Complications of Diverting Ileostomy after Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Carcinoma.

There have been few studies directly comparing the postoperative complications in patients with a diverting ileostomy to patients who were not diverted after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal carcinoma. This study is a retrospective chart review of all rectal carcinoma patients (99) who underwent a LAR from January 2009 to December 2014 at Loma Linda University Medical Center and Veterans Affairs Loma Linda Healthcare System. A majority of patients were diverted (58% vs 42%). The diverted patients were more likely to have a low tumor location (P < 0.01), preoperative chemoradiation (P < 0.01), and more intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.01). Our study shows a statistically significant higher overall complication rate among patients receiving a diverting ileostomy in the six months after LAR (61% vs 38%, P = 0.02). The difference is due to a higher rate of readmission (27% vs 14%) and acute kidney injury (14% vs 5%) in patients with a diverting ileostomy. It also shows that there is a higher rate of unplanned reoperation (11% vs 6%) due to anastomotic leak (17% vs 5%) in nondiverted patients. Further studies are needed to refine the specific indications to maximize the benefit of diverting ileostomy after LAR for rectal carcinoma.

Size of Extranodal Extension on Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 Trial Era.

IMPORTANCE: Based on the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial exclusion criteria, patients with T1N0 or T2N0 breast cancer with 1 or 2 positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) are recommended to undergo axillary lymph node dissection if extranodal extension (ENE) is present. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of ENE size on residual axillary nodal burden, disease recurrence, and survival in patients meeting Z0011 criteria. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012, at a single tertiary cancer center. Patients had T1 or T2 breast cancer with 1 or 2 positive SLNs. The ENE was classified as 2 mm or smaller or as larger than 2 mm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Nodal burden, disease recurrence, and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 208 patients, 149 (71.6%) had no ENE, 21 (10.1%) had ENE 2 mm or smaller, and 38 (18.3%) had ENE larger than 2 mm on SLN dissection. The median follow-up time was 60 months (range, 1-158 months). The mean (SD) total number of positive lymph nodes differed significantly for the group with no ENE (1.72 [1.39]) vs the group with ENE 2 mm or smaller (3.22 [2.09]; P < .001) and vs the group with ENE larger than 2 mm (4.26 [5.01]; P < .001). Similar patterns were observed for mean (SD) nonsentinel lymph node metastases: 0.48 (1.30) for no ENE vs 1.91 (2.07) with ENE 2 mm or smaller (P = .02) and vs 2.95 (4.95) with ENE larger than 2 mm (P < .001). For the group without ENE vs the group with ENE 2 mm or smaller, there were no significant differences in recurrence (distant recurrence, 4 patients [2.7%] vs 1 patient [4.8%], respectively; P = .62) or in mortality (18 patients [12.1%] vs 4 patients [19.1%], respectively; P = .48). For the group without ENE vs the group with ENE larger than 2 mm, there were no significant differences in recurrence (distant recurrence, 4 patients [2.7%] vs 4 patients [10.5%], respectively; P = .19) or in mortality (18 patients [12.1%] vs 9 patients [23.7%], respectively; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Presence of ENE on SLN dissection is associated with N2 disease. Despite increased nodal burden, patients with 1 or 2 positive SLNs and ENE 2 mm or smaller demonstrated recurrence and survival rates similar to those of patients without ENE. Reporting of ENE size should be standardized and required.

Early vascular consultation in the setting of oncologic resections: benefit for patients and a continuing source of open vascular surgical training.

BACKGROUND: Oncologic surgeons have become more aggressive at tumor resections that often require complex open vascular interventions. Vascular surgeons may be consulted preoperatively to aid in these cases, or commonly called into the operating room for an urgent consult. These operations provide a challenge to the vascular surgeon and also an opportunity for open vascular surgical training of residents. We present our experience with vascular surgical interventions during oncologic resections. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained vascular registry was performed to identify patients undergoing vascular surgery in the setting of oncologic resections. Tumor histology, location, type of vascular intervention, vascular, and oncologic outcomes were recorded and reviewed. RESULTS: Over a 7-year period, 21 oncologic cases involving vascular surgeons were identified. Tumor types included sarcoma (9), adenocarcinoma (4), germ cell (4), paraganglioma (2), and others (2). Tumor locations included abdominal/pelvic (15), cervical (3), and extremity (3). Complete resection was achieved in 18 of the 19 patients; 2 patients underwent exploration alone for carcinomatosis. Vascular surgical procedures included bypass grafts in 7 patients, resection with primary repair in 5 patients, ligation/excision in 4 patients, and arterial mobilization in 3 patients. No major vascular complications occurred. Short-term patency rates were 100%. Survival rates following therapeutic resection were 90%, 80%, and 80% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Vascular surgeons were involved in the preoperative planning in 11 cases (52%). Patients with preoperative vascular consultation had significantly fewer vascular injuries, a nonsignificant trend toward lower blood loss, and a nonsignificant trend toward improved survival than those with urgent intraoperative vascular consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular interventions can lead to favorable long-term outcomes during definitive oncologic resection of diverse tumor histologies and locations. Vascular surgeons must be prepared to participate, frequently urgently, in oncologic procedures. Standard open techniques employing all aspects of vascular exposures continue to be integral to vascular surgery training. Preoperative consultation between the oncologic and vascular surgeons may lead to improved outcomes.