Enhanced recovery after anterior resection: earlier leak diagnosis and low mortality in a case series.

INTRODUCTION: Early detection and treatment of anastomotic leak may mitigate its consequences. Within an enhanced recovery setting, the subtle signs of a leak can be more apparent. There are multiple treatment options for anastomotic leak following anterior resection. This study aimed to determine when leaks are diagnosed in enhanced recovery, and whether the choice of intervention affects outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of a prospectively maintained database of complications of anterior resections for rectal cancer in a district general hospital in the UK. Data were extracted on day of leak diagnosis, length of stay, intensive care admission, mortality and ileostomy reversal rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t, Mann-Whitney U and chi square tests. RESULTS: A total of 323 patients underwent anterior resection for colorectal cancer between 1 January 2007 and 1 October 2015. The leak rate was 10.8% (35/323). Patients were diagnosed in hospital with leaks on median day 4 compared with day 11 for patients diagnosed with leaks after readmission from home (P < 0.001). Defunctioned patients diagnosed with a leak had a longer median length of stay (24 vs 18.0 days, P = 0.31) but were more frequently managed non-operatively (100% vs 19.0%, P < 0.001) and had a lower admission rate to intensive care (9.5% vs 42.9%, P = 0.02) than patients who were not defunctioned at time of resection. Overall mortality from anastomotic leak was 2.9% (1/35). Ileostomies were reversed in 73.5% of patients (25/34). DISCUSSION: Enhanced recovery enables early diagnosis of leaks following anterior resection. Defunctioning of patients with anastomotic leak lowers mortality.

Outcome of surgery for recurrent anal cancer: results from a tertiary referral centre.

AIM: Chemoradiotherapy remains the first line of treatment for anal cancer with surgery reserved for cancer recurrence or persistence. The low incidence of anal cancer means that the numbers undergoing surgery is small with centralization for excision to regional cancer centres. We present our experience of abdominal perineal excision, with reconstruction of the perineal defect (APERR), within a tertiary centre. METHOD: Over a 15-year period, data were collected retrospectively from notes of patients who underwent an APERR. The aim was to look at disease-free and overall survival and complications associated with flap reconstruction. RESULTS: In the study period, 29 patients [median age = 62 (range: 42-81; interquartile range: 54-68) years] underwent APERR. Median follow-up was 77 (4-200) months. Thirteen patients died during follow-up; eight from their disease, with a median survival time of 16 (4-63) months. Five-year survival was 67%. Nine (31%) patients had recurrence during the follow up period; this was local (n = 2), regional (n = 4), distant (n = 2) or a combination (n = 1). Sixteen (55%) patients developed 24 complications, including nine (31%) flap complications and 10 (34%) parastomal hernias. Flap complications were flap failure (n = 1) requiring direct closure, flap dehiscence (n = 2), necrosis of flap tip (n = 1), wound infection (n = 4) and a bulky flap (n = 1) requiring liposuction. CONCLUSION: APERR of anal cancer is a feasible technique with excellent oncological treatment and acceptable long-term complications, although a higher than expected rate of parastomal hernia was noted.

Ileostomy closure in an enhanced recovery setting.

AIM: Hospital stays of 5 days or more are not uncommon following ileostomy closure, yet within an enhanced recovery programme (ERP) it is possible for patients to be discharged on the first postoperative day following anterior resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the introduction of an ERP for ileostomy closure reduced hospital stay without affecting morbidity or readmission rates. METHOD: Consecutive patients undergoing elective ileostomy closure from October 2000 to March 2013 were included in this study. The data were collected prospectively into a database. Enhanced recovery was introduced for all elective ileostomy closures in June 2010. Demographic data, length of stay (LOS), readmission, morbidity and mortality were compared between the two groups using the Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-five patients underwent elective ileostomy closure during the study period (37 ERP and 108 pre-ERP). There were no differences between the two groups with respect to demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, prior radiotherapy or chemotherapy, operative time, body mass index, antibiotic use or closure method. Readmission rates (5% vs 6.5%, P = 1.0), morbidity (8% vs 10%, P = 1.0) and mortality (0% vs 0%) were not significantly different. Median (2 vs 4 days, P < 0.0001) and mean (3.4 vs 5.6 days, P = 0.033) LOS were significantly shorter in the ERP group compared with the pre-ERP group. CONCLUSION: An ERP for closure of ileostomy significantly reduces LOS without adverse effects for patients.

The English national low rectal cancer development programme: key messages and future perspectives.

AIM: Adenocarcinoma of the lower rectum is clinically challenging because of the need to choose between a wide excision to achieve oncological clearance, on the one hand, and sphincter conservation to maintain anal function, on the other. The English National Low Rectal Cancer Development Programme (LOREC) was developed under the auspices of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland and the English National Cancer Action Team to improve the outcome of low rectal cancer in England. METHOD: LOREC was initiated focusing on preoperative imaging, selective neoadjuvant therapy, optimal surgical treatment and detailed pathological assessment of the excised specimen. Its key elements were 1-day multidisciplinary team (MDT) workshops, cadaveric surgical training, surgical mentoring, pathological audit and radiological workshops. RESULTS: Overall, 147 (89.6%) of 164 MDTs from 151 National Health Service (NHS) Trusts (some with two MDTs) in England participated in 15 workshops in Basingstoke or Leeds. In addition, 112 surgeons attended a 1-day cadaveric training programme in Bristol, Newcastle or Nottingham, with the main focus on extralevator abdominoperineal excision and pelvic reconstruction, with input from anatomists and from colorectal and plastic surgeons. CONCLUSION: Optimal staging, selective preoperative chemoradiotherapy and precise surgery were considered as crucial to improve the outcome for patients with low rectal cancer.

Vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap reconstruction of the perineal defect after abdominoperineal excision is associated with low morbidity.

AIM: To examine the short-term outcomes of perineal reconstruction with a vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap following abdominoperineal excision (APE). METHOD: Retrospective case note review of all patients undergoing APE and primary VRAM reconstruction between July 2001 and February 2012 in a district general hospital tertiary referral centre for APE. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification, which grades complications from I to V in order of increasing severity. RESULTS: Fifty-five consecutive patients (31 men, median age 65, range 38-84 years) underwent APE with VRAM flap reconstruction, 15 for anal cancer and 40 for rectal cancer. Median length of stay was 11 days but was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (8 vs 12 days; P < 0.01) and in patients who did not experience any complications (P < 0.05). Four patients (7%) had major complications (Grade 3 and above) directly related to the flap or donor site. CONCLUSION: VRAM reconstruction of the perineum can be safely performed following APE with results that compare favourably with other techniques. Most flap complications are minor, although these are still associated with an increase in the length of hospital stay.

Unselected rectal cancer patients undergoing low anterior resection with defunctioning ileostomy can be safely managed within an Enhanced Recovery Programme.

BACKGROUND: An increasing body of evidence supports the application of the Enhanced Recovery Programme (ERP) to colorectal surgery. Some institutions have reported an association between ERP failure and low rectal cancer surgery. We present the results that we achieved by applying the ERP to low anterior resections for tumours within 6 cm of the anal verge, with a view to determining the validity and safety of applying the ERP to this patient group. METHODS: A multimodal ERP, based on Kehlet's model, was introduced in January 2007 and applied to all patients undergoing elective resections. Patients having a low anterior resection for a rectal cancer less than 6 cm from the anal verge between January 2007 and August 2011 were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained database. Individual patient record review was performed. RESULTS: Twenty consecutive patients (12 males) were identified. Median total postoperative length of stay (LOS), including readmission, was 8 days (mean 10.7, range 4-47 days), with 2 readmissions and no deaths. When surgery was uncomplicated, median LOS was 5 days (mean 5.8, range 4-12 days, n = 11), whereas LOS increased when a complication occurred, with a median of 12 days (mean 16.6, range 8-47 days, n = 9) [p = 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: The ERP can safely be applied to this high-risk patient group. When no complication occurs, LOS of 5 days can be expected. When a complication is encountered, LOS is prolonged (12 days), but this is acceptable compared with the current national median LOS in the United Kingdom of 11 days for all rectal cancer surgery (at any height) with a stoma.

Management of colorectal polyp cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Management of malignant colorectal polyps is controversial. The options are resection or surveillance. Resection margin status is accepted as an independent predictor of adverse outcome. However, the rate of adverse outcome in polyps with a resection margin of <1mm has not been investigated. METHODS: A retrospective search of the pathology database was undertaken. All polyp cancers were included. A single histopathologist reviewed all of the included polyp cancers. Polyps were divided into three groups: clear resection margin, involved resection margin and unknown resection margin. Polyps were also analysed for tumour grade, morphology, Haggitt/Kikuchi level and lymphovascular invasion. Adverse outcome was defined as residual tumour at the polypectomy site and/or lymph node metastases in the surgical group and local or distant recurrence in the surveillance group. RESULTS: Sixty-five polyps (34 male patients, mean age: 73 years, range: 50-94 years) were included. Forty-six had clear polyp resection margins; none had any adverse outcomes. Sixteen patients had involved polyp resection margins and twelve of these underwent surgery: seven had residual tumour and two of these patients had lymph node metastases. Four underwent surveillance, of whom two developed local recurrence. Three patients had resection margins on which the histopathologist was unable to comment. All patients with a clear resection margin had no adverse outcome regardless of other predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: Polyp cancers with clear resection margins, even those with <1mm clearance, can be treated safely with surveillance in our experience. Polyp cancers with unknown or involved resection margins should be treated surgically.

Current practice in abdominoperineal resection: an email survey of the membership of the Association of Coloproctology.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to gain insight into current preferences for type of surgical approach and patient positioning in abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER), to identify whether these factors affect self-reported oncological outcomes and complication rates, and to assess the opinions of members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) with regards to the benefit of a national training programme for APER surgery. METHODS: Members of the ACPGBI were surveyed using a questionnaire designed to examine surgeon/departmental demographics, type of APER practised, audit of results and complications, opinions regarding extralevator APER (ELAPER) and opinions regarding the potential benefit of a national training programme. RESULTS: According to the survey, 62% of surgeons perform perineal dissection in the supine position and 57% perform a standard APER technique. Surgeons who only practise colorectal surgery (p=0.002) and surgeons performing prone dissection (p<0.0001) are more likely to perform ELAPER. Three-quarters (76%) audit their results for perineal wound complication rates. Over 80% audit their oncological outcomes. The vast majority (94.6%) of those who perform ELAPER believe there is a benefit to this method while 59.6% of those who do not perform ELAPER still believe there is a benefit to ELAPER. Only 50% feel that there should be a national training programme. CONCLUSIONS: There is a distinct discordance with regards to the APER technique. Among UK colorectal surgeons, although a significant proportion favours ELAPER, there remains a larger proportion still performing standard APER techniques.

Do patients require outpatient follow-up after rapid referral double contrast barium enema?

INTRODUCTION: In our hospital, patients above the age of 40 years referred with a change in bowel habit without rectal bleeding undergo a double contrast barium enema (DCBE) ideally within 2 weeks. Results of benign studies are sent to a consultant colorectal surgeon and a routine clinic visit arranged. The aim of this study was to identify whether, following DCBE, patients (i) presented at a later date with colorectal cancer and (ii) needed assessment in clinic. METHOD: This is a review looking at all patients who underwent DCBE prior to routine clinic visit between January 2004 and December 2005. Hospital databases were cross-referenced to identify any patients presenting with a new diagnosis of colorectal malignancy between DCBE and April 2007. Clinic letters were reviewed to identify the number of outpatient visits prior to discharge and reasons for continued follow-up. RESULTS: During the study period, 521 patients (age range 31-93 years, 316 female) had DCBE prior to assessment in clinic. Diagnoses: cancer 48 (9.2%), polyps 13 (2.5%), colitis 3 (0.6%), no significant pathology 457 (87.7%). Of this latter cohort, 387 (84.7%) were discharged after one clinic visit; 54 (11.9%) attended twice and 11 (2.4%) were seen more than twice. Reasons for multiple attendances were management of haemorrhoids/anal fissure or investigations of unrelated symptoms. No new cancers were identified in this cohort between January 2004 and April 2007. CONCLUSION: Double contrast barium enema is a safe screening tool following a '2-week rule' referral with CIBH. Following a report of no significant pathology, there is no need to arrange routine follow-up.

Bombesin family receptor and ligand gene expression in human colorectal cancer and normal mucosa.

Bombesin-like peptides and their receptors are widely distributed throughout the gut and are potential mitogens for a number of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. We have analysed the expression of bombesin-like peptides and their receptor subtypes in normal and neoplastic colorectal tissue. Expression was analysed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using receptor and ligand subtype-specific primers and then expression localized by in situ hybridization (ISH) with riboprobes synthesized by in vitro transcription of cloned PCR product. Colorectal cancer tissue and matched normal mucosa from 23 patients were studied. Two of these patients had synchronous adenomatous polyps and two had synchronous hepatic metastases which were also studied. An additional two patients with adenomatous polyps were studied along with matched normal mucosa. Gastrin releasing peptide (GRP) receptor and ligand expression was present in all samples but with overall greater expression in the tumour samples. Neuromedin B (NMB) receptor expression was not detectable. NMB ligand was detected in all but one mucosal sample with overall overexpression in the tumour samples. Bombesin receptor subtype 3 (BRS-3) receptor expression was not detectable. These data support the possibility that GRP may be an autocrine growth factor in colorectal cancer.

Transurethral resection of prostate under sedation and local anesthesia (sedoanalgesia). Experience in 100 patients.

One hundred male patients (average age 68.2 yrs) with acute retention (n = 20) or with symptoms of outflow obstruction (n = 80) underwent transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) under sedation (midazolam) and local anesthesia (lidocaine)--referred to as sedoanalgesia technique. Procedures lasted twenty-four minutes on average (range 15-35 min), and the weight of prostatic tissue resected ranged from 2-35 g (average 11.1 g). There were no complications related to the use of midazolam or lidocaine. The technique of sedoanalgesia proved safe and acceptable to all patients regardless of their pre-existing medical condition. Where the weight of prostate to be resected is estimated to be less than 40 g, TURP under sedoanalgesia proves an effective alternative to general or regional anesthesia.