Prospective longitudinal cohort study of patient recovery after major gastrointestinal surgery: is there a difference between minimally invasive and open approaches?

Association of operative time and approach on postoperative complications for esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with decreased postoperative complications compared with open esophagectomy. However, the risks of complications for minimally invasive esophagectomy compared with open esophagectomy may be affected by operative time. The objectives of this study are to (1) compare the incidence of postoperative complications for minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy and (2) evaluate the association of postoperative complications on operative approach and operative time.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of patients who underwent an esophagectomy in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Procedure-Targeted Data File was performed from 2016 to 2020. For analysis, minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy were stratified into tertiles of operative time. A bivariate analysis of postoperative complications comparing minimally invasive esophagectomy with open esophagectomy was performed. Multivariable Poisson regression models were estimated evaluating the association of the likelihood of postoperative complications with operative approach and operative time.

RESULTS

In total, 8,574 patients who underwent esophagectomy were included: 5,369 patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy, and 3,205 patients underwent open esophagectomy. Median operative time was 402 minutes for minimally invasive esophagectomy and 321 minutes for open esophagectomy. The incidence of postoperative complications and 30-day mortality was lower in the minimally invasive esophagectomy group than the open esophagectomy group within the same tertiles of operative time. When we compared patients who underwent short open esophagectomy with those who underwent long minimally invasive esophagectomy, there were no significant differences in complications.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant association of postoperative complications for short open esophagectomy compared with long minimally invasive esophagectomy. Patients should be selected for minimally invasive esophagectomy when there is appropriate surgeon experience and hospital resources.

Failed recovery after pancreatoduodenectomy: A significant problem even without surgical complications

BACKGROUND

The absence of surgical complications has traditionally been used to define successful recovery after pancreas surgery. However, patient-reported outcome measures as metrics of a challenging recovery may be superior to objective morbidity. This study aims to evaluate the use of patient-reported outcomes in assessing recovery after pancreas surgery.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for pancreatoduodenectomy were prospectively enrolled between 2016 to 2018. Patient-reported outcomes were collected using the linear analog self-assessment questionnaire preoperatively and on postoperative days 2, 7, 14, 30, and monthly until 6 months. Patients were also asked if they felt fully recovered at 30 days and 6 months. Thirty-day surgical morbidity was prospectively assessed, and the comprehensive complication index at 30 days was used to categorize morbidity as major or multiple minor complications (comprehensive complication index ≥26.2) vs uncomplicated (comprehensive complication index <26.2). Clinically significant International Study Group Pancreas Surgery Grade B and C pancreatic fistulas and delayed gastric emptying were reported. χ2 and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess associations with recovery by 6 months and quality of life throughout the postoperative period.

RESULTS

Of 116 patients who met inclusion criteria and were enrolled, 32 (28%) had major or multiple minor complications (comprehensive complication index ≥26.2). Overall, fewer than 1 in 10 patients (7%) reported feeling fully recovered at 30 days postoperatively, whereas 55% reported feeling fully recovered at 6 months. Of patients suffering major morbidity, 62% did not recover by 6 months, whereas 38% of those in the uncomplicated group reported not being recovered at 6 months (P = .03). Patients who experienced delayed gastric emptying reported low quality-of-life scores at 1 month (P = .04) compared to those with no delayed gastric emptying, but this did not persist at 6 months (P = .80). Postoperative pancreatic fistula was not associated with quality of life at 1 or 6 months (both P > .05). In the uncomplicated patients, age, sex, surgical approach, and cancer status were not associated with failed recovery at 6 months (all P > .05), and healthier patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists 1-2) were less likely to report complete recovery (42% vs 69% American Society of Anesthesiologists 3-4, P = .04). With the exception of higher preoperative pain scores (mean 2.3 [standard deviation 2.4] among patients not fully recovered at 6 months vs 1.6 [2.2] among those fully recovered, P = .04), preoperative patient-reported outcomes were not associated with failed recovery at 6 months (all P > .05). However, lower 30-day quality of life, social activity, pain, and fatigue scores were associated with incomplete recovery at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

More than 1 in 3 patients with an uncomplicated course do not feel fully recovered from pancreas surgery at 6 months; the presence of surgical complications did not universally correspond with recovery failure. In patients with complications, delayed gastric emptying appears to drive quality of life more significantly than postoperative pancreatic fistula. In patients with uncomplicated recovery, healthier patients were less likely to report full recovery at 6 months. Thirty-day patient-reported outcomes may be able to identify patients who are at risk of incomplete long-term recovery.

Quality of Life and Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Long-term Survivors of Pancreatic Cancer Following Pancreatoduodenectomy

OBJECTIVE

To describe long-term quality of life (QOL) and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in the modern era.

BACKGROUND

As advances in pancreatic cancer management improve outcomes, it is essential to assess long-term patient-reported outcomes after surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative intent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer between January 2011 and June 2019 from a single center were identified. Patients alive ≥3 years after surgery were considered long-term survivors (LTS). LTS who were alive in June 2022 received a 55-question survey to assess their QOL (EORTC-QLQ-C30) and GI symptoms (EORTC-PAN26 and Problem Areas in Diabetes Questionnaire). Responses were compared against population norms. Clinicodemographic characteristics in LTS versus non-LTS and survey completion were compared.

RESULTS

Six hundred seventy-two patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer; 340 were LTS. One hundred thirty-seven patients of the 238 eligible to complete the survey responded (response rate: 58%). Compared to the US general population, LTS reported significantly higher QOL (75 vs 64; P <0.001), less nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, and constipation, but more diarrhea (all P <0.001). Most patients (n=136/137, 99%) reported experiencing postoperative GI symptoms related to pancreatic insufficiency (n=71/135, 53%), reflux (n=61/135, 45%), and delayed gastric emptying (n=31/136, 23%). Most patients (n=113/136, 83%) reported that digestive symptoms overall had little to no impact on QOL, and 91% (n=124/136) would undergo surgery again.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite known long-term complications following pancreatoduodenectomy, cancer survivors appear to have excellent QOL. Specific long-term gastrointestinal symptoms data should be utilized for preoperative education and follow-up planning.

The current role of blood-based biomarkers in surgical decision-making in patients with localised pancreatic cancer: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The role of blood-based biomarkers in surgical decision-making in patients with localised pancreatic cancer remains unclear. This review aimed to report the utility of blood-based biomarkers focusing on prediction of response to neoadjuvant therapy, prediction of surgical resectability and early relapse after surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched till October 2019. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2019 with a minimum of 20 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, reporting the utility of at least one blood-based biomarker in predicting response to neoadjuvant therapy and predicting surgical resectability or early relapse after surgery were included.

RESULTS

A total of 2604 studies were identified, of which 24 comprising of 3367 patients and 12 blood-based biomarkers were included. All included studies were observational. Levels of carbohydrate antigen (CA)19-9 were reported in the majority of the studies. Levels of CA19-9 predicted the response to neoadjuvant therapy and early relapse in 10 studies. CA125 levels above 35 U/ml were predictive of surgical irresectability in two studies. However, marked variation in both timing of sampling and cut-off values was noted between studies.

CONCLUSION

Despite some evidence of potential benefit, the utility of currently available blood-based biomarkers in aiding surgical decision-making in patients undergoing potentially curative treatment for pancreatic cancer is limited by methodological heterogeneity. Standardisation of future studies may allow a more comprehensive analysis of the biomarkers described in this review.

C-reactive protein after major abdominal surgery in daily practice

BACKGROUND

Infectious complications are frequently encountered after abdominal surgery. Early recognition, diagnosis, and subsequent timely treatment is the single most important denominator of postoperative outcome. This study prospectively addressed the predictive value of routine assessment of C-reactive protein levels as an early marker for infectious complications after major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing major abdominal surgery between November 2015 and November 2019 were prospectively enrolled. Routine C-reactive protein measurements were implemented on postoperative days 3, 4, and 5, and additional computed tomography examinations were performed on demand. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher infectious complications.

RESULTS

Of 350 patients, 71 (20.3%) experienced a major infectious complication, and median time to diagnosis was 7 days. C-reactive protein levels were significantly higher in patients with major infectious complications compared to minor or no infectious complications. The optimal cut-off was calculated for each postoperative day, being 175 mg/L on day 3, 130 mg/L on day 4, and 144 mg/L on day 5, and corresponding sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values were over 80%, 65%, 40%, and 92% respectively. Alternative safe discharge cut-offs were calculated at 105 mg/L, 71 mg/L and 63 mg/L on days 3, 4, and 5, respectively, each having a negative predictive value of over 97%.

CONCLUSION

The C-reactive protein cut-offs provided in this study can be used as a discharge criterion or to select patients that might require an invasive intervention due to infectious complications. These diagnostic criteria can easily be implemented in daily surgical practice.

A Comparison of Colectomy Outcomes Utilizing Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Techniques

INTRODUCTION

Robotic colectomy could reduce morbidity and postoperative recovery over laparoscopic and open procedures. This comparative review evaluates colectomy outcomes based on surgical approach at a single community institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent colectomy by a fellowship-trained colon and rectal surgeon at a single institution from 2015 through 2019 was performed, and a cohort developed for each approach (open, laparoscopic, and robotic). 30-day outcomes were evaluated. For dichotomous outcomes, univariate logistic regression models were used to quantify the individual effect of each predictor of interest on the odds of each outcome. Continuous outcomes received a similar approach; however, linear and Poisson regression modeling were used, as appropriate.

RESULTS

115 patients were evaluated: 14% (n = 16) open, 44% (n = 51) laparoscopic, and 42% (n = 48) robotic. Among the cohorts, there was no statistically significant difference in operative time, rate of reoperation, readmission, or major complications. Robotic colectomies resulted in the shortest length of stay (LOS) (Kruskal-Wallis P < .0001) and decreased estimated blood loss (EBL) (Kruskal-Wallis P = .0012). Median age was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53-72). 54% (n = 62) were female. Median American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification was 3 (IQR 2-3). Median body mass index was 28.67 (IQR 25.03-33.47). A malignant diagnosis was noted on final pathology in 44% (n = 51).

CONCLUSION

Among the 3 approaches, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day morbidity or mortality. There was a statistically significant decreased LOS and EBL for robotic colectomies.