Tumour, narrow pelvis and surgery specific factors for total mesorectal excision quality and morbidity following rectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

Pelvic anatomy is critical in challenging rectal resections. This study investigated how pelvic anatomy relates to total mesorectal excision (TME) quality, anastomotic leakage rate, and long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective rectal cancer resection from 2008 to 2017 in an Austrian institution were retrospectively reviewed regardless of the surgical approach. CT scans were analysed for pelvic measurements and volumes. The primary outcomes of interest were the correlation between pelvic dimensions and the TME quality and anastomotic leakage. Subanalysis was done by surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, transanal TME). Secondary outcomes were overall and disease-free survivals.

RESULTS

Among 154 eligible patients, 112 were included. The angle between pubic symphysis and promontory significantly correlated with worse TME grades (TME grade 1: mean(s.d.) 102.7(5.7)°; TME grade 2: 92.0(4.4)°; TME grade 3: 91.4(3.6)°; P < 0.001). A significantly lower distance between tumour and circumferential resection margin (CRM) was observed in grade 3 resections, whereas no difference appeared in grade 1 and grade 2 resection (TME grade 1: mean(s.d.) 11.92(9.4) mm; TME grade 2: 10.8(8.1) mm; TME grade 3: 3.1(4.1) mm; P = 0.003). The anastomotic leakage rate was significantly higher in case of a lower CRM (patients with anastomotic leakage: mean(s.d.) 6.8(5.8) mm versus others: 12.6(9.8) mm, P = 0.027), but not associated with pelvimetry measurements. The transanal TME (TaTME) subgroup displayed a wider angle between the pubic symphysis and promontory, younger age and improved TME quality compared to others (respectively, mean TME grades in TaTME versus open versus laparoscopic: 1.0 ± 0.0, 1.5 ± 0.7 and 1.3 ± 0.5, P = 0.013). Finally, oncological survival was not impacted by pelvic measurements or worse TME quality.

CONCLUSION

The angle between the pubic symphysis and promontory and the distance between tumour and CRM were associated with worse TME grades. The anastomotic leakage was associated with a lower CRM but not with pelvimetric measures.

Sarcopenic Obesity Is a Risk Factor for Worse Oncological Long-Term Outcome in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition and skeletal muscle waste (sarcopenia) are known as predictive factors for a poor postoperative outcome. Paradoxically, obesity seems to be associated with a survival advantage in wasting diseases such as cancer. Thus, the interpretation of body composition indices and their impact on rectal cancer therapy has become more and more complex. The aim of this study was to evaluate body composition indices in locally advanced rectal cancer patients prior to therapy and their impact on short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2018, 96 patients were included in this study. Pre-therapeutic CT scans were used to evaluate visceral and subcutaneous fat mass, as well as muscle mass. Body composition indices were compared to body mass index, morbidity, anastomotic leakage rate, local recurrency rate, and oncological long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Increased visceral fat (p < 0.01), subcutaneous fat (p < 0.01), and total fat mass (p = 0.001) were associated with overweight. Skeletal muscle waste (sarcopenia) (p = 0.045), age (p = 0.004), comorbidities (p < 0.01), and sarcopenic obesity (p = 0.02) were significantly associated with increased overall morbidity. The anastomotic leakage rate was significantly influenced when comorbidities were present (p = 0.006). Patients with sarcopenic obesity showed significantly worse disease-free (p = 0.04) and overall survival (p = 0.0019). The local recurrency rate was not influenced by body composition indices.

CONCLUSION

Muscle waste, older age, and comorbidities were demonstrated as strong risk factors for increased overall morbidity. Sarcopenic obesity was associated with worse DFS and OS. This study underlines the role of nutrition and appropriate physical activity prior to therapy.

Is Robotic Assisted Colorectal Cancer Surgery Equivalent Compared to Laparoscopic Procedures during the Introduction of a Robotic Program? A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis

Simple Summary

The introduction of a robotic program is challenging and requires extensive experience in minimally invasive surgery. Short-term outcomes and oncological quality should not differ between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. To our knowledge, no data on the quality of surgery at the time of introduction of the robotic platform are available. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes and oncological findings of robotic-assisted colorectal resections with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction of the robotic platform.

Abstract

Background: Robotic surgery represents a novel approach for the treatment of colorectal cancers and has been established as an important and effective method over the last years. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of a robotic program on oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction. Methods: All colorectal cancer patients from two centers that either received robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic surgery were included in a comparative study. A propensity-score-matched analysis was used to reduce confounding differences. Results: A laparoscopic resection (LR Group) was performed in 82 cases, and 93 patients were treated robotic-assisted surgery (RR Group). Patients’ characteristics did not differ between groups. In right-sided resections, an intracorporeal anastomosis was significantly more often performed in the RR Group (LR Group: 5 (26.31%) vs. RR Group: 10 (76.92%), p = 0.008). Operative time was shown to be significantly shorter in the LR Group (LR Group: 200 min (150–243) vs. 204 min (174–278), p = 0.045). Conversions to open surgery did occur more often in the LR Group (LR Group: 16 (19.51%) vs. RR Group: 5 (5.38%), p = 0.004). Postoperative morbidity, the number of harvested lymph nodes, quality of resection and postoperative tumor stage did not differ between groups. Conclusion: In this study, we could clearly demonstrate robotic-assisted colorectal cancer surgery as effective, feasible and safe regarding postoperative morbidity and oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopy during the introduction of a robotic system.