Alexis Ulrich

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery--are we being honest with our patients?

PURPOSE: A survey was undertaken to assess the impact of laparoscopy on the practice of colorectal surgery. METHODS: A total of 1,520 questionnaires were mailed to all members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons; 635 (42 percent) surgeons responded, 50 percent, and indicated that one questionnaire represented their entire group practice. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-eight (47 percent) respondents currently perform laparoscopic colorectal surgery; 62 percent (171) use the laparoscope for ≤20 percent of their bowel resections. Conversely, only 6 percent (16) use the laparoscope in over 50 percent of resections. The percentage of surgeons who perform various procedures were right colectomy, 78 percent; left colectomy, 57 percent; stoma creations, 52 percent; anterior resection, 44 percent; Hartmanns closure, 42 percent; abdominoperineal resection, 27 percent; rectopexy, 18 percent; and total colectomy, 14 percent. If the preoperative diagnosis is known to be carcinoma, 196 (71 percent) surgeons attempted laparoscopic colorectal surgery, but 55 percent of surgeons (108) operated only for early lesions and 35 percent (68) only for palliation. To enable the procedure to be laparoscopically performed, 87 percent (243) of surgeons stated that they have changed their practice to include routine use of ureteral stents (23 percent), preoperative colonoscopic marking of small lesions (40 percent), or intraoperative colonoscopy. Despite increased use of endoscopy, there were 18 patients in whom the wrong segment of colon was removed. Moreover, nine patients had early local recurrence after resection of colon cancer, nine had early local recurrence after rectal cancer resection, and five had early port-site recurrence. Although 255 (40 percent) surgeons surveyed would themselves undergo laparoscopic colorectal surgery for a rectal villous adenoma, only 38 (6 percent) would have a laparoscopic anterior resection for cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Several important problems exist including early port-site recurrence and a dual surgical standard. Although many surgeons are eager to practice laparoscopic colorectal surgery on their patients with carcinoma, they are reluctant to have the new technique applied to themselves.

Diverting stoma after low anterior resection: more arguments in favor.

PURPOSE: The necessity of a protective stoma in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for primary rectal cancer is discussed controversially. We conducted a randomized, controlled, pilot-study to evaluate the need for diverting ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection [NCT00457327]. METHODS: Forty patients after elective sphincter-saving low anterior resection were eligible for intraoperative randomization. The primary objective of this trial was to demonstrate similar risks after the resection with both techniques. A priori stopping rules were defined for early termination of the trial. RESULTS: Between July 4, 2006 and March 12, 2007, a total of 41 patients were screened and 34 patients were randomized. Eighteen patients were randomized to the stoma group and 16 patients to the nonstoma group The symptomatic anastomotic leakage rate was significantly higher in the nonstoma group (37.5 percent) than in the stoma group (5.5 percent, P = 0.02). In all six cases in the nonstoma group, reoperations were necessary. The study was stopped after 34 patients were included. A meta-analysis of the available data confirmed the value of a protective ostomy for patients undergoing low anterior resection. CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrate a high risk for patients undergoing low anterior resection without diverting ileostomy.

Surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer in the era of total mesorectal excision: is there still a chance for cure?

Objective:To evaluate the perioperative outcome and long-term survival of patients who underwent surgical resection for recurrent rectal cancer within a multimodal approach in the era of total mesorectal excision (TME). Background:Introduction of TME has reduced local recurrence and improved oncological outcome of patients with rectal cancer. Local recurrence after TME still occurs in 2% to 8% of patients and presents a challenge to surgical and medical oncologists. However, there has been very limited data on the perioperative and long-term outcome of patients who are operated for local recurrence in the era of TME. Methods:A total of 107 patients who were identified from a prospective rectal cancer database underwent surgical exploration for recurrent rectal cancer after previous TME between October 2001 and April 2009. Risk factors of perioperative morbidity were analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression model. Independent predictors of disease-specific survival were identified by a Cox proportional hazards regression model, as were those of local recurrence and disease recurrence at any site. Results:Surgical resection was performed in 92 patients and negative resection margins were achieved in 54 (58.7%) of these. Recurrent disease was located intraluminally and extraluminally in 35 (38.0%) patients and 57 (62.0%) patients, respectively. A total of 19 (20.6%) patients had metastatic extrapelvic disease at the time of surgery. Perioperative surgical morbidity and in-hospital mortality accounted for 42.4% and 3.3%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, partial sacrectomy was associated with surgical morbidity (P = 0.004). Three- and 5-year disease-specific survival rates were 61% and 47%. Three-year survival rate of patients with extrapelvic disease who underwent R0 resection was 42%. On multivariate analysis, surgical morbidity (P = 0.001), presence of extrapelvic disease (P = 0.006), and noncurative (R1; R2) resection (P < 0.0001) were identified as independent adverse predictors of disease-specific survival, whereas a transabdominal resection (as opposed to an abdominoperineal resection/pelvic exenteration) was associated with a more favorable prognosis (P = 0.04). Conclusions:Surgical resection of local recurrence from rectal cancer in the era TME can be carried out with acceptable morbidity and curative resection rates. Curative resection remains the major prognostic factor and may enable long-term survival even in patients with extrapelvic disease.

No Need for Routine Drainage After Pancreatic Head Resection: The Dual-center, Randomized, Controlled Pandra Trial (isrctn04937707).

Objective: This dual-center, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial aimed to prove that omission of drains does not increase reintervention rates after pancreatic surgery. Background: There is considerable uncertainty regarding intra-abdominal drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods: Patients undergoing pancreatic head resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis were randomized to intra-abdominal drainage versus no drainage. Primary endpoint was overall reintervention rate (relaparotomy or radiologic intervention). Secondary endpoints were clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C), mortality, morbidity, and hospital stay. The planned sample size was 188 patients per group. Results: A total of 438 patients were randomized. Forty-three patients (9.8%) were excluded because no pancreatic anastomosis was performed, and 395 patients (202 drain, 193 no-drain) were analyzed. Reintervention rates were not inferior in the no-drain group (drain 21.3%, no-drain 16.6%; P = 0.0004). Overall in-hospital mortality (3.0%) was the same in both groups (drain 3.0%, no-drain 3.1%; P = 0.936). Overall surgical morbidity (41.8%) was comparable (P = 0.741). Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C: drain 11.9%, no-drain 5.7%; P = 0.030) and fistula-associated complications (drain 26.4%; no drain 13.0%; P = 0.0008) were significantly reduced in the no-drain group. Operation time (P = 0.093), postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.174), intra-abdominal abscess formation (P = 0.199), biliary leakage (P = 0.382), delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.062), burst abdomen (P = 0.480), wound infection (P = 0.758), and hospital stay (P = 0.487) did not show significant differences. Conclusions: Omission of drains was not inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reintervention and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. There is no need for routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis.

Prognostic Relevance of Palliative Primary Tumor Removal in 37,793 Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Population-Based, Propensity Score-Adjusted Trend Analysis.

OBJECTIVEnTo assess whether palliative primary tumor resection in colorectal cancer patients with incurable stage IV disease is associated with improved survival.nnnBACKGROUNDnThere is a heated debate regarding whether or not an asymptomatic primary tumor should be removed in patients with incurable stage IV colorectal disease.nnnMETHODSnStage IV colorectal cancer patients were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between 1998 and 2009. Patients undergoing surgery to metastatic sites were excluded. Overall survival and cancer-specific survival were compared between patients with and without palliative primary tumor resection using risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression models and stratified propensity score methods.nnnRESULTSnOverall, 37,793 stage IV colorectal cancer patients were identified. Of those, 23,004 (60.9%) underwent palliative primary tumor resection. The rate of patients undergoing palliative primary cancer resection decreased from 68.4% in 1998 to 50.7% in 2009 (P < 0.001). In Cox regression analysis after propensity score matching primary cancer resection was associated with a significantly improved overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) of death = 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.39-0.42, P < 0.001] and cancer-specific survival (HR of death = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.38-0.40, P < 0.001). The benefit of palliative primary cancer resection persisted during the time period 1998 to 2009 with HRs equal to or less than 0.47 for both overall and cancer-specific survival.nnnCONCLUSIONSnOn the basis of this population-based cohort of stage IV colorectal cancer patients, palliative primary tumor resection was associated with improved overall and cancer-specific survival. Therefore, the dogma that an asymptomatic primary tumor never should be resected in patients with unresectable colorectal cancer metastases must be questioned.

Antibiotics Versus Surgical Therapy for Uncomplicated Appendicitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Trials (PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016882).

Objective: The aim was to investigate available evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of surgical versus conservative treatment of acute appendicitis. Summary of Background Data: There is ongoing debate on the merits of surgical and conservative treatment for acute appendicitis. Methods: A systematic literature search (Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase) and hand search of retrieved reference lists up to January 2016 was conducted to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies. After critical appraisal, data were analyzed using a random-effects model in a Mantel-Haenszel test or inverse variance to calculate risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Four trials and four cohort studies (2551 patients) were included. We found that 26.5% of patients in the conservative group needed appendectomy within 1 year, resulting in treatment effectiveness of 72.6%, significantly lower than the 99.4% in the surgical group, (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.7–0.79; P = 0.00001; I2 = 62%). Overall postoperative complications were comparable (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.35–2.58; P = 0.91; I2 = 0%), whereas the rate of adverse events (RR 3.18; 95% CI 1.63–6.21; P = 0.0007; I2 = 1%) and the incidence of complicated appendicitis (RR 2.52; 95% CI 1.17–5.43; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%) were significantly higher in the antibiotic treatment group. Randomized trials showed significantly longer hospital stay in the antibiotic treatment group (RR 0.3 days; 95% CI 0.07–0.53; P = 0.009; I2 = 49%). Conclusions: Although antibiotics may prevent some patients from appendectomies, surgery represents the definitive, one-time only treatment with a well-known risk profile, whereas the long-term impact of antibiotic treatment on patient quality of life and health care costs is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis helps physicians and patients in choosing between treatment options depending on whether they are risk averse or risk takers.

Industry Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in General and Abdominal Surgery: An Empirical Study.

Background: Industry sponsorship has been identified as a source of bias in several fields of medical science. To date, the influence of industry sponsorship in the field of general and abdominal surgery has not been evaluated. Methods: A systematic literature search (1985–2014) was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify randomized controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery. Information on funding source, outcome, and methodological quality was extracted. Association of industry sponsorship and positive outcome was expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A &khgr;2 test and a multivariate logistic regression analysis with study characteristics and known sources of bias were performed. Results: A total of 7934 articles were screened and 165 randomized controlled trials were included. No difference in methodological quality was found. Industry-funded trials more often presented statistically significant results for the primary endpoint (OR, 2.44; CI, 1.04–5.71; Pu200a=u200a0.04). Eighty-eight of 115 (76.5%) industry-funded trials and 19 of 50 (38.0%) non–industry-funded trials reported a positive outcome (OR, 5.32; CI, 2.60–10.88; Pu200a<u200a0.001). Industry-funded trials more often reported a positive outcome without statistical justification (OR, 5.79; CI, 2.13–15.68; Pu200a<u200a0.001). In a multivariate analysis, funding source remained significantly associated with reporting of positive outcome (Pu200a<u200a0.001). Conclusions: Industry funding of surgical trials leads to exaggerated positive reporting of outcomes. This study emphasizes the necessity for declaration of funding source. Industry involvement in surgical research has to ensure scientific integrity and independence and has to be based on full transparency.

Resectable Rectal Cancer: Which Patient Does Not Need Preoperative Radiotherapy?

It is well known that some patients with resectable rectal cancer benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in combination with or without chemotherapy. In order to reduce local recurrence and improve long-term survival, current guidelines advocate such neoadjuvant treatment in UICC (Union for International Cancer Control) stage II and III patients. However, the vast majority of patients may be adequately treated by rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) alone. Recent evidence suggests an overtreatment of patients leading to unnecessary exposure to acute and long-term toxicity of radiation therapy. The question which consequently arises is which patient does not need preoperative radiotherapy. Improvements in MRI combined with better understanding of prognostic indicators suggest that patients with UICC stage I tumors, with tumors more than 12 cm proximal the anal verge can and patients with a circumferential resection margin ≥2 mm as assessed by preoperative MRI might be managed by radical surgery with adequate TME alone.

Portal annular pancreas: a systematic review of a clinical challenge.

Abstract Portal annular pancreas (PAP) is an asymptomatic congenital pancreas anomaly, in which portal and/or mesenteric veins are encased by pancreas tissue. The aim of the study was to determine the role of PAP in pancreatic surgery as well as its management and potential complication, specifically, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). On the basis of a case report, the MEDLINE and ISI Web of Science databases were systematically reviewed up to September 2012. All articles describing a case of PAP were considered. In summary, 21 studies with 59 cases were included. The overall prevalence of PAP was 2.4% and the patients mean (SD) age was 55.9 (16.2) years. The POPF rate in patients with PAP (12 pancreaticoduodenectomies and 3 distal pancreatectomies) was 46.7% (in accordance with the definition of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery). Portal annular pancreas is a quite unattended pancreatic variant with high prevalence and therefore still remains a clinical challenge to avoid postoperative complications. To decrease the risk for POPF, attentive preoperative diagnostics should also focus on PAP. In pancreaticoduodenectomy, a shift of the resection plane to the pancreas tail should be considered; in extensive pancreatectomy, coverage of the pancreatic remnant by the falciform ligament could be a treatment option.

Metastatic Spread Emerging From Liver Metastases of Colorectal Cancer: Does the Seed Leave the Soil Again?

Objective:To investigate whether liver metastases contribute to metastatic spread of colorectal cancer (CRC) by shedding intact tumor cells. Background:Metastases represent the primary cause of death in CRC. Understanding the metastatic activity of metastases and which patients are at high risk for tumor cell dissemination may, therefore, have significant influence on cancer care in the future. Methods:Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were detected in the hepatic inflow (portal venous blood [PVB]) and outflow compartment (hepatic venous blood [HVB]) of a training (nu200a=u200a55) and validation (nu200a=u200a50) set using the CellSearch system. Isolated CTC from the HVB were subjected to gene expression analyses by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Results:CTC detection rate (37.2% vs 19.6%; Pu200a=u200a0.04) and count (mean: 12.7, SEM:u200a±u200a5.9 vs 1.9;u200a±u200a1.2; Pu200a=u200a0.01) were significantly higher in HVB compared to PVB. The increased CTC detection rate (54% vs 11.4%; Pu200a<u200a0.001) and CTC count (14.7u200a±u200a5.1 vs 1.1u200a±u200a0.6; Pu200a<u200a0.001) in the HVB compared to the PVB compartment was confirmed in the validation cohort. Expression of epithelial markers and genes involved in cell-to-cell and cell-to-matrix adhesion was reduced in CTC compared to tumor cells in liver metastases. Metastasis size greater than 5u200acm was associated with CTC shedding from established liver metastases in the training and validation cohorts. Conclusions:Colorectal liver metastases shed intact tumor cells with an invasive phenotype. Metastasis size serves as a surrogate marker for metastatic activity of colorectal liver metastases.