DeLeon, Michelle F

Abstract Introduction Ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a common surgical procedure for patients with ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis. This study compared the outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open IPAA techniques, with a focus on surgical complications and pouch failure rates. Methods A retrospective study was conducted of patients who underwent IPAA at three Mayo Clinic locations between 2015 and 2020. Data on patient demographics, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared across the three surgical approaches. Pouch failure was defined as the need for pouch excision or a diverting loop ileostomy. Results In all, 401 patients underwent IPAA with either an open (149, 37.2%), robotic (145, 36.2%), or laparoscopic (107, 26.7%) technique. The overall rate of pouch failure was 6.5% and did not differ significantly between the three surgical approaches. Compared with laparoscopy, robotic IPAA was associated with a lower conversion rate to open surgery (1.4 versus 17.8%; P < 0.0001) and fewer 30-day readmissions (15.9% versus 28.0%; P = 0.02). However, robotic and laparoscopic IPAA approaches had higher rates of venous thromboembolism/pulmonary embolism and readmission than the open approach. Pouchitis was the most common cause of pouch failure across all surgical techniques. Conclusion Robotic IPAA had lower conversion and reduced 30-day admission rates compared with a laparoscopic approach. However, open surgery had lower rates of 30-day readmission and rates thromboembolism than robotic IPAA. The surgical approach itself does not appear to significantly impact long-term pouch failure rates.

AbstractAimThe relationship between the number of stapler firings (SFs) during robotic rectal transection and the risk of colorectal/coloanal anastomotic leakage (AL) is controversial. This study investigates whether the number of robotic SFs is associated with an increased risk of AL.MethodRetrospective review of adult patients who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) and partial mesorectal excision (PME) with double‐stapled colorectal or coloanal anastomosis for both benign and malignant colorectal diseases between 2015 and 2023 across three enterprise‐wide hospitals. Primary outcome: the effect of multiple SFs on postoperative AL rate among patients who underwent one, two, or three or more SFs. Secondary outcome: the effects of other potential risk factors on postoperative AL.ResultsOf 503 patients who underwent robotic colorectal resection with a double‐stapled anastomosis, 56 (11%) developed a postoperative AL. The number of SFs was not associated with the AL rate (p = 0.51): the univariable and multivariate analyses found no correlation between the AL rate and the increasing number of SFs required, compared with one SF as the reference (adjusted two SFs, OR = 1.1, 95% CI: 0.6–2.2, p = 0.77 vs. adjusted three or more SFs, OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.4–2.3, p = 0.96). On multivariate analysis, AL was strongly associated with male gender (OR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.3–4.9, p = 0.005) and with TME versus PME (OR = 2.8, 95% CI: 1.5–5.5, p = 0.002).ConclusionThe number of robotic SFs for rectal transection is not correlated with postoperative AL.

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: Venous thromboembolism occurs in approximately 2% of patients undergoing abdominal and pelvic surgery for cancers of the colon, rectum, and anus and is considered preventable. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons recommends extended prophylaxis in high-risk patients, but there is low adherence to the guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the impact of venous thromboembolism risk-guided prophylaxis in patients undergoing elective abdominal and pelvic surgeries for colorectal and anal cancers from 2016 to 2021. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis. SETTING: The study was conducted at a multisite tertiary referral academic health care system. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent elective abdominal or pelvic surgery for colon, rectal, or anal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receipt of Caprini-guided venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, 90-day postoperative rate of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism, and bleeding events. RESULTS: A total of 3504 patients underwent elective operations, of whom 2224 (63%) received appropriate thromboprophylaxis in the inpatient setting. In the postdischarged cohort of 2769 patients, only 2% received appropriate thromboprophylaxis and no thromboembolic events were observed. In the group receiving inappropriate thromboprophylaxis, at 90 days postdischarge, the deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and venous thromboembolism rates were 0.60%, 0.40%, and 0.88%, respectively. Postoperative bleeding was not different between the 2 groups. LIMITATIONS: Limitations to our study include its retrospective nature, use of aggregated electronic medical records, and single health care system experience. CONCLUSION: Most patients in our health care system undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancers of the colon, rectum, and anus were discharged without appropriate Caprini-guided venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Risk-guided prophylaxis was associated with decreased rates of inhospital and postdischarge venous thromboembolism without increased bleeding complications. See Video Abstract. MARGEN DE MEJORA: EL IMPACTO DE LA TROMBOPROFILAXIS RECOMENDADA POR LAS DIRECTRICES EN PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A CIRUGÍA ABDOMINAL POR CÁNCER COLORRECTAL Y ANAL EN UN CENTRO DE REFERENCIA TERCIARIO ANTECEDENTES: El tromboembolismo venoso ocurre en aproximadamente el 2% de los pacientes sometidos a cirugía abdominal y pélvica por cánceres de colon, recto y ano, y se considera prevenible. La Sociedad Estadounidense de Cirujanos de Colon y Recto recomienda una profilaxis prolongada en pacientes de alto riesgo, pero el cumplimiento de las directrices es bajo. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar el impacto de la profilaxis guiada por el riesgo de tromboembolismo venoso (TEV) en pacientes sometidos a cirugías abdominales y pélvicas electivas por cáncer colorrectal y anal entre 2016 y 2021. DISEÑO: Este fue un análisis retrospectivo. AJUSTE: El estudio se llevó a cabo en un sistema de salud académico de referencia terciaria de múltiples sitios. PACIENTES: Pacientes sometidos a cirugía abdominal o pélvica electiva por cáncer de colon, recto o ano. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Recepción de profilaxis de tromboembolismo venoso guiada por Caprini, tasa postoperatoria de 90 días de trombosis venosa profunda, embolia pulmonar, tromboembolismo venoso y eventos de sangrado. RESULTADOS: Un total de 3.504 pacientes se sometieron a operaciones electivas, de los cuales 2.224 (63%) recibieron tromboprofilaxis adecuada en el ámbito hospitalario. En el cohorte de 2.769 pacientes después del alta, solo el 2% recibió tromboprofilaxis adecuada en la que no se observaron eventos tromboembólicos. En el grupo que recibió tromboprofilaxis inadecuada, a los 90 días después del alta, las tasas de trombosis venosa profunda, embolia pulmonar y tromboembolia venosa fueron del 0,60%, 0,40% y 0,88%, respectivamente. El sangrado posoperatorio no fue diferente entre los dos grupos. LIMITACIONES: Las limitaciones de nuestro estudio incluyen su naturaleza retrospectiva, el uso de registros médicos electrónicos agregados y la experiencia de un solo sistema de atención médica. CONCLUSIÓN: La mayoría de los pacientes en nuestro sistema de salud sometidos a cirugía abdominal o pélvica por cánceres de colon, recto y ano fueron dados de alta sin una profilaxis adecuada de TEV guiada por Caprini. La profilaxis guiada por el riesgo se asoció con menores tasas de tromboembolismo venoso hospitalario y dado de alta sin un aumento de las complicaciones de sangrado. (Traducción—Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez)

AbstractUlcerative colitis (UC) requires surgical management in 20 to 30% of patients. Indications for surgery include medically refractory disease, dysplasia, cancer, and other complications of UC. Appropriate patient selection for timing and staging of surgery is paramount for optimal outcomes. Restorative proctocolectomy is the preferred standard of care and can afford many patients with excellent quality of life. There have been significant shifts in the treatment of UC-associated dysplasia, with less patients requiring surgery and more entering surveillance programs. There is ongoing controversy surrounding the management of UC-associated colorectal cancer and the techniques that should be used. This article reviews the most recent literature on the indications for elective and emergent surgical intervention for UC and the considerations behind the surgical options.