Dozois, Eric J.

BACKGROUND: Data registries lack a definitive classification system that distinguishes different locations of colon cancer from one another. OBJECTIVE: To establish an international consensus on the definition of primary colon cancer segment locations. DESIGN: Between December 2022 and June 2023, Delphi survey study was conducted to seek opinions from relevant international experts and eventually develop a consensus definition of each colon cancer segment. SETTING: Three-round online-based Delphi survey study. INTERVENTIONS: Online survey included 17 questions. In the first two rounds, participating experts were asked to rank each statement on a scale of 1–9 (9 is the most relevant). Consensus statements and definitions were revised according to results, obtaining a consensus score of 7–9. During the third round and online meeting, definitions and statements reached a moderate or high consensus(above 4 in more than 70% of participants) were included. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Primary goal of our project was focused on precisely localizing the specific segment affected by primary colon cancer, rather than to identify surgical treatment or type of resection needed for particular segment. RESULTS: The first round included 331 experts, 301 (91%) completed the second round, and 295 (98%) completed the final round. Experts strongly supported the use of a “10 cm rule” to describe colon cancer sites at the flexures and anatomical landmarks for other segments. Regarding the definition of rectosigmoid cancer, experts from America and Europe reached a high consensus that the term rectosigmoid as a colon cancer location must be abolished in contrast to experts from Asia. Description of cancers overlapping segments achieved a consensus of 64%. LIMITATIONS: Subjective decisions are based on individual expert clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi survey, the first internationally conducted consensus study, achieved a remarkable level of consensus among a panel of global experts. Ambiguity still exists regarding overlapping lesions. See Video Abstract .

Abstract Background Perianal draining tunnels in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) and perianal fistulizing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) present diagnostic and management dilemmas. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with perianal disease evaluated at Mayo Clinic from January 1, 1998, through July 31, 2021. Patients' demographic and clinical data were extracted, and 28 clinical features were collected. After experimenting with several machine learning techniques, random forests were used to select the 15 most important clinical features to construct the diagnostic prediction model to distinguish perianal HS from fistulizing perianal IBD. Results A total of 263 patients were included (98 with HS, 100 with IBD, and 65 with both IBD and HS). Patients with HS had a higher mean body mass index, a higher smoking rate, and more commonly showed cutaneous manifestations of tunnels and comedones, while fistulas, abscesses, induration, anal tags, ulcers, and anal fissures were more common in patients with IBD. In addition to having lesions in the perianal area, patients with IBD often had lesions in the buttocks and perineum, while those with HS had additional lesions in the axillae and groin. Among the statistically significant features, the 15 most important were identified by random forest: fistula , tunnel , digestive symptom , knife‐cut ulcer , perineum , body mass index , age , axilla , abscess , tags , smoking , groin , genital cutaneous edema , erythema , and bilateral/unilateral . Conclusions The results of this study may help differentiate perianal lesions, especially perineal HS and fistulizing perineal IBD, and provide promise for a better therapeutic outcome.

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: 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)

The aim was to determine whether on-call case volumes differ amongst colorectal surgeons, and what cases are performed on-call in an academic colorectal surgery practice. The on-call schedule for the year 2021 of a colorectal surgery practice was analyzed. Details of the case origin and operative details were collected. Average cases performed per call per surgeon were compared. Ten surgeons were included, and average cases per call ranged from .5 to 1.4 with 1.0 the overall average ( P = .007). Analyzing individual pairs, differences existed between the 2 busiest and the least busy on-call surgeon (both P < .05). Most patients operated on-call were admitted via the emergency department (59%), and the most common operations were exams under anesthesia (39%) and bowel resections (33%). On average, 1 on-call case was performed per day. Surgeon on-call volume was similar aside from the busiest and least busy on-call surgeons.

Objective: To establish globally applicable benchmark outcomes for pelvic exenteration (PE) in patients with locally advanced primary rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), using outcomes achieved at highly specialised centres. Background: PE is established as the standard of care for selected patients with LARC and LRRC. There are currently no available benchmarks against which surgical performance in PE can be compared for audit and quality improvement. Methods: This international multicentre retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing PE for LARC or LRRC at 16 highly experienced centres between 2018 and 2023. Ten outcome benchmarks were established in a lower-risk subgroup. Benchmarks were defined by the 75th percentile of the results achieved at the individual centres. Results: Seven hundred sixty-three patients underwent PE, of which 464 patients (61%) had LARCs and 299 (39%) had LRRCs. Five hundred forty-four patients (71%) who met predefined lower-risk criteria formed the benchmark cohort. For patients with LARC, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤44%; Comprehensive Complication Index: ≤30.2; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤4.3%; R0 resection rate: ≥79%. For patients with LRRC, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤53%; Comprehensive Complication Index: ≤34.1; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤6%; R0 resection rate: ≥77%. Conclusions: The reported benchmarks for PE in patients with LARC and LRRC represent the best available care for this patient group globally and can be used for rigorous assessment of surgical quality and to facilitate quality improvement initiatives at international exenteration centres.

Objective: To develop and analyze a risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) chart as a potential method to monitor individual surgeon performance in robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Background: Currently, surgeons lack real-time tools to monitor and enhance their performance beyond residency completion. While national quality programs exist, granular, individual-level data are crucial for continuous improvement. Previous studies suggest cumulative sum charts hold promise in identifying performance trends and outliers. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed data from 640 robotic TME cases performed by 12 surgeons at 2 institutions. RA-CUSUM charts were generated for 3 outcomes: (1) complications, (2) operative time, and (3) length of stay. Results: The overall RA-CUSUM curves for operative time and complications showed an initial learning phase, followed by a plateau or downward slope, indicating proficiency or improvement. However, individual surgeon curves revealed significant heterogeneity. Three surgeons consistently excelled in operative time, while 5 minimized complications most effectively. Potential quality improvement could be implemented to drive performance toward positive outliers. No differences were found in unadjusted outcomes, including conversion, number of lymph nodes harvested, and positive circumferential margins. Conclusions: The RA-CUSUM chart is a promising method for identifying individual surgeon performance in robotic TME. It could help surgeons, teams, and leaders identify improvement areas and benchmark themselves against positive outliers. Further studies are needed to explore the potential of RA-CUSUM for implementing interventions to improve surgical quality.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected healthcare systems globally, resulting in significant delays and challenges in various medical treatments, particularly in cancer care. This study aims to investigate the repercussions of the pandemic on surgical interventions for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the US, using data from the National Cancer Database. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database, encompassing adult patients who underwent surgical procedures for colon and rectal cancer in 2019 (pre-COVID) and 2020 (COVID). We examined various demographic and clinical variables, including patient characteristics, tumor staging, surgical approaches, and socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: The analysis included 105,517 patients, revealing a 17.3% reduction in surgical cases during the initial year of the pandemic. Patients who underwent surgery in 2020 displayed more advanced clinical and pathological tumor stages compared to those treated in 2019. After diagnosis, no delay was reported in the treatment. Patients operated during the pandemic, Black patients, uninsured, and Medicaid beneficiaries had worse stage colon and rectal cancer, and individuals with lower incomes bore the burden of advanced colon cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CRC surgery transcends a mere decline in case numbers, resulting in a higher prevalence of patients with advanced disease. This study underscores the exacerbated disparities in cancer care, particularly affecting vulnerable populations. The COVID-19 pandemic has left a significant and enduring imprint on CRC surgery, intensifying the challenges faced by patients and healthcare systems. Comprehensive studies are imperative to comprehend the long-term consequences of delayed screenings, diagnoses, and treatments as healthcare planning for the future must consider the unintended repercussions of pandemic-related disruptions.