Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 11/2020

01-11-2020 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Original Article

A simple difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

Authors: Dimitri Krizzuk, Shlomo Yellinek, Albert Parlade, Hong Liang, Giovanna Dasilva, Steven D. Wexner

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 11/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The proposed difficulty scoring system (DSS) may aid in preoperative planning for laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) for rectal cancer.

Methods

Fifty-three patients [28 males; 59.0 (31.0–88.0) years of age] treated for rectal cancer at our institution from 2/2011–5/2018 were identified. “Difficult operation” (DO) was defined as the presence of ≥3 factors: operative time ≥320 min, estimated blood loss >250 ml, intraoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, >2 stapler applications, incomplete TME quality, and/or subjective perceived difficulty. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression model with backward elimination method were used to obtain a DSS which consists of two factors: sex (male = 1 and female = 0) and body mass index (BMI) (≥30 kg/m2 = 1, <30 kg/m2 = 0).

Results

In univariate analysis, sex (p = 0.0217), BMI (p = 0.0026), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (p = 0.0372), and magnetic resonance imaging transverse diameter (p = 0.0441) correlated to DO. Multivariate analysis revealed that sex and BMI were the most important risk factors for a DO [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.7761, 95% CI = (0.6443–0.9080)]. Male patients with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 were more likely to experience a DO (77.8%). The simplified DSS did not weaken the discriminating power compared to multivariate logistic regression model (AUC 0.7696 vs. 0.7761, p = 0.7387). L-TME with a DSS of 0, 1, and 2 had a DO rate of 10%, 33.3%, and 77.8%, respectively.

Conclusions

A simplified DSS may be used preoperatively in preparation for L-TME.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Heald RJ (1979) A new approach to rectal cancer. Br J Hosp Med 22:277–281PubMed Heald RJ (1979) A new approach to rectal cancer. Br J Hosp Med 22:277–281PubMed
2.
go back to reference Heald RJ, Ryall RD (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1:1479–1482CrossRef Heald RJ, Ryall RD (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1:1479–1482CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Heald RJ (1988) The 'Holy Plane' of rectal surgery. J R Soc Med 81:503–508CrossRef Heald RJ (1988) The 'Holy Plane' of rectal surgery. J R Soc Med 81:503–508CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F et al (2013) Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 100:75–82CrossRef Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F et al (2013) Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 100:75–82CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH et al (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:767–774CrossRef Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH et al (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:767–774CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1346–1355CrossRef Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1346–1355CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H et al (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:1569–1580CrossRef Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H et al (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:1569–1580CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Hermanek P, Junginger T (2005) The circumferential resection margin in rectal carcinoma surgery. Tech Coloproctol 9:193–199 (discussion 199–200)CrossRef Hermanek P, Junginger T (2005) The circumferential resection margin in rectal carcinoma surgery. Tech Coloproctol 9:193–199 (discussion 199–200)CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J et al (2009) Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 373:821–828CrossRef Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J et al (2009) Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 373:821–828CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kitz J, Fokas E, Beissbarth T et al (2018) Association of plane of total mesorectal excision with prognosis of rectal cancer: secondary analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 153:e18160CrossRef Kitz J, Fokas E, Beissbarth T et al (2018) Association of plane of total mesorectal excision with prognosis of rectal cancer: secondary analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 153:e18160CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM et al (2018) Rectal cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16:874–901CrossRef Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM et al (2018) Rectal cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16:874–901CrossRef
13.
go back to reference D’Souza N, de Neree Tot Babberich MPM, D’Hoore A et al (2019) Definition of the Rectum: an international, expert-based Delphi Consensus. Ann Surg 270(6):955–959CrossRef D’Souza N, de Neree Tot Babberich MPM, D’Hoore A et al (2019) Definition of the Rectum: an international, expert-based Delphi Consensus. Ann Surg 270(6):955–959CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 24:205–213CrossRef Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 24:205–213CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Escal L, Nougaret S, Guiu B et al (2018) MRI-based score to predict surgical difficulty in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg 105:140–146CrossRef Escal L, Nougaret S, Guiu B et al (2018) MRI-based score to predict surgical difficulty in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg 105:140–146CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Li VK, Wexner SD, Pulido N et al (2009) Use of routine intraoperative endoscopy in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery: can it further avoid anastomotic failure? Surg Endosc 23:2459–2465CrossRef Li VK, Wexner SD, Pulido N et al (2009) Use of routine intraoperative endoscopy in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery: can it further avoid anastomotic failure? Surg Endosc 23:2459–2465CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Targarona EM, Balague C, Pernas JC et al (2008) Can we predict immediate outcome after laparoscopic rectal surgery? Multivariate analysis of clinical, anatomic, and pathologic features after 3-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvic anatomy. Ann Surg 247:642–649CrossRef Targarona EM, Balague C, Pernas JC et al (2008) Can we predict immediate outcome after laparoscopic rectal surgery? Multivariate analysis of clinical, anatomic, and pathologic features after 3-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvic anatomy. Ann Surg 247:642–649CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Akiyoshi T, Kuroyanagi H, Oya M et al (2009) Factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with double stapling technique anastomosis for low rectal cancer. Surgery 146:483–489CrossRef Akiyoshi T, Kuroyanagi H, Oya M et al (2009) Factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with double stapling technique anastomosis for low rectal cancer. Surgery 146:483–489CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Veenhof AA, Engel AF, van der Peet DL et al (2008) Technical difficulty grade score for the laparoscopic approach of rectal cancer: a single institution pilot study. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:469–475CrossRef Veenhof AA, Engel AF, van der Peet DL et al (2008) Technical difficulty grade score for the laparoscopic approach of rectal cancer: a single institution pilot study. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:469–475CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Ferko A, Malý O, Örhalmi J, Dolejš J (2016) CT/MRI pelvimetry as a useful tool when selecting patients with rectal cancer for transanal total mesorectal excision. Surg Endosc 30:1164–1171CrossRef Ferko A, Malý O, Örhalmi J, Dolejš J (2016) CT/MRI pelvimetry as a useful tool when selecting patients with rectal cancer for transanal total mesorectal excision. Surg Endosc 30:1164–1171CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A simple difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic total mesorectal excision
Authors
Dimitri Krizzuk
Shlomo Yellinek
Albert Parlade
Hong Liang
Giovanna Dasilva
Steven D. Wexner
Publication date
01-11-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 11/2020
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02285-8

Other articles of this Issue 11/2020

Techniques in Coloproctology 11/2020 Go to the issue