BACKGROUND:The preoperative period (prehabilitation) may represent a more appropriate time than the postoperative period to implement an intervention. The impact of prehabilitation on recovery of ...function al exercise capacity was thus studied in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer.
METHODS:A parallel-arm single-blind superiority randomized controlled trial was conducted. Seventy-seven patients were randomized to receive either prehabilitation (n = 38) or rehabilitation (n = 39). Both groups received a home-based intervention of moderate aerobic and resistance exercises, nutritional counseling with protein supplementation, and relaxation exercises initiated either 4 weeks before surgery (prehabilitation) or immediately after surgery (rehabilitation), and continued for 8 weeks after surgery. Patients were managed with an enhanced recovery pathway. Primary outcome was functional exercise capacity measured using the validated 6-min walk test.
RESULTS:Median duration of prehabilitation was 24.5 days. While awaiting surgery, functional walking capacity increased (≥20 m) in a higher proportion of the prehabilitation group compared with the rehabilitation group (53 vs. 15%, adjusted P = 0.006). Complication rates and duration of hospital stay were similar. The difference between baseline and 8-week 6-min walking test was significantly higher in the prehabilitation compared with the rehabilitation group (+23.7 m SD, 54.8 vs. −21.8 m SD, 80.7; mean difference 45.4 m 95% CI, 13.9 to 77.0). A higher proportion of the prehabilitation group were also recovered to or above baseline exercise capacity at 8 weeks compared with the rehabilitation group (84 vs. 62%, adjusted P = 0.049).
CONCLUSION:Meaningful changes in postoperative functional exercise capacity can be achieved with a prehabilitation program.
Preservation of lean body mass is an important cancer care objective. The capacity for prehabilitation interventions to modulate the lean body mass (LBM) of colorectal cancer patients before and ...after surgery is unknown.
A pooled analysis of two randomized controlled trials of trimodal prehabilitation vs. trimodal rehabilitation at a single university-affiliated tertiary center employing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care was conducted. The prehabilitation interventions included exercise, nutrition, and anxiety-reduction elements that began approximately four weeks before surgery and continued for eight weeks after surgery. The rehabilitation interventions were identical to the prehabilitation interventions but were initiated only after surgery. Body composition, measured using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis, was recorded at baseline, pre-surgery, 4 and 8 weeks after surgery. The primary outcome was change in LBM before and after colorectal surgery for cancer. A mixed effects regression model was used to estimate changes in body mass and body composition over time controlling for age, sex, baseline body mass index (BMI), baseline six-minute walk test (6MWT), and postoperative compliance to the interventions. NCT02586701 &NCT01356264.
Pooled data included 76 patients who followed prehabilitation and 63 patients who followed rehabilitation (n = 139). Neither group experienced changes in preoperative LBM. Compared to rehabilitated patients, prehabilitated patients had significantly more absolute and relative LBM at four and eight-weeks post-surgery in models controlling for age, sex, baseline BMI, baseline 6MWT, and compliance to the postoperative intervention.
Trimodal prehabilitation attenuated the post-surgical LBM loss compared to the loss observed in patients who received the rehabilitation intervention. Patients who receive neither intervention (i.e., standard of care) would be likely to lose more LBM. Offering a prehabilitation program to colorectal cancer patients awaiting resection is a useful strategy to mitigate the impact of the surgical stress response on lean tissue in an ERAS setting, and, in turn, might have a positive impact on the cancer care course.
NCT02586701 &NCT01356264 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Abstract Background A previous comprehensive prehabilitation program, providing nutrition counseling with whey protein supplementation, exercise, and psychological care, initiated 4 weeks before ...colorectal surgery for cancer, improved functional capacity before surgery and accelerated functional recovery. Those receiving standard of care deteriorated. The specific role of nutritional prehabilitation alone on functional recovery is unknown. Objective This study was undertaken to estimate the impact of nutrition counseling with whey protein on preoperative functional walking capacity and recovery in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer. Design We conducted a double-blinded randomized controlled trial at a single university-affiliated tertiary center located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Colon cancer patients (n=48) awaiting elective surgery for nonmetastatic disease were randomized to receive either individualized nutrition counseling with whey protein supplementation to meet protein needs or individualized nutrition counseling with a nonnutritive placebo. Counseling and supplementation began 4 weeks before surgery and continued for 4 weeks after surgery. Main Outcome Measure The primary outcome was change in functional walking capacity as measured with the 6-minute walk test. The distance was recorded at baseline, the day of surgery, and 4 weeks after surgery. A change of 20 m was considered clinically meaningful. Results The whey group experienced a mean improvement in functional walking capacity before surgery of +20.8 m, with a standard deviation of 42.6 m, and the placebo group improved by +1.2 (65.5) m ( P =0.27). Four weeks after surgery, recovery rates were similar between groups ( P =0.81). Conclusion Clinically meaningful improvements in functional walking capacity were achieved before surgery with whey protein supplementation. These pilot results are encouraging and justify larger-scale trials to define the specific role of nutrition prehabilitation on functional recovery after surgery.
OBJECTIVE:To determine the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) versus conventional care for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.
BACKGROUND:ERPs for colorectal surgery ...are clinically effective, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown.
METHODS:A multi-institutional prospective cohort cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection at 2 university-affiliated institutions from October 2012 to October 2013 were enrolled. One center used an ERP, whereas the other did not. Postoperative outcomes were recorded up to 60 days. Total costs were reported in 2013 Canadian dollars. Effectiveness was measured using the SF-6D, a health utility measure validated for postoperative recovery. Uncertainty was expressed using bootstrapped estimates (10,000 repetitions).
RESULTS:A total of 180 patients were included (conventional caren = 95; ERPn = 95). There were no differences in patient characteristics except for a higher proportion of laparoscopy in the ERP group. Mean length of stay was shorter in the ERP group (6.5 vs 9.8 days; P = 0.017), but there were no differences in complications or readmissions. Patients in the ERP group returned to work quicker and had less caregiver burden. There was no difference in quality of life between the 2 groups. The cost of the ERP program was $153 per patient. Overall societal costs were lower in the ERP group (mean difference = −2985; 95% confidence interval, −5753 to −373). The ERP had a greater than 99% probability of cost-effectiveness. The results were insensitive to a range of assumptions and subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS:Enhanced recovery is cost-effective compared with conventional perioperative management for elective colorectal resection.
Background Evidence suggests that multimodal prehabilitation programs comprising interventions directed at physical activity, nutrition, and anxiety coping can improve functional recovery after ...colorectal cancer operations; however, such programs may be more clinically meaningful and cost-effective if targeted to specific subgroups. This study aimed to estimate the extent to which patients with poor baseline functional capacity improve their functional capacity. Methods Data for 106 participants enrolled in a multimodal, prehabilitation program before colorectal operations were analyzed. Low baseline functional capacity was defined as a 6-minute walking test distance (6MWD) of less than 400 m. Participants were categorized as higher fitness (6MWD ≥ 400 m, n = 70) or lower fitness (6MWD <400 m, n = 36). Changes in 6MWD over the preoperative period, and 4 weeks and 8 weeks after the operation were compared between groups. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported physical activity and health status, postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and readmissions. Less-fit patients were then compared with subjects in the rehabilitation arm of the original studies who had a baseline 6MWD <400 m. Results Participants with lower baseline fitness had greater improvements in functional walking capacity with prehabilitation compared to patients with higher fitness (+46.5 standard deviation 53.8 m vs +22.6 standard deviation 41.8 m, P = .012). At 4 weeks postoperatively, patients with lower baseline fitness were more likely to be recovered to their baseline 6MWD than those with higher fitness. (74% vs 50%, P = .029). There were no differences in secondary outcome. Less-fit patients had a greater improvement through all the preoperative period compared to the control group. Conclusion Patients with lower baseline walking capacity are more likely to experience meaningful improvement in physical function from prehabilitation before and after a colorectal cancer operation.
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.
To investigate the feasibility of SDD protocol with postdischarge follow-up using a mobile phone app in patients undergoing elective minimally-invasive colectomy.
Discharge before gastrointestinal ...recovery and use of mobile health technology for remote follow-up may allow for SDD after minimally-invasive colectomy within an ERP.
Adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colectomy or loop ileostomy reversal from February 2020 to November 2020 were screened for eligibility. Patients were eligible if they lived within a 30-minute drive from the hospital, had an adequate support system at home, and owned a smart phone. Patients were discharged from the recovery room on the day of surgery based on set criteria with postdischarge remote follow-up using a mobile application. Feasibility was defined as discharge on the day of surgery without emergency department (ED) visit or readmission within the first 3 days. 30-day complications, ED visits, and readmissions were compared to a non-SDD historical cohort (May 2019-March 2020) also remotely followed-up using the same mobile phone app (standard ERP group).
A total of 48 patients were recruited to SDD, of which 77% were discharged on the day of surgery without subsequent ED visit in the first 72 hours. There were 11 patients that could not be discharged, including 7 for failure of discharge criteria and 4 for intraoperative complications/concerns. Overall 30-day complications in the SDD group (17%) was similar to the standard ERP group (15%, P = 0.813). ED visits (SDD10% vs standard ERP8%, P = 0.664) and readmissions (6% vs 4%, P = 0.681) were also similar.
Findings from this study support the feasibility of a SDD protocol in select patients undergoing minimally-invasive colorectal resection. SDD colectomy protocols may represent the next evolution of ERP and postoperative recovery.
Background
High-quality surgery is essential for optimal oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer, but total mesorectal excision (TME) can be difficult for mid- and low rectal cancers. Preoperative ...identification of patients at risk for difficult TME may change the operative approach. The objective of this study was to determine if MRI pelvimetry can predict poor-quality surgery in patients undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) for mid- and low rectal cancer.
Methods
All patients undergoing laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer ≤ 9 cm from the anal verge at a single tertiary care referral center from 2011 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Pelvic dimensions were measured from preoperative staging MRI on sagittal and axial views. Pelvimetry variables were all dichotomized based on median values. Exploratory factor analysis then identified the most relevant variables for regression analysis. The primary outcome was poor-quality resection, defined as an incomplete mesorectal grade, or involved circumferential (CRM) or distal (DRM) resection margins.
Results
There were 92 patients included in this study, of which 70% were male, the mean BMI was 26.0 kg/m
2
, and the mean tumor height was 6.6 cm. Preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy was administered in 70%, and the pathologic T-stage was T3/T4 in 41%. The overall incidence of poor-quality resection was 17%, including 13% incomplete TME, 7% involved CRM, and 1% involved DRM. Factor analysis identified S1-pubic symphysis and the angle between S1 and S5-bottom of symphysis (angle ABD) as relevant variables. After adjusting for pathologic T-stage, BMI, and tumor height, a S1–S5-bottom of symphysis angle > 74.3
°
(OR 6.19, 95% CI 1.18–32.37) independently predicted poor-quality resection.
Conclusions
MRI pelvimetry can identify patients at risk for a poor-quality resection after laparoscopic proctectomy for mid- and low rectal cancer. These patients may benefit from the selective use of more advanced access methods to improve surgical resection quality.
Background
Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) is common after colorectal surgery but has not been widely studied in the context of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) that include interventions aimed ...to accelerate gastrointestinal recovery. The aim of this study is to estimate the incidence and predictors of PPOI in the context of an ERP for colorectal surgery.
Methods
We analyzed data from an institutional colorectal surgery ERP registry. Incidence of PPOI was estimated according to a definition adapted from Vather (intolerance of solid food and absence of flatus or bowel movement for ≥ 4 days) and compared to other definitions in the literature. Potential risk factors for PPOI were identified from previous studies, and their predictive ability was evaluated using Bayesian model averaging (BMA). Results are presented as posterior effect probability (PEP). Evidence of association was categorized as: no evidence (PEP < 50%), weak evidence (50–75%), positive evidence (75–95%), strong evidence (95–99%), and very strong evidence (> 99%).
Results
There were 323 patients analyzed (mean age 63.5 years, 51% males, 74% laparoscopic, 33% rectal resection). The incidence of PPOI was 19% according to the primary definition, but varied between 11 and 59% when using other definitions. On BMA analysis, intraoperative blood loss (PEP 99%; very strong evidence), administration of any intravenous opioids in the first 48 h (PEP 94%; strong evidence), postoperative epidural analgesia (PEP 56%; weak evidence), and non-compliance with intra-operative fluid management protocols (3 ml/kg/h for laparoscopic and 5 ml/kg/h for open; PEP 55%, weak evidence) were predictors of PPOI.
Conclusions
The incidence of PPOI after colorectal surgery is high even within an established ERP and varied considerably by diagnostic criteria, highlighting the need for a consensus definition. The use of intravenous opioids is a modifiable strong predictor of PPOI within an ERP, while the role of epidural analgesia and intraoperative fluid management should be further evaluated.
Background
Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is advocated based on oncologic superiority, but not commonly performed in North America. Many data are case series with few comparative studies. Our aim ...was to perform a systematic review comparing outcomes between CME and non-CME colectomy.
Methods
A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines of MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthStar, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they compared conventional resection (non-CME) to CME for colon cancer. Quality was assessed using methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). The main outcome measures were short-term morbidity and oncologic outcomes. Weighted pooled means and proportions with 95% CI were calculated using a random-effects model when appropriate.
Results
Out of 825 unique citations, 23 studies underwent full-text reviews and 14 met inclusion criteria. Mean MINORS score was 13.3 (range 11–15). The mean sample size in CME group was 1166 (range 45–3756) and 945 (range 40–3425) in non-CME. Four papers reported plane of dissection, with CME plane achieved in 85.8% (95% CI 79.8–91.7). Mean OR time in CME group was 167 min (163–171) and 138 min (135–142) in conventional group. Perioperative morbidity was reported in six studies, with pooled overall complications of 22.5% (95% CI 18.4–26.6) for CME and 19.6 (95% CI 13.6–25.5) for non-CME. Anastomotic leak occurred in 6.0% (95% CI 2.2–9.7) of CME resections versus 6.0% (95% CI 4.1–7.9) in non-CME. CME had more lymph nodes, longer distance to high tie, and specimen length in all studies. Nine studies compared long-term oncologic outcomes and only three reported statistically significant higher disease-free or overall survival in favor of CME. Local recurrence was lower after CME in two of four studies.
Conclusions
The quality of evidence is limited and does not consistently support the superiority of CME. Better data are needed before CME can be recommended as the standard of care for colon cancer resections.
PDF
