Larson, David W.

Objective: Surgeon workload, or human “cost” of performing a procedure, is not well understood in light of emerging surgical technologies. This pilot study quantified surgeon workload for colorectal procedures and identified patient, surgeon, and procedural factors impacting workload. Summary Background Data: Innovative technologies and procedures in surgery have generally been promoted for the advancement of patient care. The resulting surgeon workload is poorly studied with little knowledge of the contributing factors impacting workload. Methods: Surgeons completed NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaires to self-assess workload following abdominopelvic colon and rectal procedures. Corresponding patient data were retrieved from the medical record. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and ANOVA were performed to compare surgeon and patient factors, procedure type, and surgical approach on workload overall and by subscales. Results: Seven attending surgeons rated 238 surgeries, of which 218 (92%) had corresponding patient data. Surgeon experience and patient demographics had inconsistent effects on workload. A statistically significant 3-way interaction was identified among disease process, procedure type, and surgical approach on workload (F(9, 146) = 2.17, P = 0.027), but was limited to open procedures for neoplasia and inflammatory bowel disease patients. Proctectomy and colectomy procedures compared across open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches showed significant differences in overall workload and subscales, where the robotic procedures required significantly less mental demand, physical demand, and effort, than open or laparoscopic ( P < 0.05). Conclusions: Patient characteristics, disease process, and surgical experience had inconsistent effects on surgeon workload. Major differences in workload were identified for procedure type and surgical approach, where robotic procedures required less mental demand, physical demand, and effort.

AbstractAimThe present study aimed to compare functional recovery and surgical outcomes after left and right colectomies.MethodConsecutive elective left and right colon resections for benign and malignant indications, performed between 2011 and 2016 and recorded in a prospectively maintained enhanced recovery database, were analysed. Demographic and surgical items, as well as functional recovery and 30‐day complications, were compared between left‐sided and right‐sided colectomies. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify risk factors for postoperative ileus (POI).ResultsIn total, 1001 left and 1041 right colectomies were comparable regarding demographic factors; only body mass index (BMI) was higher in patients undergoing left‐sided resections (> 30 kg/m2: 33% vs 27%, P = 0.004). Malignancy (29% vs 67%, P < 0.001) and Crohn's disease (1% vs 31%, P < 0.001) were preponderant in right colectomies, whereas diverticular disease (68% vs 1%, P < 0.001) was the most common indication for left colectomy. Compliance with the enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) was comparable. While the minimally invasive approach was the preferred approach for both sides (61% vs 64%, P = 0.158), left colectomies took longer (180 ± 80 min vs 150 ± 70 min, P < 0.001), needed more perioperative fluids (3.1 ± 1.4 l vs 2.7 ± 1.5 l, P < 0.001) and resulted in greater postoperative weight gain (3.9 ± 6.5 kg vs 2.6 ± 6 kg, P = 0.025). Crohn's disease (OR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.27–5.46) and fluid overload (OR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.06–3.82) were independent risk factors for POI.ConclusionDespite equal ERP compliance, postoperative ileus was higher after right‐sided colectomies. This finding was associated with Crohn's disease and fluid overload.

Early re-alimentation is advocated by enhanced recovery pathways (ERP). This study aimed to assess compliance to ERP-set early re-alimentation policy and to compare outcomes of early fed patients and patients in whom early feeding was withhold due to the independent decision making of the surgeon. For this purpose, demographic, surgical and outcome data of all consecutive elective colorectal surgical procedures (2011–2016) were retrieved from a prospectively maintained institutional ERP database. The primary endpoint was postoperative ileus (POI). Surgical 30-day outcome and length of stay were compared between patients undergoing the pathway-intended early re-alimentation pattern and patients in whom early re-alimentation was not compliant. Out of the 7103 patients included, 1241 (17.4%) were not compliant with ERP re-alimentation. Patients with delayed re-alimentation presented with more postoperative complications (37 vs. 21%, p < 0.001) and a prolonged length of hospital stay (8 ± 7 vs. 5 ± 4 days, p < 0.001). While male gender (odds ratio (OR) 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04–1.32), fluid overload (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.16–1.65) and high American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.27–1.8) were independent risk factors for POI, laparoscopy (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.38–0.68) and ERP compliant diet (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.36–0.6) were both protective. Hence, this study provides further evidence of the beneficial effect of early oral feeding after colorectal surgery.

e15030 Background: Deficiencies in the DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) system cause errors during DNA replication, which in turn give rise to microsatellite instability (MSI-H). MSI-H in mCRC is rare and its prognostic and predictive impact on outcome is unclear. This cohort study aims to investigate the prognostic and predictive value of MSI-H in metastatic CRC prior to the immune therapy era. Methods: 75 MSI-H mCRC patients (pts) and 75 matched (age, gender, disease sidedness, metachronous) MSS mCRC pts were identified from 1268 mCRC who had MSI/MMR test results at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 1/1992 and 7/2016. A retrospective review was conducted by using data from electronic medical records (EMR). Statistical analyses utilized Kaplan-Meier method, Log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: In the MSI-H group, there were 39 male (52%) and 36 female (48%) pts. Median age at metastatic disease diagnosis was 54.7 years. 35 patients presented with stage IV CRC. Primary tumors location: 38 right side, 11 transverse colon, 15 left side, 11 rectum. The MSS group was well matched (3 mismatches for gender and 1 mismatch for metachronous metastatic disease). Median overall survivals (OS) were 28.1 and 37.4 months for MSI-H and MSS pts, respectively ( p= 0.098). 98.7% MSS pts and 94.7% MSI-H pts had Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy for metastatic disease and there was no median OS difference between these two groups (37.4 vs. 32.3 months p= 0.91). 43 MSI-H and 39 MSS pts had metastasectomy including ablation ( p= 0.51) with longer median OS (82.0 and 69.9 months, p= 0.90) compared to pts without metastasectomy (13.9 and 19.7 months, p= 0.15). Age < 65, metastasectomy, asymptomatic metastatic lesions, BRAF wild type, and multiple metastasectomy were associated with better survival in univariate analysis. Only metastasectomy remained statistically significant in multivariate analysis ( p< 0.0001). Conclusions: MSI-H mCRC do not appear to have improved prognosis compared with MSS cancers, in fact, there is a trend toward inferior outcome. In both groups, metastasectomy including multiple metastasectomy should be considered to optimize OS.

3556 Background: To define and update survival rates and relapse patterns in patients (pts) with isolated advanced abdominal nodal metastasis secondary to colorectal cancer (CRC), treated with curative intent using aggressive trimodality therapy. Methods: Fifty-seven pts with isolated advanced abdominal lymph node metastasis (retroperitoneal and mesenteric) secondary to colorectal cancer received trimodality therapy defined as chemotherapy delivered in conjunction with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) followed by lymphadenectomy and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT). Infusional 5-FU was the most common radiosensitizer used (66%, 38 pts). The median dose of EBRT was 50 Gy & the median dose of intraoperative radiotherapy was 12.5 Gy. End points included distant metastasis, toxicities, local failure within EBRT field, recurrence within the intraoperative radiotherapy field, and survival. Results: 49% of pts were male, median age 50.5 yrs. All patients had ECOG ≤ 1. 27 pts had primary right sided colon cancer, 16 left sided colon cancer and 14 rectal primaries. Median time from initial CRC diagnosis to development of abdominal lymph node metastatic disease was 24 months (95% CI, 23.5-45.1 months). 84% (48 pts) had paraaortic nodal metastases, 12% (7 pts) had mesenteric nodal metastases, and 3% (2 pts) had both. With a median follow up of 89.4 months, the median overall survival and 5-year estimated survival rate were 53.2 months (95% CI, 46.4-78.8 months) and 42%, respectively. Median progression free survival was 19.3 months (95% CI, 15.6-32.8 months). 21 (37%) pts never developed distant disease. Outcome was not affected by disease sidedness, rectal primary, or mutational profile. Treatment was well tolerated without any grade 3/4 toxicities. Conclusions: The use of trimodality therapy including EBRT with radiosensitizing chemotherapy, lymphadenectomy and IORT produces sustainable long-term survival in selected metastatic CRC pts presenting with isolated retroperitoneal/mesenteric nodal relapse.

BACKGROUND: Excessive perioperative fluid administration likely increases postoperative cardiovascular, infectious, and GI complications. Early administration of diuretics after elective surgery facilitates rapid mobilization of excess fluid, potentially leading to decreased bowel edema, more rapid return of bowel function, and reduced length of hospital stay. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the benefit of early diuresis after elective colon and rectal surgery in the setting of an enhanced recovery after surgery practice. DESIGN: This was a prospective study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a quaternary referral center. PATIENTS: A randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial was conducted in patients undergoing elective colon and rectal surgery at a single quaternary referral center. INTERVENTION: The primary intervention was administration of intravenous furosemide plus enhanced recovery after surgery on postoperative day 1 and 2 versus enhanced recovery after surgery alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission rate, time to stool output during hospitalization after surgery, and incidence of various complications within the first 48 hours of hospital stay. RESULTS: In total, 123 patients were randomly assigned to receive either furosemide plus enhanced recovery after surgery (n = 62) or enhanced recovery after surgery alone (n = 61). Groups were evenly matched at baseline. At interim analysis, length of hospital stay was not superior in the intervention group (80.6 vs 99.6 hours, p = 0.564). No significant difference was identified in the rates of nasogastric tube replacement (1.6% vs 9.7%, p = 0.125). Time to return of bowel function was significantly longer in the intervention group (45.4 vs 48.8 hours, p = 0.048). The decision was made to end the study early because the conditional power of the study favored futility. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of furosemide does not significantly reduce the length of hospital stay after elective colon and rectal surgery in the setting of enhanced recovery after surgery practice. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A714.

Objective: To determine the disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence after the treatment of patients with rectal cancer with open (OPEN) or laparoscopic (LAP) resection. Background: This randomized clinical trial (ACOSOG [Alliance] Z6051), performed between 2008 and 2013, compared LAP and OPEN resection of stage II/III rectal cancer, within 12 cm of the anal verge (T1-3, N0-2, M0) in patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The rectum and mesorectum were resected using open instruments for rectal dissection (included hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic) or with laparoscopic instruments under pneumoperitoneum. The 2-year DFS and recurrence were secondary endpoints of Z6051. Methods: The DFS and recurrence were not powered, and are being assessed for superiority. Recurrence was determined at 3, 6, 9, 12, and every 6 months thereafter, using carcinoembryonic antigen, physical examination, computed tomography, and colonoscopy. In all, 486 patients were randomized to LAP (243) or OPEN (243), with 462 eligible for analysis (LAP = 240 and OPEN = 222). Median follow-up is 47.9 months. Results: The 2-year DFS was LAP 79.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.4–84.9) and OPEN 83.2% (95% CI 78.3–88.3). Local and regional recurrence was 4.6% LAP and 4.5% OPEN. Distant recurrence was 14.6% LAP and 16.7% OPEN. Disease-free survival was impacted by unsuccessful resection (hazard ratio [HR] 1.87, 95% CI 1.21–2.91): composite of incomplete specimen (HR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85–3.18); positive circumferential resection margins (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.40–3.79); positive distal margin (HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.30–3.77). Conclusion: Laparoscopic assisted resection of rectal cancer was not found to be significantly different to OPEN resection of rectal cancer based on the outcomes of DFS and recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Revisional and reconstructive surgery for IPAA is rare given the high success of pouch surgery for chronic ulcerative colitis. Limited data exist on both surgical and functional outcomes in patients with chronic ulcerative colitis who undergo IPAA revision or reconstruction. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the surgical and functional outcome in patients with chronic ulcerative colitis who undergo IPAA revision or reconstruction. DESIGN: A prospectively collected surgical database was accessed for this study. SETTING: This study was conducted at an IBD referral center. PATIENTS: Patients with chronic ulcerative colitis who underwent IPAA revision or reconstruction were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were 30-day postoperative outcomes and long-term pouch function. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were identified. Original IPAA was performed for chronic ulcerative colitis (n = 71; 88%) and indeterminate colitis (n = 11; 12.%), and the most common configuration was a J-pouch (n = 69; 86%) with handsewn anastomosis (n = 41;68%). No independent predictors of 30-day postoperative complications following reconstructive/revisional surgery were identified. Pelvic abscesses and Crohn’s disease of the pouch were independently associated with ultimate pouch excision. Median follow-up following revision/reconstruction was 40 months (range, 1–292 months) during which 15 patients (23%) had pouch failure. The 5- and 10-year pouch survival rates following revision were 85 ± 5% and 65 ± 9% by Kaplan-Meier estimation; age <30 years was significantly associated with pouch survival. Long-term function (n = 30; 35%) compared with a matched control cohort of primary IPAA was characterized by significantly increased daytime bowel incontinence (p = 0.0119), liquid stool (p = 0.0062), and medication to thicken stools (p = 0.0452). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center series, and response rate for functional data was 35%. CONCLUSIONS: In properly selected patients with a failing pouch, originally made for chronic ulcerative colitis or indeterminate colitis, revisional and reconstructive surgery is associated with low complication rates, high pouch salvage, and acceptable long-term pouch function. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A640.

Objective: Determine the safety of overlapping surgery in a tertiary care colorectal surgery practice. Summary: Although overlapping surgery is common in academic centers, reports on outcomes of this practice are limited. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the safety of overlapping surgery in a dedicated tertiary care academic colorectal practice by comparing groups of patients who did or did not have their surgery performed in an overlapping fashion. Methods: Retrospective review of 1270 colorectal patients undergoing inpatient colorectal surgery at our institution. Eligible participants were all patients undergoing elective inpatient colorectal surgery by one of the colorectal surgeons at the Mayo Clinic Rochester between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. Patients under the age of 18 or who underwent an emergent procedure were excluded. Data were abstracted using the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Additionally, each subject's chart was reviewed and further abstracted. The safety of overlapping surgery on outcomes was assessed using multiple multivariable models. Results: One thousand two hundred seventy patients were included in the study cohort of whom 50.7% were female and the average age was 55.4 years. Overlapping surgery occurred in 576 patients (45%). There were no significant differences in demographic, surgical indications, procedures, or operative complexity between patients undergoing overlapping surgery and those who did not. Overall adverse events were significantly less likely in patients undergoing overlapping surgery compared with those who did not (18.4% vs 23.6%, P = 0.02). We found that overlapping surgery was associated with significantly less adverse events compared with patients not undergoing overlapping surgery using a model that controlled for the effect of the individual surgeon (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6 – 0.96; P = .02) and a multivariable propensity score (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5– 0.9; P = 01). Conclusions: Overlapping surgery in a tertiary care colorectal practice is safe and not associated with adverse patient outcomes.