Differences between colon and rectal cancer in complications, short-term survival and recurrences.

PURPOSE: Many apparent differences exist in aetiology, genetics, anatomy and treatment response between colon cancer (CC) and rectal cancer (RC). This study examines the differences in patient characteristics, prevalence of complications and their effect on short-term survival, long-term survival and the rate of recurrence between RC and CC. METHODS: For all stage II-III CC and RC patients who underwent resection with curative intent (2006-2008) in five hospitals in the Netherlands, occurrence of complications, crude survival, relative survival and recurrence rates were compared. RESULTS: A total of 767 CC and 272 RC patients underwent resection. Significant differences were found for age, gender, emergency surgery, T-stage and grade. CC patients experienced fewer complications compared to RC (p = 0.019), but CC patients had worse short-term mortality rates (1.5 versus 6.7 % for 30-day mortality, p = 0.001 and 5.2 versus 9.5 % for 90-day mortality, p = 0.032). The adjusted HR (overall survival) for CC patients with complications was 1.57 (1.23-2.01; p < 0.001) as compared to patients without complications; for RC, the HR was 1.79 (1.12-2.87; p = 0.015). Relative survival analyses showed high excess mortality in the first months after surgery and a sustained, prolonged negative effect on both CC and RC. Complications were associated with a higher recurrence rate for both CC and RC; adjusted analyses showed a trend towards a significant association. CONCLUSION: Large differences exist in patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between CC and RC. CC patients have a significantly higher short-term mortality compared to RC patients due to a more severe effect of complications.

Colorectal cancer surgery for obese patients: Financial and clinical outcomes of a Dutch population-based registry.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore the association among adverse events, body mass index (BMI), and hospital costs after colorectal cancer surgery in a country with an intermediate BMI distribution. METHODS: All colorectal cancer procedures in 29 Dutch hospitals listed in a 2010-2012 population-based database and with a BMI > 18.5 were included (n = 8687). Hospital costs were measured uniformly and based on time-driven activity-based costing. The BMI classification of the World Health Organization was used. RESULTS: Patients in obesity classes 1 (23.6% [after risk-adjustment OR 1.245, CI 1.064-1.479, P = 0.007]) and ≥2 (28.1% [after risk-adjustment OR 1.816, CI 1.382-2.388, P < 0.001]) were associated with more severe complications and higher hospital costs (€14,294, +9.6%, after risk-adjustment +7.9%, P < 0.001; and €15,913 +22.0%, after risk-adjustment +21.2%, P < 0.001, respectively) than normal weight patients (20.8% and €13,040, respectively). Pre-obese patients had significantly lower mortality rates (2.7%, after risk-adjustment, OR 0.756, CI 0.577-0.991, P = 0.042) than normal-weight patients (3.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Obese surgical colorectal cancer patients in a country with an intermediate BMI distribution are associated with a significant increase in hospital costs because these patients suffer from more severe complications. This is the first study to provide evidence for the "obesity-paradox" for mortality in colorectal cancer surgery. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:489-495. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Endoscopic aneurysm sac fenestration as a treatment option for growing aneurysms due to type II endoleak or endotension.

PURPOSE: To evaluate endoscopic fenestration as a treatment option for growing aneurysm due to a type II endoleak or endotension after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Eight patients (7 men; median age 69 years, range 55-79) who underwent "successful" EVAR were diagnosed with a growing aneurysm due to a type II endoleak (n=4) or endotension (n=4). Surgical intervention consisted of endoscopic fenestration of the sac and removal of all the thrombus material, preceded by clipping of the inferior mesenteric and all lumbar arteries in cases of endoleak. Fluid samples from the fenestrated aneurysm sac were analyzed for the presence of microorganisms and fibrin degradation products (FDP) and/or D-dimers. RESULTS: The median duration of operation was 220 minutes (range 111-333). There was no perioperative mortality. In one patient, the endoscopic procedure was converted to an open fenestration procedure. Seven patients had uncomplicated follow-up and a clear decrease in the diameter of the sac; one patient was converted to open repair owing to continued sac growth despite fenestration. Bacterial cultures were negative in all patients, but high levels of FDP and/or D-dimers were found in all available samples, indicating continued fibrinolysis. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic fenestration, with or without endoscopic clipping of all side branches, seems to be an effective, reliable and minimally invasive treatment option for patients with a growing aneurysm due to type II endoleak or endotension. The high levels of FDP and/or D-dimers in the aneurysm sac are suggestive of hyperfibrinolysis, which may play an important role in aneurysm growth after EVAR.

Fewer intraperitoneal adhesions with use of hyaluronic acid-carboxymethylcellulose membrane: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of bioresorbable Seprafilm membrane in preventing abdominal adhesions in a prospective clinical randomized multicenter trial. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Adhesions occur frequently after abdominal operations and are a common cause of bowel obstruction, chronic abdominal pain, and infertility. To reduce the formation of adhesions, a mechanical barrier composed of hyaluronic acid and carboxymethylcellulose was developed, preventing adherence of tissues after abdominal surgery. METHODS: Between April 1996 and September 1998, all patients requiring a Hartmann procedure for sigmoid diverticulitis or obstructed rectosigmoid were randomized to either intraperitoneal placement of the antiadhesions membrane under the midline during laparotomy and in the pelvis, or as a control. Direct visual evaluation of the incidence and severity of adhesions was performed laparoscopically at second-stage surgery for restoration of the continuity of the colon. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients were randomized; of these, 42 could be evaluated. The incidence of adhesions did not differ significantly between the two groups, but the severity of adhesions was significantly reduced in the Seprafilm group both for the midline incision and for the pelvic area. Complications occurred in similar numbers in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Seprafilm antiadhesions membrane appears effective in reducing the severity of postoperative adhesions after major abdominal surgery, although the incidence of adhesions was not diminished. The authors recommend using Seprafilm when relaparotomy or second-look intervention is planned. Long-term studies are needed to assess the cost-effectiveness and value of Seprafilm in preventing bowel obstruction, chronic abdominal pain, and infertility.