Who should get a right colectomy in low-grade appendiceal adenocarcinomas? Association of lymphovascular invasion and nodal metastases.

BACKGROUND: There is variation in the probability of nodal metastases from low-grade appendiceal adenocarcinomas, and the role of right colectomy is unclear. We aimed to define the prevalence and utility of lymphovascular invasion in predicting the risk of nodal metastases to help stratify patients who may benefit from right hemicolectomy. METHODS: Patients with nonmetastatic low-grade appendiceal adenocarcinomas were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2017). The primary outcome was probability of nodal metastases. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of nodal metastases. A 4-tier risk model-the COH Composite Score-was calculated by assigning 1 point each for a high-risk feature (lymphovascular invasion, T3/T4 T stage, or nonmucinous histology). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of survival. RESULTS: A total of 1,303 patients with nonmetastatic low-grade appendiceal adenocarcinomas (64.2% mucinous) were identified. Of the 1,133 patients with known lymphovascular invasion status, 78 (6.9%) were lymphovascular invasion positive. In multivariate analysis, lymphovascular invasion was independently associated with nodal metastases (odds ratio, 8.68; P < .001). Overall accuracy of lymphovascular invasion in predicting nodal metastases was 86%. The COH Composite Score stratified patients in 4 categories with increasing risk of nodal metastases and incrementally worse survival. For patients with the COH Composite Score of 0 (12%), the nodal metastasis rate was 3.1%, and a right hemicolectomy in this group did not improve survival. CONCLUSION: The presence of lymphovascular invasion is strongly predictive of nodal metastases. Lymphovascular invasion as part of the COH Composite Score may help guide the extent of surgery in low-grade appendiceal adenocarcinomas.

Outcomes of rectal cancer patients who refuse surgery after incomplete clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the standard of care for patients with rectal cancer who have an incomplete response to total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). A minority of patients will refuse curative intent resection. The aim of this study is to examine the outcomes for these patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of stage 1-3 rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy or TNT at a single institution. Patients either underwent TME, watch-and-wait protocol, or if they refused TME, were counseled and watched (RCW). Clinical outcomes and resource utilization were examined in each group. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-one patients (Male 59%) were included with a median surveillance of 43 months. Twenty-nine patients (17%) refused TME and had shortened overall survival (OS). Twelve patients who refused TME converted to a complete clinical response (cCR) on subsequent staging with a prolonged OS. 92% of these patients had a near cCR at initial staging endoscopy. Increased physician visits and testing was utilized in RCW and WW groups. CONCLUSION: A significant portion of patients convert to cCR and have prolonged OS. Lengthening the time to declare cCR may be considered in select patients, such as those with a near cCR at initial endoscopic staging.

EAES, SAGES, and ESCP rapid guideline: bowel preparation for minimally invasive colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. METHODS: This is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej . CONCLUSION: This guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders. Guideline registration number PREPARE-2023CN045.

Patterns of Care for Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Treated with Total Neoadjuvant Therapy at Predominately Academic Centers between 2016-2020: An NCDB Analysis.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) has emerged as the preferred approach for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), defined as T3/4 or any T with N+ disease. Our objective was to (1) determine the proportion of patients with LARC receiving TNT over time, (2) determine the most common method in which TNT is being delivered, and (3) determine what factors are associated with a greater likelihood of receiving TNT in the United States. Retrospective data was obtained from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between 2016 and 2020. Patients were excluded if they had M1 disease, T1-2 N0 disease, incomplete staging information, nonadenocarcinoma histology, received RT to a nonrectum site, or received a nondefinitive RT dose. Data were analyzed using linear regression, χ2 test, and binary logistic regression. Of the 26,375 patients included, most patients were treated at an academic facility (94.6%). Five thousand three (19.0%) patients received TNT, and 21,372 (81.0%) patients did not receive TNT. The proportion of patients receiving TNT increased significantly over time, from 6.1% in 2016 to 34.6% in 2020 (slope = 7.36, 95% CI 4.58-10.15, R2 = 0.96, P = .040). The most common TNT regimen was multiagent chemotherapy followed by long-course chemoradiation (73.2% of cases from 2016-2020). There was a significant increase in utilization of short-course RT as part of TNT from 2.8% in 2016 to 13.7% in 2020 (slope = 2.74, 95% CI 0.37-5.11, R2 = 0.82, P = .035). Factors associated with a lower likelihood of TNT usage included age >65, female gender, Black race, and T3 N0 disease. TNT use in the United States has increased significantly from 2016-2020, with approximately 34.6% of patients with LARC receiving TNT in 2020. The observed trend appears to be in line with the recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommending TNT as the preferred approach.

The SAGES MASTERS program presents: the top 10 seminal articles for laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy pathway for uncomplicated disease.

BACKGROUND: As one of the 8 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Masters Program clinical pathways, the Colorectal Pathway aims to deliver educational content for the general surgeon organized along 3 levels of performance (competency, proficiency and mastery) each represented by an anchoring procedure. In this article, the SAGES Colorectal Task Force presents focused summaries of the top 10 seminal articles selected for laparoscopic left/sigmoid colectomy for uncomplicated disease. METHODS: Using a systematic literature search of Web of Science, the most cited articles on laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy were identified, reviewed, and ranked by members of the SAGES Colorectal Task Force. Additional articles not identified in the literature search were included if deemed impactful by expert consensus. The top 10 ranked articles were then summarized, including their findings, strengths and limitations with emphasis on relevance and impact in the field. RESULTS: The top 10 articles selected focus on variations in minimally invasive surgical techniques, video demonstrations, stratified approaches for benign and malignant disease as well as assessments of the learning curve. CONCLUSIONS: The selected top 10 seminal articles for laparoscopic left and sigmoid colectomy in uncomplicated disease are considered by the SAGES colorectal task force to be fundamental to the knowledge base of minimally invasive surgeons as they progress to mastery in these procedures.

Update on the management of sigmoid diverticulitis.

Diverticular disease and diverticulitis are the most common non-cancerous pathology of the colon. It has traditionally been considered a disease of the elderly and associated with cultural and dietary habits. There has been a growing evolution in our understanding and the treatment guidelines for this disease. To provide an updated review of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, classification and highlight changes in the medical and surgical management of diverticulitis. Diverticulitis is increasingly being seen in young patients (< 50 years). Genetic contributions to diverticulitis may be larger than previously thought. Potential similarities and overlap with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome exist. Computed tomography imaging represents the standard to classify the severity of diverticulitis. Modifications to the traditional Hinchey classification might serve to better delineate mild and intermediate forms as well as better classify chronic presentations of diverticulitis. Non-operative management is primarily based on antibiotics and supportive measures, but antibiotics may be omitted in mild cases. Interval colonoscopy remains advisable after an acute attack, particularly after a complicated form. Acute surgery is needed for the most severe as well as refractory cases, whereas elective resections are individualized and should be considered for chronic, smoldering, or recurrent forms and respective complications (stricture, fistula, etc.) and for patients with factors highly predictive of recurrent attacks. Diverticulitis is no longer a disease of the elderly. Our evolving understanding of diverticulitis as a clinical entity has led into a more nuanced approach in both the medical and surgical management of this common disease. Non-surgical management remains the appropriate treatment for greater than 70% of patients. In individuals with non-relenting, persistent, or recurrent symptoms and those with complicated disease and sequelae, a segmental colectomy remains the most effective surgical treatment in the acute, chronic, or elective-prophylactic setting.

SSAT PG/CME Committee Symposium Highlights: Perioperative Management-Best Practice in Surgical Quality and Safety.

Perioperative management entails the multiple substeps in the performance of major abdominal surgery that are considered relevant for an optimal outcome. The PG/CME symposium of the SSAT 2018 provided a set of key talks that the authors subsequently summarized in the respective subsections of this summary article. Highlights topics included oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel prep, surgical site infections, DVT prophylaxis, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), and narcotic-sparing pain management.

Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgical resection for rectal cancer usually requires a proctectomy with respective lymphadenectomy (total mesorectal excision). This has traditionally been performed transabdominally through an open incision. Over the last thirty years, minimally invasive surgery platforms have rapidly evolved with the goal to accomplish the same quality rectal resection through a less invasive approach. There are currently three resective modalities that complement the traditional open operation: (1) Laparoscopic surgery; (2) Robotic surgery; and (3) Transanal total mesorectal excision. In addition, there are several platforms to carry out transluminal local excisions (without lymphadenectomy). Evidence on the various modalities is of mixed to moderate quality. It is unreasonable to expect a randomized comparison of all options in a single trial. This review aims at reviewing in detail the various techniques in regard to intra-/perioperative benchmarks, recovery and complications, oncological and functional outcomes.

Management considerations for the surgical treatment of Colorectal Cancer during the Global COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic requires to conscientiously weigh ''timely surgical intervention'' for colorectal cancer against efforts to conserve hospital resources and protect patients and health care providers. Professional societies provided ad-hoc guidance at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic on deferral of surgical and perioperative interventions, but these lack specific parameters to determine the optimal timing of surgery. Using the GRADE system, published evidence was analyzed to generate weighted statements for stage, site, acuity of presentation, and hospital setting to specify when surgery should be pursued, the time and duration of oncologically acceptable delays, and when to utilize nonsurgical modalities to bridge the waiting period. Colorectal cancer surgeries­prioritized as emergency, urgent with imminent emergency or oncologically urgent, or elective­were matched against the phases of the pandemic. Surgery in COVID-19-positive patients must be avoided. Emergent and imminent emergent cases should mostly proceed unless resources are exhausted. Standard practices allow for postponement of elective cases and deferral to nonsurgical modalities of stage II/ III rectal and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologically urgent cases may be delayed for 6(­12) weeks without jeopardizing oncological outcomes. Outside established principles, administration of nonsurgical modalities is not justified and increases the vulnerability of patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed already limited health care resources and forced rationing, triage, and prioritization of care in general, specifically of surgical interventions. Established guidelines allow for modifications of optimal timing and type of surgery for colorectal cancer during an unrelated pandemic.

Management Considerations for the Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer During the Global Covid-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic requires to conscientiously weigh "timely surgical intervention" for colorectal cancer against efforts to conserve hospital resources and protect patients and health care providers. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Professional societies provided ad-hoc guidance at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic on deferral of surgical and perioperative interventions, but these lack specific parameters to determine the optimal timing of surgery. METHODS: Using the GRADE system, published evidence was analyzed to generate weighted statements for stage, site, acuity of presentation, and hospital setting to specify when surgery should be pursued, the time and duration of oncologically acceptable delays, and when to utilize nonsurgical modalities to bridge the waiting period. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer surgeries-prioritized as emergency, urgent with imminent emergency or oncologically urgent, or elective-were matched against the phases of the pandemic. Surgery in COVID-19-positive patients must be avoided. Emergent and imminent emergent cases should mostly proceed unless resources are exhausted. Standard practices allow for postponement of elective cases and deferral to nonsurgical modalities of stage II/III rectal and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologically urgent cases may be delayed for 6(-12) weeks without jeopardizing oncological outcomes. Outside established principles, administration of nonsurgical modalities is not justified and increases the vulnerability of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed already limited health care resources and forced rationing, triage, and prioritization of care in general, specifically of surgical interventions. Established guidelines allow for modifications of optimal timing and type of surgery for colorectal cancer during an unrelated pandemic.

Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer in the Twenty-First Century: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Management of low rectal cancer continues to be a challenge, and decision making regarding the need for an abdominoperineal resection (APR) in patients with low-lying tumors is complicated. Furthermore, choices need to be made regarding need for modification of the surgical approach based on tumor anatomy and patient goals. DISCUSSION: In this article, we address patient selection, preoperative planning, and intraoperative technique required to perform the three types of abdominoperineal resections for rectal cancer: extrasphincteric, extralevator, and intersphincteric. Attention is paid not only to traditional oncologic outcomes such as recurrence and survival but also to patient-reported outcomes and quality of life.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice.

OBJECTIVE: Analysis of various parameters related to the patient, the disease, and the needed surgical maneuvers to develop guidance for preoperative selection of the appropriate and the best approach for a given patient. Rapid advances in minimally invasive surgical technology are fascinating and challenging alike. It can be difficult for surgeons to keep up with new modalities that come on to the market place and to assess their true value, i.e., distinguish between fashionable trends versus scientific evidence. Laparoscopy established minimally invasive surgery and has revolutionized surgical concepts and approaches to diseases since its advent in the early 1990s. Now, with robotic surgery rapidly gaining traction in this high-tech surgical landscape, it remains to be seen how the long-term surgical landscape will be affected. METHODS: Review of the surgical evolution, published data and cost factors to reflect on advantages and disadvantages in order to develop a broader perspective on the role of various technology platforms. RESULTS: Advocates for robotic technology tout its advantages of 3D views, articulating wrists, lack of hand tremor, and surgeon comfort, which may extend the scope of minimally invasive surgery by allowing for operations in places that are more difficult to access for laparoscopic surgery (e.g., the deep pelvis), for complex tasks (e.g., intracorporeal suturing), and by decreasing the learning curve. But conventional laparoscopy has also evolved and offers high-definition 3D vision to all team members. It remains to be seen whether all together the robot features outweigh the downsides of higher cost, operative times, lack of tactile feedback, possibly unusual complications, inability to move the operative table with ease, and the difficulty to work in different quadrants. CONCLUSIONS: While technical and design developments will likely address some shortcomings, the value-based impact of the various approaches will have to be examined in general and on a case-by-case basis. Value as the ratio of quality over cost depends on numerous parameters (disease, complications, patient, efficiency, finances).

Risk Factors Associated with Reconstructive Complications Following Sacrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Sacral pathology requiring partial or total sacrectomy is rare, and reconstructing the ensuing defects requires careful decision-making to minimize morbidity. The purpose of this study was to review the experience of a single institution with reconstructing large sacral defects, to identify risk factors for suboptimal outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent sacrectomy over a 10-year period. Univariate analysis of differences in risk factors between patients with and without various postoperative complications was performed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictive variables. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were identified. The most common diagnosis leading to sacrectomy was chordoma (39%). Total sacrectomy was performed on 4 patients, whereas 24 patients underwent partial resection. Reconstructive modalities included 15 gluteal advancement flaps, 4 pedicled rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps, and 9 paraspinous muscle or other flap types. There was an overall complication rate of 57.1% (n = 12) and a 28.6% (n = 8) incidence of major complications. There were significantly more flap-related complications in patients who underwent total sacrectomy (P = 0.02). Large defect size resulted in significantly more unplanned returns to the operating room (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Consistent with other published series', the overall complication rate exceeded 50%. Defect volume and sacrectomy type were the strongest predictors of postoperative complications and return to the operating room, while reconstructive strategy showed limited power to predict patient outcomes. We recommend that patients anticipated to have large sacral defects should be appropriately counseled regarding the incidence of wound complications, regardless of reconstructive approach.

Fecal incontinence - Challenges and solutions.

Fecal incontinence is not a diagnosis but a frequent and debilitating common final pathway symptom resulting from numerous different causes. Incontinence not only impacts the patient's self-esteem and quality of life but may result in significant secondary morbidity, disability, and cost. Treatment is difficult without any panacea and an individualized approach should be chosen that frequently combines different modalities. Several new technologies have been developed and their specific roles will have to be defined. The scope of this review is outline the evaluation and treatment of patients with fecal incontinence.

Surgical Considerations in the Treatment of Small Bowel Crohn's Disease.

Surgery remains a cornerstone of the management of Crohn's disease (CD). Despite the rise of biologic therapy, most CD patients require surgery for penetrating, obstructing, or malignant complications. Optimal surgical therapy requires sophisticated operative judgment and medical optimization. Intraoperatively, surgeons must balance treatment of CD complications against bowel preservation and functional outcome. This demands mastery of multiple techniques for anastomosis and strictureplasty, accurate assessment of bowel integrity for margin minimization, and a comprehensive skillset for navigating adhesions and altered anatomy, controlling thickened mesentery, and safely managing the hostile abdomen. Outside of the operating room, a multi-disciplinary team is critical for pre-operative optimization, patient support, and medical management. Postoperatively, prevention and surveillance of recurrence remain a matter of research and debate, and medical options include older drugs with limited efficacy and tolerability versus biologic agents with greater effect sizes and shorter track records. The evidence base for current management is limited by the inherent challenges of studying a chronic disease marked by heterogeneity and recurrence, but also by a lack of prospective trials incorporating both medical and surgical therapies.

Medically Treated Diverticular Abscess Associated With High Risk of Recurrence and Disease Complications.

BACKGROUND: The best management for diverticulitis with abscess formation remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the natural course and outcomes of patients with medically treated diverticular abscess. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients at our institution with diverticular abscess confirmed by CT from 2004 to 2014. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 1194 patients were treated for acute diverticulitis in 10 years; 210 patients with CT-documented diverticular abscess were analyzed (140 men (66.7%) and 70 women (33.3%); median age 45 years; range, 23-84 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall recurrence and disease complication rates, as well as the need for subsequent operation after initial successful nonsurgical management, were measured, along with analysis of the whole cohort and the subgroup of patients with percutaneous drainage for diverticular abscess. RESULTS: During the initial presentation, 25 patients failed nonoperative management and required an urgent operation. A total of 185 patients were initially successfully managed without surgery and were discharged from the hospital. Of these, recurrent diverticulitis developed in 112 (60.5%) after an average time interval of 5.3 months (range, 0.8-20.0 months); 47 patients (42%) experienced more than 1 episode. The modified Hinchey stage at time of recurrence (compared with index stay) increased in 51 patients (45.6%). Seventy one (63%) of 112 recurrences showed local disease complications (recurrent abscess, fistula, stricture, or peritonitis). Fistula formation (colovesicular/colovaginal/colocutaneous) and recurrent abscess were the 2 most frequent complications. Twenty nine (26%) of 112 recurrences required an urgent operation; overall, 66 (59%) of 112 patients eventually underwent surgery at our institution. The original abscess size in patients who later developed recurrences was significantly larger than in patients who did not develop recurrence (5.3 vs 3.2 cm; p < 0.001). Paradoxically, larger abscesses also had a higher chance of successful CT-guided drainage (average size, 6.5 cm; range, 1.1-14 cm), yet CT-guided drainage did not change the overall outcome. Of 65 (31.0%) of 210 patients with CT-guided drainage, 45 (73.8%) of 61 after initial success experienced a recurrence. Furthermore, local disease complications at the time of recurrence were noted in 32 of 61 patients (52.5% of all CT-guided drainage, 71.1% of post-CT-guided drainage recurrences), and 13 (29.2%) of 45 patients with recurrence after successful CT-guided drainage subsequently required an urgent operation. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective noncomparative design. CONCLUSIONS: Diverticular abscesses represent complicated diverticulitis and are associated with a high risk of recurrences and disease complications. Recurrences (contrary to other series) were often more severe than the index presentation. The successful CT-guided drainage of a diverticular abscess does not appear to lower the risks of future recurrence or complication rates and frequently is only a bridge to surgery. After initial successful nonoperative management, patients with diverticular abscess should be offered interval elective colectomy (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A216).

Fecal Incontinence: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management.

INTRODUCTION: Fecal incontinence is a debilitating condition affecting primarily the elderly. Many patients suffer in silence resulting in both underdiagnosis and undertreatment often culminating in an overall poor quality of life. METHODS: We sought to review the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of fecal incontinence based on current literature. Additionally, newer treatment methods such as Solesta will be evaluated. RESULTS: There are many diagnostic modalities available to assess the degree and severity of the patient's incontinence; however, a thorough history and physical exam is critical. Initial attempts at treatment focus on medical management primarily through stool texture modification with the aid of bulking agents. Failure of medical therapy is often followed by a graded increase in the complexity and invasiveness of the available treatment options. The selection of the most appropriate surgical option, such as overlapping sphincteroplasty and neuromodulation, is multifactorial involving both surgeon and patient-related factors. Neuromodulation has received increased attention in the last decade due to its documented therapeutic success, and newer office-based procedures, such as the Solesta injection, are showing promising results in properly selected patients. Finally, diversion remains an option for select patients who have failed all other therapies. CONCLUSION: The etiology of fecal incontinence is multifactorial, involving a complex interplay between stool consistency and anatomic integrity. The diagnosis and treatment of fecal incontinence continue to evolve and are showing promising results.