BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the care of patients with colorectal cancer worldwide, resulting in the postponement of many colorectal cancer surgeries. However, the effectiveness and safety of performing colorectal cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown. This study evaluated the impact of the COVID−19 pandemic on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.MethodsWe retrospectively identified patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery in January 21, 2019, to April 1, 2019, vs. January 21, 2020, to April 1, 2020. Data regarding perioperative outcomes (postoperative complications, conversion rate, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion, reoperation, intensive care, histological examination, morbidity, and length of hospital stay) were retrieved and compared between the two cohorts. A meta-analysis of 14 studies was also conducted to assess the impact of the COVID−19 pandemic on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.ResultsThe sample included 68 patients who underwent surgery in 2020 and 136 patients who underwent surgery in 2019. No patient was converted from laparoscopy to laparotomy or required reoperation. R0 resection was completed in all patients in both groups. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications (p = 0.508), duration of surgery (p = 0.519), intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.148), transfusion (0.217), intensive care (p = 0.379), mean lymph node yield (p = 0.205), vascular positivity rate (p = 0.273), nerve invasion rate (p = 0.713), anastomosis leak rate (p = 1), morbidity (p = 0.478), and length of hospital stay (p = 0.623) between the two groups. The meta-analysis also showed no significant difference in short-term outcomes between the two groups.ConclusionsOur study shows that the COVID-19 pandemic has not led to a deterioration in the surgical outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery or reduction in the quality of cancer removal. Therefore, we do not recommend postponing elective colorectal cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

IntroductionThe clinical utility of glutamine in patients undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the impact of postoperative treatment with glutamine on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing CRC surgery.MethodsWe included patients with CRC undergoing elective surgery between January 2014 and January 2021. Patients were divided into the glutamine and control groups. We retrospectively analyzed postoperative infections complications within 30 days and other outcomes using propensity score matching and performed between-group comparisons.ResultsWe included 1,004 patients who underwent CRC surgeries; among them, 660 received parenteral glutamine supplementation. After matching, there were 342 patients in each group. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was 14.9 and 36.8% in the glutamine and control groups, respectively, indicating that glutamine significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative complications [p < 0.001; risk ratio (RR) 0.41 [95% CI 0.30–0.54]]. Compared with the control group, the glutamine group had a significantly lower postoperative infection complications rate (10.5 vs. 28.9%; p < 0.001; RR 0.36 [95% CI 0.26–0.52]). Although there was no significant between-group difference in the time to first fluid diet (p = 0.052), the time to first defecation (p < 0.001), first exhaust (p < 0.001), and first solid diet (p < 0.001), as well as hospital stay (p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the glutamine group than in the control group. Furthermore, glutamine supplementation significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative intestinal obstruction (p = 0.046). Moreover, glutamine supplementation alleviated the decrease in albumin (p < 0.001), total protein (p < 0.001), and prealbumin levels (p < 0.001).ConclusionsTaken together, postoperative parenteral glutamine supplementation can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, promote the recovery of intestinal function, and improve albumin levels in patients undergoing CRC surgery.

No abstract

Hypoperfusion is the main cause of anastomotic leakage (AL) following colorectal surgery. The conventional method for evaluating anastomotic perfusion is to observe color change and active bleeding of the resection margin of the intestine and the pulsation of mesenteric vessels. However, the accuracy of this method is low, which may be due to insufficient observation time. A novel surgical procedure that separates the mesentery in advance at the intended transection site can delay the observation of anastomotic perfusion, and can potentially detect more anastomotic sites with insufficient vascular supply and reduce the rate of AL. This study aimed to investigate the effects of a novel surgical procedure on AL following sigmoid colon and rectal cancer surgeries. A total of 343 patients who underwent rectal and sigmoid colon cancer surgeries were included in the study. From August 2021 to June 2022, patients with sigmoid colon or rectal cancer underwent a new surgical procedure of pre-division of the mesentery (PDM) at the intended transection site (PDM group). Patients with colorectal cancer who underwent conventional surgical procedures from August 2018 to July 2021 were categorized as the non-PDM group. Symptomatic AL (SAL) within 30 days and other outcomes were retrospectively analyzed using propensity score matching and compared between the two groups. The incidences of SAL were 1.3% and 11.3% in the PDM and non-PDM groups, respectively. PDM significantly reduced the SAL rate in sigmoid colon and rectal cancer surgeries (P = 0.009). The incidence of total postoperative complications (P < 0.05) was significantly lower in the PDM group than that in the non-PDM group. There were no significant differences between the two groups for operative time (P = 0.662), intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.651), intraoperative blood transfusion (P = 0.316), and intensive care rate (P = 1). The length of postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.010) and first exhaust (P = 0.001) and defecation time (P < 0.05) were shorter in the PDM group than in the non-PDM group. PDM can effectively prevent AL, and this procedure can be safely performed in sigmoid colon and rectal cancer surgeries.

BackgroundFor laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, the intermediate approach is commonly employed. However, this approach possesses several disadvantages. In this study, we compare priority access to the small bowel mesentery and the intermediate approach.MethodsThe clinical data of 196 patients admitted to the First Hospital of Chongqing Medical University for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy from January 2019 to January 2022 were retrospectively collected and divided into the small bowel mesenteric priority access and traditional intermediate access groups. The operative time, intraoperative bleeding, number of lymph node dissection, postoperative anal venting time, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative hospital stay and complications were compared between the two different approaches.ResultsIn total, 81 cases of small bowel mesenteric priority access and 115 cases of intermediate approach for right hemi-colonic radical resection were compared. The operative time was 191.98 ± 46.05 and 209.48 ± 46.08 min in the small bowel mesenteric priority access and intermediate access groups, respectively; the difference was statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the intraoperative bleeding and lymph node clearance. However, the scatter plot analysis showed that severe intraoperative bleeding was relatively less frequent in the small mesenteric priority access group, compared with that in the intermediate approach group. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in the first exhaust and defecation times, hospital stay after operation, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative complication between the two groups.ConclusionIn laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach can significantly shorten the operation time compared with the intermediate approach. It can reduce intraoperative bleeding and the operation is simple and safe to perform, making it suitable for less experienced surgeons. Therefore, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach has the potential to be a suitable alternative and deserves further clinical promotion and application.