Functional Outcomes After Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) for Rectal Cancer: Results from the Phase II North American Multicenter Prospective Observational Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate fecal incontinence and defecatory, urinary, and sexual functional outcomes after taTME. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Proctectomy for rectal cancer may result in alterations in defecatory, urinary, and sexual function that persist beyond 12 months. The recent multicenter Phase II taTME trial demonstrated the safety of taTME in patients with stage I-III tumors. METHODS: Prospectively registered self-reported questionnaires were collected from 100 taTME patients. Fecal continence (FIQL, Wexner), defecatory function (COREFO), urinary function (IPSS), and sexual function (FSFI-female, IIEF-male) were assessed preoperatively (PQ), 3-4 months post-ileostomy closure (FQ1), and 12-18 months post-taTME (FQ2). RESULTS: Among 83 patients who responded at all three time points, FIQL, Wexner, and COREFO significantly worsened post-ileostomy closure. Between FQ1 and FQ2, FIQL lifestyle and coping, Wexner, and COREFO incontinence, social impact, frequency, and need for medication significantly improved, while FIQL depression and embarrassment did not change. IPSS did not change relative to preoperative scores. For females, FSFI declined for desire, orgasm, and satisfaction between PQ and FQ1, and did not improve between FQ1 and FQ2. In males, IIEF declined with no change between FQ1 and FQ2. CONCLUSIONS: Although taTME resulted in initial decline in defecatory function and fecal continence, most functional domains improved by 12 months after ileostomy closure, without returning to preoperative status. Urinary function was preserved while sexual function declined without improvement by 18 months post-taTME. Our results address patient expectations and inform shared decision-making regarding taTME.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological outcomes with transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

AIM: Transanal total mesorectal (taTME) excision is a method used to assist in the radical removal of the rectum. By adopting the concept of natural orifice surgery, it offers potential benefits over conventional techniques. Early enthusiasm for this strategy led to its rapid and widespread adoption. The imposing of a local moratorium was precipitated by the discovery in Norway of an uncommon multifocal pattern of locoregional recurrence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the incidence of local recurrence after taTME for rectal cancer. METHOD: Conforming to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines checklist, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. This included case series and comparative studies between taTME and preferentially laparoscopic procedures published between 2010 and 2021. RESULTS: There were a total of 1175 studies retrieved. After removal and screening for quality and relevance, the final analysis contained 40 studies. The local recurrence rate following taTME was 3.4% (95% CI 2.9%-3.9%, I2 = 0%) in 4987 patients with follow-up durations ranging from 0.7 to 5.5 years. Compared with laparoscopic TME, local recurrence was not statistically different for the taTME group (p = 0.076); however, it was less probable (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.24-1.09, I2 = 0%). Systemic recurrence and circumferential resection margin status were secondary outcomes; however, the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the local recurrence for regular laparoscopic and transanal TME surgeries may be comparable, suggesting that taTME can be performed without influencing locoregional oncological outcomes in patients treated at specialized institutions and who have been cautiously selected.

Iron Surveillance and Management in Gastro-Intestinal Oncology Patients: A National Physician Survey.

PURPOSE: Iron deficiency (ID) is a complication of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers that may manifest as iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Serum ferritin monitoring and oral iron supplementation have the limitations of being falsely elevated and poorly absorbed, respectively. This study aims to assess the discordance in surveillance, treatment practices, and awareness of ID/IDA in GI cancer patients by Canadian physicians treating these patients. METHODS: From February 2020 to September 2021, a 22-question electronic survey was sent to medical oncologists (MOs), surgical oncologists (SOs), and gastroenterologists (GEs). The survey collected information about four domains: physician demographics, surveillance practices, treatment practices, and awareness of ID/IDA in GI cancer patients and ASCO/ASH guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 108 (34 MOs, 19 SOs, and 55 GEs) of the 872 (12.4%) invited physicians completed the survey. Of these, 26.5% of MOs, 36.8% of SOs, and 70.9% of GEs measured baseline iron parameters, with few continuing surveillance throughout treatment. Ferritin was widely measured by MOs (88.9%), SOs (100%), and GEs (91.4%). Iron was supplemented if ID/IDA was identified pre-treatment by 66.7% of MOs, 85.7% of SOs, and 94.2% of GEs. Parenteral iron was prescribed by SOs (100%), while oral iron was prescribed by MOs (83.3%) and GEs (87.9%). Only 18.6% of physicians were aware of the ASCO/ASH guidelines regarding erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with parenteral iron for treating chemotherapy-induced anemia. CONCLUSION: Results illustrate variations in practice patterns for IDA management across the different physician specialties. Moreover, there appeared to be gaps in the knowledge and care surrounding evidence-based IDA management principles which may contribute to poor clinical outcomes.

The SAGES MASTERS program presents: the top 10 seminal articles for laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy pathway for uncomplicated disease.

BACKGROUND: As one of the 8 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Masters Program clinical pathways, the Colorectal Pathway aims to deliver educational content for the general surgeon organized along 3 levels of performance (competency, proficiency and mastery) each represented by an anchoring procedure. In this article, the SAGES Colorectal Task Force presents focused summaries of the top 10 seminal articles selected for laparoscopic left/sigmoid colectomy for uncomplicated disease. METHODS: Using a systematic literature search of Web of Science, the most cited articles on laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy were identified, reviewed, and ranked by members of the SAGES Colorectal Task Force. Additional articles not identified in the literature search were included if deemed impactful by expert consensus. The top 10 ranked articles were then summarized, including their findings, strengths and limitations with emphasis on relevance and impact in the field. RESULTS: The top 10 articles selected focus on variations in minimally invasive surgical techniques, video demonstrations, stratified approaches for benign and malignant disease as well as assessments of the learning curve. CONCLUSIONS: The selected top 10 seminal articles for laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy in uncomplicated disease are considered by the SAGES colorectal task force to be fundamental to the knowledge base of minimally invasive surgeons as they progress to mastery in these procedures.

External validation of the Codman score in colorectal surgery: a pragmatic tool to drive quality improvement.

AIM: The simple six-variable Codman score is a tool designed to reduce the complexity of contemporary risk-adjusted postoperative mortality rate predictions. We sought to externally validate the Codman score in colorectal surgery. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) participant user file and colectomy targeted dataset of 2020 were merged. A Codman score (composed of six variables: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, emergency status, degree of sepsis, functional status and preoperative blood transfusion) was assigned to every patient. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcome was morbidity at 30 days. Logistic regression analyses were performed using the Codman score and the ACS NSQIP mortality and morbidity algorithms as independent variables for the primary and secondary outcomes. The predictive performance of discrimination area under receiver operating curve (AUC) and calibration of the Codman score and these algorithms were compared. RESULTS: A total of 40 589 patients were included and a Codman score was generated for 40 557 (99.02%) patients. The median Codman score was 3 (interquartile range 1-4). To predict mortality, the Codman score had an AUC of 0.92 (95% CI 0.91-0.93) compared to the NSQIP mortality score 0.93 (95% CI 0.92-0.94). To predict morbidity, the Codman score had an AUC of 0.68 (95% CI 0.66-0.68) compared to the NSQIP morbidity score 0.72 (95% CI 0.71-0.73). When body mass index and surgical approach was added to the Codman score, the performance was no different to the NSQIP morbidity score. The calibration of observed versus expected predictions was almost perfect for both the morbidity and mortality NSQIP predictions, and only well fitted for Codman scores of less than 4 and greater than 7. CONCLUSION: We propose that the six-variable Codman score is an efficient and actionable method for generating validated risk-adjusted outcome predictions and comparative benchmarks to drive quality improvement in colorectal surgery.

Evaluation of Financial Relationships Between US Colorectal Surgery Fellowship Program Directors and Industry.

This cross-sectional study evaluates the financial relationships between colorectal surgery fellowship program directors and industry.

Bowel stimulation before loop ileostomy closure to reduce postoperative ileus: a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of preoperative bowel stimulation on the development of postoperative ileus (POI) after loop ileostomy closure. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (NCT025596350) including adult (≥ 18 years old) patients who underwent elective loop ileostomy closure at 7 participating hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralized computer-generated sequence with block randomization to either preoperative bowel stimulation or no stimulation (control group). Bowel stimulation consisted of 10 outpatient sessions within the 3 weeks prior to ileostomy closure and was performed by trained Enterostomal Therapy nurses. The primary outcome was POI, defined as an intolerance to oral food in the absence of clinical or radiological signs of obstruction, on or after postoperative day 3, that either (a) required nasogastric tube insertion; or (b) was associated with two of the following: nausea/vomiting, abdominal distension, or the absence of flatus. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and November 2020, 101 patients were randomized, and 5 patients never underwent ileostomy closure; thus, 96 patients (47 stimulated vs. 49 control) were analyzed according to a modified intention-to-treat protocol. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. The incidence of POI was lower among patients randomized to stimulation (6.4% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.034; unadjusted RR: 0.26, 95% CI 0.078-0.87). Stimulated patients also had earlier median time to first flatus (2.0 days (1.0-2.0) vs. 2.0 days (2.0-3.0), p = 0.025), were more likely to pass flatus on postoperative day 1 (46.8% vs. 22.4%, p = 0.022), and had a shorter median postoperative hospital stay (3.0 days (2.0-3.5) vs. 4.0 days (2.0-6.0), p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative bowel stimulation via the efferent limb of the ileostomy reduced POI after elective loop ileostomy closure.

Patient and surgeon preferences for early ileostomy closure following restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer: why aren't we doing it?

BACKGROUND: Early ileostomy closure (EIC), ≤ 2 weeks from creation, is a relatively new practice. Multiple studies have demonstrated that this approach is safe, feasible, and cost-effective. Despite the demonstrated benefits, this is neither routine practice, nor has it been studied, in North America. This study aimed to assess patient and surgeon perspectives about EIC. METHODS: A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of patients and surgeons was performed. Rectal cancer survivors from a single institution who underwent restorative proctectomy with diverting loop ileostomy and subsequent closure within the last 5 years were contacted. North American surgeons with high rectal cancer volumes (> 20 cases/year) were included. Surveys (patients) and semi-structured interviews (surgeons) were conducted. Analysis employed descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were surveyed (mean age 65.1 ± 11.8 years; 54.2% male). Stoma closure occurred after a median of 7.7 months (IQR 4.8-10.9) and 50.0% (24) found it "difficult" or "very difficult" to live with their stoma. Patients considered improvement in quality of life and quicker return to normal function the most important advantages of EIC, whereas the idea of two operations in two weeks being too taxing on the body was deemed the biggest disadvantage. Most patients (35, 72.9%) would have opted for EIC. Surgeon interviews (15) revealed 4 overarching themes: (1) there are many benefits to EIC; (2) specific patient characteristics would make EIC an appropriate option; (3) many barriers to implementing EIC exist; and (4) many logistical hurdles need to be addressed for successful implementation. Most surgeons (12, 80.0%) would "definitely want to participate" in a North American randomized-controlled trial (RCT) on EIC for rectal cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing EIC poses many logistical challenges. Both patients and surgeons are interested in further exploring EIC and believe it warrants a North American RCT to motivate a change in practice.

Mesentery in Transanal TME.

Oncological adequacy in rectal cancer surgery mandates not only a clear distal and circumferential resection margin but also resection of the entire ontogenetic mesorectal package. Incomplete removal of the mesentery is one of the commonest causes of local recurrences. The completeness of the resection is not only determined by tumor and patient related factors but also by the patient-tailored treatment selected by the multidisciplinary team. This is performed in the context of the technical ability and experience of the surgeon to ensure an optimal total mesorectal excision (TME). In TME, popularized by Professor Heald in the early 1980s as a sharp dissection through the avascular embryologic plane, the midline pedicle of tumor and mesorectum is separated from the surrounding, mostly paired structures of the retroperitoneum. Although TME significantly improved the oncological and functional results of rectal cancer surgery, the difficulty of the procedure is still mainly dependent on and determined by the dissection of the most distal part of the rectum and mesorectum. To overcome some of the limitations of working in the narrowest part of the pelvis, robotic and transanal surgery have been shown to improve the access and quality of resection in minimally invasive techniques. Whatever technique is chosen to perform a TME, embryologically derived planes and anatomical points of reference should be identified to guide the surgery. Standardization of the chosen technique, widespread education, and training of surgeons, as well as caseloads per surgeon, are important factors to optimize outcomes. In this article, we discuss the introduction of transanal TME, with emphasis on the mesentery, relevant anatomy, standard procedural steps, and importance of a training pathway.

Racial disparities in colon cancer survival: A propensity score matched analysis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Black patients are disproportionally impacted by colorectal cancer, both with respect to incidence and mortality. Studies accounting for patient- and community-level factors that contribute to such disparities are lacking. Our objective is to determine if Black compared to White race is associated with worse survival in colon cancer, while accounting for socioeconomic and clinical factors. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of Black or White patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry between 2008 and 2016. Multivariable Cox regression analysis and propensity-score matching was performed. RESULTS: A total of 100,083 patients were identified, 15,155 Black patients and 84,928 White patients. Median follow-up was 38 months (interquartile range: 15-67). Black patients were more likely to lack health insurance and reside in counties with low household income, high unemployment, and lower high school completion rates. Black race was associated with poorer unadjusted 5-year cancer-specific survival (79.4% vs 82.4%, P < .001). After multivariable adjustment, Black race was associated with greater 5-year cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio: 1.19, 95% confidence interval: 1.13-1.25, P < .001) and overall mortality (hazard ratio: 1.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.16, P < .001). Mortality was higher for Black patients across stages: stage I (hazard ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.09), stage II (hazard ratio: 1.06, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.07), stage III (1.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.04). Propensity-score matching identified 27,640 patients; Black race was associated with worse 5-year overall survival (67.5% vs 70.2%, P = .003) and cancer-specific survival (79.4% vs 82.3%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This US population-based analysis confirms poorer overall survival and cancer-specific survival in Black patients undergoing surgery for nonmetastatic colon cancer despite accounting for trans-sectoral factors that have been implicated in structural racism.

Anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery: does timing affect failure to rescue?

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common complication after colectomy with a relatively high failure to rescue rate (FTR), or death after major complications. There is emerging evidence to suggest an early AL may be associated with increased technical difficulty. Whether the timing of an AL is associated with higher FTR has not been established. METHODS: Patients who underwent a colectomy between 2012 and 2017 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP database). The primary outcome was FTR after AL. The predictor variable used was day of post-operative leak (POD) categorized into early (POD ≤ 3), intermediate (3 < POD ≤ 20) and late (20 < POD ≤ 30) AL. These POD groups were compared to generate hypotheses to explain any association observed between timing of AL and FTR. RESULTS: Of 135,539 identified patients, 4613 patients experienced an AL (3.4%) with an overall FTR of 6.4%. FTR differed by timing of AL: early AL was found to have a FTR of 28/195 (12.6%), with a FTR in intermediate AL of 152/2550 (5.6%) and 3/356 (0.8%) in late AL patients (p < 0.0001). When compared by timing of AL, patients differed by sex, pre-operative bowel preparation, de-functioning ostomy rates and re-operation rates (p < 0.05). Controlling for age, ASA, sex, emergency status, operative approach, indication, de-functioning ostomy, re-operation and concurrent procedure, an early AL was found to have a 2.3-fold increased risk of FTR (95% CI 1.38-3.84, p = 0.001), with a late AL having a 0.15-fold decreased risk (95% CI 0.04-0.49, p = 0.002), both compared to an intermediate AL. CONCLUSION: Early ALs, occurring within three days of surgery, may carry a significant risk of FTR. Given the findings identified here, this may support the use of early detection algorithms and interventions of AL to minimize the risk of FTR.

Impact of BMI on Adverse Events After Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: The impact of body mass index (BMI) on outcomes after open or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remains unclear. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to examine the interaction of body mass index and surgical modality (i.e., laparoscopy versus open) with respect to short-term clinical outcomes in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP database (2012-2016) was reviewed for patients undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause morbidity. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 16,145 patients were grouped into open (N = 6759, 42%) and laparoscopic (N  = 9386, 58%) cohorts. Patients with higher BMI (p < 0.001) and those undergoing open surgery (p < 0.001) were at increased risk of all-cause morbidity. There was no significant change in the odds ratio of experiencing all-cause morbidity between open and laparoscopic surgery with increasing BMI (p = 0.572). Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group (4 days vs. 6 days; p < 0.001), at the cost of increased operative time (239 min vs. 210 min, p < 0.001). The difference in operative time between laparoscopy and open surgery did not increase with rising BMI (i.e., ∆37 min vs. ∆39 min at BMI 25 kg/m2 vs 50 kg/m2, respectively, p = 0.491). CONCLUSION: BMI may not be a strong modifier for surgical approach with respect to short-term clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and rectal cancer. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with improved short-term clinical outcomes, without much change in the absolute difference in operative time compared with open surgery, even at higher BMIs.

Neoadjuvant therapy versus direct to surgery for T4 colon cancer: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite persistently poor oncological outcomes, approaches to the management of T4 colonic cancer remain variable, with the role of neoadjuvant therapy unclear. The aim of this review was to compare oncological outcomes between direct-to-surgery and neoadjuvant therapy approaches to T4 colon cancer. METHODS: A librarian-led systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL up to 11 February 2020 was performed. Inclusion criteria were primary research articles comparing oncological outcomes between neoadjuvant therapies or direct to surgery for primary T4 colonic cancer. Based on PRISMA guidelines, screening and data abstraction were undertaken in duplicate. Quality assessment was carried out using Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. Random-effects models were used to pool effect estimates. This study compared pathological resection margins, postoperative morbidity, and oncological outcomes of cancer recurrence and overall survival. RESULTS: Four studies with a total of 43 063 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with direct to surgery, neoadjuvant therapy was associated with increased rates of margin-negative resection (odds ratio (OR) 2.60, 95 per cent c.i. 1.12 to 6.02; n = 15 487) and 5-year overall survival (pooled hazard ratio 1.42, 1.10 to 1.82, I2 = 0 per cent; n = 15 338). No difference was observed in rates of cancer recurrence (OR 0.42, 0.15 to 1.22; n = 131), 30-day minor (OR 1.12, 0.68 to 1.84; n = 15 488) or major (OR 0.62, 0.27 to 1.44; n = 15 488) morbidity, or rates of treatment-related adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Compared with direct to surgery, neoadjuvant therapy improves margin-negative resection rates and overall survival.

Apical lymphadenectomy during low ligation of the IMA during rectosigmoid resection for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery with preservation of the left colic artery may decrease the risk of colorectal anastomotic ischemia compared to high ligation at its origin. Low ligation leaves apical nodes in situ and is therefore paired with apical lymphadenectomy. We sought to compare relevant oncologic outcomes between high ligation and low ligation plus apical lymphadenectomy in rectosigmoid resection for colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients receiving a rectosigmoid resection for cancer between January 2012 and July 2018 were included. Patients with metastatic disease and those who underwent low ligation without apical lymphadenectomy were excluded. Our primary outcome was nodal yield/metastasis. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, local recurrence, and overall survival. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients underwent high ligation and 89 low ligation plus apical lymphadenectomy (median follow-up 20 months). In the low-ligation group, a median of 2 (interquartile range = 1-3) apical nodes was resected; 4.1% were malignant, increasing pathologic stage in 25% of these patients. There were no differences in nodal yield, complications, anastomotic leak, local recurrence, or overall survival. CONCLUSION: No differences were identified between high ligation and low ligation plus apical lymphadenectomy with respect to relevant clinical outcomes. Prospective trial data are needed to robustly establish the oncologic benefit and safety of the low ligation plus apical lymphadenectomy technique.

What Should We Recommend for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Adults Aged 75 and Older?

The current recommendation to stop colorectal cancer screening for older adults is based on a lack of evidence due to systematic exclusion of this population from trials. Older adults are a heterogenous population with many available strategies for patient-centered assessment and decision-making. Evolutions in management strategies for colorectal cancer have made safe and effective options available to older adults, and the rationale to screen for treatable disease more reasonably, especially given the aging Canadian population. In this commentary, we review the current screening guidelines and the evidence upon which they were built, the unique considerations for screening older adults, new treatment options, the risks and benefits of increased screening and potential considerations for the new guidelines.

Interventions and Outcomes for Neoadjuvant Treatment of T4 Colon Cancer: A Scoping Review.

While adjuvant treatment of colon cancers that penetrate the serosa (T4) have been well-established, neoadjuvant strategies have yet to be formally evaluated. Our objective was to perform a scoping review of eligibility criteria, treatment regimens, and primary outcomes for neoadjuvant approaches to T4 colon cancer. A librarian-led, systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL up to 11 February 2020 was performed. Primary research evaluating neoadjuvant treatment in T4 colon cancer were included. Screening and data abstraction were performed in duplicate; analyses were descriptive or thematic. A total of twenty studies were included, most of which were single-arm, single-center, and retrospective. The primary objectives of the literature to date has been to evaluate treatment feasibility, tumor response, disease-free survival, and overall survival in healthy patients. Conventional XELOX and FOLFOX chemotherapy were the most commonly administered interventions. Rationale for selecting a specific regimen and for treatment eligibility criteria were poorly documented across studies. The current literature on neoadjuvant strategies for T4 colon cancer is overrepresented by single-center, retrospective studies that evaluate treatment feasibility and efficacy in healthy patients. Future studies should prioritize evaluating clear selection criteria and rationale for specific neoadjuvant strategies. Validation of outcomes in multi-center, randomized trials for XELOX and FOLFOX have the most to contribute to the growing evidence for this poorly managed disease.

Extended duration of faecal diversion is associated with increased ileus upon loop ileostomy reversal.

AIM: The timing of ileostomy reversal has been the subject of controversy, with researchers investigating the safety of early versus late stoma closure. Anecdotally, a longer duration of faecal diversion is associated with a greater incidence of postoperative ileus. We sought to investigate the association between duration of diversion and postoperative ileus. METHOD: We conducted an institutional retrospective cohort study on 173 patients undergoing ileostomy closure between 2012 and 2018. Our primary outcome was ileus; secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and descriptive factors. We investigated the association between duration of diversion and ileus using several analyses to ensure that time was treated appropriately as a continuous, nonlinear variable. RESULTS: In all, 20.2% of patients had an ileus. Multivariate analysis did not identify a significant association between any independent predictors and ileus, although there was a trend towards increased risk of ileus with increasing duration of diversion. When treated as a categorical variable, a duration of diversion >328 days independently increased the odds of ileus (OR = 3.25, P = 0.033). Duration of diversion was associated with days to first flatus and to first diet (P = 0.025 and P = 0.004, respectively). When patients received nasogastric intubation, the mean duration of intubation was 3.2 days. CONCLUSION: Greater duration of diversion was associated with a trend towards increased risk of ileus; this risk tripled when diversion lasted more than 328 days.

Association of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision With Local Recurrence of Rectal Cancer.

Importance: Proponents of novel transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) suggest the procedure overcomes the technical and oncologic challenges of conventional approaches for treating rectal cancer. Recently, however, there has been controversy regarding the oncologic safety of the procedure. Objective: To assess the association of transanal TME with the incidence of local recurrence (LR) of cancer and the probability of remaining free of LR during follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study used data from 8 high-volume rectal cancer academic institutions from across Canada on all consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer treated by transanal TME at the participating centers. The study was conducted between January 2014 and December 2018, and data were analyzed from April 1, 2020, to September 15, 2020. Exposure: Transanal TME. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence of LR was reported as a direct measure of quality of resection. The cumulative probability of LR- and systemic recurrence (SR)-free survival at 36 months was estimated. Local recurrence and SR were defined as radiologic or endoscopic evidence of 1 or more new lesions in or outside the pelvis, respectively, documented during surveillance after the removal of the primary tumor. Results: Of 608 total patients included in the analysis, 423 (69.6%) were male; the median age was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-70 years). Local recurrence was identified in 22 patients (3.6%) after a median follow-up of 27 months (IQR, 18-38 months). The median time to LR was 13 months (IQR, 9-19 months). Sixteen of the 22 patients with LR (72.7%) were male, 14 (63.6%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and 12 (54.5%) had American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III disease. Of those with LR, 16 (72.7%) had a negative circumferential radial margin and 20 (90.9%) had a negative distal resection margin, 2 (9.1%) experienced conversion to open surgery, and 15 (68.2%) also developed SR. The probability of LR-free survival at 36 months was 96% (95% CI, 94%-98%). According to the Cox proportional hazards regression model, the hazard ratio of LR was estimated to be 4.2 (95% CI, 2.9-6.2) times higher among patients with a positive circumferential radial margin than among those with a negative circumferential radial margin. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, transanal TME performed by experienced surgeons was associated with an incidence of LR and SR that is in line with the published literature on open and laparoscopic TME, suggesting that transanal TME may be an acceptable approach for management of rectal cancer.