Changes in the gut bacterial communities in colon cancer surgery patients: an observational study

Background Colon surgery has been shown to modulate the intestinal microbiota. Our objective was to characterize these changes using state-of-the-art next generation sequencing techniques. Methods We performed a single-centre prospective observational cohort study to evaluate the changes in the gut microbiota, i.e., taxon distribution, before and after elective oncologic colon surgery in adult patients with different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens (standard prophylaxis with cefuroxime/metronidazole versus carbapenems for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales [ESBL-E] carriers). We obtained rectal samples on the day of surgery, intraoperative luminal samples, and rectal or stoma samples 3 days after surgery. We performed metataxonomic analysis based on sequencing of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene marker. Similarities and differences between bacterial communities were assessed using Bray–Curtis similarity, visualised using principal coordinates analysis and statistically tested by PERMANOVA. Comparison of taxa relative abundance was performed using ANCOM. Results We included 27 patients between March 27, 2019 and September 17, 2019. The median age was 63.6 years (IQR 56.4–76.3) and 44% were females. Most (81%) patients received standard perioperative prophylaxis as they were not ESBL carriers. There was no significant association between ESBL carriage and differences in gut microbiome. We observed large and significant increases in the genus Enterococcus between the preoperative/intraoperative samples and the postoperative sample, mainly driven by Enterococcus faecalis. There were significant differences in the postoperative microbiome between patients who received standard prophylaxis and carbapenems, specifically in the family Erysipelotrichaceae. Conclusion This hypothesis-generating study showed rapid changes in the rectal microbiota following colon cancer surgery.

How can surgical skills in laparoscopic colon surgery be objectively assessed?—a scoping review

Background In laparoscopic colorectal surgery, higher technical skills have been associated with improved patient outcome. With the growing interest in laparoscopic techniques, pressure on surgeons and certifying bodies is mounting to ensure that operative procedures are performed safely and efficiently. The aim of the present review was to comprehensively identify tools for skill assessment in laparoscopic colon surgery and to assess their validity as reported in the literature. Methods A systematic search was conducted in EMBASE and PubMed/MEDLINE in May 2021 to identify studies examining technical skills assessment tools in laparoscopic colon surgery. Available information on validity evidence (content, response process, internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences) was evaluated for all included tools. Results Fourteen assessment tools were identified, of which most were procedure-specific and video-based. Most tools reported moderate validity evidence. Commonly not reported were rater training, assessment correlation with variables other than training level, and validity reproducibility and reliability in external educational settings. Conclusion The results of this review show that several tools are available for evaluation of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery, but few authors present substantial validity for tool development and use. As we move towards the implementation of new techniques in laparoscopic colon surgery, it is imperative to establish validity before surgical skill assessment tools can be applied to new procedures and settings. Therefore, future studies ought to examine different aspects of tool validity, especially correlation with other variables, such as patient morbidity and pathological reports, which impact patient survival.

Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS). Methods Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2, and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE. Results Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD = − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE. Conclusion RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing THUNDERBEAT to the Maryland LigaSure energy device in laparoscopic left colon surgery

Background The THUNDERBEAT is a multi-functional energy device which delivers both ultrasonic and bipolar energy, but there are no randomized trials which can provide more rigorous evaluation of the clinical performance of THUNDERBEAT compared to other energy-based devices in colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of THUNDERBEAT energy device to Maryland LigaSure in patients undergoing left laparoscopic colectomy. Methods Prospective randomized trial with two groups: Group 1 THUNDERBEAT and Group 2 LigaSure in a single university hospital. 60 Subjects, male and female, of age 18 years and above undergoing left colectomy for cancer or diverticulitis were included. The primary outcome was dissection time to specimen removal (DTSR) measured in minutes from the start of colon mobilization to specimen removal from the abdominal cavity. Versatility (composite of five variables) was measured by a score system from 1 to 5 (1 being worst and 5 the best), and adjusted/weighted by coefficient of importance with distribution of the importance as follow: hemostasis 0.275, sealing 0.275, cutting 0.2, dissection 0.15, and tissue manipulation 0.1. Other variables were: dryness of surgical field, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and mortality. Follow-up time was 30 days. Results 60 Patients completed surgery, 31 in Group 1 and 29 in Group 2. There was no difference in the DTSR between the groups, 91 min vs. 77 min (p = 0.214). THUNDERBEAT showed significantly higher score in dissecting and tissue manipulation in segment 3 (omental dissection), and in overall versatility score (p = 0.007) as well as versatility score in Segment 2 (retroperitoneal dissection p = 0.040) and Segment 3 (p = 0.040). No other differences were noted between the groups. Conclusions Both energy devices can be employed effectively and safely in dividing soft tissue and sealing mesenteric blood vessels during laparoscopic left colon surgery, with THUNDERBEAT demonstrating some advantages over LigaSure during omental dissection and tissue manipulation. ClinicalTrial.gov # NCT02628093.

Are preoperative oral antibiotics effective in reducing the incidence of anastomotic leakage after Colorectal cancer surgery: Study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, randomized controlled study

Introduction The optimal preoperative preparation for elective colorectal cancer surgery has been debated in academic circles for decades. Previously, many expert teams have conducted studies on whether preoperative mechanical bowel preparation and preoperative oral antibiotics can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, such as surgical site infections and anastomotic leakage. Most of the results of these studies have suggested that preoperative mechanical bowel preparation for elective colon surgery has no significant effect on the occurrence of surgical site infections and anastomotic leakage. Methods/design This study will examine whether oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) influences the incidence of anastomotic leakage after surgery in a prospective, multicentre, randomized controlled trial that will enrol 1500 patients who need colon surgery. The primary endpoint, incidence of anastomotic leakage, is based on 2.3% in the OABP ± mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) group in the study by Morris et al. The patients will be randomized (1:1) into two groups: the test group will be given antibiotics (both neomycin 1 g and metronidazole 1 g) the day before surgery, and the control group will not have any special intestinal preparation before surgery, including oral antibiotics or mechanical intestinal preparation. All study-related clinical data, such as general patient information, past medical history, laboratory examination, imaging results, and surgery details, will be recorded before surgery and during the time of hospitalization. The occurrence of postoperative fistulas, including anastomotic leakage, will be recorded as the main severe postoperative adverse event and will represent the primary endpoint. Ethics and dissemination Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee at the Chinese Ethics Committee of Registering Clinical Trials(ChiECRCT20200173). The results of this study will be disseminated at several research conferences and as published articles in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration: ChiCTR2000035550. Registered on 13 Aug 2020.

Glycemic Variability Within 1 Year Following Surgery for Stage II–III Colon Cancer

Objective: To examine glycemic variability within 1 month and 1 year following surgery among adult patients, with and without Type 2 Diabetes (T2D), treated for stage II-III colon cancer. Method: A retrospective analysis of electronic health record data was conducted. Glycemic variability (i.e., standard deviation [SD] and coefficient of variation [CV] of > 2 blood glucose measures) was assessed within 1 month and within 1 year following colon surgery. Chi-square (χ2), Fisher’s exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for the analyses. Results: Among the sample of 165 patients with stage II–III colon cancer, those with T2D had higher glycemic variability compared to patients without T2D ( p < .001), with values within 1 month following surgery (SD = 44.69 mg/dL, CV = 27.4%) vs (SD = 20.55 mg/dL, CV = 17.53%); and within 1 year following surgery (SD = 45.04 mg/dL, CV = 29.04%) vs (SD = 21.36 mg/dL, CV = 18.6%). Associations were found between lower body mass index and higher glycemic variability (i.e., SD [r = −.413, p < .05] and CV [r = −.481, p < .01]) within 1 month following surgery in patients with T2D. Higher preoperative glucose was associated with higher glycemic variability (i.e., SD r = .448, p < .01) within 1 year in patients with T2D. Demographic and clinical characteristics were weakly associated with glycemic variability in patients without T2D. Conclusions: Patients with stage II–III colon cancer with T2D experienced higher glycemic variability within 1 month and within 1 year following surgery compared to those without T2D. Associations between glycemic variability and demographic and clinical characteristics differed by T2D status. Further research in prospective studies is warranted.

Purely ropivacaine-based TEA vs single TAP block in pain management after elective laparoscopic colon surgery within an upgraded institutional ERAS program

Background The aim of this study was to compare thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) with transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in post-operative pain management after laparoscopic colon surgery. Methods One hundred thirty-six patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection randomly received either TEA or TAP with ropivacaine only. The primary endpoint was opioid requirement up to 48 h postoperatively. Intensity of pain, time to onset of bowel function, time to mobilization, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and patients’ satisfaction with pain management were also assessed. Results We observed a significant decrease in opioid consumption on the day of surgery with TEA compared with TAP block (30 mg vs 14 mg, p < 0.001). On the first two postoperative days (POD), the balance shifted to opioid consumption being smaller in the TAP group: on POD 1 (15.2 mg vs 10.6 mg; p = 0.086) and on POD 2 (9.2 mg vs 4.6 mg; p = 0.021). There were no differences in postoperative nausea/vomiting or time to first postoperative bowel movement between the groups. No direct blockade-related complications were observed and the length of stay was similar between TEA and TAP groups. Conclusion TEA is more efficient for acute postoperative pain than TAP block on day of surgery, but not on the first two PODs. No differences in pain management-related complications were detected.