Emergency subtotal colectomy rates in relation to anti-TNF therapy in inflammatory bowel disease patients: comparison of retrospective cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: The introduction of anti-TNF therapy has revolutionized the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This study aimed to investigate the impact of anti-TNF therapy on emergency subtotal colectomy rates in patients with IBD (ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease or indeterminate colitis) during two time periods. METHODS: IBD patients treated with emergency subtotal colectomy for acute severe colitis at Skåne University Hospital, Sweden, during two six-year windows were included. The two time-windows represented pre- and introductory (2004-2009) versus post-introductory (2012-2017) anti-TNF therapy usage. The two periods were compared in terms of the proportion of patients who received anti-TNF therapy, rates of emergency subtotal colectomy, and local IBD prevalence numbers. RESULTS: In total 91 patients were included, 42 (2004-2009) and 49 (2012-2017) patients, respectively. The proportion of patients that received anti-TNF therapy prior to admission was increased from 29% (2004-2009) to 63% (2012-2017) (p = .001). Despite this no significant difference was found in the emergency subtotal colectomy rates between the time periods considering the population at risk (IBD patients living in Skåne county); 1.44/1000 person years versus 1.37/1000 person years (p = .83). CONCLUSION: Despite an increased proportion of patients with IBD that received anti-TNF therapy prior to admission, no significant decrease in emergency subtotal colectomy rates was noted. Further research is warranted, and a prospective study design would facilitate a better causal understanding.

Impact of rectal washout on recurrence and survival after anterior resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rectal washout (RW) is routinely performed during anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer to reduce local recurrence (LR), although is sometimes not performed during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedures due to technical challenges and time consumption. The aim was to investigate the impact of RW on the oncological outcome after AR for rectal cancer in a registry cohort. METHODS: Data on patients registered in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry who had undergone elective radical (R0) AR for TNM stage I-III rectal cancer between 2007 and 2017 with a 3-year follow-up were analysed. Multivariable analyses were performed and the primary endpoint was LR at 3 and 5 years after AR. The occurrence of distant metastasis (DM) and overall recurrence (OAR), overall survival, and relative survival were also analysed as a secondary aim. A subgroup analysis was performed for the same outcomes in patients treated with MIS. RESULTS: Out of 6186 patients (1923 with TNM stage I, 1907 with TNM stage II, and 2356 with TNM stage III), RW was performed in 5706 (92.2 per cent). The median age of the cohort was 67 years. RW did not impact the 3-year risk of LR. LR within 5 years occurred in 104 of 4583 patients (2.3 per cent) in the RW group compared with 16 of 408 patients (3.9 per cent) in the no RW group (P = 0.037). In multivariable analysis of the LR risk, the HR was 0.53 (95 per cent c.i. 0.31 to 0.90), favouring RW. There were no differences in rates of DM and OAR, overall survival, and relative survival. A subgroup analysis of the 1410 patients undergoing MIS did not demonstrate any differences between the groups, given, however, the low rate of LR. CONCLUSIONS: RW in AR for rectal cancer does not impact the 3-year oncological outcome; however, after the 5-year follow-up a reduction in LR risk was observed after RW.

Rectal washout during abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer has no impact on the oncological outcome.

AIM: Intraoperative rectal washout is performed to eliminate exfoliated intraluminal cancer cells and thereby decrease the risk of local recurrence. Rectal washout in abdominoperineal resection has not been studied. The aim of this study was to assess the oncological outcome after rectal washout in abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer and to find evidence as to whether rectal washout should be performed or not. METHOD: Data for all patients registered in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry who underwent elective surgery with abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer (TNM Stages I-III) between 2007 and 2013 were analysed using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: No significant differences were shown between the rectal washout group and the no rectal washout group for local recurrence [10/265 (3.8%) vs. 87/2160 (4.0%), p = 0.84], distant metastasis [51/265 (19.2%) vs. 476/2160 (22.0%), p = 0.29] or overall recurrence [53/265 (20.0%) vs. 505/2160 (23.4%), p = 0.21]. In multivariable analysis, rectal washout did not significantly affect the oncological outcome in terms of local recurrence, distant metastasis, overall recurrence or 5-year overall or relative survival. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support routine rectal washout during abdominoperineal resection in order to improve the oncological outcome.

Rectal washout does not increase the complication risk after anterior resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: To reduce local recurrence risk, rectal washout (RW) is integrated in the total mesorectal excision (TME) technique when performing anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer. Although RW is considered a safe practice, data on the complication risk are scarce. Our aim was to examine the association between RW and 30-day postoperative complications after AR for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry who underwent AR between 2007 and 2013 were analysed using multivariable methods. RESULTS: A total of 4821 patients were included (4317 RW, 504 no RW). The RW group had lower rates of overall complications (1578/4317 (37%) vs. 208/504 (41%), p = 0.039), surgical complications (879/4317 (20%) vs. 140/504 (28%), p < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (50/4317 (1.2%) vs. 12/504 (2.4%), p = 0.020). In multivariable analysis, RW was a risk factor neither for overall complications (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.90, p = 0.002) nor for surgical complications (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.78, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RW is a safe technique that does not increase the 30-day postoperative complication risk after AR with TME technique for rectal cancer.