Search

Aim: The main objective of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR) versus low anterior resection (LAR) through a transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) approach., Method: A total of 360 adult patients with a diagnosis of rectal cancer were enrolled at participating centres from the Canadian taTME Expert Collaboration. Forty-three patients received taTME-APR and received 317 taTME-LAR. Demographic, operative, pathological and follow-up data were collected and merged into a single database. Results are presented as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval. All analyses were performed in the R environment (v.3.6)., Results: The proportion of patients with a positive circumferential radial margin status was higher in the taTME-APR group than the taTME-LAR group (21% vs. 9%, p = 0.001). Complete TME was achieved in 91% of those undergoing APR compared with 96% of those undergoing LAR (p = 0.25). APR was associated with a greater rate of local recurrence relative to LAR, although it was not significant [crude HR = 3.53 (95% CI 0.92-13.53)]. Circumferential margin positivity was significantly associated with a higher rate of systemic recurrence [crude HR = 3.59 (95% CI 1.38-9.3)]., Conclusion: Our results demonstrate inferior outcomes in those undergoing taTME-APR compared with taTME-LAR. The use of this technique for this particular indication needs to be carefully considered., (© 2021 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Aim: To determine the impact of surgical technique on the incidence of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection (APR)., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent APR between May 2007 and March 2018 at our institution using our prospectively maintained Colorectal Cancer Database. Demographic and clinical parameters were compared between the open APR (OAPR) and laparoscopic APR (LAPR) groups using Student's t test, chi-squared, or Fisher's exact test. Putative risk factors were then analyzed using a Cox proportional hazard model with perineal hernia as the outcome., Results: The study included 261 patients (191 OAPR and 70 LAPR). Intraoperative blood loss (596.0 ± 633.4 vs. 307.0 ± 307.2 mL, p < 0.001), duration of OR (249.6 ± 115.6 vs. 212.6 ± 75.1 min, p = 0.004), and length of stay (15.6 ± 18.0 vs. 10.4 ± 12.6 days, p = 0.031) were all greater for OAPR than LAPR patients, but wound complications other than hernia did not differ significantly. Perineal hernia was observed in 2.1% of OAPR and 12.9% of LAPR patients. In multivariable analysis, significant risk factors for perineal hernia were age, laparoscopic technique, and closure of the perineal wound with myocutaneous flap (HR 1.08, 11.13, and 31.51, respectively, all p < 0.05)., Conclusions: LAPR, although associated with less blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay than OAPR, was a significant risk factor for perineal hernia.

Introduction: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a novel approach to surgery for rectal cancer. The technique has gained significant popularity in the surgical community due to the promising ability to overcome technical difficulties related to the access of the distal pelvis. Recently, Norwegian surgeons issued a local moratorium related to potential issues with the safety of the procedure. Early adopters of taTME in Canada have recognized the need to create guidelines for its adoption and supervision. The objective of the statement is to provide expert opinion based on the best available evidence and authors' experience., Methods: The procedure has been performed in Canada since 2014 at different institutions. In 2016, the first Canadian taTME congress was held in the city of Toronto, organized by two of the authors. In early 2019, a multicentric collaborative was established [The Canadian taTME expert Collaboration] which aimed at ensuring safe performance and adoption of taTME in Canada. Recently surgeons from 8 major Canadian rectal cancer centers met in the city of Toronto on December 7 of 2019, to discuss and develop a position statement. There in person, meeting was followed by 4 rounds of Delphi methodology., Results: The generated document focused on the need to ensure a unified approach among rectal cancer surgeons across the country considering its technical complexity and potential morbidity. The position statement addressed four domains: surgical setting, surgeons' requirements, patient selection, and quality assurance., Conclusions: Authors agree transanal total mesorectal excision is technically demanding and has a significant risk for morbidity. As of now, there is uncertainty for some of the outcomes. We consider it is possible to safely adopt this operation and obtain adequate results, however for this purpose it is necessary to meet specific requirements in different domains.

Background: Randomized controlled trials have shown equivalent outcomes for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) and open colectomy (OC) when performed by well-trained surgeons experienced in both techniques. Our goal was to evaluate the outcomes of LAC at a population level., Methods: Using the prospectively collected Gastrointestinal Cancer Outcomes Unit database from the British Columbia Cancer Agency, short- and long-term outcomes in patients with colon cancer treated with LAC and OC were compared from 2003 to 2008 inclusive., Results: There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of LAC from 2003 to 2008 (P < .001). LAC was more likely to be performed in the elective setting (P < .001) and for smaller tumors (P < .001). A similar proportion of patients had a minimum of 12 lymph nodes identified by pathology (58% vs 60%, P = not significant). Disease-free survival was similar for the 2 groups after adjusting for stage, emergency presentation, and adjuvant chemotherapy. There was no difference in overall survival., Conclusions: The introduction of LAC for colon cancer in British Columbia outside of optimized clinical trial conditions appears to be effective and safe., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The objectives of this study were to (1) establish the utility of an assessment tool for participants in a laparoscopic colectomy course and (2) to determine the accuracy of technical skill self-assessment in this group., Methods: Twenty-two surgeons enrolled in a 2-day course participated. During the animal laboratory, each participant's operative performance was videotaped. Participants completed a global rating scale (GRS) instrument to self-assess their performances. By using the same GRS, 2 trained raters independently assessed each performance by videotape review., Results: For the trained raters, the GRS showed excellent interrater reliability (r = .76, P < .001). There was no correlation between trained rater scores and self-assessment scores. Furthermore, the trained rater scores (mean, 2.62 and 2.99) were significantly lower than the self-assessment scores (4.05, P < .001)., Conclusions: Surgeons consistently overestimated their performance during a laparoscopic colectomy course as measured by reliable GRS. This finding highlights the issue of credentialing and the importance of preceptorship for surgeons completing such courses.