Abstract: To perform a retrospective root-cause analysis of postoperative death after CRS and HIPEC procedures. Background: The combination of CRS and HIPEC is an effective therapeutic strategy to treat peritoneal surface malignancies, however it is associated with significant postoperative mortality. Methods: All patients treated with a combination of CRS and HIPEC between January 2009 and December 2018 in 22 French centers and died in the hospital, were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative data of the 101 patients were collected by a local senior surgeon with a sole junior surgeon. Three independent experts investigated the typical root cause of death and provided conclusions on whether postoperative death was preventable (PREV group) or not (NON-PREV group). A typical root cause of preventable postoperative death was classified on a cause-and-effect diagram. Results: Of the 5562 CRS+HIPEC procedures performed, 101 in-hospital deaths (1.8%) were identified, of which a total of 18 patients of 70 years old and above and 20 patients with ASA score of 3. Etiology of peritoneal disease was mainly colorectal. A total of 54 patients (53%) were classified in the PREV group and 47 patients (47%) in the NON-PREV group. The results of the study show that in the PREV group, WHO performance status 1-2 was more frequent and the Median Peritoneal Cancer Index was higher compared with those of the NON-PREV group. The cause of death in the PREV group was classified as: (i) preoperatively for debatable indication (59%), (ii) intraoperatively (30%) and (iii) postoperatively in 17 patients (31%). A multifactorial cause of death was found in 11 patients (20%). Conclusion: More than half of the postoperative deaths after combined CRS and HIPEC may be preventable, mainly by following guidelines regarding preoperative selection of the patients and adequate intraoperative decisions.

Abstract: To assess the specific results of delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) in light of its 2 main indications. Background: DCAA can be proposed either immediately after a low anterior resection (primary DCAA) or after the failure of a primary pelvic surgery as a salvage procedure (salvage DCAA). Methods: All patients who underwent DCAA intervention at 30 GRECCAR-affiliated hospitals between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively included. Results: Five hundred sixty-four patients (male: 63%; median age: 62 years; interquartile range: 53–69) underwent a DCAA: 66% for primary DCAA and 34% for salvage DCAA. Overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality were 57%, 30%, and 1.1%, respectively, without any significant differences between primary DCAA and salvage DCAA ( P = 0.933; P = 0.238, and P = 0.410, respectively). Anastomotic leakage was more frequent after salvage DCAA (23%) than after primary DCAA (15%), ( P = 0.016). Fifty-five patients (10%) developed necrosis of the intra-abdominal colon. In multivariate analysis, intra-abdominal colon necrosis was significantly associated with male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 2.67 95% CI: 1.22–6.49; P = 0.020], body mass index 〉 25 (OR = 2.78 95% CI: 1.37–6.00; P = 0.006), and peripheral artery disease (OR = 4.68 95% CI: 1.12–19.1; P = 0.030). The occurrence of this complication was similar between primary DCAA (11%) and salvage DCAA (8%), ( P = 0.289). Preservation of bowel continuity was reached 3 years after DCAA in 74% of the cohort (primary DCAA: 77% vs salvage DCAA: 68%, P = 0.031). Among patients with a DCAA mannered without diverting stoma, 75% (301/403) have never required a stoma at the last follow-up. Conclusions: DCAA makes it possible to definitively avoid a stoma in 75% of patients when mannered initially without a stoma and to save bowel continuity in 68% of the patients in the setting of failure of primary pelvic surgery.

Abstract: To report the largest multicentric experience on surgical management of retrorectal tumors (RRT). Background: Literature data on RRT is limited. There is no consensus concerning the best surgical approach for the management of RRT. Methods: Patients operated for RRT in 18 academic French centers were retrospectively included (2000–2019). Results: A total of 270 patients were included. Surgery was performed through abdominal (n = 72, 27%), bottom (n = 190, 70%), or combined approach (n = 8, 3%). Abdominal approach was laparoscopic in 53/72 (74%) and bottom approach was Kraske modified procedures in 169/190 (89%) patients. In laparoscopic abdominal group, tumors were more frequently symptomatic (37/53, 70% vs 88/169, 52%, P = 0.02), larger [mean diameter = 60.5 ± 24 (range, 13–107) vs 51 ± 26 (20–105) mm, P = 0.02] and located above S3 vertebra (n = 3/42, 7% vs 0%, P = 0.001) than those from Kraske modified group. Laparoscopy was associated with a higher risk of postoperative ileus (n = 4/53, 7.5% vs 0%, P = 0.002) and rectal fistula (n = 3/53, 6% vs 0%, P =0.01) but less wound abscess (n = 1/53, 2% vs 24/169, 14%, P = 0.02) than Kraske modified procedures. RRT was malignant in 8%. After a mean follow up of 27 ±39 (1–221) months, local recurrence was noted in 8% of the patients. After surgery, chronic pain was observed in 17% of the patients without significant difference between the 2 groups (15/74, 20% vs 3/30, 10%; P = 0.3). Conclusions: Both laparoscopic and Kraske modified approaches can be used for surgical treatment of RRT (according to their location and their size), with similar long-term results.

Abstract: The optimal elective colectomy in patients with splenic flexure tumor is debated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare splenic flexure colectomy, left hemicolectomy, and subtotal colectomy for perioperative, histological, and survival outcomes in this setting. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor who underwent elective colectomy were included. PATIENTS: Between 2006 and 2014, 313 consecutive patients were operated on in 15 French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery centers. INTERVENTIONS: Propensity score weighting was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, quality of surgical resection, overall postoperative morbidity, surgical postoperative morbidity, and rate of anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: The most performed surgery was splenic flexure colectomy (59%), followed by subtotal colectomy (23%) and left hemicolectomy (18%). Subtotal colectomy was more often performed by laparotomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (93% vs 61% vs 56%, p 〈 0.0001), and was associated with a longer operative time (260 minutes (120–460) vs 180 minutes (68–440) vs 217 minutes (149–480), p 〈 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity was similar between the 3 groups, but the median length of hospital stay was significantly longer after subtotal colectomy (13 days (5–56) vs 10 (4–175) vs 9 (4–55), p = 0.0007). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher after subtotal colectomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (24 (8–90) vs 15 (1–81) vs 16 (3–52), p 〈 0.0001). The rate of stage III disease and the number of patients treated by adjuvant chemotherapy were similar between the 3 groups. There was no difference in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival between the 3 procedures. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: In the elective setting, splenic flexure colectomy is safe and oncologically adequate for patients with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor. However, given the oncological clearance after splenic flexure colectomy, it seems that the debate is not completely closed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703. ¿CUÁL ES LA COLECTOMÍA ELECTIVA ÓPTIMA PARA EL CÁNCER DE ÁNGULO ESPLÉNICO: FIN DEL DEBATE? UN ESTUDIO MULTICÉNTRICO DEL GRUPO GRECCAR CON UN ANÁLISIS DE PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIÓN ANTECEDENTES: La colectomía electiva óptima en pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico continua en debate. OBJETIVO: Comparar la colectomía de ángulo esplénico, hemicolectomía izquierda y colectomía subtotal para los resultados perioperatorios, histológicos y de supervivencia en este escenario. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico. ESCENARIO: Se incluyeron pacientes diagnosticados de tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos que se sometieron a colectomía electiva. PACIENTES: Entre 2006 y 2014, 313 pacientes consecutivos fueron intervenidos en 15 centros GRECCAR. INTERVENCIONES: Se realizó una ponderación del puntaje de propensión para comparar los resultados a corto y largo plazo. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El criterio de valoración principal fue la supervivencia libre de enfermedad. Los criterios de valoración secundarios incluyeron la supervivencia general, la calidad de la resección quirúrgica, la morbilidad posoperatoria general, la morbilidad posoperatoria quirúrgica y la tasa de fuga anastomótica. RESULTADOS: La cirugía más realizada fue la colectomía del ángulo esplénico (59%), seguida de la colectomía subtotal (23%) y la hemicolectomía izquierda (18%). La colectomía subtotal se realizó con mayor frecuencia mediante laparotomía en comparación con la colectomía de ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (93% frente a 61% frente a 56%, p 〈 0.0001), y se asoció con un tiempo quirúrgico más prolongado (260 min [120-460] frente a 180 min [68-440] frente a 217 min [149-480], p 〈 0.0001). La morbilidad posoperatoria fue similar entre los tres grupos, pero la duración media de la estancia hospitalaria fue significativamente más prolongada después de la colectomía subtotal (13 días [5-56] frente a 10 [4-175] frente a 9 [4-55], p = 0.0007). La mediana del número de ganglios linfáticos extraídos fue significativamente mayor después de la colectomía subtotal en comparación con la colectomía del ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (24 [8-90] frente a 15 [1-81] frente a 16 [3-52], p 〈 0.0001). La tasa de enfermedad en estadio III y el número de pacientes tratados con quimioterapia adyuvante fueron similares entre los 3 grupos. No hubo diferencias en términos de supervivencia libre de enfermedad y supervivencia general entre los 3 procedimientos. LIMITACIONES: El estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo. CONCLUSIONES: En un escenario electivo, la colectomía del ángulo esplénico es segura y oncológicamente adecuada para pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos. Sin embargo, dado el aclaramiento oncológico tras la colectomía del ángulo esplénico, parece que el debate no está completamente cerrado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703.