primary elective curative surgery. Short and long delays were defined as lower and upper quartiles of time from diagnosis to treatment, respectively. Age-, sex-, race-, tumor stage and location-, adjuvant treatment-, comorbidity- and socioeconomic factors-adjusted overall survival (OS) was compared between the two groups (short vs. long delay). A multivariable Cox regression model was used to identify the independent impact of each factor on OS., Results: Time to treatment was <16 days in the short delay group (31,171 patients) and ≥37 days in the long delay group (29,617 patients). OS was 75.4 vs. 71.9% at 5 years and 56.6 vs. 49.7% at 10 years in short and long delay groups, respectively (both p < 0.0001). Besides demographic (comorbidities, advanced age) and pathological factors (transverse and right-vs. left-sided location, advanced tumor stage, poor differentiation, positive microscopic margins), treatment delay had a significant impact on OS (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.05-1.07 per 14 day-delay) upon multivariable analysis. The adjusted hazard ratio for death increased continuously with delay times of longer than 30 days, to become significant after a delay of 40 days., Conclusion: This analysis using a national cancer database revealed a significant impact on OS when surgeries for resectable colon cancer were delayed beyond 40 days from time of diagnosis., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)