Larson, David W.

AbstractAimCrohn's disease (CD) is regarded as a wasting disease, yet there is a growing population of CD patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 and above. The rate of postoperative complications is relatively high in CD patients but might be even higher in CD with morbid obesity (MO).MethodsThis was a retrospective study using a prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing Ileocolic resection for CD between 2014 and 2021 in two referral centres, comparing postoperative complication rates according to BMI.ResultsThree hundred and forty‐six patients were identified. Sixty patients (17%) had a BMI over 30 kg/m2, and 28 (8.1%) had a BMI of over 35 kg/m2 (>35 group). The BMI >35 group had more women (78.6% vs. 52%, P < 0.1), a higher rate of patients not receiving an anastomosis (7.1% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.02), a higher rate of any postoperative surgical complication (32.1% vs. 25.2%, P = 0.4), with a higher rate of Clavien–Dindo ≥3 (14.3% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.25), a higher rate of stoma creation on reoperation for complications (7.2% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.04), a higher rate of 30‐day readmission due to intra‐abdominal abscess (10.7% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.2), but a lower rate of postoperative medical complications (3.6% vs. 15.7%, P < 0.01).ConclusionsThe rate of MO among CD patients requiring ileocolonic resection is on the rise. MO in this setting is associated with statistically non‐significant increases in all surgical complications, severe complications, readmission, and a higher chance for a bailout stoma creation upon reoperation. However, MO seems to be a protective factor for medical postoperative complications, which might suggest better nutritional status.

AbstractAimMinimally invasive transanal platforms are now the standard of care for select low‐risk rectal tumours. However, existing platforms come with persistent technical challenges. The da Vinci SP Surgical System™ offers a new alternative designed to work effectively in narrow spaces. This technology has the potential to enhance the feasibility and proximal extent of complex transanal resections. This study aimed to describe the morbidity and technical success in patients undergoing single‐port robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (SPR‐TAMIS). Secondary outcomes include rates of local recurrence.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on all patients who underwent SPR‐TAMIS at our institution between February 2019 and December 2023.ResultsThe study included 31 patients (19 men, 12 women) with a mean age of 61 ± 13.3 years. The average tumour distance from the anal verge was 10 cm. Thirty patients completed SPR‐TAMIS, with one patient requiring conversion to robotic sigmoidectomy due to location in the mid‐sigmoid colon. The mean operating time was 106 ± 42 min. Twenty‐eight out of 30 patients underwent full‐thickness excision and all but two were successfully closed. All specimens were resected intact, and margins were negative in 93.5% of cases. The average tumour size was 13 ± 34 cm2, with 13 lesions classified as adenomas and 16 as adenocarcinomas. All patients who did not undergo associated procedures were discharged on the day of surgery. Two patients experienced 30‐day morbidity. At a mean follow‐up of 18 months (± 13), no local or systemic recurrences were identified.ConclusionSPR‐TAMIS for excision of low‐risk rectal tumours is associated with high rates of technical success and low 30‐day morbidity. Further research is needed to compare SPR‐TAMIS with other techniques to determine potential advantages over current transanal platforms.

Abstract Background and Aims Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a higher risk of developing colorectal dysplasia and colorectal cancer compared to the general population. Although the use of surveillance protocols has improved the ability to detect dysplasia, some lesions are still missed at colonoscopy. This study aims to determine the rate of dysplastic lesions that are undetected at colonoscopies in IBD patients undergoing colectomy and to identify factors associated with missed dysplasia. Methods Patients who had received a total or subtotal colectomy at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota), between January 2003 and December 2022, and had a complete colonoscopy within 5 years before surgery were retrospectively enrolled. Data abstracted included demographic information, disease-related data, colonoscopy and pathology reports, and surgery pathology reports. Colonoscopy and surgery findings were compared, and patients were divided into 3 groups: no dysplasia at both, detected dysplasia, and undetected dysplasia. Results Among 1320 IBD patients undergoing colectomy, 5.4% had undetected dysplastic lesions identified only at surgery. Factors independently associated with dysplasia detection were endoscopic remission or mild endoscopic disease activity (odds ratio [OR], 2.326; P = .0081; 95% CI, 1.246-4.342), prior dysplasia detection (OR, 1.876; P = .0491; 95% CI, 1.002-3.511), colonoscopy performed for surveillance (OR, 2.380; P = .0048; 95% CI, 1.302-4.350), and longer disease duration at surgery (OR, 1.039; P = .0085; 95% CI, 1.010-1.070). Conclusions Clinicians should be aware of the risk of missing dysplastic lesions, especially when endoscopic disease activity is moderate/severe, and not only for longstanding disease. Efforts should be made to obtain endoscopic remission to make the “invisible” visible.

Objective: To compare robotic-assisted proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (R-IPAA) outcomes and laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA within a specialized robotic surgery center, using matching techniques to minimize potential confounding factors. Background: Minimally invasive approaches, particularly laparoscopy, have improved outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and familial adenomatous polyposis undergoing IPAA. Robotic-assisted surgery offers potential technical advantages, but its definitive superiority over laparoscopy in this context remains under debate. Methods: This retrospective, “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology”–compliant study analyzed 234 consecutive patients undergoing IPAA (117 robotic and 117 laparoscopic). Data encompassed patient demographics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes. We employed various matching techniques to address potential bias. Primary endpoints focused on 30-day complications, readmissions, and reoperations, with secondary endpoints including hospital stay, blood loss, and stoma closure rates. Results: R-IPAA demonstrated a lower conversion rate to open surgery ( P = 0.02), a shorter hospital stay ( P = 0.04), and reduced blood loss ( P = 0.0003) compared with laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA. While overall 30-day morbidity rates were similar ( P = 0.4), matched analyses suggested a trend towards fewer reoperations and 3-month IPAA-associated complications after diverting loop ileostomy closure in the robotic group. However, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: In a high-volume robotic surgery center, R-IPAA reduced the risk of conversion to open surgery while reducing intraoperative blood loss and providing shorter lengths of stay with equivalent perioperative outcomes. Promising trends to reduce 30-day reoperations and surgical complications after diverting loop ileostomy closure were observed after a matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Concerns persist regarding the effectiveness of robotic proctectomy compared with open proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer with a high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of surrogate cancer outcomes after robotic versus open proctectomy in this subpopulation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three academic hospitals (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Rochester) with data available through the Mayo Data Explorer platform. PATIENTS: Patients at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement were selected on the basis of the MRI-based definition from the MERCURY I and II trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (≤1 mm), mesorectal grading, and rate of distal margin involvement. RESULTS: Out of 413 patients, 125 (30%) underwent open and 288 (70%) underwent robotic proctectomy. Open proctectomy was significantly associated with a greater proportion of cT4 tumors (39.3% vs 24.8%, p = 0.021), multivisceral/concomitant resections (40.8% vs 18.4%, p < 0.001), and less frequent total neoadjuvant therapy use (17.1% vs 47.1%, p = 0.001). Robotic proctectomy was less commonly associated with pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (7.3% vs 17.6%, p = 0.002), including after adjustment for cT stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and multivisceral resection (OR 0.326; 95% CI, 0.157–0.670, p = 0.002). Propensity score matching for 66 patients per group and related multivariable analysis no longer indicated any reduction of circumferential positive margin rate associated with robotic surgery ( p = 0.86 and p = 0.18). Mesorectal grading was comparable (incomplete mesorectum in 6% robotic proctectomy patients vs 11.8% open proctectomy patients, p = 0.327). All cases had negative distal resection margins. LIMITATION: Retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement, robotic proctectomy is an effective approach and could be pursued when technically possible as an alternative to open proctectomy. See Video Abstract . RESULTADOS COMPARATIVOS ENTRE LA PROCTECTOMÍA ROBÓTICA Y LA PROCTECTOMÍA ABIERTA EN CASOS DE CÁNCER DE RECTO CON ALTO RIESGO DE MÁRGEN DE RESECCIÓN CIRCUNFERENCIAL POSITIVO ANTECEDENTES: Persisten preocupaciones con respecto a la efectividad de la proctectomía robótica en comparación con la proctectomía abierta en casos de cáncer de recto localmente avanzado con un alto riesgo de margen de resección circunferencial positivo. OBJETIVO: Comparar los resultados en la subpoblación de portadores de cáncer luego de una proctectomía robótica versus una proctectomía abierta. DISEÑO: Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes. AJUSTE: Realizado en tres hospitales académicos (Mayo Clinic de Arizona, Florida y Rochester) a través de la plataforma Mayo Data Explorer. PACIENTES: Fueron seleccionados aquellos pacientes con alto riesgo de compromiso sobre el margen de resección circunferencial, según la definición de los Estudios Mercury I-II basada en la Imágen de Resonancia Magnética. MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES Y SECUNDARIAS: La tasa de compromiso patológico sobre el margen de resección circunferencial (≤1 mm), la clasificación mesorrectal y la tasa del compromiso del margen distal. RESULTADOS: De 413 pacientes, 125 (30%) fueron sometidos a una proctectomía abierta y 288 (70%) a proctectomía robótica. La proctectomía abierta se asoció significativamente con una mayor proporción de tumores cT4 (39,3% frente a 24,8%, p = 0,021), las resecciones multiviscerales/concomitantes fueron de 40,8% frente a 18,4%, p < 0,001 y una adminstración menos frecuente de terapia neoadyuvante total (17,1). % vs 47,1%, p = 0,001). La proctectomía robótica se asoció con menos frecuencia con la presencia de una lesión sobre el margen de resección circunferencial patológico (7,3% frente a 17,6%, p = 0,002), incluso después del ajuste por estadio cT, de la terapia neoadyuvante y de resección multivisceral (OR 0,326, IC 95% 0,157-0,670, p = 0,002). El apareado de propensión por puntuación en 66 pacientes por grupo y el análisis multivariable relacionado, no mostraron ninguna reducción en la tasa de margen positivo circunferencial asociado con la cirugía robótica ( p = 0,86 y p = 0,18). La clasificación mesorrectal fue igualmente comparable (mesorrecto incompleto en el 6% de los pacientes con RP frente al 11,8% de los pacientes con OP, p = 0,327). Todos los casos tuvieron márgenes de resección distal negativos. LIMITACIÓN: Diseño retrospectivo. CONCLUSIÓN: En pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado con alto riesgo de compromiso del margen de resección circunferencial, la proctectomía robótica es un enfoque eficaz y podría realizarse cuando sea técnicamente posible como alternativa a la proctectomía abierta. (Traducción—Dr. Xavier Delgadillo )

Background: Conventional neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) yields a pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of 15–30% for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This study ventures to shift this paradigm by incorporating short-course nCRT with immunotherapy, specifically Envafolimab, to achieve improved treatment efficacy and possibly redefine the standard of care for LARC. Materials and methods: The PRECAM study is a prospective, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial for LARC in patients with microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors. Participants received short-course radiotherapy (25Gy/5f), followed by two cycles of CAPEOX chemotherapy and six weekly doses of Envafolimab, a PD-L1 antibody, before total mesorectal excision surgery. The primary endpoint was the pCR rate. Results: From April to December 2022, 34 patients were enrolled, of whom 32 completed the study, each diagnosed with an MSS rectal adenocarcinoma. All patients underwent preoperative CRT combined with Envafolimab. Remarkably, a pCR rate of 62.5% (20/32) was attained, and a significant pathologic response rate of 75% (24/32) was achieved. Additionally, 21 of 32 participants achieved a neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score below 8, suggesting an effective treatment response. Common adverse events included tenesmus (78.1%), diarrhea (62.5%), and leukocyte decrease (40.6%). Two Grade 3 adverse events were noted, one related to liver function abnormality and the other to a decrease in platelet count. Surgical procedures were performed in all cases, with minor complications, including ileus, infections, and anastomotic leakage. As of this report, there have been no reported cases of recurrence or death during the follow-up period, ranging from 12 to 20 months. Conclusion: In LARC patients exhibiting MSS tumors, combining short-course nCRT with Envafolimab demonstrated favorable efficacy, leading to a significant pCR rate. Minor adverse effects and surgical complications were observed. These preliminary but promising results underscore the potential of this approach and call for further exploration and validation through a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: IPAA has become the criterion standard for treating ulcerative colitis, familial adenomatous polyposis, and selected cases of Crohn’s colitis. Robotic surgery promises improved postoperative outcomes and decreased length of stay. However, few studies have evaluated the benefits of robotic IPAA compared to laparoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term 30-day postoperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study from a single, high-volume center. SETTINGS: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (tertiary referral center for IBD). PATIENTS: All adult patients undergoing minimally invasive proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy between January 2015 and April 2023. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thirty-day complications, hospital length of stay, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, 30-day readmission, and 30-day reoperation. RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen patients were included in the study; 107 underwent robotic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy, whereas 110 had laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy. Operating time was significantly longer in the robotic group (263 ± 38 vs 228 ± 75 minutes, p < 0.0001). The robotic group also had lower estimated blood loss (81.5 ± 77.7 vs 126.8 ± 111.0 mL, p = 0.0006) as well as fewer conversions (0% vs 8.2%, p = 0.003). Patients in the robotic group received more intraoperative fluids (3099 ± 1140 vs 2472 ± 996 mL, p = 0.0001). However, there was no difference in length of stay, 30-day morbidity, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, rate of diverting loop ileostomy closure at 3 months, and surgical IPAA complication rate after ileostomy closure. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, single-center study, potential bias because of the novelty of the robotic approach, and lack of long-term and quality-of-life outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy may offer advantages in terms of estimated blood loss and conversion rate while maintaining the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Further research is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. See Video Abstract. NAVEGANDO EL PROGRESO: EXPERIENCIA DE OCHO AÑOS EN UN SOLO CENTRO CON PROCTECTOMÍA MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVA Y ANASTOMOSIS ANAL-BOLSA ILEAL ANTECEDENTES: La anastomosis anal-bolsa ileal (IPAA) se ha convertido en el estándar de oro para el tratamiento de la colitis ulcerosa, la poliposis adenomatosa familiar y casos seleccionados de colitis de Crohn. La cirugía robótica promete mejores resultados posoperatorios y una menor duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Sin embargo, pocos estudios han evaluado los beneficios de la IPAA robótica en comparación con la laparoscopia. OBJETIVO: Comparar los resultados postoperatorios a corto plazo a 30 días de la proctectomía robótica versus laparoscópica con IPAA e ileostomía en asa de derivación. DISEÑO: Estudio observacional retrospectivo de un único centro de gran volumen. AJUSTES: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (centro terciario de referencia para EII). PACIENTES: Todos los pacientes adultos sometidos a proctectomía mínimamente invasiva con IPAA y DLI entre Enero de 2015 y Abril de 2023. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS: Complicaciones a los 30 días, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, pérdida de sangre estimada, tasa de conversión, reingreso a los 30 días y reoperación a los 30 días. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron en el estudio 217 pacientes; 107 se sometieron a proctectomía robótica con IPAA y DLI, mientras que 110 se sometieron a proctectomía laparoscópica con IPAA y DLI. El tiempo operatorio fue significativamente mayor en el grupo robótico (263 ± 38 minutos versus 228 ± 75 minutos, p < 0,0001); la pérdida de sangre estimada (EBL) fue menor en el grupo robótico (81,5 ± 77,7 ml versus 126,8 ± 111,0 ml, p = 0,0006), así como el número de conversiones (0% versus 8,2%, p = 0,003). Los pacientes del grupo robótico recibieron más líquidos intraoperatorios (3099 ± 1140 ml versus 2472 ± 996 ml, p = 0,0001). Sin embargo, no hubo diferencias en la duración de la estancia hospitalaria, la morbilidad a los 30 días, el reingreso a los 30 días, la reoperación a los 30 días, la tasa de cierre del DLI a los tres meses y la tasa de complicaciones quirúrgicas de la IPAA después del cierre de la ileostomía. LIMITACIONES: Diseño retrospectivo, estudio unicéntrico, posible sesgo debido a la novedad del enfoque robótico, falta de resultados a largo plazo y de calidad de vida. CONCLUSIONES: La proctectomía robótica con IPAA y DLI puede ofrecer ventajas en términos de EBL y tasa de conversión, manteniendo al mismo tiempo los beneficios de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva. Se necesita más investigación para evaluar los resultados a largo plazo. (Traducción—Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Khalil)

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis, total colectomy, and tofacitinib have all been associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether preoperative tofacitinib exposure increases venous thromboembolism or other postoperative complications among patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing subtotal colectomy, total colectomy, or total proctocolectomy. DESIGN: Retrospective, case-controlled study at a single institution. SETTINGS: A tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Adult patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing subtotal colectomy, total colectomy, or total proctocolectomy after 2018 who were taking tofacitinib within 30 days of surgery (n = 56) were compared to age- and sex-matched patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing the same surgeries but who were not exposed to tofacitinib (n = 56). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was differences in the incidence of venous thromboembolism within 90 days of surgery based on tofacitinib exposure. Secondary outcomes were 90-day postoperative complications. RESULTS: Groups were well matched for age (non-tofacitinib: mean 35.2 years [SD 12.0], tofacitinib: 35.9 [SD 12.1], p = 0.36) and sex (41% women in each group, p = 1.00). Medical characteristics were similar between groups except for biological medication exposure 30 days before surgery (non-tofacitinib: 66%, tofacitinib: 36%, p = 0.004). Surgical characteristics did not differ between groups. Most patients were discharged on extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (non-tofacitinib: 80% and tofacitinib: 77%). Adjusted for biological exposure, there were no statistically significant differences in venous thromboembolism (non-tofacitinib exposed: 14%, tofacitinib exposed: 4%, p = 0.09) or other postoperative outcomes. LIMITATION: Retrospective, single institutional study. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing total colectomy or proctocolectomy, exposure to tofacitinib was not associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism or other postoperative complications. See Video Abstract . LA EXPOSICIÓN A TOFACITINIB NO AUMENTA LAS COMPLICACIONES POSOPERATORIAS ENTRE PACIENTES CON COLITIS ULCEROSA SOMETIDOS A COLECTOMÍA TOTAL: UN ESTUDIO RETROSPECTIVO DE CASOS Y CONTROLES ANTECEDENTES: La colitis ulcerosa, la colectomía total y el tofacitinib han sido asociados con un mayor riesgo de tromboembolismo venoso. OBJETIVO: Determinar si la exposición preoperatoria a tofacitinib aumenta la tromboembolia venosa u otras complicaciones posoperatorias entre pacientes con colitis ulcerosa sometidos a colectomía subtotal, colectomía total o proctocolectomía total. DISEÑO: Estudio retrospectivo de casos y controles en una sola institución. AJUSTES: Un centro de referencia terciario. PACIENTES: Los pacientes adultos con colitis ulcerosa sometidos a colectomía subtotal, colectomía total o proctocolectomía total después del año 2018 que se encontraron consumiendo tofacitinib dentro de los 30 días posteriores a la cirugía (n = 56) fueron comparados con pacientes con colitis ulcerosa de la misma edad y sexo sometidos a las mismas cirugías pero que no estuvieron expuestos a tofacitinib (n = 56). MEDIDA DE RESULTADO PRINCIPAL: El resultado primario fueron las diferencias en las incidencias de tromboembolismo venoso dentro de los 90 días posteriores a la cirugía según la exposición a tofacitinib. Los resultados secundarios fueron las complicaciones posoperatorias a los 90 días. RESULTADOS: Los grupos se encontraban bien emparejados por edad (sin tofacitinib: media 35,2 años [DE 12,0], tofacitinib: 35,9 [DE 12,1], p = 0,36) y sexo (41% mujeres en cada grupo, p = 1,00). Las características médicas fueron similares entre los grupos, excepto por la exposición a medicamentos biológicos 30 días antes de la cirugía (sin tofacitinib: 66 %, tofacitinib: 36 %, p = 0,004). Las características quirúrgicas no difirieron entre los grupos. La mayoría de los pacientes fueron dados de alta con profilaxis extendida para tromboembolismo venoso (sin tofacitinib: 80% y tofacitinib: 77%). Ajustado a la exposición biológica, no hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el tromboembolismo venoso (no expuestos a tofacitinib: 14%, expuestos a tofacitinib: 4%, p = 0,09) u otros resultados posoperatorios. LIMITACIÓN: Estudio institucional único, retrospectivo. CONCLUSIÓN: Entre los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa sometidos a colectomía total o proctocolectomía, la exposición a tofacitinib no se asoció con un mayor riesgo de tromboembolismo venoso u otras complicaciones posoperatorias. (Traducción—Dr Osvaldo Gauto )