Comparison of outcomes of abdominoperineal resection vs low anterior resection in very-low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of very-low rectal cancer is one of the most challenging issues faced by general and colorectal surgeons. Many feel compelled to pursue abdominoperineal resection (APR) over low anterior resection (LAR) to optimize oncologic outcomes. This study aimed to determine differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer. METHODS: The United States Rectal Cancer Consortium (2010-2016) was queried for adults who underwent either APR or LAR for stage I-III rectal cancers < 5 cm from anorectal junction and met inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, length of stay, complications, recurrence location, and perioperative factors. RESULTS: A total of 431 patients with very-low rectal cancer who underwent APR or LAR were identified; 154 (35.7%) underwent APR. The overall recurrence rate was 19.6%. The median follow-up was 42.5 months. An analysis adjusted for demographics and pathologic stage observed no difference in disease-free survival between operative types (APR-hazard ratio [HR] = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.53-1.52, P = .70). Secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant difference between operation types, including overall survival (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.71-2.32, P = .39), complications (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.94-2.50, P = .12), or length of stay (estimate: 0.04, SE = 0.25, P = .54). CONCLUSION: We observed no significant difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer. This analysis supports the treatment of very-low rectal cancer, without sphincter involvement, by either APR or LAR.

Change in Total Body Water as a Metric for Predicting Need for Outpatient Intravenous Fluids in Postoperative Bariatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: Dehydration drives a significant proportion of readmissions following bariatric surgery. Routinely performed body composition testing and total body water (TBW) calculations may present a novel method for diagnosing dehydration for outpatient intervention. We sought to determine if a change in TBW from preoperative baseline could help identify bariatric patients requiring outpatient intravenous fluid (IVF) administration for dehydration. METHODS: The VUMC Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database was retroactively queried for all patients undergoing bariatric surgery at an accredited bariatric surgery center from January 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018. Body composition test results presurgery and postsurgery were extracted from the electronic health record. Change in TBW was compared between patients requiring outpatient IVF and those who did not use multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 583 patients underwent surgery over the study period (388 laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 195 sleeve). 62 (10.6%) required outpatient fluid administration for dehydration. After multivariable analysis, patients with an increased hospital length of stay at index operation were more likely to require outpatient IVF (odds ratio [OR] 1.65, 95% CI 1.22-2.2). Preexisting diabetes diagnosis was protective (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16-0.74). Neither 1-week nor 1-month change in TBW from preoperative baseline was significantly different between patients receiving outpatient IVF and those who did not. CONCLUSION: Increased hospital length of stay predicts patients at risk of postoperative dehydration requiring IVF administration. Body composition testing and TBW were not useful in distinguishing between populations. Further research is needed to examine the efficacy of outpatient IVF in preventing hospital readmissions for dehydration.

Comparing pathologic outcomes for robotic versus laparoscopic Surgery in rectal cancer resection: a propensity adjusted analysis of 7616 patients.

BACKGROUND: Margin negative resection of rectal cancer with minimally invasive techniques remains technically challenging. Robotic surgery has potential advantages over traditional laparoscopy. We hypothesize that the difference in the rate of negative margin status will be < 6% between laparoscopic and robotic approach. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (2010-2014) was queried for adults with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and curative resection to conduct an observational retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database. Patients were grouped by either robotic (ROB) or laparoscopic (LAP) approach in an intent-to-treat analysis. Primary outcome was negative margin status, defined as a composite of circumferential resection margin and distal margin. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), readmission, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. RESULTS: 7616 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent minimally invasive resection were identified. 2472 (32%) underwent attempted robotic approach. The overall conversion rate was 13% and was increased in the laparoscopic group [LAP: 15% vs. ROB: 8%; OR 0.47; 95% CI (0.39, 0.57)]. Differences in margin negative resection rate were within the prespecified range of practical equivalence (LAP: 93% vs.: ROB 94%; 95% CI (0.69, 1.06); [Formula: see text] = 1). For secondary outcomes, there was no difference in 30-day readmission [LAP: 9% vs.: ROB 8%; 95% CI (0.84, 1.24)] and 90-day mortality [LAP: 1% vs.: ROB 1%; 95% CI (0.38, 1.24)]. While the median LOS was 5 days in both groups, the mean LOS was 0.6 (95% CI: 0.24, 0.89) days shorter in the robotic group. CONCLUSION: This robust analysis supports either robotic or laparoscopic approach for resection of locally advanced rectal cancer from a margin perspective. Both have similar readmission and 5-year overall survival rates. Patients undergoing robotic surgery have a 0.6-day decrease in LOS and decreased conversion rate.