Circumferential Margin Involvement Research Articles

Circumferential resection margin rates in esophageal cancer resection- oncological equivalency and comparable clinical outcomes between open versus minimally invasive techniques: A retrospective cohort study.

Radical surgery for esophageal cancer requires macroscopic and microscopic clearance of all malignant tissue. A critical element of the procedure is achieving a negative circumferential margin (CRM) to minimize local recurrence. The utility of minimally invasive surgery poses challenges in replicating techniques developed in open surgery, particularly for hiatal dissection in esophago-gastrectomy. In this study, the technical approach and clinical and oncological outcomes for open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy are described with particular reference to CRM involvement. This cohort study included all patients undergoing either open or laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy between January 2004 to June 2022 in a single tertiary center. A standard surgical technique for hiatal dissection of the esophago-gastric junction developed in open surgery was adapted for a laparoscopic approach. Clinical parameters, length of stay (LOS), post-operative complications and mortality data were collected and analyzed by a Mann-Whitney U or Fisher's exact method. Overall 447 patients underwent an esophago-gastrectomy in the study with 219 open and 228 laparoscopic procedures. The CRM involvement was 18.8% in open surgery and 13.6% in laparoscopic surgery. The 90-day-mortality for open surgery was 4.1% compared with 2.2% for laparoscopic procedures. Median Intensive care unit (ITU), inpatient LOS and 30-day readmission rates were shorter for laparoscopic compared with open esophago-gastrectomy (ITU: 5 versus 8 days, P=0.0004; LOS: 14 versus 20 days, P=0.022; 30-day re-admission 7.46% versus 10.50%). Post-operative complication rates were comparable across both cohorts. The rates of starting adjuvant chemotherapy were 51.8% after open and 74.4% in laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy. This study presents a standardized surgical approach to hiatal dissection for esophageal cancer. We present equivalence between open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy in clinical, oncological and survival outcomes with similar rates of CRM involvement. We also observe a significantly shorter hospital length of stay with the minimally invasive approach.

Pelvic Diameter is not Associated with Positive Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer: Retrospective Analysis of 78 Cases

Abstract Objective To identify if there is an association between pelvic entry and pelvic outlet diameters with increased positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) in rectal cancer. Introduction Positive CRM in rectal cancer is a major predictor for local and distant recurrence. Pelvic diameters may be related to the difficulty of dissection, as well as intrinsic tumor characteristics such as tumor size, location, distance from the anal margin, and T stage, which may compromise the integrity of the mesorectum and circumferential margin involvement. Methods A retrospective review of the patient's medical records who underwent surgical resection of rectal adenocarcinoma from January 2012 to June 2022 was performed. The patient's preoperative staging, operative characteristics, and histopathologic outcomes were gathered from the medical records. Preoperative MRI scanning was done in all patients. MRI pelvimetry was done by two observers. CRM involvement was recorded as stated in the pathology report. Pelvimetry variables were dichotomized according to their mean values for correlation analysis. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated from a binary logistics regression model to assess the relation between the positive CRM and the independent variables. Results A total of 78 patients were included in this study. A positive CRM was reported in 10 patients (12.8%). BMI >27.4 + 6.6 (p = 0.02), positive extramural vascular invasion (p = 0.027), positive CRM by MRI scanning (p = 0.004), and anal sphincter involvement (p = 0.03) were associated with positive CRM. Pelvimetry values were not associated with a positive CRM. Conclusion No association was found between the pelvic diameters measured by MRI pelvimetry with a positive CRM.

Prognostic value of circumferential radial margin involvement in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a case series.

Residual tumor at the proximal or distal margin after esophagectomy is associated with worse survival outcomes; however, the significance of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) remains controversial. In this study, we sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of the CRM in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing resection. We identified patients who underwent esophagectomy for pathologic T3 esophageal cancer from 2000 to 2019. Patients were divided into three groups: CRM- (residual tumor >1mm from the CRM), CRM-close (residual tumor >0 to 1mm from the CRM), and CRM+ (residual tumor at the surgical CRM). CRM was also categorized and analyzed per the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) and College of American Pathologists (CAP) classifications. Of the 519 patients included, 351 (68%) had CRM-, 132 (25%) had CRM-close, and 36 (7%) had CRM+. CRM+ was associated with shorter disease-free survival [DFS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: hazard ratio (HR), 1.53 [95% CI, 1.03-2.28]; P =0.034] and overall survival (OS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: HR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.32-2.95]; P <0.001). Survival was not significantly different between CRM-close and CRM-. After adjustment for potential confounders, CAP+ was associated with poor oncologic outcomes (CAP+ vs. CAP-: DFS: HR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.00-2.17]; P =0.050; OS: HR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.30-2.86]; P =0.001); RCP+ was not (RCP+ vs. RCP-: DFS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.97-1.52]; P =0.10; OS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.96-1.54]; P =0.11). CRM status has critical prognostic significance for patients undergoing esophagectomy: CRM+ was associated with worse outcomes, and outcomes between CRM-close and CRM- were similar.

ThTP7.2 For T4 rectal cancers (low) undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APER), should surgery be based on baseline MRI or Preoperative scans?

Abstract Background Neoadjuvant therapy is standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. For low Rectal cancer which are T4 and require surgery after neoadjuvant treatment, there is a dilemma whether plane of surgery should be based on primary MRI or restaging MRI. At our institute surgery is based on Preoperative MRI scans. Methods To test this hypothesis, we compared outcomes of low Rectal cancers which were T3MRF (mesorectal fascia) positive (high risk) i.e group A to T4 rectal cancers, i.e group B who underwent APER after neoadjuvant therapy. Patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for persistent disease, or those who went on wait and watch programme were excluded. Results Between June 2010- July 2022, 953 APER were performed for low rectal cancers (adenocarcinoma) at our institute. Keeping follow-up in mind, we included 311, T3 MRF-positive patients and 101 T4 patients operated between 2010-2018. Group B patients included a higher number of females, lower BMI, and had a higher incidence of consolidation chemotherapy and short-course radiation. They were more likely to undergo extended TME compared to Group A (33.33%) vs (50.16%). This group also had higher blood loss and morbidity. In terms of oncological outcomes, circumferential margin involvement and local recurrence (isolated + systemic) in 2 groups were similar, Group A(37.12%) and (9.35%) compared to group B (11.11%) and (6.93%). There was no difference in 5 year disease free or overall survival. Conclusion T4 low rectal cancers, APER after neoadjuvant therapy can be based on preoperative MRI scans with no detrimental outcomes.

Prognostication and optimal criteria of circumferential margin involvement for esophageal cancer after chemoradiation and esophagectomy.

Circumferential radial margin (CRM) involvement by tumor after resection for esophageal cancer has been suggested as a significant prognostic factor. However, the prognostic value of CRM involvement after surgery with neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of and survival outcomes in CRM involvement as defined by the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) for patients with esophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant CCRT and esophagectomy. A total of 299 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant CCRT followed by esophagectomy between 2006 and 2016 were enrolled in our study. The CRM status of the specimens obtained was determined pathologically according to both the CAP and RCP criteria. Survival analyses were performed and compared according to the two criteria. Positive CRM was found in 102 (34.1%) and 40 (13.3%) patients according to RCP and CAP criteria, respectively. The overall and progression-free survival rates were significantly lower in the CRM-positive group than in the CRM-negative group according to both the RCP and CAP criteria. However, under multivariate analysis, in addition to pathological T and N staging of the tumor, only CAP-defined CRM positivity was a significant prognostic factor with adjusted hazard ratios of 2.64 (1.56-4.46) and 2.25 (1.34-3.78) for overall and progression-free survival, respectively (P < 0.001). In patients with esophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant CRT followed by esophagectomy, CAP-defined CRM positivity is an independent predictor of survival. Adjuvant therapy should be offered to patients with positive CRM.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, specimen extraction: transanal or transabdominal?

BackgroundComparison of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) and transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in colorectal surgery remains controversial. Herein, we aimed to perform a retrospective analysis on surgical outcomes of NOSE and TASE at three hospitals in east of Iran.MethodConsecutive locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery using either NOSE or TASE from 2011 to 2017 were recruited. These patients were followed-up till 2020. Data, including postoperative complications, long-term overall and recurrence-free survival were analyzed retrospectively.Results239 eligible patients were included in this study. 169 (70.71%) patients underwent NOSE, and 70 (29.29%) patients underwent TASE. Although this study has achieved similar outcomes in terms of overall and recurrence-free survival, metastasis, circumferential margin involvement as well as complications of intra-operative bleeding, obstruction, anastomosis-fail, rectovaginal-fistula in women and pelvic collection/abscess in both groups, we observed higher rates of locoregional recurrence, incontinency, stenosis and the close distal margins involvement in NOSE group and also obstructed defecation syndrome in TASE cases.ConclusionAccording to our findings, NOSE laparoscopic surgery showed significantly higher incontinency, impotency, stenosis and involvement of the close distal margins rates. Nevertheless, considering the similarity of long-term overall and recurrence-free survival, metastasis, circumferential margin involvement, NOSE procedure is still could be considered as a second choice for lower rectal adenocarcinoma patients.

Robotic male and laparoscopic female sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer share similar specimen quality, complication rates and long-term oncological outcomes.

The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision in female patients (F-Lap-TME) and robotic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision in male patients (M-Rob-TME) with mid-low rectal cancer (RC). A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. 170 cases (F-Lap-TME: 60 patients; M-Rob-TME: 110 patients) were performed by a single surgeon (January 2011-January 2020). Clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Operating time was longer in M-Rob-TME than in F-Lap-TME group (185.3 ± 28.4 vs 124.5 ± 35.8min, p < 0.001). There was no conversion to open surgery in both groups. Quality of mesorectum was complete/near-complete in 58 (96.7%) and 107 (97.3%) patients of F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME (p = 0.508), respectively. Circumferential radial margin involvement was observed in 2 (3.3%) and 3 (2.9%) in F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME patients (p = 0.210), respectively. Median length of follow-up was 62 (24-108) months in the F-Lap-TME and 64 (24-108) months in the M-Rob-TME group. Five-year overall survival rates were 90.5% in the F-Lap-TME and 89.6% in the M-Rob-TME groups (p = 0.120). Disease-free survival rates in F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME groups were 87.5% and 86.5% (p = 0.145), respectively. Local recurrence rates were 5% (n = 3) and 5.5% (n = 6) (p = 0.210), in the F-Lap-TME and M-Rob-TME groups, respectively. The robotic technique can potentially overcome some technical challenges related to the pelvic anatomical difference between sex compared to laparoscopy. Laparoscopic and robotic approach, respectively in female and male patients provide similar surgical specimen quality, perioperative outcomes, and long-term oncological results.

Comparison of Oncological Outcomes After Colorectal Cancer Surgery in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Versus an Open Procedure

Objective: To compare the oncological outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery in patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open procedures for colorectal carcinoma.&#x0D; Study Design: Comparative Cross-sectional Study.&#x0D; Place and Duration of Study: Surgical Department Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi and Histopathology Department Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Rawalpindi Pakistan, from June 2021 to March 2022.&#x0D; Methodology: This study was conducted on 60 patients who underwent oncological surgery for colorectal cancer via the open or laparoscopic method. Data were collected for all the patients from the Histopathology Department regarding proximal margin involvement, circumferential margin involvement, distal margin involvement, tumour perforation and lymph nodes resected. These parameters were compared in patients undergoing open or laparoscopic methods.&#x0D; Results: Out of 60 patients included in the final analysis, 41(68.3%) were males, and 19(31.7%) were females. The mean age of patients who underwent open or laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in our study was 44.67±7.537 years. 32(53.3%)patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, while 28(46.7%) underwent an open surgical procedure. Statistical tests revealed that both Groups found that proximal margin involvement, circumferential margin involvement, distal margin involvement,tumour perforation, and the number of lymph nodes resected were not statistically significant (p-value&gt;0.05).&#x0D; Conclusion: Oncological outcomes on histopathology were not different in patients undergoing the open or laparoscopic procedure. Therefore, laparoscopic colonic resection is oncologically equivalent to open resection.&#x0D;

Robotic vs. laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a case matched study reporting a median of 7-year long-term oncological and functional outcomes.

Aim of this study was to compare operative, long-term oncological and functional outcomes of laparoscopic (LISR) and robotic (RISR) intersphincteric resection in low-lying rectal cancer. Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database was performed. 115 cases (LISR, n = 55; RISR, n = 60) were performed by a single surgeon (January 2011-January 2020). Clinical characteristics did not differ between the groups. Operating time was longer in RISR (160.0 ± 45.7 vs. 205.0 ± 36.5min, p = 0.035). There was no conversion in RISR, whereas in LISR, two patients (3.6%) converted to open surgery. Complete mesorectum was 61.8% and 83.3% for LISR and RISR (p = 0.046), respectively. Circumferential radial margin involvement was 10.9% and 8.3% in LISR and RISR (p = 0.365), respectively. Median follow-up was 82.8 (30-138) months for LISR and 83.6 (30-138) months for RISR. Three-, five-, and seven-year overall survival rates (OS) for LISR and RISR were: 88.6%, 80.4%, 73.4% and 90.4%, 86.3%, 76.9%, respectively. Three-, five-, and seven-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates for LISR and RISR were 80.5%, 75.2%, 70.4% and 84.4%, 81.4%, 79.8% (p = 0.328), respectively. Three-, five-, and seven-year local recurrence-free survival rates in LISR and RISR were: 96.1%, 92.6%, 88.4% and 96.7%, 94.2%, 90.4% (p = 0.573), respectively. Mean Wexner score for LISR (n = 32) and RISR (n = 40) was: 10.5 ± 4.7 and 9.8 ± 4.2 (p = 0.782), respectively. Colostomy-free survival in LISR and RISR was: 3 years 94.5%/95.2%, 5 years 89.1%/91.7%, and 7 years 83.6%/85.0%. RISR is associated with better mesorectal integrity, no conversion, and lower postoperative complication rate. RISR has longer operation time. Oncological and anorectal functional outcomes are similar in both groups.

TU2.10 Clinicopathological Factors Affecting Lymph Node Yield and Positivity in Left-Sided Colon and Rectal Cancers

Abstract Background The status of lymph node metastasis is a key factor for predicting the prognosis of colorectal cancers. Aims We aimed to find any significant difference in lymph node yield (LNY) between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). We aimed to identify any statistical correlation between LNY and lymph node positivity (LNP) with other patient, surgical and histopathological features. Methodology This is a retrospective, non-interventional review of consecutive patients who underwent left-sided colonic and rectal cancer resections over a three-year period between 01 April 2018 and 31 March 2021. Results A total of 102 patients were included in the study. LNY ranged between one and 43 nodes (median (interquartile range (IQR)) 17, 8). There was no statistically significant difference in LNY between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS) (p=0.1449). Significant statistical correlation was identified between LNP and completeness of resection (CoR) (p=0.039), vascular invasion (VI) (p&amp;lt;0.001), perineural invasion (PI) (p&amp;lt;0.001), and circumferential resectional margin involvement (CRMI) (p=0.039). Discussion LNY and LNP are important prognostic indices in colorectal cancer. Patient age, tumor location, the urgency of surgery, and consultant experience did not significantly impact the LNY. Our study showed a positive correlation between LNP and CRMI, VI and PI comparable to literature. Contrary to other studies, we found no statistical significance between LS vs. OS and LNY. Whether 12 nodes per patient is an appropriate level remains controversial.

Clinicopathological Factors Affecting Lymph Node Yield and Positivity in Left-Sided Colon and Rectal Cancers.

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of cancer‐related deaths worldwide and is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the UK. The status of lymph node metastasis is a key factor for predicting the prognosis of a patient's CRC.AimsThis study aimed to analyze the demographics of left-sided colonic and rectal cancers at a single institution. We looked closely at the correlation between patient age and various histological factors. We tried to find any significant difference in lymph node yield (LNY) between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). We aimed to identify any statistical correlation between LNY and lymph node positivity (LNP) with other patient, surgical and histopathological features.MethodologyThis is a retrospective, non-interventional review of consecutive patients who underwent left-sided colonic and rectal cancer resections over a three-year period between 01 April 2018 and 31 March 2021. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used. Chi-squared / Fisher exact test was used on a categorical scale between two or more groups and non-parametric setting for qualitative data analysis.ResultsA total of 102 patients were included in the study. No statistical correlation was found between the age of the patient with the LNY, LNP, location of the tumor, type, and urgency of the operation. LNY ranged between one and 43 nodes (median (interquartile range (IQR)) 17, 8). There was no statistically significant difference in LNY between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS) (p=0.1449). Significant statistical correlation was identified between LNP and completeness of resection (CoR) (p=0.039), vascular invasion (VI) (p<0.001), perineural invasion (PI) (p<0.001), and circumferential resectional margin involvement (CRMI) (p=0.039).DiscussionLNY and LNP are important prognostic indices in colorectal cancer. Patient age, tumor location, the urgency of surgery, and consultant experience did not significantly impact the LNY. Our study showed a positive correlation between LNP and CRMI, VI and PI comparable to literature. Contrary to other studies, we found no statistical significance between LS vs. OS and LNY. Whether 12 nodes per patient is an appropriate level remains controversial.

Transanal total mesorectal excision and transabdominal robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A retrospective study

BackgroundTransabdominal robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are newly introduced strategies for rectal cancer. These procedures might have many advantages in rectal cancer treatment in terms of improving oncological and functional outcomes, especially in cases involving advanced cancer or technical difficulty. In the present study, we aimed to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of transabdominal robotic surgery and laparoscopic TaTME as a hybrid surgery for rectal cancer. Materials and methodsWe retrospectively evaluated six patients who underwent hybrid surgery for rectal cancer from August 2018 to April 2020. Both clinical and pathological outcomes were assessed. ResultsTwo patients showed circumferential margin involvement both before and after neoadjuvant therapy. Three patients were planned to undergo hybrid surgery with intersphincteric resection because of a narrow pelvis. One patient was planned to undergo hybrid surgery for a giant tumor of >10 cm. The median length of hospitalization was 17 days. No patients required conversion to an open procedure. All patients underwent formation of defunctioning ileostomies. Two patients had a stapled anastomosis and four had a hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Complications included one case of anastomotic leakage, which was managed conservatively with ultrasound- and computed tomography-guided drainage and antibiotics. Histological analysis revealed that all specimens had a negative radial margin and distal margin. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 17.5. Two patients showed extensive lymph node metastases, including lateral node metastasis. ConclusionHybrid surgery was performed safely and may improve oncological outcomes for rectal cancer. This technique has many potential benefits and would be alternative option in multimodal strategies for rectal cancer.

Inframesocolic artery-first approach in laparoscopic ramps

Purpose: In 2003, Strasberg described the radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy. This procedure is specifically designed for the surgical treatment of cancer of the body/tail of the pancreas. It primarily aims to achieve low rates of circumferential margin involvement and oncologically adequate lymphadenectomy. Recently, an adaptation of the surgical technique to the laparoscopic context has been described. This approach accesses the retroperitoneal plane as the first manoeuvre. This inframesenteric approach ensures oncologically adequate margins and allows to take full advantage of the vision and features of minimally invasive surgery. Method: A 52 year old female patient was diagnosed with body-tail junction pancreatic adenocarcinoma. CT scan revealed a focal lesion of approximately 19 mm in the pancreatic tail. The patient received 4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX regimen. Following, laparoscopic RAMPS was performed as follows: Five trocars were placed. After opening theomental bursa to rule out peritoneal disease, an inframesenteric approach of the SMA was performed. By means of a ligament of Treitz approach, the left renal vein and the left-superior aspect of the SMA were dissected; also, and dividing the SMV, retroperitoneal dissection was further dissected. This approach rules out tumor infiltration into the SMA and also allows the early determination of the posterior dissection plane. Then, extended lymphadenectomy is performed. After dividing the neck of the pancreas and splenic vein, the retroperitoenal space -previously developed- is entered. This facilitates the completion of the procedure thus ensuring a negative tangential margin. Results: Operation was completed without any intraoperative complication. Surgical time was 360 minutes. Blood loss was less than 50 mL. Patient was discharged on fourth postoperative day and no postoperative complications were observed. 17 lymph nodes were identified on the pathological report, none of them were affected by carcinoma. No vascular nor lymphatic invasion was documented. All resection margins were tumor-free. Conclusion: The inframesocolic artery-first approach in laparoscopic RAMPS is a feasible and safe procedure. It confirms resectability early in the procedure, ensures and facilitates tumor free-margins, may reduce blood loss and reproduce optimal oncological results.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer as a platform to build on: review of current evidence.

Laparoscopy in colorectal surgery reduces the rate of postoperative complications, shortens the length of stay in hospital, and improves the quality of patient care. Despite these established benefits, the technical challenges of rectal resection for cancer have resulted in most operations being performed through open surgery in the USA. Moreover, controversy in the current literature questions the oncologic safety of a laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. How then can surgeons innovate to overcome the technical challenges while preserving the critical oncological outcomes of high-quality rectal cancer surgery? Robotics may be a platform that allows us to overcome the technical challenges in the pelvis while maintaining both oncological outcomes and the benefits of a minimally invasive technique. Current evidence suggests that the quality of total mesorectal excision, the rates of circumferential margin involvement, and postoperative outcomes are comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. While a robotic approach demonstrates lower conversion rates and reduced surgeon workload, the operative time is longer and initial costs are higher; however, time and future science will determine its true benefits. We review the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on rectal cancer surgery.

Immune activation by DNA damage predicts response to chemotherapy and survival in oesophageal adenocarcinoma

ObjectiveCurrent strategies to guide selection of neoadjuvant therapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) are inadequate. We assessed the ability of a DNA damage immune response (DDIR) assay to predict response following...

Current Trends in the Management of Low Rectal Tumors: Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

The access of the low rectum is a surgical challenge and, in case of cancer, the outcome of the patient depends on the quality of the surgery. The transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a surgical technique with a combined abdominal and perineal approach. We review the literature for technical aspect of taTME as well as comparisons with other techniques. Comparison with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision and taTME was summarized in a meta-analysis which showed better oncological results with lower circumferential margin involvement and better completeness of the mesorectum. TaTME is a safe approach. All steps of the intervention are well described and should be followed as numerous pitfalls exist. When compared with laparoscopic or robotic TME, the taTME showed to be safe with similar oncological results. Patients known to be difficult, male, obese, with a narrow pelvis, should be considered for the taTME approach.

Short-term efficacy of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUNDThis case-control study compared the short-term clinical efficacy of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) using a prolapsing technique and the conventional laparoscopic-assisted approach for low rectal cancer.AIMTo further explore the application value of the transanal placement of the anvil and to evaluate the short-term efficacy of NOSES for resecting specimens of low rectal cancer, as well as to provide a theoretical basis for its extensive clinical application.METHODSFrom June 2015 to June 2018, 108 consecutive laparoscopic-assisted low rectal cancer resections were performed at our center. Among them, 26 specimens were resected transanally using a prolapsing technique (NOSES), and 82 specimens were resected through a conventional abdominal wall small incision (LAP). A propensity score matching method was used to select 26 pairs of matched patients, and their perioperative data were analyzed.RESULTSThe baseline data were comparable between the two matched groups. All 52 patients underwent the surgery successfully. The operative time, blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, postoperative complication rate, circumferential margin involvement, postoperative follow-up data, and postoperative anal function were not statistically significant. The NOSES group had shorter time to gastrointestinal function recovery (2.6 ± 1.0 d vs 3.4 ± 0.9 d, P = 0.006), shorter postoperative hospital stay (7.1 ± 1.7 d vs 8.3 ± 1.1 d, P = 0.003), lower pain score (day 1: 2.7 ± 1.8 vs 4.6 ± 1.9, day 3: 2.0 ± 1.1 vs 4.1 ± 1.2, day 5: 1.7 ± 0.9 vs 3.3 ± 1.0, P < 0.001), a lower rate of additional analgesic use (11.5% vs 61.5%, P = 0.001), and a higher satisfaction rate in terms of the aesthetic appearance of the abdominal wall after surgery (100% vs 23.1%, P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONNOSES for low rectal cancer can achieve satisfactory short-term efficacy and has advantages in reducing postoperative pain, shortening the length of postoperative hospital stay, and improving patients’ satisfaction in terms of a more aesthetic appearance of the abdominal wall.

2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial

AimsThe role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer has been questioned. 3D laparoscopic systems are suggested to aid optimal surgical performance but have not been evaluated in advanced procedures. We hypothesised that stereoscopic imaging could improve the performance of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME).MethodsA multicentre developmental randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D laparoscopic TME was performed (ISRCTN59485808). Trial surgeons were colorectal consultants that had completed their TME proficiency curve and underwent stereoscopic visual testing. Patients requiring elective laparoscopic TME with curative intent were centrally randomised (1:1) to 2D or 3D using Karl Storz IMAGE1 S D3-Link™ and 10-mm TIPCAM®1S 3D passive polarising laparoscopic systems. Outcomes were enacted adverse events as assessed by the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique, intraoperative data, 30-day patient outcomes, histopathological specimen assessment and surgeon cognitive load.Results88 patients were included. There were no differences in patient or tumour demographics, surgeon stereopsis, case difficulty, cognitive load, operative time, blood loss or conversion between the trial arms. 1377 intraoperative adverse events were identified (median 18 per case, IQR 14–21, range 2–49) with no differences seen between the 2D and 3D arms (18 (95% CI 17–21) vs. 17 (95% CI 16–19), p = 0.437). 3D laparoscopy had non-significantly higher mesorectal fascial plane resections (94 vs. 77%, p = 0.059; OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.05–1.16)) but equal lymph node yield and circumferential margin distance and involvement. 30-day morbidity, anastomotic leak, re-operation, length of stay and readmission rates were equal between the 2D and 3D arms.ConclusionFeasibility of performing multicentre 3D laparoscopic multicentre trials of specialist performed complex procedures is shown. 3D imaging did not alter the number of intraoperative adverse events; however, a potential improvement in mesorectal specimen quality was observed and should form the focus of future 3D laparoscopic TME trials.

Intersphincteric Resection Is the Optimal Procedure for Very Low Rectal Cancer: Techniques, Morbidity, Oncologic and Functional Outcomes

Background: The intersphincteric resection the most extreme form of a sphincter-preserving alternative for the abdominoperineal resection. Aim of the Work: We investigated oncological, functional outcomes and morbidity after ISR. Methods: This retrospective study included 164 patients who underwent ISR with between 2010 and 2015, Male 56.1%, Female 43.9%, with a median age was 54.5 years, Median follow-up time was of 48 months, Average surgical time was 230 min, Median blood loss was 700 mL and median hospital stay was nine days. Mean tumour size was34 mm. The surgical procedure through a laparotomy (72.6%), laparoscopically (27.4%). Neoadjuvant radiotherapy 89.6% {long-course radiotherapy 74.4%, short-course radiotherapy 15.2%}, neoadjuvant chemotherapy 28.7% and adjuvant chemotherapy 70.1%. Colonic J-pouch 16.5%, Transverse coloplasty 15.9%, a side-to-end anastomosis 26.8% and straight coloanal anastomosis 40.9%. Partial-ISR 36.6%, subtotal-ISR 37.2%, total-ISR 26.2%, diverting ileostomy 6.7%. Results: Operative mortality 1.2%, morbidity 14.6% (anastomotic leakage 3.7%, anastomotic stenosis 1.8%, a recto-vaginal fistula 2.4% bowel obstruction 3%, surgical site infection 3%. Respiratory tract infection 1.2%, local 7.9%, distant recurrence 15.2%, 5-year overall 79.8%, disease-free survival 75.8%, R0 resection 95.1%. Pathologic complete response 11%. Circumferential margin involvement 2.4%. Median number of lymph nodes 17. Mean distal margin20 mm, after 12 months Median Wexner score 6. Incontinence for (flatus 11%, liquid 4.9%, solid 4.3%). Median bowel motions in a 24-h were 3. Faecal urgency 17.7%. Stool fragmentation 18.9%. Difficult evacuation 17.7%, lifestyle alteration 14.6%. Difficulty Feces/flatus discrimination 43.3%. Nocturnal soiling in 17.1%. Daytime soiling 11%. Pad wearing 23.8%. Anti-diarrhoea medication loperamide 14%. Conclusion: ISR is a feasible surgical procedure for low rectal cancer. Oncologic and functional, outcomes after are acceptable.

Pathologic Staging Inconsistency Between ypT4N0 (stage II) and ypT1-2N1 (stage III) After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy and Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Study

BackgroundIn the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results population-based data, the survival curves reversed between T4N0 (stages IIB or IIC) and T1-2N1 (stage IIIA) in rectal cancer. However, T4N0 had a higher stage than T1-2N1 in the current colorectal staging system. Patients and MethodsWe analyzed 1804 patients with rectal cancer who were treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and curative surgery. We grouped patients by pathologic stage, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival rates were calculated and compared for each stage. We evaluated prognostic factors that influenced recurrence and survival. ResultsIn the recurrence and survival analysis, 3-year RFS rates were 95.9% for ypStage 0, 94.0% for ypStage I, 78.9% for ypStage IIA, 55.8% for ypStage IIB/C, 80.2% for ypStage IIIA, 64.6% for ypStage IIIB, and 44.9% for ypStage IIIC. Patients with ypStage IIB/C showed significantly worse RFS (P = .004) than did those with ypStage IIIA. The ypStage IIB/C group showed significantly higher rates of both locoregional recurrence (24.3% vs. 5.5%; P = .02) and distant metastasis (31.6% vs. 17.1%; P = .048) than did the ypStage IIIA group. Compared with ypStage IIIA, ypStage IIB/C showed significantly higher pre-chemoradiotherapy carcinoembryonic antigen (P = .004), circumferential radial margin involvement (P = .001), and positive perineural invasion (P = .014). ConclusionPatients with rectal cancer staged ypT4N0 were associated with higher locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis rates than those staged ypT1-2N1 in the current staging system.