Ostomy Rates Research Articles

Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery after Insertion of Self-Expandable Metallic Stents in Acute Malignant Colorectal Obstruction: A Case-Matched Study

Background: Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) have been acknowledged in management of acute colorectal obstruction. The surgical approach after SEMS insertion varies from open approach to laparoscopic-assisted approach. The primary objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic approach and open approach after SEMS insertion. Methods: From January 2007 to December 2010, cross-sectional medical records reviewed a total of 76 patients who underwent colorectal stenting with SEMS. Patients and tumor characteristics, complications, morbidity and mortality were obtained. Results: Forty-three patients underwent SEMS placement as a bridge to surgery. Laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LS) was performed in 24 patients (55.8%), and open surgery (OS) was performed in 19 patients (44.2%). All clinicopathological parameters were matched. The technical success of SEMS was found in 42 patients (97.7%), and the clinical stent success was 100%. LS had a higher chance of primary anastomosis than OS (p=0.012; Odd ratio 2.717; 95%CI: 1.79-4.012). LS had a lower permanent ostomy rate (p=0.031; Odd ratio 0.385; 95%CI: 0.259-0.572) and lower estimated blood loss (p=0.024; Odd ratio 0.23; 95%CI: 0.006-0.086). The post-operative complications, mortality rate, recurrence rate, disease free status, and overall survival rates between the two groups were non-significant. Conclusion: Colonic stent is an effective treatment of acute malignant colonic obstruction. The authors suggest the advantage of laparoscopic approach resection after colonic stenting results in a higher primary anastomosis rate, and lower blood loss than open surgery.

Association Between Incomplete Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy and Survival for Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Failing to complete chemotherapy adversely affects survival in patients with colorectal cancer. However, the effect of incomplete delivery of neoadjuvant radiotherapy is unclear. To determine whether incomplete radiotherapy delivery is associated with worse clinical outcomes and survival. Data on 17 600 patients with stage II to III rectal adenocarcinoma from the 2006-2012 National Cancer Database who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection were included. Multivariable regression methods were used to compare resection margin positivity, permanent colostomy rate, 30-day readmission, 90-day mortality, and overall survival between patients who received complete (45.0-50.4 Gy) and incomplete (<45.0 Gy) doses of radiation as preoperative therapy. The primary outcome measure was overall survival; short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes encompassing margin positivity, permanent ostomy rate, postoperative readmission, and postoperative mortality were also assessed. Among 17 600 patients included, 10 862 were men, with an overall median age of 59 years (range, 51-68 years). Of these, 874 patients (5.0%) received incomplete doses of neoadjuvant radiation. The median radiation dose received among those who did not achieve complete dosing was 34.2 Gy (interquartile range, 19.8-40.0 Gy). Female sex (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.81; P < .001) and receiving radiotherapy at a different hospital than the one where surgery was performed (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85; P < .001) were independent predictors of failing to achieve complete dosing; private insurance status was predictive of completing radiotherapy (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.16-2.21; P = .004). At 5-year follow-up, overall survival was improved among patients who received a complete course of radiotherapy (3086 [estimated survival probability, 73.2%] vs 133 [63.0%]; P < .001). After adjustment for demographic, clinical, and tumor characteristics, patients receiving a complete vs incomplete radiation dose had a similar resection margin positivity (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72-1.35; P = .92), permanent colostomy rate (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.70-1.32; P = .81), 30-day readmission rate (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67-1.27; P = .62), and 90-day mortality (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.33-1.54; P = .41). However, a complete radiation dose had a significantly lower risk of long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.84; P < .001). Achieving a target radiation dose of 45.0 to 50.4 Gy is associated with a survival benefit in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Aligning all aspects of multimodal oncology care may increase the probability of completing neoadjuvant therapy.

Evaluation of the patients with colorectal cancer undergoing emergent curative surgery.

BackgroundThe aim of our study is to evaluate perioperative and mid-term oncologic outcomes of the patients with colorectal cancer, who underwent emergent curative surgery.MethodsThe study included all patients with colorectal cancer, who underwent surgery for curative intent between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2014 in General Surgery Department of Kartal Training and Research Hospital. The patients were divided into two groups according to the type of admission (emergent or elective). The data of the patients were retrospectively collected with chart review. Demographic characteristics of the patients, ASA scores, emergent indications and surgical interventions, postoperative complications, pathological findings, oncological therapy, and follow-up findings were investigated.ResultsFifty-one and 209 patients were evaluated in both groups, respectively. Rate of right sided and sigmoid/recto-sigmoid tumors were significantly higher in emergent group. Ostomy rate, early morbidity, ICU need, transfusion, and mortality rates in emergent group were significantly higher than elective group. Average length of hospital stay in emergent group was also significantly longer in elective group (11.2 ± 3.2 vs. 8.4 ± 2.4 days). The patients in emergent group had a much lower survival rate than those in elective group.ConclusionIn our study, emergency presentation of colorectal cancer was found associated with increased morbidity, a longer length of stay, increased in-hospital mortality, advanced pathologic stage and worsened long term survival in even same stages.

How to decide on stent insertion or surgery in colorectal obstruction?

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in western society and malignant obstruction of the colon accounts for 8%-29% of all large bowel obstructions. Conventional treatment of these patients with malignant obstruction requiring urgent surgery is associated with a greater physiological insult on already nutritionally replete patients. Of late the utility of colonic stents has offered an option in the management of these patients in both the palliative and bridge to surgery setting. This has been the subject of many reviews which highlight its efficacy, particulary in reducing ostomy rates, allowing quicker return to oral diet, minimising extended post-operative recovery as well as some quality of life benefits. The uncertainity in managing patients with malignant colonic obstructions has lead to a more cautious use of stenting technology as community equipoise exists. Decision making analysis has demonstrated that surgeons' favored the use of stents in the palliative setting preferentially when compared to the curative setting where surgery was preferred. We aim to review the literature regarding the use of stent or surgery in colorectal obstruction, and then provide a discourse with regards to the approach in synthesising the data and applying it when deciding the appropriate application of stent or surgery in colorectal obstruction.

Longterm –ostomy as a quality marker: Comparison of outcomes from a six year series of laparoscopic surgery in MRI defined low rectal cancer

AimWe propose long-term -ostomy rate following laparoscopic rectal cancer resection must be included as an overall quality indicator of treatment in conjunction with frequently reported and readily available end points. MethodA database was collated prospectively of consecutive rectal cancer resections over a 6-year period. Recorded data included pre-operative MRI (tumour stage and height from the anal-verge), as well as demographics, treatment, local recurrence rate, survival and -ostomy rate as the primary outcome measure. Results65 patients were identified and classified as low-rectal cancer if the tumour on MRI was < 6 cm from the anal verge or middle/upper-rectal cancer if between 6 and 15 cm from the anal-verge and below the peritoneal reflection. Permanent stoma rates including colostomies and non-reversed ileostomies were 31.7% for middle/upper rectal cancer; 62.5% for low-rectal cancer and an overall rate of 42.1% for all rectal cancers. For upper-rectal cancer the rates of local recurrence, predicted mortality, R0 resection and conversion were: 0%, 1.9%, 97.6% and 0% respectively. Corresponding figures for low-rectal cancer were: 4.2%, 2.7%, 95.8% and 0%. There were no significant differences for age, sex, predicted morbidity/mortality, survival, recurrence or leak rates between the groups. ConclusionLaparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has a comparable permanent -ostomy rate to open rectal cancer surgery. We benchmark 31.7% as the permanent -ostomy rate for upper-rectal cancer and 62.5% for low-rectal cancer following laparoscopic resection, in the context of 96.9% R0 resection and 0% conversion rate in a consecutive series of patients.

Management of anastomotic leakage in a nationwide cohort of colonic cancer patients.

The mortality associated with anastomotic leakage (AL) after colonic cancer surgery is high and management often results in permanent fecal diversion. Preservation of bowel continuity in combination with proximal loop diversion (salvage) may reduce the number of permanent ostomies without jeopardizing safety. This nationwide study used prospective data from the database of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group, the National Patient Registry, and patient files. Patients with AL requiring surgery (grade C) were categorized according to the type of surgical treatment as anastomotic takedown with an end-ostomy or salvage. Thirty-day mortality, long-term mortality, and permanent ostomy rates were analyzed using multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 593 of 9,333 patients (6.4%), of whom 507 with grade C were included. Takedown and salvage were undertaken in 433 (85.4%) and 74 (14.6%) patients, respectively. Salvage was performed more frequently for Hinchey I-II or minor anastomotic defects and resulted in increased likelihood of stoma reversal (adjusted hazard ratio 3.24, 95% CI 2.04 to 5.16, p < 0.001), corresponding to a risk of permanent fecal diversion of 16.8%, compared with 54.5% after takedown. Adjusted mortality rates were comparable between the groups. A second episode of AL after stoma reversal occurred more frequently in patients with end-ileostomies (10 of 64) than in patients with end-colostomies (1 of 64) or loop-ileostomies (3 of 36), p = 0.017. Patients with Hinchey I-II and small anastomotic defect were safely managed by anastomotic salvage, which reduced the risk of permanent fecal diversion. Anastomotic salvage is a viable option for this subset of patients.

Is Minimally Invasive Colon Resection Better Than Traditional Approaches?

Minimally invasive colectomies are increasingly popular options for colon resection. To compare the perioperative outcomes and costs of robot-assisted colectomy (RC), laparoscopic colectomy (LC), and open colectomy (OC). The US Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to examine outcomes and costs before and after propensity score matching across the 3 surgical approaches. This study involved a sample of US hospital discharges from 2008 to 2010 and all patients 21 years of age or older who underwent elective colectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES In-hospital mortality, complications, ostomy rates, conversion to open procedure, length of stay, discharge disposition, and cost. Of the 244129 colectomies performed during the study period, 126284 (51.7%) were OCs, 116261 (47.6%) were LCs, and 1584 (0.6%) were RCs. In comparison with OC, LC was associated with a lower mortality rate (0.4% vs 2.0%), lower complication rate (19.8% vs 33.2%), lower ostomy rate (3.5 vs 13.0%), shorter median length of stay (4 vs 6 days), a higher routine discharge rate (86.1% vs 68.4%), and lower overall cost than OC ($11742 vs $13666) (all P<.05). Comparison between RC and LC showed no significant differences with respect to in-hospital mortality (0.0% vs 0.7%), complication rates (14.7% vs 18.5%), ostomy rates (3.0% vs 5.1%), conversions to open procedure (5.7% vs 9.9%), and routine discharge rates (88.7% vs 88.5%) (all P>.05). However, RC incurred a higher overall hospitalization cost than LC ($14847 vs $11966, P<.001). In this nationwide comparison of minimally invasive approaches for colon resection, LC demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes and lower cost than OC. Robot-assisted colectomy was equivalent in most clinical outcomes to LC but incurred a higher cost.

Risk and predictors of suicide in colorectal cancer patients: A SEER analysis.

9596 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have a higher risk of suicide as compared with the general population. Due to differences in the sites/morbidity of recurrences as well as ostomy rates, we sought to evaluate the distribution and predictors of suicide among patients with colon and rectal cancer. Methods: A retrospective analysis was undertaken using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 1973-2009. Patients included were &gt;18yrs and had confirmed adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum. Results: Included in this analysis were 187,996 rectal cancer and 443,368 colon cancer patients. Colon cancer patients were older (median age 71 vs. 67 yrs, p &lt;0.001) and included more females (51 vs. 43%, p &lt;0.001) as compared to rectal cancer patients. Suicide rates were similar (611 [0.14%] vs. 337 [0.18%], p &lt;0.001), as was the median time to suicide for colon vs. rectal cancer patients respectively (37 vs.32 months, p = 0.13). On univariate analysis, having rectal cancer was a predictor of suicide (HR 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.43). However after adjustment for age, sex, race, marital, primary site surgery, stage and one primary, rectal cancer was not a predictor of suicide (HR 1.05; CI: 0.83- 1.33). In the combined CRC cohort, independent predictors of suicide included age &gt;70 (HR 1.55; CI: 1.23-1.94), male gender (HR 7.56; CI: 5.34-10.70), being single (HR 1.56; CI: 1.14- 2.13), distant metastases at diagnosis (HR 1.58; CI: 1.13- 2.21), and white race (HR 3.21; CI: 1.75- 5.88). Also, lack of resection of primary tumor was associated with increased risk of suicide (HR 2.83; CI: 1.97- 4.05). Among colon cancer cohort, older age, male gender, and white race as well as lack of primary resection were independent predictors of suicide. Similarly, the aforementioned predictors as well as metastatic disease on presentation were the independent predictors of suicide in the rectal cohort. Conclusions: The suicide risk in CRC patients is low (&lt; 0.2%) and no difference was found based on location of primary tumor. Gender, age, distant spread of disease, intact primary tumour and race are the main predictors of suicide among colorectal patients. Future studies and interventions are needed to target these high risk groups.

Effect of Surgeon Specialty on Processes of Care and Outcomes for Ovarian Cancer Patients

For many diseases, specialized care (i.e., care rendered by a specialist) has been associated with superior-quality care (i.e., better outcomes). We examined associations between physician specialty and outcomes in a population-based cohort of elderly ovarian cancer surgery patients. We analyzed the Medicare claims, by physician specialty, of all women aged 65 years or older who underwent surgery for pathologically confirmed invasive epithelial ovarian cancer between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1999, while living in an area monitored by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program to assess important care processes (i.e., the appropriate extent of surgery and use of adjuvant chemotherapy) and outcomes (i.e., surgical complications, ostomy rates, and survival). All statistical tests were two-sided. Among 3067 ovarian cancer patients who underwent surgery, 1017 patients (33%) were treated by a gynecologic oncologist, 1377 patients (45%) by a general gynecologist, and 673 patients (22%) by a general surgeon. Among patients with stage I or II disease, those treated by a gynecologic oncologist (60%) were more likely to undergo lymph node dissection than those treated by a general gynecologist (36%) or a general surgeon (16%). Patients with stage III or IV disease were more likely to undergo a debulking procedure if the initial surgery was performed by a gynecologic oncologist (58%) than by a general gynecologist (51%) or a general surgeon (40%; P < .001) and were more likely to receive postoperative chemotherapy when operated on by a gynecologic oncologist (79%) or a general gynecologist (76%) than by a general surgeon (62%, P < .001). Survival among patients operated on by gynecologic oncologists (hazard ratio [HR] of death from any cause = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.95) or general gynecologists (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.96) was better than that among patients operated on by general surgeons. Ovarian cancer patients treated by gynecologic oncologists had marginally better outcomes than those treated by general gynecologists and clearly superior outcomes compared with patients treated by general surgeons.

Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection.

A strong association between high hospital procedure volume and survival following colon cancer resection has been demonstrated. However, the importance of surgeon case volume as a determinant of outcome has been less well studied, and it is unclear whether hospital or surgeon volume is the more powerful predictor of outcomes. A retrospective population-based cohort study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database identified 24,166 colon cancer patients aged 65 years and older who had surgery for a primary tumor diagnosed in 1991-1996 in a SEER area. Hospital and surgeon-specific procedure volume was ascertained based on the number of claims submitted over the 6-year study period. Outcome measures were mortality at 30 days and 2 years, overall survival, and the frequency of operations requiring an intestinal stoma. Age, sex, race, comorbid illness, cancer stage, socioeconomic status, emergent hospitalization, and the presence of obstruction/perforation were used to adjust for differences in case-mix. After adjusting for surgeon procedure volume, high hospital procedure volume remained a strong predictor of low post-operative mortality rates (P < 0.001 for each outcome with and without adjustment for surgeon procedure volume). Surgeon-specific procedure volume was also an important predictor of surgical outcomes (P = 0.002 for 30-day mortality, P = 0.001 for 2-year mortality), although this effect was attenuated after adjusting for hospital volume (P = 0.03 for 30-day mortality, P = 0.02 for 2-year mortality). Hospital volume and surgeon volume were each an important predictor of the ostomy rate. Among high volume institutions and surgeons, individual providers with unusually high ostomy rates could be identified. Both hospital and surgeon-specific procedure volume predict outcomes following colon cancer resection; but hospital volume may exert a stronger effect. Therefore, efforts to optimize the quality of colon cancer surgery should focus on multidisciplinary aspects of hospital care rather than solely on intraoperative technique.