Behm, Kevin T.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment for transverse colon cancer involves either extended colectomy or segmental resection, depending on the location of the tumor and surgeon perspective. However, the oncological safety of segmental resection has not yet been established in large cohort studies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare segmental resection versus extended colectomy for transverse colon cancer in terms of oncological outcomes. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted using a nationwide cohort. PATIENTS: A total of 66,062 patients who underwent colectomy with curative intent for transverse stage I to III adenocarcinoma were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004–2015). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were divided in 2 groups based on the type of surgery received (extended versus segmental resection). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were 30- and 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate within 30 days of surgical discharge. RESULTS: Extended colectomy was performed in 44,417 (67.2%) patients, whereas 21,645 (32.8%) patients underwent segmental resection. Extended colectomy was associated with lower survival at multivariate analysis (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04–1.10; p < 0.001). The subgroup analysis showed that extended resection was independently associated with poorer survival in mid transverse colon cancers (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04–1.12; p < 0.001) and in stage III tumors (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04–1.18; p < 0.001). The number of at least 12 harvested lymph nodes was an independent predictor of improved survival in both overall and subgroup analyses. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSION: Extended colectomy was not associated with a survival advantage compared with segmental resection. On the contrary, extended colectomy was associated with slightly poorer survival in mid transverse cancers and locally advanced tumors. Segmental resection was found to be safe when appropriate margins and adequate lymph node harvest were achieved. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B454. ABORDAJE QUIRÚRGICO DEL CÁNCER DE COLON TRANSVERSO: ANÁLISIS DE LA PRÁCTICA ACTUAL Y LOS RESULTADOS ONCOLÓGICOS UTILIZANDO LA BASE DE DATOS NACIONAL DE CÁNCER ANTECEDENTES: El tratamiento quirúrgico para el cáncer de colon transverso implica colectomía extendida o resección segmentaria, según la ubicación del tumor y la perspectiva del cirujano. Sin embargo, la seguridad oncológica de la resección segmentaria aún no se ha establecido en estudios de cohortes grandes. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la resección segmentaria versus la colectomía extendida para el cáncer de colon transverso en términos de resultados oncológicos. DISEÑO: Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ESCENARIO: Este estudio se realizó utilizando una cohorte a nivel nacional. PACIENTES: Un total de 66,062 pacientes que se sometieron a colectomía con intención curativa por adenocarcinoma de colon transverso en estadio I-III fueron identificados en la Base de Datos Nacional del Cáncer (2004-2015). PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Los pacientes se dividieron en dos grupos según el tipo de cirugía recibida (resección extendida versus resección segmentaria). El resultado primario fue la supervivencia global. Los resultados secundarios fueron la mortalidad a los 30 y 90 días, la duración de la estancia hospitalaria y la tasa de reingreso dentro de los 30 días posteriores al alta quirúrgica. RESULTADOS: Se realizó colectomía extendida en 44,417 (67.2%) casos, mientras que 21,645 (32.8%) pacientes fueron sometidos a resección segmentaria. La colectomía extendida se asoció con una menor supervivencia en el análisis multivariado (HR 1.07 IC 95% 1.04-1.10; p <0.001). El análisis de subgrupos mostró que la resección extendida se asoció de forma independiente con una menor supervivencia en los cánceres de colon transverso medio (HR 1.08 IC 95% 1.04-1.12; p <0.001) y en tumores en estadio III (HR 1.11 IC 95% 1.04-1.18; p <0.001). Un número de al menos 12 ganglios linfáticos cosechados fue un predictor independiente de una mejor supervivencia en los análisis general y de subgrupos. LIMITACIONES: Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo. CONCLUSIÓN: La colectomía extendida no se asoció con una ventaja de supervivencia en comparación con la resección segmentaria. Por el contrario, la colectomía extendida se asoció con una supervivencia levemente menor en cánceres de colon transverso medio y tumores localmente avanzados. Se encontró que la resección segmentaria es segura cuando se logran los márgenes apropiados y la cosecha adecuada de ganglios linfáticos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B454.

Abstract Aim Up to 10% of patients who undergo nonurological abdominopelvic operations suffer a ureteral injury. While preoperative ureteral stenting to facilitate identification of the ureter is common, it does not reduce the incidence of intraoperative ureteral injury and is not without risk. As we continue to broaden the application of minimally invasive surgical techniques, a new form of ureteral identification and avoidance that does not rely on tactile feedback is needed. We report our initial experience with intraureteral indocyanine green (ICG) for ureteral identification and avoidance during complex robotic‐assisted colorectal surgery. Method Patients undergoing adjunctive ureteral identification during robotic‐assisted colorectal surgery were prospectively identified. Each patient underwent intraureteral ICG administration using rigid cystoscopy (22 Fr). A 5‐Fr open‐ended ureteral catheter was inserted up to 20 cm and used to inject 5 ml of 2.5 mg/ml ICG as the catheter was withdrawn to the ureteral orifice. Intraureteral ICG was then detected using near‐infrared laser fluorescence technology (Firefly®). Results Successful ICG‐enhanced ureteral identification and avoidance was performed in 15 of 16 (94%) patients undergoing robotic‐assisted colorectal surgery. The median ICG instillation time was 11.5 min (range 4–21 min) and the median operative time with ICG visualization was 489 min (8 h 9 min) [range 268–738 min (4 h 28 min–12 h 18 min)]. No patient experienced intraoperative ureteral injury and there were no adverse sequelae or complications associated with intraureteral ICG administration. Conclusion Intraureteral ICG is a safe and effective method of intraoperative ureteral identification and avoidance during complex robotic‐assisted colorectal surgery. Precise and prolonged ureteral visualization was achieved, allowing for long operative times compatible with complex robotic‐assisted operations.

BACKGROUND: Discharge on postoperative day 3 after laparoscopic colorectal resections is now common, and same-day discharge has been proposed recently as an option. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of same-day and next-day discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery and to delineate which characteristics may make a patient eligible for this pathway. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Targeted Colectomy Participant User File was used. PATIENTS: Patients underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal resection and were discharged without complications on or before postoperative day 5 (early discharge: postoperative day 0 or 1, intermediate: postoperative day 2, standard: postoperative day 3 to 5). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Early readmission (on or before postoperative day 7), anastomotic leak, ileus, and overall readmission were measured. RESULTS: Of 36,526 patients total, 906 (2.5%) were discharged on postoperative day 0 or 1. Patients discharged on postoperative day 0/1 tended to have shorter-duration operations, a diagnostic indication more commonly of benign neoplasm, and underwent less low pelvic anastomoses. The readmission rate within 7 days was only 2%. Overall rates of anastomotic leak (0.6% early, 1.0% intermediate, 1.2% standard), ileus (1.9% early, 1.5% intermediate, 2.1% standard), and readmission (early 4.8%, intermediate 5.1%, standard 5.8%) were equivalent to decreased in patients discharged early versus those discharged in the intermediate or standard discharge groups. On multivariable analysis, dismissal day remained a noncontributory-to-protective factor against anastomotic leak, ileus, and readmission. LIMITATIONS: Specific follow-up pathways used were unknown, and selection bias exists in deciding what day patients can be discharged. CONCLUSIONS: Discharge on the same day or next day after surgery was not associated with increased risk compared with discharge on postoperative day 3 to 5, and it did not result in a high rate of early readmissions. Increased use of expedited discharge pathways would reduce hospital costs and resource use. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B331. ¿Es razonable el alta el mismo día o al día siguiente, después de la colectomía laparoscópica en pacientes seleccionados ANTECEDENTES: Es común el alta hospitalaria en el 3er día postoperatorio, después de resecciones colorrectales laparoscópicas. Recientemente se ha propuesto como una opción, el alta el mismo día. OBJETIVO: Determinar la seguridad de alta el mismo día o al día siguiente después de la cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica, y delinear qué características pueden hacer que un paciente sea elegible para esta vía. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. AJUSTES: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Targeted Colectomy Participant User File. PACIENTES: Se sometieron a resección colorrectal laparoscópica electiva, y se dieron de alta sin complicaciones durante el 5° día postoperatorio o antes (alta temprana: día 0 o 1 postoperatorio; intermedia: día 2 postoperatorio; estándar: día 3-5 postoperatorio). PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Reingreso temprano (en o antes del día 7 postoperatorio), fuga anastomótica, íleo y reingreso general. RESULTADOS: De 36,526 pacientes en total, 906 (2.5%) fueron dados de alta en el día 0 o 1 postoperatorio. Los pacientes dados de alta en el día 0/1 postoperatorio, tendieron a presentar operaciones de menor duración, indicación diagnóstica más frecuente de neoplasia benigna, y sometidos a menos anastomosis de pelvis baja. La tasa de readmisión dentro de los siete días, fue del 2%. Las tasas generales de fuga anastomótica (0.6% temprana, 1.0% intermedia, 1.2% estándar), íleo (1.9% temprana, 1.5% intermedia, 2.1% estándar) y reingreso (temprana 4.8%, intermedia 5.1%, estándar 5.8%) fueron equivalentes a la disminución en pacientes dados de alta temprana, versus aquellos dados de alta en los grupos intermedia o estándar. En el análisis multivariable, el día de alta no contribuyó al factor protector contra la fuga anastomótica, el íleo y el reingreso. LIMITACIONES: Se desconocen las vías de seguimiento específicas utilizadas y existe un sesgo de selección al decidir en qué día se puede dar de alta a los pacientes. CONCLUSIONES: El alta el mismo día o al día siguiente después de la cirugía, no se asoció con un mayor riesgo, en comparación con el alta en el postoperatorio en los días 3-5, y no dio lugar a una alta tasa de reingresos tempranos. Mayor utilización de las vías de alta acelerada, reducirían costos hospitalarios y utilización de recursos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B331. (Traducción—Dr Fidel Ruiz Healy)

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission rate is an important quality metric and has been recognized as a key measure of hospital value-based purchasing programs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the risk factors for hospital readmission with a focus on potentially preventable early readmissions within 48 hours of discharge. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary academic facility with a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing elective major colorectal resections between 2011 and 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariable and multivariable risk factors for overall and early (<48 hours) readmissions were identified. Specific surgical and medical reasons for readmission were compared between early and late readmissions. RESULTS: In total, 526 of 4204 patients (12.5%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Independent risk factors were ASA score (≥3; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1–2), excess perioperative weight gain (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3–2.3), ileostomy (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1–2), and transfusion (OR, 2; 95% CI, 1.4–3), or reoperation (OR, 11.4; 95% CI, 7.4–17.5) during the index stay. No potentially preventable risk factor for early readmission (128 patients, 24.3% of all readmissions, 3% of total cohort) was identified, and index hospital stay of ≤3 days was not associated with increased readmission (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7–1.2). Although ileus and small-bowel obstruction (early: 43.8% vs late: 15.5%, p < 0.001) were leading causes for early readmissions, deep infections (3.9% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) and acute kidney injury (0% vs 5%, p = 0.006) were mainly observed during readmissions after 48 hours. LIMITATIONS: Risk of underreporting due to loss of follow-up and the potential co-occurrence of complications were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Early hospital readmission was mainly due to ileus or bowel obstruction, whereas late readmissions were related to deep infections and acute kidney injury. A suspicious attitude toward potential ileus-related symptoms before discharge and dedicated education for ostomy patients are important. A short index hospital stay was not associated with increased readmission rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B237. REINGRESOS DENTRO DE LAS 48 HORAS POSTERIORES AL ALTA: RAZONES, FACTORES DE RIESGO Y POSIBLES MEJORAS ANTECEDENTES: La tasa de reingreso hospitalario es una métrica de calidad importante y ha sido reconocida como una medida clave de los programas hospitalarios de compras basadas en el valor. OBJETIVO: Evaluar los factores de riesgo para el reingreso hospitalario con énfasis en reingresos tempranos potencialmente prevenibles dentro de las 48 horas posteriores al alta. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ESCENARIO: Institución académica terciaria con programa de recuperación mejorada estandarizado. PACIENTES: Pacientes consecutivos sometidos a resecciones colorrectales mayores electivas entre 2011 y 2016. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Se identificaron factores de riesgo uni y multivariables para reingresos totales y tempranos (<48 horas). Se compararon razones médicas y quirúrgicas específicas para el reingreso entre reingresos tempranos y tardíos. RESULTADOS: En total, 526/4204 pacientes (12,5%) fueron readmitidos dentro de los 30 días posteriores al alta. Los factores de riesgo independientes fueron puntuación ASA (≥3, OR 1.5; IC 95% 1.1–2), aumento de peso perioperatorio excesivo (OR 1.7; IC 95% 1.3–2.3), ileostomía (OR 1.4, IC 95%: 1–2) y transfusión (OR 2, IC 95% 1.4–3) o reoperación (OR 11.4; IC 95% 7.4–17.5) durante la estadía índice. No se identificó ningún factor de riesgo potencialmente prevenible para el reingreso temprano (128 pacientes, 24.3% de todos los reingresos, 3% de la cohorte total), y la estadía hospitalaria índice de ≤ 3 días no se asoció con un aumento en el reingreso (OR 0.9; IC 95% 0.7–1.2) Mientras que el íleo / obstrucción del intestino delgado (temprano: 43.8% vs. tardío: 15.5%, p < 0.001) fueron las principales causas de reingresos tempranos, infecciones profundas (3.9% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) y lesión renal aguda (0 vs 5%, p = 0.006) se observaron principalmente durante los reingresos después de 48 horas. LIMITACIONES: Riesgo de subregistro debido a la pérdida en el seguimiento, posible co-ocurrencia de complicaciones. CONCLUSIONES: El reingreso hospitalario temprano se debió principalmente a íleo u obstrucción intestinal, mientras que los reingresos tardíos se relacionaron con infecciones profundas y lesión renal aguda. Es importante tener una actitud suspicaz hacia los posibles síntomas relacionados con el íleo antes del alta y una educación específica para los pacientes con ostomía. La estadía hospitalaria índice corta no se asoció con mayores tasas de reingreso. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B237.

BACKGROUND: Transanal excision is the surgical treatment of choice for low-risk rectal pathology such as endoscopically unresectable polyps, very select early rectal cancers, as well as other benign and low-risk tumors. Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery enhances the surgeon’s ability to work in the confined space of the rectum and helps overcome the limitations of other modalities for transanal excision. Large lesions that extend to the dentate line and cannot be excised transanally impart a particular challenge. Herein, we describe a hybrid robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery approach for excising large rectal lesions that extend to the dentate line and cannot be excised by utilizing traditional transanal techniques. TECHNIQUE: With the use of a standard transanal approach, the distal margin of the lesion is marked and lifted off of the internal sphincter muscle. The dissection is continued until above the anorectal ring, and a 5.5-cm transanal platform is introduced transanally. Insufflation with an 8-mm trocar is initiated and the robotic platform is docked transanally. A 1-cm circumferential proximal margin is marked, and the excision is continued robotically until en bloc resection of the lesion is completed. The defect is closed in a transverse fashion using barbed suture. For rare cases of circumferential or nearly circumferential full-thickness defects, interrupted barbed sutures are placed equidistant, the robot is undocked, the transanal platform is removed, and a handsewn coloanal anastomosis is performed allowing complete closure of the defect. RESULTS: A hybrid robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery approach to large and low-lying rectal lesions is feasible and safe, and it has advantages over standard transanal excision including enhanced ergonomics, dexterity, and optics, as well as reduced rates of specimen fragmentation. CONCLUSION: A hybrid robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery approach allows for complete resection of very large polyps, which would otherwise be extremely challenging with standard transanal approaches. See Video at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B231.

AbstractBackgroundOncological outcomes of locally advanced rectal cancer depend on the quality of surgical and oncological management. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) have yet to be assessed for their oncological impact when used in combination with minimally invasive surgery. This study assessed outcomes with or without an ERP in patients with rectal cancer.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of all consecutive adult patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for primary rectal adenocarcinoma with curative intent between February 2005 and April 2018. Both laparoscopic and robotic procedures were included. Short-term morbidity and overall survival were compared between patients treated according to the institutional ERP and those who received conventional care.ResultsA total of 600 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery, of whom 320 (53·3 per cent) were treated according to the ERP and 280 (46·7 per cent) received conventional care. ERP was associated with less overall morbidity (34·7 versus 54·3 per cent; P &lt; 0·001). Patients in the ERP group had improved overall survival on univariable (91·4 versus 81·7 per cent at 5 years; hazard ratio (HR) 0·53, 95 per cent c.i. 0·28 to 0·99) but not multivariable (HR 0·78, 0·41 to 1·50) analysis. Multivariable analysis revealed age (HR 1·46, 1·17 to 1·82), male sex (HR 1·98, 1·05 to 3·70) and complications (HR 2·23, 1·30 to 3·83) as independent risk factors for compromised overall survival. Disease-free survival was comparable for patients who had ERP or conventional treatment (80·5 versus 84·6 per cent at 5 years respectively; P = 0·272).ConclusionTreatment within an ERP was associated with a lower morbidity risk that may have had a subtle impact on overall but not disease-specific survival.

Objective: To determine the relative or combined effects of Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) and the operation performed on postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) to better guide recommendations on extended VTE prophylaxis. Summary Background Data: There is growing evidence to suggest patients with inflammatory bowel disease have an increased risk of postoperative VTE, but prior studies have not accounted for the operation performed nor acknowledged differences between CD and UC. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database from 2005 to 2016 was queried for patients with a diagnosis of CD, UC, malignancy, or benign disease (diverticular disease, Clostridium difficile) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Operations with a VTE rate >3% were designated high risk. Operation-specific univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: A total of 231,718 operations were analyzed with 4426 patients experiencing a VTE (1.9%). The overall rate of VTE ranged widely based on the operation performed from 0.7% for enterostomy closure to 5.3% for open subtotal colectomy. Seven operations met our threshold of 3% to be considered high risk. For each operation, postoperative VTE rates were similar regardless of diagnostic indication when performed in the elective setting. However, when performed emergently, the same operations had significantly higher VTE rates. Compared with the malignancy and benign disease groups, neither CD nor UC was associated with increased odds of VTE after any operation. Conclusions: Postoperative VTE risk varies widely by the operation performed, and a diagnostic indication of CD or UC does not play a role. Extended duration VTE prophylaxis should be considered in all patients undergoing high-risk operations, regardless of their underlying diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with IBD have a higher baseline risk of venous thromboembolism, which further increases with surgery. Therefore, extended venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis has been suggested in certain high-risk cohorts. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the underlying diagnosis, operative procedure, or both influence the incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review. SETTINGS: The American College of Surgeons–National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was analyzed. PATIENTS: The NSQIP database was queried for patients with chronic ulcerative colitis and non-IBD undergoing colorectal resections using surgical Current Procedural Terminology codes modeled after the 3 stages used for the surgical management of chronic ulcerative colitis from 2005 to 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured 30-day postoperative venous thromboembolism risk in patients with chronic ulcerative colitis based on operative stage and risk factors for development of venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: A total of 18,833 patients met inclusion criteria, with an overall rate of venous thromboembolism of 3.8. Among procedure risk groups, venous thromboembolism rates were high risk, 4.4%; intermediate risk, 1.6%; and low risk, 0.7% (across risk groups, p < 0.01). Emergent case subjects exhibited a higher rate of venous thromboembolism than their elective counterparts (6.9% vs 3.1%). Factors significantly associated with venous thromboembolism on adjusted analysis included emergent risk case (adjusted OR = 7.85), high-risk elective case (adjusted OR = 5.07), intermediate-risk elective case (adjusted OR = 2.69), steroid use (adjusted OR = 1.54), and preoperative albumin <3.5 g/dL (adjusted OR = 1.45). LIMITATIONS: Because of its retrospective nature, correlation between procedures and venous thromboembolism risk can be demonstrated, but causation cannot be proven. In addition, data on inpatient and extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis use are not available. CONCLUSIONS: Emergent status and operative procedure are the 2 highest risk factors for postoperative venous thromboembolism. Extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis might be appropriate for patients undergoing these high-risk procedures or any emergent colorectal procedures. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A339.