Colon sparing resection versus extended colectomy for left-sided obstructing colon cancer with caecal ischaemia or perforation: a nationwide study from the French Surgical Association

AIM

It is not known whether patients with obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) with caecal ischaemia or diastatic perforation (defined as a blowout of the caecal wall related to colonic overdistension) should undergo a (sub)total colectomy (STC) or an ileo-caecal resection with double-barrelled ileo-colostomy. We aimed to compare the results of these two strategies.

METHOD

From 2000 to 2015, 1220 patients with OLCC underwent surgery by clinicians who were members of the French Surgical Association. Of these cases, 201 (16%) were found to have caecal ischaemia or diastatic perforation intra-operatively: 174 patients (87%) underwent a STC (extended colectomy group) and 27 (13%) an ileo-caecal resection with double-end stoma (colon-sparing group). Outcomes were compared retrospectively.

RESULTS

In the extended colectomy group, 95 patients (55%) had primary anastomosis and 79 (45%) had a STC with an end ileostomy. In the colon-sparing group, 10 patients (37%) had simultaneous resection of their primary tumour with segmental colectomy and an anastomosis which was protected by a double-barrelled ileo-colostomy. The demographic data for the two groups were comparable. Median operative time was longer in the STC group (P = 0.0044). There was a decrease in postoperative mortality (7% vs 12%, P = 0.75) and overall morbidity (56% vs 67%, P = 0.37) including surgical (30% vs 40%, P = 0.29) and severe complications (17% vs 27%, P = 0.29) in the colon-sparing group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. Cumulative morbidity included all surgical stages and the rate of permanent stoma was 66% and 37%, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups. Overall survival and disease-free survival were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The colon-sparing strategy may represent a valid and safe alternative to STC in OLCC patients with caecal ischaemia or diastatic perforation.

Impact of cirrhosis in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection in a nationwide multicentre survey

BACKGROUND

The aim was to analyse the impact of cirrhosis on short-term outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a multicentre national cohort study.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients undergoing LLR in 27 centres between 2000 and 2017. Cirrhosis was defined as F4 fibrosis on pathological examination. Short-term outcomes of patients with and without liver cirrhosis were compared after propensity score matching by centre volume, demographic and tumour characteristics, and extent of resection.

RESULTS

Among 3150 patients included, LLR was performed in 774 patients with (24·6 per cent) and 2376 (75·4 per cent) without cirrhosis. Severe complication and mortality rates in patients with cirrhosis were 10·6 and 2·6 per cent respectively. Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) developed in 3·6 per cent of patients with cirrhosis and was the major cause of death (11 of 20 patients). After matching, patients with cirrhosis tended to have higher rates of severe complications (odds ratio (OR) 1·74, 95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 3·41; P = 0·096) and PHLF (OR 7·13, 0·91 to 323·10; P = 0·068) than those without cirrhosis. They also had a higher risk of death (OR 5·13, 1·08 to 48·61; P = 0·039). Rates of cardiorespiratory complications (P = 0·338), bile leakage (P = 0·286) and reoperation (P = 0·352) were similar in the two groups. Patients with cirrhosis had a longer hospital stay than those without (11 versus 8 days; P = 0·018). Centre expertise was an independent protective factor against PHLF in patients with cirrhosis (OR 0·33, 0·14 to 0·76; P = 0·010).

CONCLUSION

Underlying cirrhosis remains an independent risk factor for impaired outcomes in patients undergoing LLR, even in expert centres.