Faculty Bibliography

An estimated 25% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis, the most common site being the liver. Although prior studies have reported that a simultaneous approach to resections in these patients can lead to increased rates of complications, emerging literature shows that minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches can mitigate this additional morbidity. This is the first study utilizing a large national database to investigate colorectal and hepatic procedure-specific risks in robotic simultaneous resections for CRC and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Utilizing the ACS-NSQIP targeted colectomy, proctectomy, and hepatectomy files, 1,721 patients were identified who underwent simultaneous resections of CRC and CRLM from 2016 to 2021. Of these patients, 345 (20%) underwent resections by an MIS approach, defined as either laparoscopic (n = 266, 78%) or robotic (n = 79, 23%). Patients who underwent robotic resections had lower rates of ileus compared to those who had open surgeries. The robotic group had similar rates of 30-day anastomotic leak, bile leak, hepatic failure, and post-operative invasive hepatic procedures compared to both the open and laparoscopic groups. The rate of conversion to open (8% vs. 22%, p = 0.004) and median LOS (5 vs. 6 days, p = 0.022) was significantly lower for robotic compared to laparoscopic group. This study, which is the largest national cohort of simultaneous CRC and CRLM resections, supports the safety and potential benefits of a robotic approach in these patients.

BACKGROUND:Hospital length of stay (LOS) has been used as a surgical quality metric. This study seeks to determine the safety and feasibility of right colectomy as a ≤24-h short-stay procedure for colon cancer patients. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study using the ACS-NSQIP database and its Procedure Targeted Colectomy database (2012-2020). Adult patients with colon cancer who underwent right colectomies were identified. Patients were categorized into LOS  ≤1 day (≤24-h short-stay), LOS 2-4 days, LOS 5-6 days, and LOS ≥7 days groups. Primary outcomes were 30-day overall and serious morbidity. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, readmission, and anastomotic leak. The association between LOS and overall and serious morbidity was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS:19,401 adult patients were identified, with 371 patients (1.9%) undergoing short-stay right colectomies. Patients undergoing short-stay surgery were generally younger with fewer comorbidities. Overall morbidity for the short-stay group was 6.5%, compared to 11.3%, 23.4%, and 42.0% for LOS 2-4 days, LOS 5-6 days, and LOS ≥7 days groups, respectively (p < 0.001). There were no differences in anastomotic leak, mortality, and readmission rates in the short-stay group compared to patients with LOS 2-4 days. Patients with LOS 2-4 days had increased odds of overall morbidity (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.10-2.65, p = 0.016) compared to patients with short-stay but no differences in odds of serious morbidity (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.61-2.36, p = 0.590). CONCLUSIONS: ≤24-h short-stay right colectomy is safe and feasible for a highly-select group of colon cancer patients. Optimizing patients preoperatively and implementing targeted readmission prevention strategies may aid patient selection.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to assess colorectal surgery outcomes, discharge destination, and readmission in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:Adult colorectal surgery patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2019-2020) and its colectomy and proctectomy procedure-targeted files were included. The prepandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The pandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 in quarterly intervals (Q2 April-June; Q3 July-September; Q4 October-December). Factors associated with morbidity and in-hospital mortality were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS:Among 62,393 patients, 34,810 patients (55.8%) underwent colorectal surgery prepandemic and 27,583 (44.2%) during the pandemic. Patients who had surgery during the pandemic had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and presented more frequently with dependent functional status. The proportion of emergent surgeries increased (12.7% prepandemic versus 15.2% pandemic, P < 0.001), with less laparoscopic cases (54.0% versus 51.0%, P < 0.001). Higher rates of morbidity with a greater proportion of discharges to home and lesser proportion of discharges to skilled care facilities were observed with no considerable differences in length of stay or worsening readmission rates. Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased odds of overall and serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality, during Q3 and/or Q4 of the 2020 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS:Differences in hospital presentation, inpatient care, and discharge disposition of colorectal surgery patients were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemic responses should emphasize balancing resource allocation, educating patients and providers on timely medical workup and management, and optimizing discharge coordination pathways.

BACKGROUND:Readmission after ileostomy creation in colorectal surgery patients creates a significant burden on healthcare cost and patient quality of care, with a 30-day readmission rate noted to be as high as 40%. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to evaluate the implementation of our perioperative quality improvement Decreasing Readmissions After Ileostomy Creation Program. DESIGN/METHODS:Perioperative interventions were administered to patients who underwent ileostomy creation. SETTING/METHODS:This was a single tertiary care academic center. PATIENTS/METHODS:There were 80 patients participated in this program from February 2020 to January 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The primary outcomes measured were 30-day readmission rates and causes of readmission, which were compared to a historical national database. Descriptive statistics were utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of this quality improvement program. RESULTS:Eighty patients were enrolled in this prospective quality improvement program. The mean age was 52 (± 15.06) years. The most common indication for patients undergoing creation of an ileostomy was colorectal cancer (40%, n = 32). The overall 30-day readmission rate was 8.75% (n = 7) throughout the study period which was significantly lower than historical cohort data (20.10%, p = 0.01). Among the 7 readmitted patients, three (3.75%) were readmitted due to dehydration. The most significant associated risk factor for all-cause readmission was urgent/emergent operative status, which was associated with an increased risk of readmission (p = 0.01). The three readmitted patients with dehydration had an average Dehydration Readmission after Ileostomy Prediction risk score of 11.71 points, compared to non-dehydrated patients, who did not require readmission (mean, 9.59 points, p = 0.38). LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:This study is limited by its small sample size (n = 80). CONCLUSIONS:The Decreasing Readmissions After Ileostomy Creation Program has been successful in reducing both the all-cause readmission rate and readmission due to dehydration both within an academic tertiary care referral center and in comparison to historical readmission rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B894.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of his study was to report on a cohort of patients managed with nonoperative management (NOM) with a watch-and-wait strategy after achieving complete response (CR) to sequential short-course radiation therapy (SCRT) and consolidation chemotherapy. METHODS:This was a retrospective study of patients treated SCRT and chemotherapy who achieved a CR and were managed with NOM. Bowel function was assessed with European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal Cancer 29, and the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaires. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), freedom from local failure (FFLF), freedom from distant metastasis, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS:Twenty-six patients met inclusion criteria. Seven (26.9%) patients developed local failure at a median of 6.8 months following CR, of which 5 were successfully salvaged. Median FFLF was not reached, with 6-month, 1-, and 2-year FFLF rates of 100.0%, 82.3%, and 71.3%. Median OS was not reached, with 6-month, 1-, and 2-year OS rates of 100%. Median DFS was not reached, with 6-month, 1-, and 2-year DFS rates of 100%, 95.0%, and 89.4%. Questionnaire response rate was 83.3%. Median LARS score was 27. Major, minor, and no LARS occurred in 3 (20%), 6 (40%), and 6 (40%) patients, respectively. There were no differences in questionnaire scores between patients who had the majority of their anal sphincter complex irradiated and those who did not. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:NOM with a watch-and-wait strategy is safe and feasible in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieve CR after sequential SCRT and chemotherapy, with evidence for good anorectal function.

BACKGROUND:The worsening opioid epidemic has led to an increased number of surgical patients with chronic preoperative opioid use. However, the impact of opioids on perioperative outcomes has yet to be fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between preoperative opioid dose and surgical outcomes among colectomy patients. METHODS:Adult colectomy patients in the IBM MarketScan database (2010-2017) were stratified based on preoperative opioid dose, calculated as the average opioid dose in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) in the 90 days prior to surgery: 0 MME, 1 to 49 MME, and 50 or more MME. The association between preoperative opioid dose and anastomotic leak, the primary outcome of interest, as well as other postoperative complications, was assessed using multivariable regression. RESULTS:Among 45,515 adult colectomy patients, 71.4% did not use opioids (0 MME), 27.4% had an opioid dose between 1 and 49 MME, and 1.2% had an opioid dose at or above 50 MME. Patients with preoperative opioid use exhibited a higher incidence of anastomotic leak (0 MME: 4.8%, 1-49 MME: 5.5%, ≥50 MME: 8.3%; p trend = 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a dose-response relationship between preoperative opioids and surgical outcomes, as the odds of anastomotic leak worsened with increasing opioid dose (1-49 MME: OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.31, p < 0.001; ≥50 MME: OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.24, p = 0.002). Similar dose-response relationships were seen after risk-adjustment for lung complications, pneumonia, delirium, and 30-day readmission (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS:Providers should exercise caution when prescribing opioids preoperatively, as increasing doses of preoperative opioids were associated with worse surgical outcomes and higher 30-day readmission among adult colectomy patients.

OBJECTIVE:Investigate the association between neoadjuvant treatment strategy and perioperative complications in patients undergoing proctectomy for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:Neoadjuvant SC-TNT is an alternative to neoadjuvant CRT for rectal cancer. Some have argued that short-course radiation and extended radiation-to-surgery intervals increase operative difficulty and complication risk. However, the association between SC-TNT and surgical complications has not been previously investigated. METHODS:This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for nonmetastatic rectal cancer after SC-TNT or CRT between 2010 and 2018. Univariate analysis of severe POM and multiple secondary outcomes, including overall POM, intraoperative complications, and resection margins, was performed. Logistic regression of severe POM was also performed. RESULTS:Of 415 included patients, 156 (38%) received SC-TNT and 259 (62%) received CRT. The cohorts were largely similar, though patients with higher tumors (69.9% vs 47.5%, P < 0.0001) or node-positive disease (76.9% vs 62.6%, P = 0.004) were more likely to receive SC-TNT. We found no difference in incidence of severe POM (9.6% SC-TNT vs 12.0% CRT, P = 0.46) or overall POM (39.7% SC-TNT vs 37.5% CRT, P = 0.64) between cohorts. Neoadjuvant regimen was also not associated with a difference in severe POM (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.04-4.70, P = 0.48) in multivariate analysis. There was no significant association between neoadjuvant regimen and any secondary outcome. CONCLUSION:In rectal cancer patients treated with SC-TNT and proctectomy, we found no significant association with POM compared to patients undergoing CRT. SC-TNT does not significantly increase the risk of POM compared to CRT.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:There has been a noted reluctance to offer laparoscopic surgery to Crohn's Disease patients due to the potential risks, and high rate, of converting the procedure to open. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between Crohn's Disease patients undergoing a planned open colectomy, to those undergoing a laparoscopic colectomy that was converted to open. METHODS:Crohn's Disease patients undergoing an elective colectomy were identified using the ACS-NSQIP database (2012-2019). Patients were stratified based on operative approach: open, laparoscopic, and laparoscopic converted to open. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the impact of conversion to open on overall and serious postoperative morbidity. RESULTS:Among 8039 elective colectomies, 40.5% were performed open, 46.9% were completed laparoscopically, and 12.6% were converted to open. The conversion rate among all laparoscopic cases was 21.3%. On unadjusted analysis, conversion to open demonstrated similar rates of overall morbidity (P = 0.355) and serious morbidity (P = 0.724) compared to a planned open approach. On multivariable analysis, conversion to open was not associated with increased odds of overall morbidity (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.94-1.30, P = 0.238) or serious morbidity (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98-1.46, P = 0.074), when compared to an open approach. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Among Crohn's Disease patients, cases converted from laparoscopic to open exhibited similar outcomes as a planned open approach. Despite the limitations associated with this retrospective study, our findings suggest that laparoscopic surgery may be safely pursued among Crohn's Disease patients, as the risks of conversion are potentially balanced by the benefits of laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND:Robotic surgery is attractive for resection of low rectal cancer due to greater dexterity and visualization, but its benefit is poorly understood. We aimed to determine if operative approach impacts radial margin positivity (RMP) and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent APR for low rectal cancer from 2016 to 2019. Patients were stratified by operative approach: robotic, laparoscopic, and open APR (R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR). Emergent cases were excluded. The primary outcome was RMP. 30-day postoperative outcomes were also evaluated, using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS:Among 1,807 patients, 452 (25.0%) underwent R-APR, 474 (26.2%) L-APR, and 881 (48.8%) O-APR. No differences regarding RMP (13.5% R-APR vs. 10.8% L-APR vs. 12.3% O-APR, p = 0.44), distal margin positivity, positive nodes, readmission, or operative time were observed between operative approaches. Adjusted analysis confirmed that operative approach did not predict RMP (p > 0.05 for all). Risk factors for RMP included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III (ASA I-II ref; OR 1.46, p = 0.039), pT3-4 stage (T0-2 ref, OR 4.02, p < 0.001), pN2 stage (OR 1.98, p = 0.004), disseminated cancer (OR 1.90, p = 0.002), and lack of preoperative radiation (OR 1.98, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:No difference in RMP was observed among R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR. Postoperatively, R-APR yielded greater benefit when compared to O-APR, but was comparable to that of L-APR. Minimally invasive surgery may be an appropriate option and worthy consideration for patients with distal rectal cancer requiring APR.