Minimally invasive surgery is slowly taking over as the preferred operative approach for colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain technically difficult. This article will give an overview of the state of minimally invasive surgery and the many advances that have been made over the last two decades. Specifically, we discuss the introduction of the robotic platform and some of its benefits and limitations. We also describe some newer techniques related to robotics.

Background

There is no published data regarding the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic diaphragmatic hernia repair. We hypothesize that hospitals performing high case volume have improved outcomes compared to low-volume hospitals.

Materials and methods

We reviewed the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between 2008 and 2012 for adults with the diagnosis of diaphragmatic hernia who underwent elective laparoscopic repair of diaphragmatic Hernia and/or Nissen fundoplication. Pediatric, emergent, and open cases were excluded. Main outcome measures included logistic regression analysis of factors predictive of in-hospital mortality and outcomes according to annual hospital case volume.

Results

A total of 31,228 laparoscopic diaphragmatic hernia operations were analyzed. The overall in-hospital mortality was 0.14%. Risk factors for higher in-hospital mortality included renal failure (AOR: 6.26; 95% CI: 2.48-15.78; p < 0.001), age>60 years (AOR: 5.06; 95% CI: 2.38-10.76; p < 0.001), and CHF (AOR: 3.80; 95% CI: 1.39-10.38; p = 0.009) while an incremental increase in volume of 10 cases/year (AOR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81-0.98; p = 0.019) and diabetes (AOR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.12-0.93; p = 0.036) decreases mortality. There was a small but significant inverse relationship between hospital case volume and mortality with a 10% reduction in adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality for every increase in 10 cases per year. Using 10 cases per year as the volume threshold, low-volume hospitals (≤10 cases/year) had almost a twofold higher mortality compared to high-volume hospitals (0.23 vs. 0.12%, respectively, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

There was a small but significant inverse relationship between the hospitals' case volume and mortality in laparoscopic diaphragmatic hernia repair.

Complete situs inversus is a rare congenital anomaly characterized by transposition of organs. We report a case of renal transplantation using a kidney from a living complete situs inversus donor. The recipient was a 59-year-old female with end-stage renal disease because of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The donor was the 56-year-old sister of the recipient with complete situs inversus. CT angiogram of the abdomen and pelvis showed complete situs inversus and an otherwise normal appearance of the bilateral kidneys with patent bilateral single renal arteries and longer renal vein in the right kidney. The patient was taken to the operating room for a hand-assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy. The patient tolerated the procedure well and was discharged home in good condition on postoperative day 1. The recipient experienced no episodes of acute rejection or infection, with serum creatinine levels of 0.8-1.2 mg/dL. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in a patient with complete situs inversus remains a technically feasible operation and the presence of situs inversus should not preclude consideration for living kidney donation.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ileostomy closure with intracorporeal anastomosis offers potential advantages over open reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis, including earlier return of bowel function and reduced postoperative pain. In this study, we aim to compare the outcome and cost of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal (utilizing either intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis) with open ileostomy reversal. METHODS: A retrospective review of sequential patients undergoing elective loop ileostomy reversal between 2013 and 2016 at a single, high-volume institution was performed. Patients were stratified on the basis of operative approach: open reversal, laparoscopic-assisted reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis (LE), and laparoscopic reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis (LI). Linear and logistic regressions were utilized to perform multivariate analysis and determine risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS: Of 132 sequential cases of loop ileostomy reversal, 50 (38%) underwent open, 49 (37%) underwent LE, and 33 (22%) underwent LI. Demographic data and preoperative comorbidities were similar between the three cohorts. Median length of stay was significantly shorter for LI (52.1 h, p < 0.05) compared to open (69.0 h) and LE (69.6 h). After risk-adjusted analysis, length of stay was significant shorter in LI compared to LE (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93, p < 0.01) and open reversal (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93, p < 0.01). Risk-adjusted 30-day morbidity rates were similar for LI compared to LE (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.081-2.33, p = 0.33) and open reversal (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.09-3.125, p = 0.48). Median in-hospital direct cost was similar for LI ($6575.00), LE ($6722.50), and open reversal ($6181.00). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ileostomy reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of stay without increased overall direct cost. The technique of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal warrants continued study in a randomized clinical trial.

There are limited data regarding the association between body mass index (BMI) and colorectal surgery outcomes. We sought to evaluate the effect of BMI on short-term surgical outcomes in colon and rectal surgery patients in the United States. The American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Project database was used to identify all patients who underwent colon or rectal resection from 2005 to 2013. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess the independent effect of BMI on outcomes. A total of 206,360 patients underwent colorectal resection during the study period. Of these, 3.2 per cent of patients were underweight (BMI < 18.5), 23.8 per cent patients were normal weight (18.5 ≤ BMI < 25), 26.5 per cent were overweight (25 ≤ BMI < 30), 25.2 per cent were obese (30 ≤ BMI < 40), and 5.3 per cent were morbidly obese (BMI ≥ 40). Underweight patients had longer length of stay (confidence interval: 2.70-3.49, P < 0.001) and higher mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.45, P < 0.01) compared with patients with a normal BMI. Morbidly obese patients had the highest overall morbidity rate compared with normal BMI patients (adjusted odds ratio: 1.53, confidence interval: 1.42-1.64, P < 0.01). BMI is associated with outcomes in colon and rectal surgery patients. Underweight and morbidly obese patients have a significantly increased risk of postsurgical complications compared with those with normal BMI.

In the original version of this article Sarath Sujatha- Bhaskar’s family name was misspelled. It is correct as reflected in this erratum. The original article has also been updated.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to examine the effect of postoperative chemotherapy on survival in patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma who undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) and surgical resection. METHODS:A retrospective review of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2006 to 2013 was performed. Cases were analyzed based on pathologic complete response (pCR) status and use of adjuvant therapy. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival probabilities. RESULTS:23,045 cases were identified, of which 5832 (25.31%) achieved pCR. In the pCR group, 1513 (25.9%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, and in the non-pCR group, 5966 (34.7%) received adjuvant therapy. In the pCR group, five-year survival probability was 87% (95% CI 84%-89%) with adjuvant therapy and 81% (95% CI 79%-82%) without adjuvant therapy. In the non-pCR group, five-year survival probability was 78% (95% CI 76%-79%) with adjuvant therapy and 70% (95% CI 69%-71%) without adjuvant therapy. In the non-pCR and node-negative subgroup (ypN-), five-year survival probability was 86% (95% CI 84%-88%) with adjuvant therapy and 76% (95% CI 74%-77%) without adjuvant therapy. In the non-pCR and node-positive subgroup (ypN+), five-year survival probability was 67% (95% CI 65%-70%) with adjuvant therapy and 60% (95% CI 58%-63%) without adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS:Adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma is associated with increased five-year survival probability regardless of pCR status. We observed similar survival outcomes among non-pCR ypN- treated with adjuvant chemotherapy compared with patients achieving pCR treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

Background

Laparoscopic ileostomy closure with intracorporeal anastomosis offers potential advantages over open reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis, including earlier return of bowel function and reduced postoperative pain. In this study, we aim to compare the outcome and cost of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal (utilizing either intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis) with open ileostomy reversal.

Methods

A retrospective review of sequential patients undergoing elective loop ileostomy reversal between 2013 and 2016 at a single, high-volume institution was performed. Patients were stratified on the basis of operative approach: open reversal, laparoscopic-assisted reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis (LE), and laparoscopic reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis (LI). Linear and logistic regressions were utilized to perform multivariate analysis and determine risk-adjusted outcomes.

Results

Of 132 sequential cases of loop ileostomy reversal, 50 (38%) underwent open, 49 (37%) underwent LE, and 33 (22%) underwent LI. Demographic data and preoperative comorbidities were similar between the three cohorts. Median length of stay was significantly shorter for LI (52.1 h, p < 0.05) compared to open (69.0 h) and LE (69.6 h). After risk-adjusted analysis, length of stay was significant shorter in LI compared to LE (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93, p < 0.01) and open reversal (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93, p < 0.01). Risk-adjusted 30-day morbidity rates were similar for LI compared to LE (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.081-2.33, p = 0.33) and open reversal (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.09-3.125, p = 0.48). Median in-hospital direct cost was similar for LI ($6575.00), LE ($6722.50), and open reversal ($6181.00).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic ileostomy reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of stay without increased overall direct cost. The technique of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal warrants continued study in a randomized clinical trial.

Background

Colectomies and proctectomies are commonly performed by both general surgeons (GS) and colorectal surgeons (CRS). The aim of our study was to examine the outcomes of elective colectomy, urgent colectomy, and elective proctectomy according to surgeon training.

Study design

Data were obtained from the Vizient database for adults who underwent elective colectomy, urgent colectomy, and elective proctectomy from 2020-2022. Operations performed in the setting of trauma and patients within the database's highest relative expected mortality risk group were excluded. Outcomes were compared according to surgeon's specialty: GS vs. CRS. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was in-hospital complication rate. Data were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression.

Results

Of 149,516 elective colectomies, 75,711(50.6%) were performed by GS and 73,805(49.4%) by CRS. Compared to elective colectomies performed by CRS, elective colectomies performed by GS had higher rates of complications(4.9% vs. 3.9%, OR1.23, 95%CI 1.17-1.29,p<.01) and mortality(0.5% vs. 0.2%, OR2.06, 95%CI 1.72-2.47,p<.01). Of 71,718 urgent colectomies, 54,680(76.2%) were performed by GS, while 17,038(23.8%) were performed by CRS. Compared to urgent colectomies performed by CRS, urgent colectomies performed by GS were associated with higher rates of complications(12.1% vs. 10.4%, OR1.14, 95%CI 1.08-1.20,p<.01) and mortality (5.1% vs. 2.3%, OR2.08, 95%CI 1.93-2.23,p<.01). Of 43,749 elective proctectomies, 28,458(65.0%) were performed by CRS and 15,291(35.0%) by GS. Compared to proctectomies performed by CRS, those performed by GS were associated with higher rates of complications (5.3% vs. 4.4%, OR1.16, 95%CI 1.06-1.27,p<.01) and mortality(0.3% vs. 0.2%, OR1.49, 95%CI 1.02-2.20,p=.04).

Conclusions

In this nationwide study, colectomies and proctectomies performed by CRS were associated with improved outcomes compared to GS. Hospitals without a CRS on staff should consider prioritizing recruiting CRS specialists.