Mathis, Kellie L.

AbstractBackground and ObjectiveWhether bowel preparation utilization rates or effectiveness varies based on tumor location is unknown.MethodsThe 2012–2016 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Colectomy Targeted participant user file was queried for patients undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer. Bowel preparation was classified as combined, mechanical bowel preparation alone, oral antibiotic alone, or none. Cochran–Armitage tests were used for trend analysis. Multivariable analyses stratified by tumor location were performed for the outcome of anastomotic leak. An additional multivariable model including all tumor locations assessed for interaction between bowel preparation and tumor location on an anastomotic leak.ResultsA total of 29,739 operations were included and the anastomotic leak rate was 1.9% with combined preparation versus 4.0% without preparation. Combined bowel preparation utilization increased over time as tumor location became more distal (both p < .0001). However, the adjusted effect of combined bowel preparation on anastomotic leak risk reduction did not differ by individual tumor location or across all tumor locations (p = .43 for interaction).ConclusionThough the utilization rate of combined bowel preparation increased as tumor location became more distal, its risk‐reducing effect remained similar. Quality improvement initiatives should focus on increased utilization of combined bowel preparation with an emphasis on tumors in the ascending colon.

Background: Sacral tumor resections require a multidisciplinary approach to achieve a cure and a functional outcome. Currently, there is no accepted classification system that provides a means to communicate among the multidisciplinary teams in terms of approach, osseous resection, reconstruction, and acceptable functional outcome. The purpose of this study was to report the outcome of sacral tumor resection based on our classification system. Methods: In this study, 196 patients (71 female and 125 male) undergoing an oncologic en bloc sacrectomy were reviewed. The mean age (and standard deviation) was 49 ± 16 years, and the mean body mass index was 27.2 ± 6.4 kg/m 2 . The resections included 130 sarcomas (66%). The mean follow-up was 7 ± 5 years. Results: Resections included total sacrectomy (Type 1A: 20 patients [10%]) requiring reconstruction, subtotal sacrectomy (Type 1B: 5 patients [3%]) requiring reconstruction, subtotal sacrectomy (Type 1C: 104 patients [53%]) not requiring reconstruction, hemisacrectomy (Type 2: 29 patients [15%]), external hemipelvectomy and hemisacrectomy (Type 3: 32 patients [16%]), total sacrectomy and external hemipelvectomy (Type 4: 5 patients [3%]), and hemicorporectomy (Type 5: 1 patient [1%]). The disease-specific survival was 66% at 5 years and 52% at 10 years. Based on the classification, the 5-year disease-specific survival was 34% for Type 1A, 100% for Type 1B, 71% for Type 1C, 65% for Type 2, 57% for Type 3, 100% for Type 4, and 100% for Type 5 (p < 0.001). Tumor recurrence occurred in 67 patients, including isolated local recurrence (14 patients), isolated metastatic disease (31 patients), and combined local and metastatic disease (22 patients). At 5 years, the local recurrence-free survival was 77% and the metastasis-free survival was 68%. Complications occurred in 153 patients (78%), most commonly wound complications (95 patients [48%]). Following the procedure, 154 patients (79%) were ambulatory, and the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS93) score was 60% ± 23%. Conclusions: Although resections of sacral malignancies are associated with complications, they can be curative in a majority of patients, with a majority of patients ambulatory with an acceptable functional outcome considering the extent of the resection. At our institution, this classification allows for communication between surgical teams and implies a surgical approach, staging, reconstruction, and potential functional outcomes. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND: Patients with IBD are at increased risk for developing colorectal cancer. However, overall survival and disease-free survival for rectal cancer alone in patients with IBD has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine overall survival and disease-free survival for patients with rectal cancer in IBD versus non-IBD cohorts. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at an IBD referral center. PATIENTS: All consecutive adult patients with IBD diagnosed with rectal cancer and at least 1 year of postsurgery follow-up were included and matched in a 1:2 fashion (age, sex, preoperative stage) with patients with rectal cancer who did not have IBD. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival, 30-day postoperative complication, readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates were measured. METHODS: Survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. The association of risk factors and long-term outcomes was assessed using Cox proportion hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 107 study patients with IBD who had rectal cancer were matched to 215 control patients; preoperative stages were as follows: 31% with stage I, 19% with stage II, 40% with stage III, and 10% with stage IV. Differences were observed (IBD vs non-IBD) in neoadjuvant chemotherapy (33.6% vs 52.6%, p = 0.001) and preoperative radiotherapy (35.5% vs 53.5%, p = 0.003). Postoperative complication rates were similar. On surgical pathology, patients with IBD had more lymphovascular invasion (12.9% vs 5.6%, p = 0.04) and positive circumferential resection margins (5.4% vs 0.9%, p = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, the diagnosis of IBD did not significantly impact long-term mortality (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.53–1.57; p = 0.73) or disease-free survival (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.84–2.21; p = 0.22). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design and the use of single-center data. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have rectal cancer with IBD and without IBD have similar long-term and disease-free survival, despite lower rates of neoadjuvant treatment and higher margin positivity in patients with IBD. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B271. ¿LA ENFERMEDAD INFLAMATORIA INTESTINAL ACARREA PEORES RESULTADOS EN PACIENTES CON CÁNCER RECTAL? UN ANÁLISIS DE CASOS-COINCIDENTES ANTECEDENTES: Los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal. Sin embargo, no se ha informado la supervivencia general y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad para el cáncer rectal solo en pacientes con EII. OBJETIVO: Determinar la supervivencia general y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad para pacientes con cáncer rectal en cohortes con EII versus sin EII. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. MARCO: Centro de referencia para enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal. PACIENTES: todos los pacientes adultos con EII diagnosticados con cáncer rectal, consecutives, y al menos un año de seguimiento postoperatorio se incluyeron y se emparejaron de manera 1: 2 (edad, sexo, etapa preoperatoria) con pacientes con cáncer rectal sin EII. MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES: Se midieron la supervivencia general a cinco años y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad, complicaciones postoperatorias a los 30 días, reingreso, reoperación y tasas de mortalidad. MÉTODOS: Las tasas de supervivencia se calcularon utilizando estimaciones de Kaplan-Meier. La asociación de factores de riesgo y resultados a largo plazo se evaluó mediante modelos de riesgo de proporción de Cox. RESULTADOS: Un total de 107 pacientes con EII y cáncer rectal se compararon con 215 pacientes de control; las etapas preoperatorias fueron las siguientes: 31% de Etapa I, 19% de Etapa II, 40% de Etapa III y 10% de Etapa IV. Se observaron diferencias (EII versus no EII) en quimioterapia neoadyuvante (33.6% frente a 52.6%, p = 0.001) y radioterapia preoperatoria (35.5% frente a 53.5%, p = 0.003). Las tasas de complicaciones postoperatorias fueron similares. En la patología quirúrgica, los pacientes con EII tuvieron más invasión linfovascular (12.9% frente a 5.6%, p = 0.04) y márgenes de resección circunferencial positivos (5.4% frente a 0.9%, p = 0.03). En el análisis multivariable, el diagnóstico de EII no tuvo un impacto significativo en la mortalidad a largo plazo (HR 0.91; IC del 95%: 0.53-1.57, p = 0.73) o la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (HR 1.36; IC del 95%: 0.84-2.21, p = 0.22) LIMITACIONES: Diseño retrospectivo, centro único de datos. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes con EII y sin EII con cáncer rectal tienen una supervivencia similar a largo plazo y libre de enfermedad, a pesar de las tasas más bajas de tratamiento sneoadyuvante y un mayor margen positivo en pacientes con EII. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B271.

AbstractUtility of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II cancer remains a matter of debate. Clinical guidelines suggest adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II tumors with high‐risk features, in particular T4 tumors. However, limited consensus exists regarding the importance of other high‐risk features (lymphovascular or perineural invasion, microsatellite instability). Our study aimed to investigate the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIA (T3N0) colon cancer patients. Patients who underwent colectomy for stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma (2010‐2015) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and divided in two groups based on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)‐adjusted Kaplan‐Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival between the two groups. Subgroup analysis of patients with specific high‐risk features LVI, PNI and MSI was performed. Among 46 688 surgical patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma 5937 (12.7%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, while 40 751 (87.3%) were observed. Five‐year IPTW‐adjusted survival was higher in the adjuvant chemotherapy group (79.7% [95% CI 79.1, 80.2]) compared to the observation group (70.3% [95% CI 69.7, 70.9]). Patients with high‐risk pathological features showed an estimated 5‐year survival benefit of 11.3% (78.2% [95% CI 77.4, 79.1] vs 66.9% [95% CI 65.9, 67.8]) when treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. This NCDB analysis revealed a survival benefit for patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma and high‐risk features that were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

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.

Objective: To compare short term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic rectal cancer surgery. Background: Significant benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over laparoscopy have yet to be demonstrated. Operative time and direct institutional cost seem in favor of the laparoscopic approach. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients operated on for rectal cancer with a mini-invasive approach at Mayo Clinic from 2005 to 2018. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the difference in postoperative morbidity between the laparoscopic and robotic approach. Multivariable models for odds to complications and prolonged (≥6 days) length of stay were built. Results: A total of 600 patients were included in the analysis. The number of patients undergoing robotic surgery was 317 (52.8%). The 2 groups were similar in respect to age, sex, and body mass index. Laparoscopic surgery was correlated to shorter operative time (214 vs 324 minutes; P < 0.001). Patients undergoing robotic surgery had a lower overall complications rate (37.2% vs 51.2%; P < 0.001). Robotic surgery was found to be the most protective factor [odds ratio (OR) 0.485; P = 0.006] for odds to complications. The event of a complication (OR 9.33; P < 0.001) and conversion to open surgery (OR 3.095; P = 0.002) were identified as risk factors for prolonged length of stay whereas robotic surgery (OR 0.62; P = 0.027) was the only independent protective factor. Conclusions: Robotic rectal cancer surgery is strongly associated with better short-term outcomes over laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after total abdominal colectomy with ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis for Crohn’s colitis and risk factors for requirement of a permanent ileostomy remain poorly understood, particularly in the biologic era. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine long-term ostomy-free survival after ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis for Crohn’s colitis and potential risk factors for requirement of an ileostomy. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a single-institution IBD tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and undergoing ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis between 2006 and 2018 were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Long-term ostomy-free survival and hazard ratios of potential predictors of ileostomy requirement were the primary outcomes measured. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients (56% female) underwent ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis for Crohn’s disease. The majority of surgical procedures were completed in 2 or 3 stages (53%). The indication for total abdominal colectomy was predominantly medically refractory disease (77%), with dysplasia the second leading indication (13%). At an overall mean follow-up of 3 years, 16 patients had undergone either proctectomy or diversion with the rectum in situ. This resulted in ostomy-free survival estimates at 5 and 10 years of 78% (95% CI, 68-90) and 58% (95% CI, 35–94). A positive distal microscopic margin was the only risk factor for later requirement of a permanent ileostomy (HR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.7–17.2). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited because it is a retrospective study at a tertiary referral center. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term ostomy-free survival can be achieved in the majority of patients who undergo restoration of intestinal continuity after total abdominal colectomy for Crohn’s colitis. A positive distal microscopic margin was independently associated with long-term anastomotic failure, and it should be accounted for when risk stratifying patients for postoperative prophylactic medical therapy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B111. ¿QUÉ FACTORES ESTÁN ASOCIADOS CON LA EVENTUAL NECESIDAD DE UNA ILEOSTOMÍA DESPUÉS DE UNA COLECTOMÍA ABDOMINAL TOTAL Y UNA ANASTOMOSIS ILEOSIGMOIDEA O ILEORRECTAL PARA LA COLITIS DE CROHN EN LA ERA BIOLÓGICA? ANTECEDENTES: Los resultados después de la colectomía abdominal total con anastomosis ileosigmoidea o ileorrectal para la colitis de Crohn y los factores de riesgo para el requerimiento de una ileostomía permanente siguen siendo poco conocidos, particularmente en la era biológica. OBJETIVO: Determinar la supervivencia a largo plazo sin ostomía después de una anastomosis ileosigmoidea o ileorrectal para la colitis de Crohn y los factores de riesgo potenciales para la necesidad de una ileostomía. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. AJUSTE: Centro de referencia de tercel nivel para enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal de una sola institución. PACIENTES: Pacientes diagnosticados con enfermedad de Crohn y sometidos a anastomosis ileosigmoidea o ileorrectal entre 2006 y 2018 MEDIDA DE RESULTADO PRINCIPAL: Supervivencia a largo plazo sin ostomías y cocientes de riesgo de predictores potenciales de requerimiento de ileostomía RESULTADOS: 109 pacientes (56% mujeres) se sometieron a anastomosis ileosigmoidea o ileorrectal por enfermedad de Crohn. La mayoría de los procedimientos quirúrgicos se completaron en 2 o 3 etapas (53%). La indicación de colectomía abdominal total fue predominantemente enfermedad médicamente refractaria (77%), con displasia la segunda indicación principal (13%). En un seguimiento medio general de 3 años, 16 pacientes se habían sometido a una proctectomía o a una derivación con el recto in situ. Esto dio como resultado estimaciones de supervivencia sin ostomía a los 5 y 10 años de 78% (intervalo de confianza del 95%: 68–90) y 58% (intervalo de confianza del 95%: 35–94), respectivamente. Un margen microscópico distal positivo fue el único factor de riesgo para el requerimiento posterior de una ileostomía permanente (razón de riesgo: 5.4; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 1.7–17.2). LIMITACIONES: Estudio retrospectivo en un centro de referencia de tercer nivel. CONCLUSIONES: La supervivencia a largo plazo sin ostomía se puede lograr en la mayoría de los pacientes que se someten a la restauración de la continuidad intestinal después de la colectomía abdominal total por colitis de Crohn. Un margen microscópico distal positivo se asoció de forma independiente con la insuficiencia anastomótica a largo plazo, y debe tenerse en cuenta cuando se trata de pacientes con estratificación de riesgo para el tratamiento médico profiláctico postoperatorio. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B111.

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to review risk factors for conversion in a cohort of patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive abdominal surgery. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive patients operated on from February 2005 to April 2018. Adult patients undergoing low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal adenocarcinoma by a minimally invasive approach were included. Exclusion criteria were lack of research authorization, stage IV or recurrent rectal cancer, and emergency surgery. Risk factors for conversion were investigated using logistic regression. A subgroup analysis of obese patients (BMI 30 kg/m2 or more) was performed. Results A total of 600 patients were included in the analysis. The overall conversion rate was 9·2 per cent. Multivariable analysis showed a 72 per cent lower risk of conversion when patients had robotic surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0·28, 95 per cent c.i. 0·15 to 0·52). Obese patients experienced a threefold higher risk of conversion compared with non-obese patients (47 versus 24·4 per cent respectively; P &lt; 0·001). Robotic surgery was associated with a reduced risk of conversion in obese patients (OR 0·22, 0·07 to 0·71). Conclusion Robotic surgery was associated with a lower risk of conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery, in both obese and non-obese patients.

Abstract Background This study aimed to identify patients eligible for a 48-h stay after colorectal resection, to provide guidance for early discharge planning. Methods A bi-institutional retrospective cohort study was undertaken of consecutive patients undergoing major elective colorectal resection for benign or malignant pathology within a comprehensive enhanced recovery pathway between 2011 and 2017. Overall and severe (Clavien–Dindo grade IIIb or above) postoperative complication and readmission rates were compared between patients who were discharged within 48 h and those who had hospital stay of 48 h or more. Multinominal logistic regression analysis was performed to ascertain significant factors associated with a short hospital stay (less than 48 h). Results In total, 686 of 5122 patients (13·4 per cent) were discharged within 48 h. Independent factors favouring a short hospital stay were age below 60 years (odds ratio (OR) 1·34; P = 0·002), ASA grade less than III (OR 1·42; P = 0·003), restrictive fluid management (less than 3000 ml on day of surgery: OR 1·46; P &lt; 0·001), duration of surgery less than 180 min (OR 1·89; P &lt; 0·001), minimally invasive approach (OR 1·92; P &lt; 0·001) and wound contamination grade below III (OR 4·50; P &lt; 0·001), whereas cancer diagnosis (OR 0·55; P &lt; 0·001) and malnutrition (BMI below 18 kg/m2: OR 0·42; P = 0·008) decreased the likelihood of early discharge. Patients with a 48-h stay had fewer overall (10·8 per cent versus 30·6 per cent in those with a longer stay; P &lt; 0·001) and fewer severe (2·6 versus 10·2 per cent respectively; P &lt; 0·001) complications, and a lower readmission rate (9·0 versus 11·8 per cent; P = 0·035). Conclusion Early discharge of selected patients is safe and does not increase postoperative morbidity or readmission rates. In these patients, outpatient colorectal surgery should be feasible on a large scale with logistical optimization.