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.

Impact of Facilitation of Early Mobilization on Postoperative Pulmonary Outcomes After Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent to which staff-directed facilitation of early mobilization impacts recovery of pulmonary function and 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) after colorectal surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Early mobilization after surgery is believed to improve pulmonary function and prevent PPCs; however, adherence is low. The value of allocating resources (eg, staff time) to increase early mobilization is unknown. METHODS: This study involved the analysis of a priori secondary outcomes of a pragmatic, observer-blind, randomized trial. Consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery were randomized 1:1 to usual care (preoperative education) or facilitated mobilization (staff dedicated to assist transfers and walking during hospital stay). Forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and peak cough flow were measured preoperatively and at 1, 2, 3 days and 4 weeks after surgery. PPCs were defined according to the European Perioperative Clinical Outcome Taskforce. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (57% male, 80% laparoscopic, median age 63, and predicted FEV1 97%) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (usual care 49, facilitated mobilization 50). There was no between-group difference in recovery of forced vital capacity [adjusted difference in slopes 0.002 L/d (95% CI -0.01 to 0.01)], FEV1 [-0.002 L/d (-0.01 to 0.01)] or peak cough flow [-0.002 L/min/d (-0.02 to 0.02)]. Thirty-day PPCs were also not different between groups [adjusted odds ratio 0.67 (0.23-1.99)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, staff-directed facilitation of early mobilization did not improve postoperative pulmonary function or reduce PPCs within an enhanced recovery pathway for colorectal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02131844.

The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Rectal Cancer Project: Protocol for a Pan-Canadian, Multidisciplinary Quality Improvement Initiative to Optimize the Quality of Rectal Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 2 decades, the use of multimodal strategies, including total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, preoperative chemotherapy, multidisciplinary case conference, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, and pathologic assessment using Quirke method, has led to significant improvements in oncologic outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. Although the literature supports claims on the effectiveness of these multimodal strategies, the uptake of these multimodal strategies varies considerably among centers, suggesting that the best evidence is not always implemented into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform a quality improvement initiative to (1) identify existing gaps in care for these multimodal strategies and (2) implement knowledge translation (KT) interventions to close these gaps to optimize quality of care for patients with rectal cancer across high-volume centers in Canada. METHODS: Process indicators for the selected multimodal strategies to optimize rectal cancer care will be selected and prospectively collected for all patients with stages 1 to 3 rectal cancer undergoing TME surgery. KT interventions, including audit and feedback, opinion leaders, and community of practice, will be implemented to increase the uptake of these clinical strategies. RESULTS: The uptake of the process indicators over time and the effect of the uptake of the process indicators on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes will be evaluated for each multimodal strategy. CONCLUSIONS: This quality improvement initiative will identify existing gaps in care for the selected multimodal strategies and implement KT interventions to close these gaps. The results of this study will inform further efforts to optimize rectal cancer care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15535.

The impact of improved functional capacity before surgery on postoperative complications: a study in colorectal cancer.

Background: Poor functional capacity (FC) is an independent predictor of postoperative morbidity. However, there is still a lack of evidence as to whether enhancing FC before surgery has a protective effect on postoperative complications. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an improvement in preoperative FC impacted positively on surgical morbidity. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a cohort of patients who underwent colorectal resection for cancer under Enhanced Recovery After Surgery care. FC was assessed with the 6-min walk test, which measures the distance walked in 6 min (6MWD), at 4 weeks before surgery and again the day before. The study population was classified into two groups depending on whether participants achieved a significant improvement in FC preoperatively (defined as a preoperative 6MWD change ≥19 meters) or not (6MWD change <19 meters). The primary outcome measure was 30-d postoperative complications, assessed with the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). The association between improved preoperative FC and severe postoperative complication was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 179 eligible adults were studied: 80 (44.7%) improved in 6MWD by ≥19 m preoperatively, and 99 (55.3%) did not. Subjects whose FC increased had lower CCI (0 [0-8.7] versus 8.7 [0-22.6], p = .022). Furthermore, they were less likely to have a severe complication (adjusted OR 0.28 (95% CI 0.11-0.74), p = .010), and to have an ED visit. Conclusion: Improved preoperative FC was independently associated with a lower risk of severe postoperative complications. Further investigation is required to establish a causative relationship conclusively.

A Multicenter Matched Comparison of Transanal and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid and Low-rectal Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of surgical resection of transanal total mesorectal excision (TA-TME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME). BACKGROUND: Both TA-TME and R-TME have been advocated to improve the quality of surgery for rectal cancer below 10 cm from the anal verge, but there are little data comparing TA-TME and R-TME. METHODS: Data of patients undergoing TA-TME or R-TME for rectal cancer below 10 cm from the anal verge and a sphincter-saving procedure from 5 high-volume rectal cancer referral centers between 2011 and 2017 were obtained. Coarsened exact matching was used to create balanced cohorts of TA-TME and R-TME. The main outcome was the incidence of poor-quality surgical resection, defined as a composite measure including incomplete quality of TME, or positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) or distal resection margin (DRM). RESULTS: Out of a total of 730 patients (277 TA-TME, 453 R-TME), matched groups of 226 TA-TME and 370 R-TME patients were created. These groups were well-balanced. The mean tumor height from the anal verge was 5.6 cm (SD 2.5), and 70% received preoperative radiotherapy. The incidence of poor-quality resection was similar in both groups (TA-TME 6.9% vs R-TME 6.8%; P = 0.954). There were no differences in TME specimen quality (complete or near-complete TA-TME 99.1% vs R-TME 99.2%; P = 0.923) and CRM (5.6% vs 6.0%; P = 0.839). DRM involvement may be higher after TA-TME (1.8% vs 0.3%; P = 0.051). CONCLUSIONS: High-quality TME for patients with rectal adenocarcinoma of the mid and low rectum can be equally achieved by transanal or robotic approaches in skilled hands, but attention should be paid to the distal margin.