To Drain or Not to Drain Infraperitoneal Anastomosis After Rectal Excision for Cancer: The GRECCAR 5 Randomized Trial. Ann Surg. 2017;265:474-480. [PMID: 27631776 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000001991]

Strategies to prevent blood loss and reduce transfusion in emergency general surgery, WSES-AAST consensus paper

Emergency general surgeons often provide care to severely ill patients requiring surgical interventions and intensive support. One of the primary drivers of morbidity and mortality is perioperative bleeding. In general, when addressing life threatening haemorrhage, blood transfusion can become an essential part of overall resuscitation. However, under all circumstances, indications for blood transfusion must be accurately evaluated. When patients decline blood transfusions, regardless of the reason, surgeons should aim to provide optimal care and respect and accommodate each patient's values and target the best outcome possible given the patient's desires and his/her clinical condition. The aim of this position paper was to perform a review of the existing literature and to provide comprehensive recommendations on organizational, surgical, anaesthetic, and haemostatic strategies that can be used to provide optimal peri-operative blood management, reduce, or avoid blood transfusions and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Implementing a no-drain policy for extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis in a real-life setting: analysis of outcomes and surgeons' adherence

AIM

Recent evidence has questioned the usefulness of anastomotic drain (AD) after low anterior resection (LAR). However, the implementation and adoption of a no-drain policy are still poor. This study aims to assess the clinical outcomes of the implementation of a no-drain policy for rectal cancer surgery into a real-life setting and the adherence of the surgeons to such policy.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent elective minimally invasive LAR between January 2015 and December 2019 at two tertiary referral centers. In 2017, both centers implemented a policy aimed at reducing the use of AD. Patients were retrospectively categorized into two groups: the drain policy (DP) group, comprising patients treated before 2017, and the no-drain policy (NDP) group, consisting of patients treated from 2017 onwards. The endpoints were the rate of anastomotic leak (AL) and of related interventions.

RESULTS

Among the 272 patients included, 188 (69.1%) were in the NDP group, and 84 (30.9%) were in the DP group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. AL rate was 11.2% in the NDP group compared to 10.7% in the DP group (p = 1.000), and the AL grade distribution (grade A, 19.1% (4/21) vs 28.6% (2/9); grade B, 28.6% (6/21) vs 11.1% (1/9); grade C, 52.4% (11/21) vs 66.7% (6/9), p = 0.759) did not significantly differ between the groups. All patients with symptomatic AL and AD underwent surgical treatment for the leak, while those with symptomatic AL in the NPD group were managed with surgery (66.7%), endoscopic (19.0%), or percutaneous (14.3%) interventions. Postoperative outcomes were similar between the groups. Three years after implementing the no-drain policy, AD was utilized in only 16.5% of cases, compared to 76.2% at the study's outset.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of a no-drain policy received a good adoption rate and did not affect negatively the surgical outcomes.

Gastrointestinal functions after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a pilot randomized clinical trial on effects of abdominal drain, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis, and D3 lymphadenectomy with complete mesocolic excision

PURPOSE

Routine use of abdominal drain or prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is no longer part of current clinical practice in colorectal surgery. Nevertheless, in patients undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA), it may reduce perioperative abdominal contamination. Furthermore, in cancer patients, prolonged surgery with extensive dissection such as central vascular ligation and complete mesocolon excision with D3 lymphadenectomy (altogether radical right colectomy RRC) is called responsible for affecting postoperative ileus. The aim was to evaluate postoperative resumption of gastrointestinal functions in patients undergoing right hemicolectomy for cancer with ICA and standard D2 dissection or RRC, with or without abdominal drain and prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHODS

Monocentric factorial parallel arm randomized pilot trial including all consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy and ICA for cancer, in 20 months. Patients were randomized on a 1:1:1 ratio to receive abdominal drain, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis or neither (I level), and 1:1 to receive RRC or D2 colectomy (II level). Patients were not blinded. The primary aim was the resumption of gastrointestinal functions (time to first gas and stool, time to tolerated fluids and food). Secondary aims were length of stay and complications' rate.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov no. NCT04977882.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients were screened; according to sample size, 36 were randomized, 12 for each arm for postoperative management, and 18 for each arm according to surgical techniques. A difference in time to solid diet favored the group without drain or antibiotic independently from standard or RRC. Furthermore, when patients were divided with respect to surgical technique and into matched cohorts, no differences were seen for primary and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal drainage and prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing right hemicolectomy for cancer with ICA seem to negatively affect the resumption of a solid diet after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with ICA for cancer. RRC does not seem to influence gastrointestinal function recovery.

Suprapubic versus transurethral catheterization for bladder drainage in male rectal cancer surgery (GRECCAR10), a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Bladder drainage is systematically used in rectal cancer surgery; however, the optimal type of drainage, transurethral catheterization (TUC) or suprapubic catheterization (SPC), is still controversial. The aim was to compare the rates of urinary tract infection on the fourth postoperative day (POD4) between TUC and SPC, after rectal cancer surgery regardless of the day of removal of the urinary drain.

METHODS

This randomized clinical trial in 19 expert colorectal surgery centers in France and Belgium was performed between October 2016 and October 2019 and included 240 men (with normal or subnormal voiding function) undergoing mesorectal excision with low anastomosis for rectal cancer. Patients were followed at postoperative days 4, 30, and 180.

RESULTS

In 208 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 58-71]) randomized to TUC (n = 99) or SPC (n = 109), the rate of urinary infection at POD4 was not significantly different whatever the type of drainage (11/99 (11.1%) vs. 8/109 (7.3%), 95% CI, - 4.2% to 11.7%; p = 0.35). There was significantly more pyuria in the TUC group (79/99 (79.0%) vs. (60/109 (60.9%), 95% CI, 5.7-30.0%; p = 0.004). No difference in bacteriuria was observed between the groups. Patients in the TUC group had a shorter duration of catheterization (median 4 [2-5] vs. 4 [3-5] days; p = 0.002). Drainage complications were more frequent in the SPC group at all followup visits.

CONCLUSIONS

TUC should be preferred over SPC in male patients undergoing surgery for mid and/or lower rectal cancers, owing to the lower rate of complications and shorter duration of catheterization.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02922647.

Impact of intra-abdominal drains in emergency gastrointestinal surgery: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Intra-abdominal drains are often placed in emergency gastrointestinal surgery procedures with the aim to prevent the formation of intra-abdominal collections (IAC) and aid in their early detection. However, the evidence for this is debated. This scoping review aims to evaluate the current evidence for their use in this setting.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Primary studies published between January 2000 and September 2023 that assessed intra-abdominal drain placement and post-operative IAC formation in emergency gastrointestinal surgery were included.

RESULTS

A total of 26 articles were identified. There was no strong evidence to suggest that prophylactic intra-abdominal drain placement influences the formation of IAC in emergency gastrointestinal procedures. There was a suggestion that drain placement may increase the rate of surgical site infection and length of hospital stay. However, current studies on the topic are of poor quality and high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

The undifferentiated use of drains in emergency gastrointestinal surgery should not be encouraged. Drain placement should be specific to the clinical context. Higher quality research is warranted to better understand the influence drain placement has on post-operative outcomes.

Effect of prophylactic abdominal drainage on postoperative pain in laparoscopic hemicolectomy for colon cancer: a single-center observational study in Korea

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of prophylactic abdominal drainage (AD) in laparoscopic hemicolectomy, focusing on assessing postoperative pain outcomes.

Methods

Patients were categorized into two groups: those with and without AD (AD group vs. no-AD group). A numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to assess postoperative pain on each postoperative day (POD). Further, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to reduce intergroup bias.

Results

In total, 204 patients who underwent laparoscopic hemicolectomies by a single surgeon between June 2013 and September 2022 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. After adjusting for IPTW, NRS scores on POD 2 were significantly lower in the no-AD group (3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.4 ± 0.8, p = 0.043). Further examination of postoperative outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in complications between the AD (17.3%) and no-AD (12.4%) groups (p = 0.170). The postoperative length of hospital stay was 7.3 ± 2.8 days in the AD group and 6.9 ± 3.0 days in the no-AD group, with no significant difference (p = 0.298). Time to first flatus was 3.0 ± 0.9 days in the AD group and 2.7 ± 0.9 days in the no-AD group, with no significant difference (p = 0.078). Regarding readmission within 1 month, there were four cases each in the AD (2.3%) and no-AD (1.7%) groups, with no significant difference (p = 0.733).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic hemicolectomy without AD resulted in no significant differences in postoperative clinical outcomes, except for postoperative pain. This finding suggests that prophylactic AD may exacerbate postoperative pain.

SafeHeal Colovac Colorectal Anastomosis Protection Device evaluation (SAFE-2) pivotal study: an international randomized controlled study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Colovac Colorectal Anastomosis Protection Device

AIM

Although proximal faecal diversion is standard of care to protect patients with high-risk colorectal anastomoses against septic complications of anastomotic leakage, it is associated with significant morbidity. The Colovac device (CD) is an intraluminal bypass device intended to avoid stoma creation in patients undergoing low anterior resection. A preliminary study (SAFE-1) completed in three European centres demonstrated 100% protection of colorectal anastomoses in 15 patients, as evidenced by the absence of faeces below the CD. This phase III trial (SAFE-2) aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the CD in a larger cohort of patients undergoing curative rectal cancer resection.

METHODS

SAFE-2 is a pivotal, multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the CD arm or the diverting loop ileostomy arm, with a recruitment target of 342 patients. The co-primary endpoints are the occurrence of major postoperative complications within 12 months of index surgery and the effectiveness of the CD in reducing stoma creation rates. Data regarding quality of life and patient's acceptance and tolerance of the device will be collected.

DISCUSSION

SAFE-2 is a multicentre randomized, control trial assessing the efficacy and the safety of the CD in protecting low colorectal anastomoses created during oncological resection relative to standard diverting loop ileostomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05010850.

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres

BACKGROUND

The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres.

METHODS

All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan.

RESULTS

Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024.

CONCLUSION

Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

Remote ischemic preconditioning versus sham-control for prevention of anastomotic leakage after resection for rectal cancer (RIPAL trial): a pilot randomized controlled, triple-blinded monocenter trial

PURPOSE

Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) reportedly reduces ischemia‒reperfusion injury (IRI) in various organ systems. In addition to tension and technical factors, ischemia is a common cause of anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal resection. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the potentially protective effect of RIPC on anastomotic healing and to determine the effect size to facilitate the development of a subsequent confirmatory trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-four patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent anterior resection were enrolled in this prospectively registered (DRKS0001894) pilot randomized controlled triple-blinded monocenter trial at the Department of Surgery, University Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, between 10/12/2019 and 19/06/2022. The primary endpoint was AL within 30 days after surgery. The secondary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality, reintervention, hospital stay, readmission and biomarkers of ischemia‒reperfusion injury (vascular endothelial growth factor, VEGF) and cell death (high mobility group box 1 protein, HMGB1). RIPC was induced through three 10-min cycles of alternating ischemia and reperfusion to the upper extremity.

RESULTS

Of the 207 patients assessed, 153 were excluded, leaving 54 patients to be randomized to the RIPC or the sham-RIPC arm (27 each per arm). The mean age was 61 years, and the majority of patients were male (37:17 (68.5:31.5%)). Most of the patients underwent surgery after neoadjuvant therapy (29/54 (53.7%)) for adenocarcinoma (52/54 (96.3%)). The primary endpoint, AL, occurred almost equally frequently in both arms (RIPC arm: 4/25 (16%), sham arm: 4/26 (15.4%), p = 1.000). The secondary outcomes were comparable except for a greater rate of reintervention in the sham arm (9 (6-12) vs. 3 (1-5), p = 0.034). The median duration of endoscopic vacuum therapy was shorter in the RIPC arm (10.5 (10-11) vs. 38 (24-39) days, p = 0.083), although the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

A clinically relevant protective effect of RIPC on anastomotic healing after rectal resection cannot be assumed on the basis of these data.

Introduction of extraperitoneal tunneling method: a way to secure the drain tube in the pelvic cavity after proctectomy

The effectiveness of closed drainage tube insertion after low anterior resection has been controversial. We believe that drain tube displacement, which occurs up to 35% in real clinical practice, reduces the effectiveness of the drain tube. We report in this video a simple way to secure the drain tube in the pelvic cavity after low anterior resection and introduce a case that used the drain fixation method and treated anastomotic leakage without interventional procedure.

Abdominal massage to prevent ileus after colorectal surgery. A single-center, prospective, randomized clinical trial: the MATRAC Trial

BACKGROUND

There is scarce literature on the effect of mechanical abdominal massage on the duration of ileus after colectomy, particularly in the era of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). The aim of this study was to determine whether abdominal massage after colorectal surgery with anastomosis and no stoma helps toward a faster return of intestinal transit.

METHODS

This study was a superiority trial and designed as a prospective open-label, single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial with two parallel groups. Patients scheduled to undergo intestinal resection and follow an ERAS protocol were randomly assigned to either the standard ERAS group or the ERAS plus massage group. The primary endpoint was the return of intestinal transit, defined as the first passage of flatus following the operation. Secondary endpoints included time of the first bowel motion, maximal pain, 30 day complications, complications due to massage, anxiety score given by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) questionnaire, and quality of life assessed by the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.

RESULTS

Between July 2020 and June 2021, 36 patients were randomly assigned to the ERAS group or the ERAS plus massage group (n = 19). Patients characteristics were comparable. There was no significant difference in time to passage of the first flatus between the ERAS group and the ERAS plus abdominal massage group (1065 versus 1389 min, p = 0.274). No statistically significant intergroup difference was noted for the secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSION

Our study, despite its limitations, failed to demonstrate any advantage of abdominal massage to prevent or even reduce symptoms of postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

38RC20.021.

Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography could reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Several papers have shown that use of indocyanine green (ICG) decreases incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) during colonic surgery, but no clear evidence has been found for rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, with this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) we aimed to assess if ICG could also reduce risk of AL in rectal cancer surgery.

METHOD

PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched for RCTs assessing the effect of intraoperative ICG on the incidence of AL of the colorectal anastomosis. Pooled relative risk (RR) and pooled risk difference (RD) were obtained using models with random effects. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Rob2 tool and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE Pro tool.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were included for analysis, with a total of 1510 patients (743 controls and 767 ICG patients). The rate of AL was 9% in the ICG group (69/767) and 13.9% (103/743) in the control group (p = 0.003, RR -0.5, 95% CI -0.827 to -0.172, heterogeneity test 0%, p = 0.460). The RD in terms of incidence of AL was significantly decreased by 4.51% (p = 0.031, 95% CI -0.086 to -0.004, heterogeneity test 28%, p = 0.182) when using ICG.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggested that use of ICG during rectal cancer surgery could reduce the rate of AL.

Risk Factors for Rectal Stump Leakage After Discontinuity Resection: Stump Length Matters Most

BACKGROUND

Discontinuity resection is commonly conducted to avoid anastomotic leakage in high-risk patients but potentially results in rectal stump leakage. Although risk factors for anastomotic leakage have been widely studied, data on rectal stump leakage rates and underlying risk factors are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To determine rectal stump leakage rates following Hartmann's procedure and to identify patient-and surgery-associated risk factors.

DESIGN

A retrospective study with univariate and multivariate analyses was performed to identify risk factors of rectal stump leakage. A subgroup analysis of scheduled operations was performed.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany.

PATIENTS

Patients were included who underwent discontinuity resection with rectal stump formation between 2010 and 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures included rectal stump leakage rates, 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, and necessity for further invasive treatment.

RESULTS

Rectal stump leakage occurred in 11.78% of patients. Rectal stump leakage rates varied considerably depending on the surgical procedure performed and were highest following subtotal pelvic exenteration (34%). Diagnosis of rectal stump leakage peaked on postoperative day 7. A short rectal stump ( p = 0.001), previous pelvic radiotherapy ( p = 0.04), chemotherapy ( p = 0.004), and previous laparotomy ( p = 0.03) were independent risk factors for rectal stump leakage in the entire patient collective. In patients undergoing scheduled surgery, a short rectal stump was the only independent risk factor ( p = 0.003). Rectal stump leakage was not associated with increased 30-day mortality but prolonged length of hospitalization and frequently necessitated further invasive treatment.

LIMITATIONS

Study results are limited by the retrospective design, a high number of emergency operations, and the mere inclusion of symptomatic leakages.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal stump leakage is a relevant complication after discontinuity resection. Risk factors should be considered during surgical decision-making when both discontinuity resection and abdominoperineal resection are feasible. See Video Abstract.

FACTORES DE RIESGO PARA LA FUGA DEL MUN RECTAL DESPUS DE UNA RESECCIN POR DISCONTINUIDAD LA LONGITUD DEL MUN ES LO MS IMPORTANTE

ANTECEDENTES:La resección de discontinuidad se realiza comúnmente para evitar la fuga anastomótica en pacientes de alto riesgo, pero potencialmente da como resultado una fuga del muñón rectal. Si bien los factores de riesgo de fuga anastomótica se han estudiado ampliamente, los datos sobre las tasas de fuga del muñón rectal y los factores de riesgo subyacentes son escasos.OBJETIVO:Determinar las tasas de fuga del muñón rectal después del procedimiento de Hartmann e identificar los factores de riesgo asociados con el paciente y la cirugía.DISEÑO:Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo con análisis univariado y multivariado para identificar los factores de riesgo de fuga del muñón rectal. Se llevó a cabo un análisis de subgrupos de las operaciones programadas.AJUSTES:El estudio se realizó en el Hospital Universitario de Heidelberg, Alemania.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a resección de discontinuidad con formación de muñón rectal entre 2010 y 2020.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES:Las principales medidas de resultado incluyeron las tasas de fuga del muñón rectal, la mortalidad a los 30 días, la duración de la hospitalización y la necesidad de un tratamiento invasivo adicional.RESULTADOS:La fuga del muñón rectal ocurrió en el 11,78% de los pacientes. Las tasas de fuga del muñón rectal variaron considerablemente según el procedimiento quirúrgico realizado y fueron más altas después de la exenteración pélvica subtotal (34%). El diagnóstico de fuga del muñón rectal alcanzó su punto máximo en el día 7 del postoperatorio. Un muñón rectal corto (p = 0,001), radioterapia pélvica previa (p = 0,04), quimioterapia (p = 0,004) y laparotomía previa (p = 0,03) fueron factores de riesgo independientes de fuga rectal. Fuga del muñón en todo el colectivo de pacientes. En los pacientes sometidos a cirugía programada, el muñón rectal corto fue el único factor de riesgo independiente (p = 0,003). La fuga del muñón rectal no se asoció con un aumento de la mortalidad a los 30 días, pero con una duración prolongada de la hospitalización y con frecuencia requirió un tratamiento invasivo adicional.LIMITACIONES:Los resultados del estudio están limitados por el diseño retrospectivo, un alto número de operaciones de emergencia y la mera inclusión de fugas sintomáticas.CONCLUSIONES:La fuga del muñón rectal es una complicación relevante tras la resección por discontinuidad. Se deben considerar los factores de riesgo durante la toma de decisiones quirúrgicas cuando son factibles tanto la resección por discontinuidad como la resección abdominoperineal. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Anastomotic leakage and functional outcomes following total mesorectal excision with delayed and immediate colo-anal anastomosis for rectal cancer: Two single-arm phase II trials

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains a major cause of morbidity following total mesorectal excision (TME). A diverting ileostomy reduces the risk of AL but impairs quality of life (QoL). Delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCAA) may be an alternative to immediate colo-anal anastomosis (ICAA) without creation of a diverting ileostomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients with T3 or N+ rectal tumours were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and TME. To evaluate DCAA or ICAA with diverting ileostomy, a two multicenter single-arm phase II trials was designed. The primary endpoint was the rate of AL requiring a diverting ileostomy up to 30 days postoperatively. Secondary endpoints were 30-day postoperative complications, 1- and 2-year disease-free survival; QoL at baseline, 6 months and anorectal function measured by the low anterior resection syndrome questionnaire and Wexner score at baseline, 6 months and a late assessment at median 8 years following surgery.

RESULTS

AL requiring diverting ileostomy occurred in one patient (2.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0; 11.1]) in the DCAA group and in five patients (8.6%; 95%CI [3.2; 21.0]) in the ICAA group. Thirty-day postoperative complications occurred in 13 patients (27.1%) in the DCAA group and in 10 patients (19.2%) in the ICAA group. Short and long-term functional outcomes showed similar patterns.

CONCLUSION

These two single-arm phase II trials showed that DCAA has low rates of AL requiring a diverting ileostomy and acceptable long-term functional results. DCAA seems a good choice to restore bowel continuity.

Is Delaying a Coloanal Anastomosis the Ideal Solution for Rectal Surgery?: Analysis of a Multicentric Cohort of 564 Patients From the GRECCAR

OBJECTIVES

To assess the specific results of delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) in light of its 2 main indications.

BACKGROUND

DCAA can be proposed either immediately after a low anterior resection (primary DCAA) or after the failure of a primary pelvic surgery as a salvage procedure (salvage DCAA).

METHODS

All patients who underwent DCAA intervention at 30 GRECCAR-affiliated hospitals between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively included.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-four patients (male: 63%; median age: 62 years; interquartile range: 53-69) underwent a DCAA: 66% for primary DCAA and 34% for salvage DCAA. Overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality were 57%, 30%, and 1.1%, respectively, without any significant differences between primary DCAA and salvage DCAA ( P = 0.933; P = 0.238, and P = 0.410, respectively). Anastomotic leakage was more frequent after salvage DCAA (23%) than after primary DCAA (15%), ( P = 0.016).Fifty-five patients (10%) developed necrosis of the intra-abdominal colon. In multivariate analysis, intra-abdominal colon necrosis was significantly associated with male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 2.67 95% CI: 1.22-6.49; P = 0.020], body mass index >25 (OR = 2.78 95% CI: 1.37-6.00; P = 0.006), and peripheral artery disease (OR = 4.68 95% CI: 1.12-19.1; P = 0.030). The occurrence of this complication was similar between primary DCAA (11%) and salvage DCAA (8%), ( P = 0.289).Preservation of bowel continuity was reached 3 years after DCAA in 74% of the cohort (primary DCAA: 77% vs salvage DCAA: 68%, P = 0.031). Among patients with a DCAA mannered without diverting stoma, 75% (301/403) have never required a stoma at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

DCAA makes it possible to definitively avoid a stoma in 75% of patients when mannered initially without a stoma and to save bowel continuity in 68% of the patients in the setting of failure of primary pelvic surgery.

Robotic-assisted surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a long but safe learning curve

The number of robotic-assisted procedures for rectal cancer is rising. The risk of this procedure when performed by surgeon with limited robotic experience is unknown and the precise duration of the learning curve debated. We, therefore, aimed to analyze the learning curve and its related safety in a single center before the development of mentoring programs. We prospectively recorded all robotic procedures performed for colorectal cancer between 2015 and 2020 by a single surgeon. Operative times for partial and total proctectomy were analyzed. The learning curve was defined by comparison with the standard duration of the laparoscopic procedure performed in expert centers (published in GRECCAR 5 and GRECCAR 6 trials) and calculated using a cumulative summation for learning curve test (LC-CUSUM). Among the 174 patients operated for colorectal cancer, we analyzed the outcomes of the 89 patients operated by partial and total robotic proctectomy. To reach repeatedly the same surgical duration as laparoscopic procedure for partial or complete proctectomy, the LC-CUSUM identified a learning curve of 57 patients. A severe morbidity in this population, defined by Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ 3, was observed in 15 cases (16.8%) with an anastomotic leak rate of 13.5%. The rate of completeness of mesorectal excision was 90% and the mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 15 (± 9). Using operative time as end-point, the learning curve of rectal cancer robotic surgery identified a cut-off of 57 patients. The technic remained safe with acceptable morbidity and oncological outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery: An international, prospective cohort study

AIM

Intraperitoneal drains are often placed during emergency colorectal surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting their use. This study aimed to describe the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery.

METHOD

COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery (COMPASS) is a prospective, international, cohort study into which consecutive adult patients undergoing emergency colorectal surgery were enrolled (from 3 February 2020 to 8 March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included rate and time-to-diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections, rate of surgical site infections (SSIs), time to discharge and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V). Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate the independent association of the outcomes with drain placement.

RESULTS

Some 725 patients (median age 68.0 years; 349 [48.1%] women) from 22 countries were included. The drain insertion rate was 53.7% (389 patients). Following multivariable adjustment, drains were not significantly associated with reduced rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.48-5.02, p = 0.457) or earlier detection (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.61-1.90, p = 0.805) of collections. Drains were not significantly associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.67-2.36, p = 0.478), delayed hospital discharge (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91-1.36, p = 0.303) or increased risk of SSIs (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 0.87-2.99, p = 0.128).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study investigating placement of intraperitoneal drains following emergency colorectal surgery. The safety and clinical benefit of drains remain uncertain. Equipoise exists for randomized trials to define the safety and efficacy of drains in emergency colorectal surgery.

Principles of minimize bleeding and the transfusion of blood and its components in operated patients - surgical aspects

One of the target of perioperative tratment in surgery is decreasing intraoperative bleeding, which increases the number of perioperative procedures, mortality and treatment costs, and also causes the risk of transfusion of blood and its components. Trying to minimize the blood loss(mainly during the operation) as well as the need to transfuse blood and its components (broadly understood perioperative period) should be standard treatment for a patient undergoing a procedure. In the case of this method, the following steps should be taken: 1) in the preoperative period: identyfication of risk groups as quickly as possible, detecting and treating anemia, applying prehabilitation, modyfying anticoagulant treatment, considering donating one's own blood in some patients and in selected cases erythropoietin preparations; 2) in the perioperative period: aim for normothermia, normovolemia and normoglycemia, use of surgical methods that reduce bleeding, such as minimally invasive surgery, high-energy coagulation, local hemostatics, prevention of surgical site infection, proper transfusion of blood and its components if it occurs; 3) in the postoperative period: monitor the condition of patients, primarily for the detection of bleeding, rapid reoperation if required, suplementation (oral administration preferred) nutrition with microelements (iron) and vitamins, updating its general condition. All these activities, comprehensively and in surgical cooperation with the anesthesiologist, should reduce the blood loss and transfusion of blood and its components.

EpiGe: A machine-learning strategy for rapid classification of medulloblastoma using PCR-based methyl-genotyping

Molecular classification of medulloblastoma is critical for the treatment of this brain tumor. Array-based DNA methylation profiling has emerged as a powerful approach for brain tumor classification. However, this technology is currently not widely available. We present a machine-learning decision support system (DSS) that enables the classification of the principal molecular groups-WNT, SHH, and non-WNT/non-SHH-directly from quantitative PCR (qPCR) data. We propose a framework where the developed DSS appears as a user-friendly web-application-EpiGe-App-that enables automated interpretation of qPCR methylation data and subsequent molecular group prediction. The basis of our classification strategy is a previously validated six-cytosine signature with subgroup-specific methylation profiles. This reduced set of markers enabled us to develop a methyl-genotyping assay capable of determining the methylation status of cytosines using qPCR instruments. This study provides a comprehensive approach for rapid classification of clinically relevant medulloblastoma groups, using readily accessible equipment and an easy-to-use web-application.t.

The EUPEMEN (EUropean PErioperative MEdical Networking) Protocol for Bowel Obstruction: Recommendations for Perioperative Care

Mechanical bowel obstruction is a common symptom for admission to emergency services, diagnosed annually in more than 300,000 patients in the States, from whom 51% will undergo emergency laparotomy. This condition is associated with serious morbidity and mortality, but it also causes a high financial burden due to long hospital stay. The EUPEMEN project aims to incorporate the expertise and clinical experience of national clinical specialists into development of perioperative rehabilitation protocols. Providing special recommendations for all aspects of patient perioperative care and the participation of diverse specialists, the EUPEMEN protocol for bowel obstruction, as presented in the current paper, aims to provide faster postoperative recovery and reduce length of hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality rate.

Safety of early pelvic drain removal in colorectal surgery based on drainage quantity

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the association between the drainage quantity of pelvic drains and postoperative complications in colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study enrolled 122 colorectal surgery patients between January 2017 and December 2020. After restorative proctectomy or proctocolectomy with gastrointestinal anastomosis, a continuous, low-pressure suction pelvic drain was placed and its contents measured. Removal ensued following the absence of turbidity and a drainage quantity of ≤ 150 mL/day.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients (61.5%) and 47 patients (38.5%) underwent restorative proctectomy and proctocolectomy, respectively. Drainage quantity changes were observed on postoperative day (POD) 3, regardless of the surgical procedure or postoperative complications. The median (interquartile range) number of PODs before drain removal and organ-space surgical site infection (SSI) diagnosis were 3 (3‒5) and 7 (5‒8), respectively. Twenty-one patients developed organ-space SSIs. Drains were left in place in two patients after POD 3 owing to large drainage quantities. Drainage quality changes enabled diagnosis in two patients (1.6%). Four patients responded to therapeutic drains (3.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The drainage quantity of negative-pressure closed suction drains diminishes shortly after surgery, regardless of the postoperative course. It is not an effective diagnostic or therapeutic drain for organ-space SSI. This supports early drain removal based on drainage quantity changes in actual clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was retrospectively registered and carried out per the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Hiroshima University Institutional Review Board (approval number: E-2559).

Does stoma modify compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery programs? Results of a cohort study

PURPOSE

Few studies have focused on enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) in patients who have received a stoma after colorectal surgery. The objective of the study was to compare ERP compliant patients who have not received a stoma, those who received a colostomy, and those who received an ileostomy.

METHODS

This study used data that had been prospectively collected as part of the ERP audit performed through the Groupe francophone de Réhabilitation Améliorée après Chirurgie [Francophone Group for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery] over a 4-year period. All patients who had undergone colorectal surgery were included and separated into three groups (no stoma, ileostomy, and colostomy). The primary outcome was ERP compliance, calculated through the use of 16 tracer items.

RESULTS

Of the 422 recruited patients, 317 had not received a stoma (75.12%), 59 had an ileostomy (13.98%), and 46 had a colostomy (10.90%). ERP compliance was 73% in the non-stoma group, 66.6% in the ileostomy group, and 66% in the colostomy group (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients from the ileostomy group had a higher risk of bowel preparation [OR = 9.1; 95% CI = 1.16-71.65] and of maintaining their urinary catheter [OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.14-0.81] than the group which did not receive a stoma. Patients from the colostomy group required significantly more drainage than those in the non-stoma group (OR = 4.3; 95% CI = 1.33-14.02).

CONCLUSION

ERP is feasible in colorectal surgery in the context of stomas, but in case of ileostomy protecting a rectal surgery, the audit system must be adapted to the protocols in use in the departments.

Predictive Factors for Anastomotic Leakage Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?

Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains one of the most severe complications following colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Indeed, leaks that may occur after any type of intestinal anastomosis are commonly associated with a higher reoperation rate and an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. At first, our review aims to identify specific preoperative, intraoperative and perioperative factors that eventually lead to the development of anastomotic dehiscence based on the current literature. We will also investigate the role of several biomarkers in predicting the presence of ALs following colorectal surgery. Despite significant improvements in perioperative care, advances in surgical techniques, and a high index of suspicion of this complication, the incidence of AL remained stable during the last decades. Thus, gaining a better knowledge of the risk factors that influence the AL rates may help identify high-risk surgical patients requiring more intensive perioperative surveillance. Furthermore, prompt diagnosis of this severe complication may help improve patient survival. To date, several studies have identified predictive biomarkers of ALs, which are most commonly associated with the inflammatory response to colorectal surgery. Interestingly, early diagnosis and evaluation of the severity of this complication may offer a significant opportunity to guide clinical judgement and decision-making.

A phase III randomized trial evaluating the quality of life impact of a tailored versus systematic use of defunctioning ileostomy following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer-GRECCAR 17 trial protocol

AIM

The systematic use of a defunctioning ileostomy for 2-3 months postoperatively to protect low colorectal anastomosis (<7 cm from the anal verge) has been the standard practice after total mesorectal excision (TME). However, stoma-related complications can occur in 20%-60% of cases, which may lead to prolonged inpatient care, urgent reoperation and long-term definitive stoma. A negative impact on quality of life (QoL) and increased healthcare expenses are also observed. Conversely, it has been reported that patients without a defunctioning stoma or following early stoma closure (days 8-12 after TME) have a better functional outcome than patients with systematic defunctioning stoma in situ for 2-3 months.

METHOD

The main objective of this trial is to compare the QoL impact of a tailored versus systematic use of a defunctioning stoma after TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome is QoL at 12 months postoperatively using the European Organization for. Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire QLQ-C30. Among 29 centres of the French GRECCAR network, 200 patients will be recruited over 18 months, with follow-up at 1, 4, 8 and 12 months postoperatively, in an open-label, randomized, two-parallel arm, phase III superiority clinical trial. The experimental arm (arm A) will undergo a tailored use of defunctioning stoma after TME based on a two-step process: (i) to perform or not a defunctioning stoma according to the personalized risk of anastomotic leak (defunctioning stoma only if modified anastomotic failure observed risk score ≥2) and (ii) if a stoma is fashioned, whether to perform an early stoma closure at days 8-12, according to clinical (fever), biochemical (C-reactive protein level on days 2 and 4 postoperatively) and radiological postoperative assessment (CT scan with retrograde contrast enema at days 7-8 postoperatively). The control arm (arm B) will undergo systematic use of a defunctioning stoma for 2-3 months after TME for all patients, in keeping with French national and international guidelines. Secondary outcomes will include comprehensive analysis of functional outcomes (including bowel, urinary and sexual function) again up to 12 months postoperatively and a cost analysis. Regular assessments of anastomotic leak rates in both arms (every 50 randomized patients) will be performed and an independent data monitoring committee will recommend trial cessation if this rate is excessive in arm A compared to arm B.

CONCLUSION

The GRECCAR 17 trial is the first randomized trial to assess a tailored, patient-specific approach to decisions regarding defunctioning stoma use and closure after TME according to personalized risk of anastomotic leak. The results of this trial will describe, for the first time, the QoL and morbidity impact of selective use of a defunctioning ileostomy and the potential health economic effect of such an approach.

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

Routine placement of abdominal drainage in pouch surgery does not impact on surgical outcomes

The evidence does not support the routine use of abdominal drainage (AD) in colorectal surgery. However, there is no data on the usefulness of AD, specifically, after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). The aim of this study is to assess post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing IPAA with or without AD at a high volume referral center. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients undergoing IPAA with AD (AD group) or without AD (NAD group) was performed. Baseline characteristics, operative, and postoperative data were analyzed and compared between the two groups. A total of 97 patients were included in the analysis, 46 were in AD group and 51 in NAD group. AD group had a higher BMI (23.9 ± 3.9 kg/m² vs 21.9 ± 3.0 kg/m²; p = 0.007) and more commonly underwent two-stage proctocolectomy with IPAA compared to the NAD group (50.0% vs 3.9%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in anastomotic leak rate (6.5% AD vs 5.9% NAD group; p = 1.000), major post-operative complication (8.6% vs 7.9%; p = 0.893); median length of stay [IQR] (5 [5-7] days vs 5 [4-7] days; p = 0.305) and readmission < 90 days (8.7% vs 3.9%; p = 0.418). The use of AD does not impact on surgical outcome after IPAA and question the actual benefit of its routine placement.

Current practice on the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy in Italy: the Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy (ADiGe) survey

Evidence against the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy are increasing and ERAS guidelines suggest the benefit of drain avoidance. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether this practice is still widespread. We conducted a survey among Italian surgeons through the Italian Gastric Cancer Research Group and the Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons, aiming to understand the current use of prophylactic drain. A 28-item questionnaire-based survey was developed to analyze the current practice and the individual opinion about the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy. Groups based on age, experience and unit volume were separately analyzed. Response of 104 surgeons from 73 surgical units were collected. A standardized ERAS protocol for gastrectomy was applied by 42% of the respondents. Most of the surgeons, regardless of age, experience, or unit volume, declared to routinely place one or more drain after gastrectomy. Only 2 (1.9%) and 7 surgeons (6.7%) belonging to high volume units, do not routinely place drains after total and subtotal gastrectomy, respectively. More than 60% of the participants remove the drain on postoperative day 4-6 after performing an assessment of the anastomosis integrity. Interestingly, less than half of the surgeons believe that drain is the main tool for leak management, and this percentage further drops among younger surgeons. On the other hand, drain's role seems to be more defined for duodenal stump leak treatment, with almost 50% of the surgeons recognizing its importance. Routine use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy is still a widespread practice even if younger surgeons are more persuaded that it could not be advantageous.

Impact of obesity on morbidity and oncologic outcomes after total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

A recent meta-analysis showed that obesity increased the conversion rate and postoperative morbidity of rectal cancer surgery, but did not influence pathological results. However, this meta-analysis included patients with cancer of the upper rectum and had many biases. The aim of the present retrospective study was to investigate the impact of obesity, defined as a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m², on postoperative morbidity and short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer in consecutive patients.

METHODS

This study included all eligible patients who were operated on for mid and lower rectal cancer between 1999 and 2018 in our hospital. We compared 90-day postoperative morbidity and mortality, and short- and long-term oncologic outcomes between obese and non-obese patients.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety patients [280 males, mean age 65.7 ± 11.3 years, 59 obese individuals (15.1%)] were included. There was no difference in the 90-day mortality rate between obese and non-obese groups (p = 0.068). There was a difference in the overall 90-day morbidity rate between the obese and non-obese groups that disappeared after propensity score matching of the patients. There was no difference in short-term oncological parameters, with a median follow-up of 43 (20-84) months, and there were no significant differences in disease-free and overall survival between obese and non-obese patients (p = 0.42 and p = 0.11, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity does not affect the 90-day morbidity rate, or short- and long-term oncologic results in patients operated on for mid and lower rectal cancer.

Multicenter Study of Drain Fluid Amylase as a Biomarker for the Detection of Anastomotic Leakage After Ileal Pouch Surgery Without a Diverting Ileostomy

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak is the anathema of colorectal surgery. Early diagnosis is an essential segue to early intervention. A temporary defunctioning ileostomy does not prevent an anastomotic leak and presents inherent complications of its own. Drain fluid biomarkers have been studied in colorectal surgery but not in ileal pouch surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess drain fluid amylase as a biomarker of anastomotic leak after ileal pouch surgery and without a diverting ileostomy.

DESIGN

This was a multicenter prospective observational cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 4 tertiary hospitals in Queensland, Australia.

PATIENTS

This study included elective patients undergoing restorative proctectomy and ileal pouch surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Measurement of rectal tube amylase and drain fluid amylase.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary measure was observation of increased drain fluid amylase on the day of anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were studied. On the day of anastomotic leak, 4 patients in the anastomotic leak group who experienced an early anastomotic leak recorded a median drain fluid amylase of 21,897 U/L compared with a median drain fluid amylase of 25 U/L for those in the no anastomotic leak group ( p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

This study relies on the anastomotic leak occurring while the pelvic drain is in situ.

CONCLUSIONS

The measurement of drain fluid amylase is a sensitive biomarker of early clinical anastomotic leak in patients undergoing restorative proctectomy with an ileal pouch and when a diverting ileostomy is not incorporated. This simple, inexpensive, and noninvasive test should be considered in all patients with ileal pouches as an adjunct to the clinical diagnosis and differentiation of anastomotic leak from other postoperative complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B958 .Estudio multicéntrico de la amilasa del líquido de drenaje como biomarcador para la detección de fugas anastomóticas después de una cirugía de reservorio ileal sin ileostomía de derivación.

ANTECEDENTES

La fuga anastomótica es el anatema de la cirugía colorrectal. El diagnóstico precoz es una transición esencial a la intervención temprana. Una ileostomía desfuncionalizante temporal no evita una fuga anastomótica y presenta sus propias complicaciones inherentes. Los biomarcadores del líquido de drenaje se han estudiado en la cirugía colorrectal, pero no en la cirugía del reservorio ileal.

OBJETIVO

El objetivo fue evaluar la amilasa del líquido de drenaje como biomarcador de fuga anastomótica después de cirugía de reservorio ileal y sin ileostomía de derivación.

DISEO

Este fue un estudio de cohorte observacional prospectivo multicéntrico.

AJUSTES

El estudio se realizó en 4 hospitales terciarios en Queensland, Australia.

PACIENTES

Se incluyeron pacientes electivos sometidos a proctectomía restauradora y cirugía de reservorio ileal.

INTERVENCIONES

Medición de la amilasa del tubo rectal y amilasa del líquido de drenaje.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO

La medida principal fue la observación del aumento de la amilasa en el líquido de drenaje el día de la fuga anastomótica.

RESULTADOS

Cincuenta y tres pacientes fueron estudiados. Los 4 pacientes que experimentaron una fuga anastomótica temprana registraron una mediana de amilasa en el líquido de drenaje de 21 897 U/L el día de la fuga anastomótica en comparación con una mediana de amilasa en el líquido de drenaje de 25 U/L para aquellos en el grupo sin fuga anastomótica (p < 0,0001).

LIMITACIONES

Este estudio se basa en que la anastomosis ocurre mientras el drenaje pélvico está in situ.

CONCLUSIONES

La medición de amilasa en el líquido de drenaje es un biomarcador sensible de fuga anastomótica clínica temprana en pacientes sometidos a proctectomía restauradora con reservorio ileal y cuando no se incorpora ileostomía derivativa. Esta prueba simple, económica y no invasiva se debe considerar en todos los pacientes con reservorio ileal como complemento del diagnóstico clínico y la diferenciación de la fuga anastomótica de otras complicaciones posoperatorias. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B958 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Endoscopic vacuum-assisted surgical closure (EVASC) of anastomotic defects after low anterior resection for rectal cancer; lessons learned

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic vacuum-assisted surgical closure (EVASC) is an emerging treatment for AL, and early initiation of treatment seems to be crucial. The objective of this study was to report on the efficacy of EVASC for anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal cancer resection and determine factors for success.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all rectal cancer patients treated with EVASC for a leaking primary anastomosis after LAR at a tertiary referral centre (July 2012-April 2020). Early initiation (≤ 21 days) or late initiation of the EVASC protocol was compared. Primary outcomes were healed and functional anastomosis at end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were included, of whom 38 were referred. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 14-38). Early initiation of EVASC (≤ 21 days) resulted in a higher rate of healed anastomosis (87% vs 59%, OR 4.43 [1.25-15.9]) and functional anastomosis (80% vs 56%, OR 3.11 [1.00-9.71]) if compared to late initiation. Median interval from AL diagnosis to initiation of EVASC was significantly shorter in the early group (11 days (IQR 6-15) vs 70 days (IQR 39-322), p < 0.001). A permanent end-colostomy was created in 7% and 28%, respectively (OR 0.18 [0.04-0.93]). In 17 patients with a non-defunctioned anastomosis, and AL diagnosis within 2 weeks, EVASC resulted in 100% healed and functional anastomosis.

CONCLUSION

Early initiation of EVASC for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection yields high rates of healed and functional anastomosis. EVASC showed to be progressively more successful with the implementation of highly selective diversion and early diagnosis of the leak.

Gene-expression profiles of pretreatment biopsies predict complete response of rectal cancer patients to preoperative chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

Preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and total mesorectal excision is the standard treatment for rectal cancer patients (UICC stage II/III). Up to one-third of patients treated with CRT achieve a pathological complete response (pCR). These patients could be spared from surgery and its associated morbidity and mortality, and assigned to a "watch and wait" strategy. However, reliably identifying pCR based on clinical or imaging parameters remains challenging.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We generated gene-expression profiles of 175 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer enrolled in the CAO/ARO/AIO-94 and -04 trials. One hundred and sixty-one samples were used for building, training and validating a predictor of pCR using a machine learning algorithm. The performance of the classifier was validated in three independent cohorts, comprising 76 patients from (i) the CAO/ARO/AIO-94 and -04 trials (n = 14), (ii) a publicly available dataset (n = 38) and (iii) in 24 prospectively collected samples from the TransValid A trial.

RESULTS

A 21-transcript signature yielded the best classification of pCR in 161 patients (Sensitivity: 0.31; AUC: 0.81), when not allowing misclassification of non-complete-responders (False-positive rate = 0). The classifier remained robust when applied to three independent datasets (n = 76).

CONCLUSION

The classifier can identify >1/3 of rectal cancer patients with a pCR while never classifying patients with an incomplete response as having pCR. Importantly, we could validate this finding in three independent datasets, including a prospectively collected cohort. Therefore, this classifier could help select rectal cancer patients for a "watch and wait" strategy.

TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE

Forgoing surgery with its associated side effects could be an option for rectal cancer patients if the prediction of a pathological complete response (pCR) after preoperative chemoradiotherapy would be possible. Based on gene-expression profiles of 161 patients a classifier was developed and validated in three independent datasets (n = 76), identifying over 1/3 of patients with pCR, while never misclassifying a non-complete-responder. Therefore, the classifier can identify patients suited for "watch and wait".

Trans-Anastomotic Drainage Tube Placement After Hand-Sewn Anastomosis in Patients Undergoing Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: An Alternative Drainage Method

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a common complication after intersphincteric resection (ISR). It significantly reduces quality of life and causes great distress to patients. Although traditional drainage (e.g., anal and pelvic catheters) may reduce the impact of AL to some extent, their role in reducing the incidence of AL remains controversial. In this study, we developed a novel drainage technique involving the placement of drainage tubes through the gap between sutures during handsewn anastomosis, to reduce the occurrence of anastomotic leakage. We retrospectively analyzed 34 consecutive patients who underwent intersphincteric resection requiring handsewn anastomosis between February 1, 2017, and January 1, 2021. Patients were classified into the trans-anastomotic drainage tube group (TADT, n = 14) and the non-TADT group (n = 20) based on whether trans-anastomotic tube placement was performed. The incidence of postoperative complications, such as AL, was compared between the two groups, and anal function of patients at 1-year post-ISR was evaluated. Six cases of AL occurred in the non-TADT group, while none occurred in the TADT group; this difference was statistically significant (p=0.031). The TADT group also had a shorter hospital stay (p=0.007). There were no other significant intergroup differences in operation time, blood loss, pain score, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction, or incidence of wound infection. In the 30 patients (88.2%) evaluated for anal function, there were no significant intergroup differences in stool frequency, urgency, daytime/nocturnal soiling, Wexner incontinence score, or Kirwan grading. Taken together, trans-anastomotic tube placement is a novel drainage method that may reduce AL after ISR requiring handsewn anastomosis and without adversely affecting anal function.

Comparison of postoperative complication rates between a novel endoluminal balloon-assisted drainage and diverting stoma after low rectal cancer

AIM

To introduce a novel endo-luminal balloon-assisted drainage (EBAD) and compare postoperative complication rates between EBAD and diverting stoma (DS) groups.

METHODS

The single center prospective non-random cohort study included a total of 163 patients in convenience patients with rectal cancer between January 2019 and January 2021. Out of 163 patients, 83 underwent DS and 80 EBAD. Primary endpoints were postoperative complication rate.

RESULTS

The total number of complications was 28 in the DS group vs. 22 in the EBAD group (P = 0.388). 18 patients (21.7%) in the DS group and 14 patients (17.5%) in the EBAD group developed postoperative complication (P = 0.501). There were no differences identified for anastomotic leak rates between the two groups (P = 0.677). The rate of the pelvic abscess was lower in the EBAD group (1/80, 1.3%) than in the DS group (4/83, 4.8%) but with no statistical significance (P = 0.386). Compared with the DS group, the median operative time was shorter in the EBAD group (225 vs. 173.5 min, P < 0.001). Regarding incomplete small bowel obstruction, a higher prevalence was observed in the DS group compared to the EBAD group (7.2% vs 2.5%, P = 0.301). 7 patients (11.3%) in the DS group developed a para-stomal hernia, while no patient suffered a catheter-related complication. The median postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the DS groups than in the EBAD group (7 vs 8 days, P = 0.009). The median residence time of endo-luminal balloon-assisted drainage was 5.41 days. The median average and total volume of drainage were 51.57 ml/day and 255 ml, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EBAD is feasible and safe with similar postoperative complications when compared with a DS. EBAD may replace DS after rectum resection.

The Role of Abdominal Drain Cultures in Managing Abdominal Infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are common in hospitalized patients, both in and outside of the intensive care unit. Management principles include antimicrobial therapy and source control. Typically, these infections are polymicrobial, and intra-operative samples will guide the targeted antimicrobial therapy. Although the use of prophylactic abdominal drains in patients undergoing abdominal surgery is decreasing, the use of drains to treat IAI, both in surgical and non-surgical strategies for abdominal infection, is increasing. In this context, samples from abdominal drains are often used to assist in antimicrobial decision making. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of the current role of abdominal drains in surgery, discuss the importance of biofilm formation in abdominal drains and the mechanisms involved, and review the clinical data on the use of sampling these drains for diagnostic purposes. We conclude that biofilm formation and the colonization of abdominal drains is common, which precludes the use of abdominal fluid to reliably diagnose IAI and identify the pathogens involved. We recommend limiting the use of drains and, when present, avoiding routine microbiological sampling.

Fluorescence angiography likely protects against anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective

Observational studies have shown that fluorescence angiography (FA) decreases the incidence of anastomotic leak (AL) in colorectal surgery, but high-quality pooled evidence was lacking. Therefore, we aimed at confirming this preliminary finding using a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched for RCTs assessing the effect of intra-operative FA versus standard assessment of bowel perfusion on the incidence of AL of colorectal anastomosis. The systematic review complied with the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR2 recommendations and was registered in PROSPERO. Pooled relative risk (RR) and pooled risk difference (RD) were obtained using models with random effects. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q-test and quantified using the I² value. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE Pro tool.

Results

One hundred and eleven articles were screened, 108 were excluded and three were kept for inclusion. The three included RCTs compared assessment of the perfusion of the bowel during creation of a colorectal anastomosis using FA versus standard practice. In meta-analysis, FA was significantly protective against AL (3 RCTs, 964 patients, RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.99, I²: 0%, p = 0.04). The RD of AL was non-significantly decreased by 4 percentage points (95%CI: − 0.08 to 0, I²: 8%, p = 0.06) when using FA. Certainty of evidence was considered as moderate.

Conclusion

The effect of FA on prevention of AL in colorectal surgery exists but is potentially of small magnitude. Considering the potential magnitude of effect of FA, we advise that future RCTs have an adequate sample size, include a cost-benefit analysis of the technique and better define the subpopulation who could benefit from FA.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09255-1.

Is it safe to perform an anastomosis for rectal cancer after prostate cancer? A multicentre study of 126 patients from the GRECCAR group

AIM

To determine the safety of performing an anastomosis after rectal cancer (RC) resection in patients with a previously treated prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

Patients with a previously treated PC who underwent rectal resection from 2008 to 2018 were retrospectively included. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent rectal resection with anastomosis (restorative surgery, RS+ group) and those with a definitive stoma (RS- group). In the RS+ group, anastomotic leak (AL) rates were assessed according to the type of reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients underwent rectal surgery for mid-low RC after a previous PC treated by radiotherapy (RT) and/or radical prostatectomy. Overall, 80 patients (63%) underwent a RS and 46 patients (37%) underwent rectal surgery with a definitive stoma. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of intraoperative data, except for the type of resection with more multivisceral resection in the RS- group (p < 0.01). In the RS+group, a diverting stoma was performed in 74% of cases. No difference between the two groups in terms of overall morbidity was found. In the RS+group (n = 80), 17 patients (21%) experienced AL. Of these, none was observed when delayed coloanal anastomosis was performed (p = 0.16). Long-term permanent stoma in the RS+ group was 16% (n = 13).

CONCLUSION

Restorative surgery after resection for RC in patients with a previous history of RT and/or radical prostatectomy for PC is safe without additional morbidity. In selected patients for restorative surgery, performing delayed coloanal anastomosis may represent a promising option.

Perioperative parameters to consider for enhanced recovery in surgery (ERS) in gynecology (excluding breast surgery)

The current review explores the Enhanced Rehabilitation in Surgery (ERS) approach in the specific context of gynecological surgery. Implementation of an ERS protocol in gynecological surgery reduces postoperative complications and length of stay without increasing morbidity. An ERS approach is based on maintaining an adequate diet and hydration before the operation, according to the recommended time frame, to reduce the phenomenon of insulin resistance, and to optimize patient comfort. On the other hand, the use of anxiolytic treatment as premedication is not recommended. Systematic preoperative digestive preparation, a source of patient discomfort, is not associated with an improvement in the postoperative functional outcome or with a reduction in the rate of complications. A minimally invasive surgical approach is preferrable in the context of ERS. Prevention of surgical site infection includes measures such as optimized antibiotic prophylaxis, skin disinfection with alcoholic chlorhexidine, reduction in the use of drainage of the surgical site, and prevention of hypothermia. Early removal of the bladder catheter is associated with a reduction in the risk of urinary tract infection and a reduction in the length of hospital stay. Prevention of postoperative ileus is based on early refeeding, and prevention of postoperative nausea-vomiting in a multimodal strategy to be initiated during the intraoperative period. Intraoperative hydration should be aimed at achieving euvolemia. Pain control is based on a multimodal strategy to spare morphine use and may include locoregional analgesia. Medicines should be administered orally during the postoperative period to hasten the resumption of the patient's autonomy. The prevention of thromboembolic risk is based on a strategy combining drug prophylaxis, when indicated, and mechanical restraint, as well as early mobilization. However, the eclectic nature of the implementation of these measures as reported in the literature renders their interpretation difficult. Furthermore, beyond the application of one of these measures in isolation, the best benefit on the postoperative outcome is achieved by a combination of measures which then constitutes a global strategy allowing the objectives of the ERS to be met.

Tailored Management with Highly-Selective Diversion for Low Colorectal Anastomosis: Biochemical Postoperative Follow-Up and Long-Term Results from a Single-Institution Cohort

BACKGROUND

Defunctioning stoma (DS) can decrease the rate of symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL). Since 2010, we have used tailored, highly selective DS management for low colorectal anastomosis (LCRA).

METHODS

In total, 433 rectal cancer patients underwent the same standardized procedure. Non-stoma (NS) management was used in patients with no surgical difficulties as well as good colonic preparation and quality of anastomoses. In all other cases, DS was used. C-reactive protein was measured during postoperative follow-up. Imbalance in the initial population was adjusted using propensity-score matching according to sex, age, body mass index, tumor location, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Rate of AL within 30 days, 5-year overall survival, local relapse-free survival, and disease-free survival were recorded.

RESULTS

Anastomosis was mostly ultra-low and was performed equally by laparoscopy or robotic surgery. The overall rate of AL was 13.4%, with no significant differences between groups (DS, 12.2%; NS, 14.6%; p = 0.575). Operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were significantly lower for NS patients. The rate of secondary stoma was 11.4% overall. Pathological results were similar, with a 98% R0 resection rate. With a median follow-up of 5.5 years for the NS and DS groups, the overall survival was 84.9% and 73.4%, respectively (p = 0.064), disease-free survival was 67.0% and 55.8%, respectively (p = 0.095), and local relapse-free survival was 95.2% and 88.7%, respectively (p = 0.084). The long-term, stoma-free rate was 89.1% overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailoring DS for LCRA seems safe and could provide potential benefits in postoperative morbidity with the same long-term oncological results in NS patients. Prospective, multicentric studies should validate this approach.

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND

Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice.

METHODS

COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement.

RESULTS

Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk.

Attitudes towards Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) interventions in colorectal surgery: nationwide survey of Australia and New Zealand colorectal surgeons

BACKGROUND

Whilst Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) has been widely accepted in the international colorectal surgery community, there remains significant variations in ERAS programme implementations, compliance rates and best practice recommendations in international guidelines.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to colorectal surgeons from Australia and New Zealand after ethics approval. It evaluated specialist attitudes towards the effectiveness of specific ERAS interventions in improving short term outcomes after colorectal surgery. The data were analysed using a rating scale and graded response model in item response theory (IRT) on Stata MP, version 15 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

Of 300 colorectal surgeons, 95 (31.7%) participated in the survey. Of eighteen ERAS interventions, this study identified eight strategies as most effective in improving ERAS programmes alongside early oral feeding and mobilisation. These included pre-operative iron infusion for anaemic patients (IRT score = 7.82 [95% CI: 6.01-9.16]), minimally invasive surgery (IRT score = 7.77 [95% CI: 5.96-9.07]), early in-dwelling catheter removal (IRT score = 7.69 [95% CI: 5.83-9.01]), pre-operative smoking cessation (IRT score = 7.68 [95% CI: 5.49-9.18]), pre-operative counselling (IRT score = 7.44 [95% CI: 5.58-8.88]), avoiding drains in colon surgery (IRT score = 7.37 [95% CI: 5.17-8.95]), avoiding nasogastric tubes (IRT score = 7.29 [95% CI: 5.32-8.8]) and early drain removal in rectal surgery (IRT score = 5.64 [95% CI: 3.49-7.66]).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey has demonstrated the current attitudes of colorectal surgeons from Australia and New Zealand regarding ERAS interventions. Eight of the interventions assessed in this study including pre-operative iron infusion for anaemic patients, minimally invasive surgery, early in-dwelling catheter removal, pre-operative smoking cessation, pre-operative counselling, avoidance of drains in colon surgery, avoiding nasogastric tubes and early drain removal in rectal surgery should be considered an important part of colorectal ERAS programmes.

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer (RALAR study): A nationwide retrospective study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology Colorectal Cancer Network Collaborative Group

AIM

Anastomotic leakage after restorative surgery for rectal cancer shows high morbidity and related mortality. Identification of risk factors could change operative planning, with indications for stoma construction. This retrospective multicentre study aims to assess the anastomotic leak rate, identify the independent risk factors and develop a clinical prediction model to calculate the probability of leakage.

METHODS

The study used data from 24 Italian referral centres of the Colorectal Cancer Network of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology. Patients were classified into two groups, AL (anastomotic leak) or NoAL (no anastomotic leak). The effect of patient-, disease-, treatment- and postoperative outcome-related factors on anastomotic leak after univariable and multivariable analysis was measured.

RESULTS

A total of 5398 patients were included, 552 in group AL and 4846 in group NoAL. The overall incidence of leaks was 10.2%, with a mean time interval of 6.8 days. The 30-day leak-related mortality was 2.6%. Sex, body mass index, tumour location, type of approach, number of cartridges employed, weight loss, clinical T stage and combined multiorgan resection were identified as independent risk factors. The stoma did not reduce the leak rate but significantly decreased leak severity and reoperation rate. A nomogram with a risk score (RALAR score) was developed to predict anastomotic leak risk at the end of resection.

CONCLUSIONS

While a defunctioning stoma did not affect the leak risk, it significantly reduced its severity. Surgeons should recognize independent risk factors for leaks at the end of rectal resection and could calculate a risk score to select high-risk patients eligible for protective stoma construction.