TBD Meeting (3593-18)

BOSTON – Even partial reduction of liver metastases from malignant small bowel neuroendocrine tumors will help symptoms and improve survival, according to James Howe, MD, director of surgical oncology and endocrine surgery at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“Hepatic cytoreduction is not just to cut down on hormone production” to relieve carcinoid syndrome symptoms, but also “there seems to be a survival benefit,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

There was a time when it was thought that at least 90% of liver metastases needed to be removed for patients benefit, but it’s become clear that even clearing 70% will help.

It’s important, however, to use parenchymal sparing techniques such as wedge excision, enucleation, and ablation. “We don’t do a lot of right and left hepatectomies anymore,” because patients often live a long time with the disease, many past 10 years, so the goal is management without undo side effects from aggressive treatment. “The key thing with all patients is to avoid morbidity. These patients are going to live a long time if you do not do very much,” Dr. Howe said.

The general surgical approach is to remove the primary neuroendocrine tumor (NET) plus regional lymph nodes; debulk peritoneal disease; cytoreduce liver metastases, and remove the gallbladder, because many patients go on to somatostatin analogs; in 2 years or so, they’ll develop gallstones.

CT is overall the most useful imaging tool for workup. The terminal ileum is the most common location of small bowel NETs, but often “the primary will not be seen,” so “the main thing I look for is mesenteric lymphadenopathy. Liver metastases are even more suspicious.” PET imaging with gallium-labeled somatostatin analogues is also “very good for determining if a lesion is indeed a NET and to determine sites of distant metastases,” Dr. Howe said.

Suspicious findings are followed by surgical exploration, which he usually does by midline incision, the size of which depends on if hepatic cytoreduction is planned. “It’s critically important to palpate the entire small bowel, or you are going to miss lesions. You can feel them quite easily even if they are just 1 or 2 mm,” he said.

Laparoscopy is an option for quicker recovery and other benefits, but the downside is “you are going to miss multifocal disease if you are using metal graspers to feel the small bowel,” and challenging node resection is impossible. One compromise is to do a small incision of a few inches; “you can actually palpate the small bowel through a small incision, and resect a section of bowel through it,” he said.

He saves systemic therapy for patients who progress despite surgery and somatostatin analogues. Everolimus is an option, but the most promising option is lutetium Lu 177 dotatate (Lutathera), approved by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2018 for pancreatic and gastrointestinal NETs.

BOSTON – Even partial reduction of liver metastases from malignant small bowel neuroendocrine tumors will help symptoms and improve survival, according to James Howe, MD, director of surgical oncology and endocrine surgery at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“Hepatic cytoreduction is not just to cut down on hormone production” to relieve carcinoid syndrome symptoms, but also “there seems to be a survival benefit,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

There was a time when it was thought that at least 90% of liver metastases needed to be removed for patients benefit, but it’s become clear that even clearing 70% will help.

It’s important, however, to use parenchymal sparing techniques such as wedge excision, enucleation, and ablation. “We don’t do a lot of right and left hepatectomies anymore,” because patients often live a long time with the disease, many past 10 years, so the goal is management without undo side effects from aggressive treatment. “The key thing with all patients is to avoid morbidity. These patients are going to live a long time if you do not do very much,” Dr. Howe said.

The general surgical approach is to remove the primary neuroendocrine tumor (NET) plus regional lymph nodes; debulk peritoneal disease; cytoreduce liver metastases, and remove the gallbladder, because many patients go on to somatostatin analogs; in 2 years or so, they’ll develop gallstones.

CT is overall the most useful imaging tool for workup. The terminal ileum is the most common location of small bowel NETs, but often “the primary will not be seen,” so “the main thing I look for is mesenteric lymphadenopathy. Liver metastases are even more suspicious.” PET imaging with gallium-labeled somatostatin analogues is also “very good for determining if a lesion is indeed a NET and to determine sites of distant metastases,” Dr. Howe said.

Suspicious findings are followed by surgical exploration, which he usually does by midline incision, the size of which depends on if hepatic cytoreduction is planned. “It’s critically important to palpate the entire small bowel, or you are going to miss lesions. You can feel them quite easily even if they are just 1 or 2 mm,” he said.

Laparoscopy is an option for quicker recovery and other benefits, but the downside is “you are going to miss multifocal disease if you are using metal graspers to feel the small bowel,” and challenging node resection is impossible. One compromise is to do a small incision of a few inches; “you can actually palpate the small bowel through a small incision, and resect a section of bowel through it,” he said.

He saves systemic therapy for patients who progress despite surgery and somatostatin analogues. Everolimus is an option, but the most promising option is lutetium Lu 177 dotatate (Lutathera), approved by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2018 for pancreatic and gastrointestinal NETs.

BOSTON – Even partial reduction of liver metastases from malignant small bowel neuroendocrine tumors will help symptoms and improve survival, according to James Howe, MD, director of surgical oncology and endocrine surgery at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“Hepatic cytoreduction is not just to cut down on hormone production” to relieve carcinoid syndrome symptoms, but also “there seems to be a survival benefit,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

There was a time when it was thought that at least 90% of liver metastases needed to be removed for patients benefit, but it’s become clear that even clearing 70% will help.

It’s important, however, to use parenchymal sparing techniques such as wedge excision, enucleation, and ablation. “We don’t do a lot of right and left hepatectomies anymore,” because patients often live a long time with the disease, many past 10 years, so the goal is management without undo side effects from aggressive treatment. “The key thing with all patients is to avoid morbidity. These patients are going to live a long time if you do not do very much,” Dr. Howe said.

The general surgical approach is to remove the primary neuroendocrine tumor (NET) plus regional lymph nodes; debulk peritoneal disease; cytoreduce liver metastases, and remove the gallbladder, because many patients go on to somatostatin analogs; in 2 years or so, they’ll develop gallstones.

CT is overall the most useful imaging tool for workup. The terminal ileum is the most common location of small bowel NETs, but often “the primary will not be seen,” so “the main thing I look for is mesenteric lymphadenopathy. Liver metastases are even more suspicious.” PET imaging with gallium-labeled somatostatin analogues is also “very good for determining if a lesion is indeed a NET and to determine sites of distant metastases,” Dr. Howe said.

Suspicious findings are followed by surgical exploration, which he usually does by midline incision, the size of which depends on if hepatic cytoreduction is planned. “It’s critically important to palpate the entire small bowel, or you are going to miss lesions. You can feel them quite easily even if they are just 1 or 2 mm,” he said.

Laparoscopy is an option for quicker recovery and other benefits, but the downside is “you are going to miss multifocal disease if you are using metal graspers to feel the small bowel,” and challenging node resection is impossible. One compromise is to do a small incision of a few inches; “you can actually palpate the small bowel through a small incision, and resect a section of bowel through it,” he said.

He saves systemic therapy for patients who progress despite surgery and somatostatin analogues. Everolimus is an option, but the most promising option is lutetium Lu 177 dotatate (Lutathera), approved by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2018 for pancreatic and gastrointestinal NETs.

BOSTON– Imagine being able to biopsy a tumor and grow it in a lab.
 

The implications are nearly endless. To start, chemotherapy and radiation options could be screened in vitro, much like culture and sensitivity testing of bacteria, to find a patient’s best option. Tumor cultures could be banked for mass screening of new cytotoxic candidates.

It’s already beginning to happen in a few research labs around the world, and it might foretell a breakthrough in cancer treatment.

After decades of failure, the trick to growing tumor cells in culture has finally been figured out. When stem cells are fished out of healthy tissue – from the crypts of the gastrointestinal lining, for instance – and put into a three-dimensional matrix culture with growth factors, they grow into little replications of the organs they came from, called “organoids;” when stem cells are pulled from cancers, they replicate the primary tumor, growing into “tumoroids” ready to be tested against cytotoxic drugs and radiation.

Philip B. Paty, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and organoid researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said he is certain that the person who led the team that figured out the right culture condition – Hans Clevers, MD, PhD, a molecular genetics professor at the University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) – is destined for a Nobel Prize.

Dr. Paty took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to explain in an interview why, and what ‘organoid technology’ will likely mean for cancer treatment in a few years.

“The ability to grow and sustain cancer means that we now can start doing real science on human tissues. We could never do this before. We’ve been treating cancer without being able to grow tumors and study them.” The breakthrough opens the door to “clinical trials in a dish,” and will likely take personalized cancer treatment to a new level, he said.

“It remains to be proven that “organoid technology “can change outcomes for patients, but those studies are likely coming,” said Dr. Paty, who investigates tumoroid response to radiation in his own lab work.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON– Imagine being able to biopsy a tumor and grow it in a lab.
 

The implications are nearly endless. To start, chemotherapy and radiation options could be screened in vitro, much like culture and sensitivity testing of bacteria, to find a patient’s best option. Tumor cultures could be banked for mass screening of new cytotoxic candidates.

It’s already beginning to happen in a few research labs around the world, and it might foretell a breakthrough in cancer treatment.

After decades of failure, the trick to growing tumor cells in culture has finally been figured out. When stem cells are fished out of healthy tissue – from the crypts of the gastrointestinal lining, for instance – and put into a three-dimensional matrix culture with growth factors, they grow into little replications of the organs they came from, called “organoids;” when stem cells are pulled from cancers, they replicate the primary tumor, growing into “tumoroids” ready to be tested against cytotoxic drugs and radiation.

Philip B. Paty, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and organoid researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said he is certain that the person who led the team that figured out the right culture condition – Hans Clevers, MD, PhD, a molecular genetics professor at the University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) – is destined for a Nobel Prize.

Dr. Paty took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to explain in an interview why, and what ‘organoid technology’ will likely mean for cancer treatment in a few years.

“The ability to grow and sustain cancer means that we now can start doing real science on human tissues. We could never do this before. We’ve been treating cancer without being able to grow tumors and study them.” The breakthrough opens the door to “clinical trials in a dish,” and will likely take personalized cancer treatment to a new level, he said.

“It remains to be proven that “organoid technology “can change outcomes for patients, but those studies are likely coming,” said Dr. Paty, who investigates tumoroid response to radiation in his own lab work.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON– Imagine being able to biopsy a tumor and grow it in a lab.
 

The implications are nearly endless. To start, chemotherapy and radiation options could be screened in vitro, much like culture and sensitivity testing of bacteria, to find a patient’s best option. Tumor cultures could be banked for mass screening of new cytotoxic candidates.

It’s already beginning to happen in a few research labs around the world, and it might foretell a breakthrough in cancer treatment.

After decades of failure, the trick to growing tumor cells in culture has finally been figured out. When stem cells are fished out of healthy tissue – from the crypts of the gastrointestinal lining, for instance – and put into a three-dimensional matrix culture with growth factors, they grow into little replications of the organs they came from, called “organoids;” when stem cells are pulled from cancers, they replicate the primary tumor, growing into “tumoroids” ready to be tested against cytotoxic drugs and radiation.

Philip B. Paty, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and organoid researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said he is certain that the person who led the team that figured out the right culture condition – Hans Clevers, MD, PhD, a molecular genetics professor at the University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) – is destined for a Nobel Prize.

Dr. Paty took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to explain in an interview why, and what ‘organoid technology’ will likely mean for cancer treatment in a few years.

“The ability to grow and sustain cancer means that we now can start doing real science on human tissues. We could never do this before. We’ve been treating cancer without being able to grow tumors and study them.” The breakthrough opens the door to “clinical trials in a dish,” and will likely take personalized cancer treatment to a new level, he said.

“It remains to be proven that “organoid technology “can change outcomes for patients, but those studies are likely coming,” said Dr. Paty, who investigates tumoroid response to radiation in his own lab work.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – Chemotherapy and radiation cure 70%-80% of patients with low rectal cancer.

It’s for them that the watch-and-wait paradigm was established over a decade ago, and widely adopted since then. The idea is to hold off on surgery after a complete response to chemotherapy and radiation, to see if the patient really needs it.

While most do not, tumors regrow in 20%-30%, and when they come back, they tend to be aggressive, with poor outcomes. Patients in those situations would have been better off with upfront surgery.

The problem right now is that there’s no way to predict who will be cured by neoadjuvant therapy and whose tumor will come back, said Philip Paty, MD. FACS, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“There are some who are probably harmed by the watch-and-wait paradigm. The risk of local regrowth is hardbaked into [the model]; we haven’t been able to eliminate it,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons..

Dr. Paty is one of many investigators working to identify those at risk. In the meantime, watch-and-wait patients need to be followed closely, particularly in the first 2 years. Surgery is the best option at the first sign of regrowth. Dr. Paty explained his follow-up protocol, as well as the current state of watch and wait for low rectal cancer, in an interview at the meeting.

He also talked about overcoming hurdles. The risk of surgery, including permanent bowel and sexual dysfunction, is so great “that many patients latch onto watch and wait and won’t let go. They don’t come back for follow-up, or resist the idea of surgery even if it’s needed,” he said.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – Chemotherapy and radiation cure 70%-80% of patients with low rectal cancer.

It’s for them that the watch-and-wait paradigm was established over a decade ago, and widely adopted since then. The idea is to hold off on surgery after a complete response to chemotherapy and radiation, to see if the patient really needs it.

While most do not, tumors regrow in 20%-30%, and when they come back, they tend to be aggressive, with poor outcomes. Patients in those situations would have been better off with upfront surgery.

The problem right now is that there’s no way to predict who will be cured by neoadjuvant therapy and whose tumor will come back, said Philip Paty, MD. FACS, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“There are some who are probably harmed by the watch-and-wait paradigm. The risk of local regrowth is hardbaked into [the model]; we haven’t been able to eliminate it,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons..

Dr. Paty is one of many investigators working to identify those at risk. In the meantime, watch-and-wait patients need to be followed closely, particularly in the first 2 years. Surgery is the best option at the first sign of regrowth. Dr. Paty explained his follow-up protocol, as well as the current state of watch and wait for low rectal cancer, in an interview at the meeting.

He also talked about overcoming hurdles. The risk of surgery, including permanent bowel and sexual dysfunction, is so great “that many patients latch onto watch and wait and won’t let go. They don’t come back for follow-up, or resist the idea of surgery even if it’s needed,” he said.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – Chemotherapy and radiation cure 70%-80% of patients with low rectal cancer.

It’s for them that the watch-and-wait paradigm was established over a decade ago, and widely adopted since then. The idea is to hold off on surgery after a complete response to chemotherapy and radiation, to see if the patient really needs it.

While most do not, tumors regrow in 20%-30%, and when they come back, they tend to be aggressive, with poor outcomes. Patients in those situations would have been better off with upfront surgery.

The problem right now is that there’s no way to predict who will be cured by neoadjuvant therapy and whose tumor will come back, said Philip Paty, MD. FACS, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“There are some who are probably harmed by the watch-and-wait paradigm. The risk of local regrowth is hardbaked into [the model]; we haven’t been able to eliminate it,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons..

Dr. Paty is one of many investigators working to identify those at risk. In the meantime, watch-and-wait patients need to be followed closely, particularly in the first 2 years. Surgery is the best option at the first sign of regrowth. Dr. Paty explained his follow-up protocol, as well as the current state of watch and wait for low rectal cancer, in an interview at the meeting.

He also talked about overcoming hurdles. The risk of surgery, including permanent bowel and sexual dysfunction, is so great “that many patients latch onto watch and wait and won’t let go. They don’t come back for follow-up, or resist the idea of surgery even if it’s needed,” he said.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – Fat grafting has taken off in recent years, especially for breast reconstruction, but it’s become clear that it also has a role in scar treatment, according to Benjamin Levi, MD, director of the burn/wound and regenerative medicine laboratory at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Some corners of the Internet tout it as “some sort of magic stem cell surgery,” Dr. Levi said, but in reality, for scar surgeons, it’s just another useful tool in the armamentarium, one that excels at filling skin depressions due to underlying tissue loss, whether from burns, trauma, or surgery. Unlike hyaluronic acid and other options, fat grafts last; about half of injected adipocytes remain indefinitely. Fat grafting might also help soften scars, he said.

To get the most out of the procedure, of course, it has to be done correctly, so Dr. Levi took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to share his tips on harvesting and spinning down fat grafts, injecting adipocytes, and other matters. Although the concepts of fat grafting are straightforward, the techniques are a bit tricky. Dr. Levi hoped his treatment pearls would help other physicians, especially those considering adding fat grafting to their practice.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – Fat grafting has taken off in recent years, especially for breast reconstruction, but it’s become clear that it also has a role in scar treatment, according to Benjamin Levi, MD, director of the burn/wound and regenerative medicine laboratory at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Some corners of the Internet tout it as “some sort of magic stem cell surgery,” Dr. Levi said, but in reality, for scar surgeons, it’s just another useful tool in the armamentarium, one that excels at filling skin depressions due to underlying tissue loss, whether from burns, trauma, or surgery. Unlike hyaluronic acid and other options, fat grafts last; about half of injected adipocytes remain indefinitely. Fat grafting might also help soften scars, he said.

To get the most out of the procedure, of course, it has to be done correctly, so Dr. Levi took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to share his tips on harvesting and spinning down fat grafts, injecting adipocytes, and other matters. Although the concepts of fat grafting are straightforward, the techniques are a bit tricky. Dr. Levi hoped his treatment pearls would help other physicians, especially those considering adding fat grafting to their practice.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – Fat grafting has taken off in recent years, especially for breast reconstruction, but it’s become clear that it also has a role in scar treatment, according to Benjamin Levi, MD, director of the burn/wound and regenerative medicine laboratory at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Some corners of the Internet tout it as “some sort of magic stem cell surgery,” Dr. Levi said, but in reality, for scar surgeons, it’s just another useful tool in the armamentarium, one that excels at filling skin depressions due to underlying tissue loss, whether from burns, trauma, or surgery. Unlike hyaluronic acid and other options, fat grafts last; about half of injected adipocytes remain indefinitely. Fat grafting might also help soften scars, he said.

To get the most out of the procedure, of course, it has to be done correctly, so Dr. Levi took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to share his tips on harvesting and spinning down fat grafts, injecting adipocytes, and other matters. Although the concepts of fat grafting are straightforward, the techniques are a bit tricky. Dr. Levi hoped his treatment pearls would help other physicians, especially those considering adding fat grafting to their practice.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – Deep surgical site infections after retrorectus ventral hernia repair do not necessarily require mesh excision, according to Cleveland Clinic investigators.

When infected mesh is removed, however, there’s a novel approach that avoids the pitfalls of both immediate and staged abdominal wall reconstruction, according to a second team from the Georgetown University, Washington.

The two approaches were offered at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgery as alternatives to usual care. Infected ventral hernia mesh is a well-known headache for general surgeons, and management isn’t standardized. Surgeons are keenly alert for new approaches to improve outcomes; the presenters said they hoped their talks would help.

The work “is really pushing this forward, and giving us new data to manage a really vexing problem,” said an audience member.
 

Almost 80% salvageable

Infected meshes are usually removed, but the Cleveland Clinic investigators found that that’s often not necessary.

They reviewed 905 elective ventral hernia repairs at the clinic with synthetic sublay mesh in the retrorectus space. The median hernia width was about 15 cm, and the implanted mesh – usually medium- or heavy-weight polypropylene – had a mean area of 900 cm², “so these were big hernias with a lot of mesh. [Patients] often come to us as a last resort because they’ve been told no elsewhere,” said lead investigator Dominykas Burneikis, MD.

Twenty-four patients (2.7%) developed deep surgical site infections below the anterior rectus fascia. Instead of returning to the OR for new mesh, the team opened, drained, and debrided the wounds, and patients received antibiotics plus negative pressure wound therapy.

Those measures were enough for all but one patient. Mesh was generally found to be granulating well into surrounding tissue, so it was left completely intact in 19 cases (79%), and just trimmed a bit in four others. One man had an excision after his skin flap died and the hernia recurred. At 8 months, 11 patients were completely healed, and 12 had granulating wounds with no visible mesh. There were no cutaneous fistulas.

In short, “we had an 80% mesh salvage rate at 8 months, [which] led us to conclude that most synthetic mesh infections after retrorectus sublay repair do not require explanation,” Dr. Burneikis said.


 

A hybrid approach

When infected mesh does need to come out, abdominal wall reconstruction is either done in the same procedure or months later. Immediate reconstruction generally means operating in a contaminated field, with subsequent rates of wound infection of up to 48%. Delayed closure, meanwhile, means long-term wound care and temporary hernia recurrence, among other problems.

The Georgetown team reported good outcomes with a hybrid approach that combines the benefits of both procedures while avoiding their pitfalls. In the first step, mesh is removed, the abdominal wall debrided, fistulas taken down, and cultures obtained, explained lead investigator and surgery resident Kieranjeet Nijhar, MD.

The wound is temporarily closed with a sterile plastic liner under negative pressure, and patients are taken to the floor for IV antibiotics based on culture results. Three days later, after the infection has been knocked down, the patient is returned to the OR for debridement to healthy tissue and definitive reconstruction with biologic mesh. It’s all done during the same hospitalization.

Dr. Nijhar reviewed 53 cases at Georgetown since 2009. Patients were a mean age of 58 years, with an average body mass index of 35.1 kg/m². Infected mesh was most commonly underlain or retrorectus; mean defect size was 206 cm². Patients spent an average of 11 days in the hospital.

During a mean follow-up of about 9 months, 17 patients (32%) had surgical site problems – infection, dehiscence, hematoma, or seroma – and hernia recurred in six (11.3%); the results compare favorably with especially immediate reconstruction. As in prior studies, higher age and bridge repair were associated with recurrence and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection with surgical site problems.

“We propose this as a potential alternative for” repairs of ventral hernias with infected mesh, Dr. Nijhar said.

Dr. Nijhar and Dr. Burneikis had no relevant disclosures. There was no external funding for the work.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – Deep surgical site infections after retrorectus ventral hernia repair do not necessarily require mesh excision, according to Cleveland Clinic investigators.

When infected mesh is removed, however, there’s a novel approach that avoids the pitfalls of both immediate and staged abdominal wall reconstruction, according to a second team from the Georgetown University, Washington.

The two approaches were offered at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgery as alternatives to usual care. Infected ventral hernia mesh is a well-known headache for general surgeons, and management isn’t standardized. Surgeons are keenly alert for new approaches to improve outcomes; the presenters said they hoped their talks would help.

The work “is really pushing this forward, and giving us new data to manage a really vexing problem,” said an audience member.
 

Almost 80% salvageable

Infected meshes are usually removed, but the Cleveland Clinic investigators found that that’s often not necessary.

They reviewed 905 elective ventral hernia repairs at the clinic with synthetic sublay mesh in the retrorectus space. The median hernia width was about 15 cm, and the implanted mesh – usually medium- or heavy-weight polypropylene – had a mean area of 900 cm², “so these were big hernias with a lot of mesh. [Patients] often come to us as a last resort because they’ve been told no elsewhere,” said lead investigator Dominykas Burneikis, MD.

Twenty-four patients (2.7%) developed deep surgical site infections below the anterior rectus fascia. Instead of returning to the OR for new mesh, the team opened, drained, and debrided the wounds, and patients received antibiotics plus negative pressure wound therapy.

Those measures were enough for all but one patient. Mesh was generally found to be granulating well into surrounding tissue, so it was left completely intact in 19 cases (79%), and just trimmed a bit in four others. One man had an excision after his skin flap died and the hernia recurred. At 8 months, 11 patients were completely healed, and 12 had granulating wounds with no visible mesh. There were no cutaneous fistulas.

In short, “we had an 80% mesh salvage rate at 8 months, [which] led us to conclude that most synthetic mesh infections after retrorectus sublay repair do not require explanation,” Dr. Burneikis said.


 

A hybrid approach

When infected mesh does need to come out, abdominal wall reconstruction is either done in the same procedure or months later. Immediate reconstruction generally means operating in a contaminated field, with subsequent rates of wound infection of up to 48%. Delayed closure, meanwhile, means long-term wound care and temporary hernia recurrence, among other problems.

The Georgetown team reported good outcomes with a hybrid approach that combines the benefits of both procedures while avoiding their pitfalls. In the first step, mesh is removed, the abdominal wall debrided, fistulas taken down, and cultures obtained, explained lead investigator and surgery resident Kieranjeet Nijhar, MD.

The wound is temporarily closed with a sterile plastic liner under negative pressure, and patients are taken to the floor for IV antibiotics based on culture results. Three days later, after the infection has been knocked down, the patient is returned to the OR for debridement to healthy tissue and definitive reconstruction with biologic mesh. It’s all done during the same hospitalization.

Dr. Nijhar reviewed 53 cases at Georgetown since 2009. Patients were a mean age of 58 years, with an average body mass index of 35.1 kg/m². Infected mesh was most commonly underlain or retrorectus; mean defect size was 206 cm². Patients spent an average of 11 days in the hospital.

During a mean follow-up of about 9 months, 17 patients (32%) had surgical site problems – infection, dehiscence, hematoma, or seroma – and hernia recurred in six (11.3%); the results compare favorably with especially immediate reconstruction. As in prior studies, higher age and bridge repair were associated with recurrence and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection with surgical site problems.

“We propose this as a potential alternative for” repairs of ventral hernias with infected mesh, Dr. Nijhar said.

Dr. Nijhar and Dr. Burneikis had no relevant disclosures. There was no external funding for the work.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – Deep surgical site infections after retrorectus ventral hernia repair do not necessarily require mesh excision, according to Cleveland Clinic investigators.

When infected mesh is removed, however, there’s a novel approach that avoids the pitfalls of both immediate and staged abdominal wall reconstruction, according to a second team from the Georgetown University, Washington.

The two approaches were offered at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgery as alternatives to usual care. Infected ventral hernia mesh is a well-known headache for general surgeons, and management isn’t standardized. Surgeons are keenly alert for new approaches to improve outcomes; the presenters said they hoped their talks would help.

The work “is really pushing this forward, and giving us new data to manage a really vexing problem,” said an audience member.
 

Almost 80% salvageable

Infected meshes are usually removed, but the Cleveland Clinic investigators found that that’s often not necessary.

They reviewed 905 elective ventral hernia repairs at the clinic with synthetic sublay mesh in the retrorectus space. The median hernia width was about 15 cm, and the implanted mesh – usually medium- or heavy-weight polypropylene – had a mean area of 900 cm², “so these were big hernias with a lot of mesh. [Patients] often come to us as a last resort because they’ve been told no elsewhere,” said lead investigator Dominykas Burneikis, MD.

Twenty-four patients (2.7%) developed deep surgical site infections below the anterior rectus fascia. Instead of returning to the OR for new mesh, the team opened, drained, and debrided the wounds, and patients received antibiotics plus negative pressure wound therapy.

Those measures were enough for all but one patient. Mesh was generally found to be granulating well into surrounding tissue, so it was left completely intact in 19 cases (79%), and just trimmed a bit in four others. One man had an excision after his skin flap died and the hernia recurred. At 8 months, 11 patients were completely healed, and 12 had granulating wounds with no visible mesh. There were no cutaneous fistulas.

In short, “we had an 80% mesh salvage rate at 8 months, [which] led us to conclude that most synthetic mesh infections after retrorectus sublay repair do not require explanation,” Dr. Burneikis said.


 

A hybrid approach

When infected mesh does need to come out, abdominal wall reconstruction is either done in the same procedure or months later. Immediate reconstruction generally means operating in a contaminated field, with subsequent rates of wound infection of up to 48%. Delayed closure, meanwhile, means long-term wound care and temporary hernia recurrence, among other problems.

The Georgetown team reported good outcomes with a hybrid approach that combines the benefits of both procedures while avoiding their pitfalls. In the first step, mesh is removed, the abdominal wall debrided, fistulas taken down, and cultures obtained, explained lead investigator and surgery resident Kieranjeet Nijhar, MD.

The wound is temporarily closed with a sterile plastic liner under negative pressure, and patients are taken to the floor for IV antibiotics based on culture results. Three days later, after the infection has been knocked down, the patient is returned to the OR for debridement to healthy tissue and definitive reconstruction with biologic mesh. It’s all done during the same hospitalization.

Dr. Nijhar reviewed 53 cases at Georgetown since 2009. Patients were a mean age of 58 years, with an average body mass index of 35.1 kg/m². Infected mesh was most commonly underlain or retrorectus; mean defect size was 206 cm². Patients spent an average of 11 days in the hospital.

During a mean follow-up of about 9 months, 17 patients (32%) had surgical site problems – infection, dehiscence, hematoma, or seroma – and hernia recurred in six (11.3%); the results compare favorably with especially immediate reconstruction. As in prior studies, higher age and bridge repair were associated with recurrence and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection with surgical site problems.

“We propose this as a potential alternative for” repairs of ventral hernias with infected mesh, Dr. Nijhar said.

Dr. Nijhar and Dr. Burneikis had no relevant disclosures. There was no external funding for the work.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – When surgeon Wendy R. Greene, MD, FACS, director of acute and critical care surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, asked a room of about 300 general surgeons at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons how many use needle aspiration first for breast abscesses, and how many use a scalpel, it was about a 50-50 split.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

This divided response is why Dr. Greene addressed in her presentation the right approach to the problem of breast abscesses. In short, “for run-of-the-mill abscesses less than 5 cm, don’t get out the scalpel; get out the needle first,” she said.

Breast abscesses make women feel terrible. They have flulike symptoms, plus a warm, red, and tender bump on their breast. New mothers over age 30 years are most at risk, especially if they are past 40 weeks’ gestation.

There certainly are indications for the scalpel first. If the skin overlaying the abscess is dead, shiny, sloughing off, or leaking pus, or if the abscess is larger than 5 cm on ultrasound, a small stab incision is in order, and it should be made at the maximum point of fluctuation, after numbing the surrounding tissue. Put a wipe in place to catch the pus, debride as necessary, and “irrigate, irrigate, irrigate,” Dr. Greene said.

She uses suction to make sure all the pus is out, then injects a lidocaine into the cavity for pain control and lets it rest a few minutes before another round of suction.

Septic, deteriorating patients, and the immunocompromised, need a larger incision and drainage, with IV antibiotics in the hospital, but even in those cases, “avoid placing percutaneous drains; there’s rarely a role for them in modern management of breast abscesses.” Women will have poorer results and poorer cosmesis, Dr. Greene said.

Aggressive drainage isn’t necessary most of the time, and it can destroy healthy tissue and leave new mothers with breastfeeding problems and milk fistulas. There’s also a risk for scarring, deformity, and loss of the ability to lactate.

An 18-21 gauge needle with local anesthetic is usually enough. The lesion should be obvious on ultrasound, and it’s useful to guide the needle and ensure the cavity collapses on aspiration.

Dr. Greene said it also is important to culture milk in new mothers, and culture her infant’s nose and mouth, because cracked skin on the breast can let germs from nursing into the milk ducts.

Women are sent home after aspiration with antibiotics for 7-10 days, ones that are safe for nursing infants. They might be back with another abscess in a few weeks, so it’s important to be patient and ready for ongoing treatment.

The ultimate worry with recurrent cases is that a breast mass is blocking a milk duct, so mammography is often in order for repeat patients, especially with a family history of breast cancer. Wait until the acute infection has died down; a mammograph can be too painful otherwise, Dr. Greene said.

In the meantime, let infants nurse. They “are a great way to help drain the breast,” she said.

Dr. Greene had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – When surgeon Wendy R. Greene, MD, FACS, director of acute and critical care surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, asked a room of about 300 general surgeons at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons how many use needle aspiration first for breast abscesses, and how many use a scalpel, it was about a 50-50 split.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

This divided response is why Dr. Greene addressed in her presentation the right approach to the problem of breast abscesses. In short, “for run-of-the-mill abscesses less than 5 cm, don’t get out the scalpel; get out the needle first,” she said.

Breast abscesses make women feel terrible. They have flulike symptoms, plus a warm, red, and tender bump on their breast. New mothers over age 30 years are most at risk, especially if they are past 40 weeks’ gestation.

There certainly are indications for the scalpel first. If the skin overlaying the abscess is dead, shiny, sloughing off, or leaking pus, or if the abscess is larger than 5 cm on ultrasound, a small stab incision is in order, and it should be made at the maximum point of fluctuation, after numbing the surrounding tissue. Put a wipe in place to catch the pus, debride as necessary, and “irrigate, irrigate, irrigate,” Dr. Greene said.

She uses suction to make sure all the pus is out, then injects a lidocaine into the cavity for pain control and lets it rest a few minutes before another round of suction.

Septic, deteriorating patients, and the immunocompromised, need a larger incision and drainage, with IV antibiotics in the hospital, but even in those cases, “avoid placing percutaneous drains; there’s rarely a role for them in modern management of breast abscesses.” Women will have poorer results and poorer cosmesis, Dr. Greene said.

Aggressive drainage isn’t necessary most of the time, and it can destroy healthy tissue and leave new mothers with breastfeeding problems and milk fistulas. There’s also a risk for scarring, deformity, and loss of the ability to lactate.

An 18-21 gauge needle with local anesthetic is usually enough. The lesion should be obvious on ultrasound, and it’s useful to guide the needle and ensure the cavity collapses on aspiration.

Dr. Greene said it also is important to culture milk in new mothers, and culture her infant’s nose and mouth, because cracked skin on the breast can let germs from nursing into the milk ducts.

Women are sent home after aspiration with antibiotics for 7-10 days, ones that are safe for nursing infants. They might be back with another abscess in a few weeks, so it’s important to be patient and ready for ongoing treatment.

The ultimate worry with recurrent cases is that a breast mass is blocking a milk duct, so mammography is often in order for repeat patients, especially with a family history of breast cancer. Wait until the acute infection has died down; a mammograph can be too painful otherwise, Dr. Greene said.

In the meantime, let infants nurse. They “are a great way to help drain the breast,” she said.

Dr. Greene had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – When surgeon Wendy R. Greene, MD, FACS, director of acute and critical care surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, asked a room of about 300 general surgeons at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons how many use needle aspiration first for breast abscesses, and how many use a scalpel, it was about a 50-50 split.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

This divided response is why Dr. Greene addressed in her presentation the right approach to the problem of breast abscesses. In short, “for run-of-the-mill abscesses less than 5 cm, don’t get out the scalpel; get out the needle first,” she said.

Breast abscesses make women feel terrible. They have flulike symptoms, plus a warm, red, and tender bump on their breast. New mothers over age 30 years are most at risk, especially if they are past 40 weeks’ gestation.

There certainly are indications for the scalpel first. If the skin overlaying the abscess is dead, shiny, sloughing off, or leaking pus, or if the abscess is larger than 5 cm on ultrasound, a small stab incision is in order, and it should be made at the maximum point of fluctuation, after numbing the surrounding tissue. Put a wipe in place to catch the pus, debride as necessary, and “irrigate, irrigate, irrigate,” Dr. Greene said.

She uses suction to make sure all the pus is out, then injects a lidocaine into the cavity for pain control and lets it rest a few minutes before another round of suction.

Septic, deteriorating patients, and the immunocompromised, need a larger incision and drainage, with IV antibiotics in the hospital, but even in those cases, “avoid placing percutaneous drains; there’s rarely a role for them in modern management of breast abscesses.” Women will have poorer results and poorer cosmesis, Dr. Greene said.

Aggressive drainage isn’t necessary most of the time, and it can destroy healthy tissue and leave new mothers with breastfeeding problems and milk fistulas. There’s also a risk for scarring, deformity, and loss of the ability to lactate.

An 18-21 gauge needle with local anesthetic is usually enough. The lesion should be obvious on ultrasound, and it’s useful to guide the needle and ensure the cavity collapses on aspiration.

Dr. Greene said it also is important to culture milk in new mothers, and culture her infant’s nose and mouth, because cracked skin on the breast can let germs from nursing into the milk ducts.

Women are sent home after aspiration with antibiotics for 7-10 days, ones that are safe for nursing infants. They might be back with another abscess in a few weeks, so it’s important to be patient and ready for ongoing treatment.

The ultimate worry with recurrent cases is that a breast mass is blocking a milk duct, so mammography is often in order for repeat patients, especially with a family history of breast cancer. Wait until the acute infection has died down; a mammograph can be too painful otherwise, Dr. Greene said.

In the meantime, let infants nurse. They “are a great way to help drain the breast,” she said.

Dr. Greene had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – For women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy, advanced age and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are not associated with increased postoperative complications, results of recent studies suggest.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The procedure was “surgically safe” in older patients, with complication rates comparable to those seen in younger patients, Solange E. Cox, MD, of MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, said in a presentation of one those two retrospective analyses at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

“From this, we think that eligible older patients should be offered a nipple-sparing mastectomy as a surgical option for breast cancer, and age alone should not be used as criteria to exclude these patients from the option,” she said.

The second retrospective study showed that patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a rate of surgical complications and unintended reoperations comparable to what was seen in women undergoing primary surgery.

“Our big-picture takeaway from this study is that receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not a contraindication for nipple-sparing mastectomy,” said investigator Alex J. Bartholomew, MS, also of Medstar Georgetown University Hospital.

Mr. Bartholomew’s conclusion was based on an analysis of the nipple-sparing mastectomy registry of the American Society of Breast Surgeons that included a total of 3,125 breasts. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used in 528, or 16.9%, while primary surgery was performed in 2,597, or 83.1%.

The overall rate of complications was 11%, with nonsignificant differences between the neoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary surgery groups at 12.7% and 10.7%, respectively.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

SOURCES: Cox S et al. SF310 abstract; Bartholomew AJ et al. SF310 abstract ACS Clinical Congress 2018

BOSTON – For women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy, advanced age and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are not associated with increased postoperative complications, results of recent studies suggest.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The procedure was “surgically safe” in older patients, with complication rates comparable to those seen in younger patients, Solange E. Cox, MD, of MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, said in a presentation of one those two retrospective analyses at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

“From this, we think that eligible older patients should be offered a nipple-sparing mastectomy as a surgical option for breast cancer, and age alone should not be used as criteria to exclude these patients from the option,” she said.

The second retrospective study showed that patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a rate of surgical complications and unintended reoperations comparable to what was seen in women undergoing primary surgery.

“Our big-picture takeaway from this study is that receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not a contraindication for nipple-sparing mastectomy,” said investigator Alex J. Bartholomew, MS, also of Medstar Georgetown University Hospital.

Mr. Bartholomew’s conclusion was based on an analysis of the nipple-sparing mastectomy registry of the American Society of Breast Surgeons that included a total of 3,125 breasts. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used in 528, or 16.9%, while primary surgery was performed in 2,597, or 83.1%.

The overall rate of complications was 11%, with nonsignificant differences between the neoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary surgery groups at 12.7% and 10.7%, respectively.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

SOURCES: Cox S et al. SF310 abstract; Bartholomew AJ et al. SF310 abstract ACS Clinical Congress 2018

BOSTON – For women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy, advanced age and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are not associated with increased postoperative complications, results of recent studies suggest.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The procedure was “surgically safe” in older patients, with complication rates comparable to those seen in younger patients, Solange E. Cox, MD, of MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, said in a presentation of one those two retrospective analyses at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

“From this, we think that eligible older patients should be offered a nipple-sparing mastectomy as a surgical option for breast cancer, and age alone should not be used as criteria to exclude these patients from the option,” she said.

The second retrospective study showed that patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a rate of surgical complications and unintended reoperations comparable to what was seen in women undergoing primary surgery.

“Our big-picture takeaway from this study is that receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not a contraindication for nipple-sparing mastectomy,” said investigator Alex J. Bartholomew, MS, also of Medstar Georgetown University Hospital.

Mr. Bartholomew’s conclusion was based on an analysis of the nipple-sparing mastectomy registry of the American Society of Breast Surgeons that included a total of 3,125 breasts. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used in 528, or 16.9%, while primary surgery was performed in 2,597, or 83.1%.

The overall rate of complications was 11%, with nonsignificant differences between the neoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary surgery groups at 12.7% and 10.7%, respectively.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

SOURCES: Cox S et al. SF310 abstract; Bartholomew AJ et al. SF310 abstract ACS Clinical Congress 2018

BOSTON – Rates of colorectal procedure complications have steadily decreased over time in the 10 years since the introduction of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP), a recent analysis shows.

Andrew Boswer/MDedge News

Reoperation rates have also decreased, while early-discharge rates have steadily increased, according to results of the analysis, presented at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

The findings underline the value of such ACS-led initiatives in improving patient care and surgical quality, said Ahmed M. Al-Mazrou, MD, a general surgery resident at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York.

“Over its first decade of introduction, ACS NSQIP was associated with improved outcomes after colorectal surgery, and also introduction of colectomy-targeted data was also associated with improved outcomes,” Dr. Al-Mazrou said in his presentation describing the results.

Prior to this study, the question of whether the introduction of ACS NSQIP has improved outcomes over time had not been well characterized, according to Dr. Al-Mazrou and his colleagues.

To evaluate the impact, the investigators looked at more than 310,000 nonemergency colorectal resections in ACS NSQIP, of which about 58% were done after the introduction of colectomy-targeted variables in 2013.

They found that, over time, incidence of most complications fell, including surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, sepsis and septic shock, and venous thromboembolism, while rates of early discharge increased.

For example, surgical site infections decreased from 13.7% to 4.7% over the 10-year period, while the number of patients discharged within 5 days or fewer increased from about 8% to 47%.

Introduction of colectomy-targeted data was associated with fewer surgical site infections (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.80), multivariable analysis showed. Likewise, there were lower rates of systemic infections (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and urinary tract infections (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.74) after introduction of the data.

Rates of reoperation also decreased (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.91) while early-discharge rates increased (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.63) after colectomy data was introduced, the multivariable analysis further showed.

Principal investigator P. Ravi Kiran, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at Columbia University and chief of the medical center’s division of colorectal surgery, said the improved outcomes were attributable to a few different factors.

First, the NSQIP national data allows participants to benchmark with peer hospitals and find areas for improvement, Dr. Kiran said in an ACS press release.

That benchmarking encourages participating centers to follow evidence-based recommendations, including ACS guidelines for preventing surgical site infections, he added.

The introduction of procedure-targeted datasets in NSQIP was done in response to user requests for more clinically detailed information, according to Clifford Y. Ko, MD, FACS, director of the ACS division of research and optimal patient care.

While the NSQIP data are important in improving surgical outcomes, credit also goes to the organizations that are leading the quality improvement efforts by effectively using the data, Dr. Ko said in the press release.

Dr. Ko was not involved in the study. Dr. Al-Mazrou and Dr. Kiran reported no disclosures relevant to the study.

SOURCE: Al-Mazrou AM et al. ACS Clinical Congress. Abstract SF330.

BOSTON – Rates of colorectal procedure complications have steadily decreased over time in the 10 years since the introduction of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP), a recent analysis shows.

Andrew Boswer/MDedge News

Reoperation rates have also decreased, while early-discharge rates have steadily increased, according to results of the analysis, presented at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

The findings underline the value of such ACS-led initiatives in improving patient care and surgical quality, said Ahmed M. Al-Mazrou, MD, a general surgery resident at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York.

“Over its first decade of introduction, ACS NSQIP was associated with improved outcomes after colorectal surgery, and also introduction of colectomy-targeted data was also associated with improved outcomes,” Dr. Al-Mazrou said in his presentation describing the results.

Prior to this study, the question of whether the introduction of ACS NSQIP has improved outcomes over time had not been well characterized, according to Dr. Al-Mazrou and his colleagues.

To evaluate the impact, the investigators looked at more than 310,000 nonemergency colorectal resections in ACS NSQIP, of which about 58% were done after the introduction of colectomy-targeted variables in 2013.

They found that, over time, incidence of most complications fell, including surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, sepsis and septic shock, and venous thromboembolism, while rates of early discharge increased.

For example, surgical site infections decreased from 13.7% to 4.7% over the 10-year period, while the number of patients discharged within 5 days or fewer increased from about 8% to 47%.

Introduction of colectomy-targeted data was associated with fewer surgical site infections (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.80), multivariable analysis showed. Likewise, there were lower rates of systemic infections (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and urinary tract infections (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.74) after introduction of the data.

Rates of reoperation also decreased (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.91) while early-discharge rates increased (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.63) after colectomy data was introduced, the multivariable analysis further showed.

Principal investigator P. Ravi Kiran, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at Columbia University and chief of the medical center’s division of colorectal surgery, said the improved outcomes were attributable to a few different factors.

First, the NSQIP national data allows participants to benchmark with peer hospitals and find areas for improvement, Dr. Kiran said in an ACS press release.

That benchmarking encourages participating centers to follow evidence-based recommendations, including ACS guidelines for preventing surgical site infections, he added.

The introduction of procedure-targeted datasets in NSQIP was done in response to user requests for more clinically detailed information, according to Clifford Y. Ko, MD, FACS, director of the ACS division of research and optimal patient care.

While the NSQIP data are important in improving surgical outcomes, credit also goes to the organizations that are leading the quality improvement efforts by effectively using the data, Dr. Ko said in the press release.

Dr. Ko was not involved in the study. Dr. Al-Mazrou and Dr. Kiran reported no disclosures relevant to the study.

SOURCE: Al-Mazrou AM et al. ACS Clinical Congress. Abstract SF330.

BOSTON – Rates of colorectal procedure complications have steadily decreased over time in the 10 years since the introduction of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP), a recent analysis shows.

Andrew Boswer/MDedge News

Reoperation rates have also decreased, while early-discharge rates have steadily increased, according to results of the analysis, presented at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

The findings underline the value of such ACS-led initiatives in improving patient care and surgical quality, said Ahmed M. Al-Mazrou, MD, a general surgery resident at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York.

“Over its first decade of introduction, ACS NSQIP was associated with improved outcomes after colorectal surgery, and also introduction of colectomy-targeted data was also associated with improved outcomes,” Dr. Al-Mazrou said in his presentation describing the results.

Prior to this study, the question of whether the introduction of ACS NSQIP has improved outcomes over time had not been well characterized, according to Dr. Al-Mazrou and his colleagues.

To evaluate the impact, the investigators looked at more than 310,000 nonemergency colorectal resections in ACS NSQIP, of which about 58% were done after the introduction of colectomy-targeted variables in 2013.

They found that, over time, incidence of most complications fell, including surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, sepsis and septic shock, and venous thromboembolism, while rates of early discharge increased.

For example, surgical site infections decreased from 13.7% to 4.7% over the 10-year period, while the number of patients discharged within 5 days or fewer increased from about 8% to 47%.

Introduction of colectomy-targeted data was associated with fewer surgical site infections (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.80), multivariable analysis showed. Likewise, there were lower rates of systemic infections (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and urinary tract infections (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.74) after introduction of the data.

Rates of reoperation also decreased (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.91) while early-discharge rates increased (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.63) after colectomy data was introduced, the multivariable analysis further showed.

Principal investigator P. Ravi Kiran, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at Columbia University and chief of the medical center’s division of colorectal surgery, said the improved outcomes were attributable to a few different factors.

First, the NSQIP national data allows participants to benchmark with peer hospitals and find areas for improvement, Dr. Kiran said in an ACS press release.

That benchmarking encourages participating centers to follow evidence-based recommendations, including ACS guidelines for preventing surgical site infections, he added.

The introduction of procedure-targeted datasets in NSQIP was done in response to user requests for more clinically detailed information, according to Clifford Y. Ko, MD, FACS, director of the ACS division of research and optimal patient care.

While the NSQIP data are important in improving surgical outcomes, credit also goes to the organizations that are leading the quality improvement efforts by effectively using the data, Dr. Ko said in the press release.

Dr. Ko was not involved in the study. Dr. Al-Mazrou and Dr. Kiran reported no disclosures relevant to the study.

SOURCE: Al-Mazrou AM et al. ACS Clinical Congress. Abstract SF330.

BOSTON – A new surgical option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases is beginning to attract attention: the liver-first approach.

It’s an alternative to usual care, meaning simultaneous bowel and liver resection or bowel resection with liver surgery later on.

Systemic chemotherapy comes first, followed by liver resection. If margins are microscopically negative, the patient gets another round of chemotherapy. If no additional lesions emerge, the primary tumor is taken out. The entire process can take up to a year.

The approach was developed in the Netherlands for rectal cancer with advanced liver metastases. The idea was to get the liver lesions out before they became unresectable, then remove the primary tumor later on. It’s gaining traction now for colon cancer, and beginning to trickle into the United States at a few academic medical centers.

It comes down to what’s more dangerous, the metastases or the primary tumor? Tumor science hasn’t answered that question yet. There’s general agreement that metastases are what kill people with cancer, but it’s not known if they come mostly from previous metastases or from the primary tumor. The liver-first approach assumes the former.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Liver-first is “extremely controversial. For older surgeons who are not in tertiary care centers, liver-first doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t seem to make sense to patients. They wonder why you would go after the liver when they were diagnosed with a colon tumor,” said Janice Rafferty, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at the University of Cincinnati, at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

“Well, it’s because the primary tumor doesn’t limit your life,” she continued. “The life-limiting disease is in the liver, not the colon. If you explain it to them that way, it makes sense. If we cannot get an R0 resection on the liver, it doesn’t make sense to go after the primary, unless it’s symptomatic with obstruction, bleeding, or fistula.”

There have been about 10 attempts at a randomized trial of this approach versus usual care, but they were not successful because of the difficulty of recruiting patients. Patients – and no doubt, some surgeons – may have some resistance to the logic of going after metastases first.

Dr. Rafferty moderated a review of research from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., that attempted to plug the evidence gap. The Yale investigators “presented really interesting data that shows that liver-first has improved survival,” she said.

The Yale team used the National Cancer Database to compare 2010-2015 outcomes from liver-first patients with patients who had simultaneous or bowel-first resections, followed by later liver resections. The database didn’t allow them to tease out simultaneous from bowel-first cases, so they lumped them together as usual care. To avoid confounding, rectal carcinomas and metastases to the lung, brain, and other organs were excluded.

Median survival was 34 months among 358 liver-first patients versus 24 months among 18,042 usual care patients in an intention-to-treat analysis. Among patients who completed their resections, median survival was 57 months among 140 liver-first patients versus 36 months with usual care in 3,988.

The benefit held after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics (hazard ratio for death 0.77 in favor of liver first). When further adjusted for chemotherapy timing, there was a strong trend for liver-first but it was not statistically significant, suggesting that up-front chemotherapy contributed to the results (HR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.01; P = .09).

There were many caveats. The liver-first patients were younger, with over half under the age of 60 years versus just over 40% in usual care. They were also healthier based on Charlson comorbidity scores and more likely to have upfront chemotherapy and be treated at an academic center.

So, what should surgeons make of these findings? Lead investigator Vadim Kurbatov, MD, a Yale surgery resident, argued that, at the very least, they suggest that liver-first is a viable option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases. Going further, they suggest that liver first may be the right way to go for younger, healthier patients at academic centers.

For sicker stage IV patients, however, the role of liver-first is unclear. “We really do need a randomized trial,” he said.

Dr. Kurbatov and Dr. Rafferty had no relevant disclosures to report. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – A new surgical option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases is beginning to attract attention: the liver-first approach.

It’s an alternative to usual care, meaning simultaneous bowel and liver resection or bowel resection with liver surgery later on.

Systemic chemotherapy comes first, followed by liver resection. If margins are microscopically negative, the patient gets another round of chemotherapy. If no additional lesions emerge, the primary tumor is taken out. The entire process can take up to a year.

The approach was developed in the Netherlands for rectal cancer with advanced liver metastases. The idea was to get the liver lesions out before they became unresectable, then remove the primary tumor later on. It’s gaining traction now for colon cancer, and beginning to trickle into the United States at a few academic medical centers.

It comes down to what’s more dangerous, the metastases or the primary tumor? Tumor science hasn’t answered that question yet. There’s general agreement that metastases are what kill people with cancer, but it’s not known if they come mostly from previous metastases or from the primary tumor. The liver-first approach assumes the former.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Liver-first is “extremely controversial. For older surgeons who are not in tertiary care centers, liver-first doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t seem to make sense to patients. They wonder why you would go after the liver when they were diagnosed with a colon tumor,” said Janice Rafferty, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at the University of Cincinnati, at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

“Well, it’s because the primary tumor doesn’t limit your life,” she continued. “The life-limiting disease is in the liver, not the colon. If you explain it to them that way, it makes sense. If we cannot get an R0 resection on the liver, it doesn’t make sense to go after the primary, unless it’s symptomatic with obstruction, bleeding, or fistula.”

There have been about 10 attempts at a randomized trial of this approach versus usual care, but they were not successful because of the difficulty of recruiting patients. Patients – and no doubt, some surgeons – may have some resistance to the logic of going after metastases first.

Dr. Rafferty moderated a review of research from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., that attempted to plug the evidence gap. The Yale investigators “presented really interesting data that shows that liver-first has improved survival,” she said.

The Yale team used the National Cancer Database to compare 2010-2015 outcomes from liver-first patients with patients who had simultaneous or bowel-first resections, followed by later liver resections. The database didn’t allow them to tease out simultaneous from bowel-first cases, so they lumped them together as usual care. To avoid confounding, rectal carcinomas and metastases to the lung, brain, and other organs were excluded.

Median survival was 34 months among 358 liver-first patients versus 24 months among 18,042 usual care patients in an intention-to-treat analysis. Among patients who completed their resections, median survival was 57 months among 140 liver-first patients versus 36 months with usual care in 3,988.

The benefit held after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics (hazard ratio for death 0.77 in favor of liver first). When further adjusted for chemotherapy timing, there was a strong trend for liver-first but it was not statistically significant, suggesting that up-front chemotherapy contributed to the results (HR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.01; P = .09).

There were many caveats. The liver-first patients were younger, with over half under the age of 60 years versus just over 40% in usual care. They were also healthier based on Charlson comorbidity scores and more likely to have upfront chemotherapy and be treated at an academic center.

So, what should surgeons make of these findings? Lead investigator Vadim Kurbatov, MD, a Yale surgery resident, argued that, at the very least, they suggest that liver-first is a viable option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases. Going further, they suggest that liver first may be the right way to go for younger, healthier patients at academic centers.

For sicker stage IV patients, however, the role of liver-first is unclear. “We really do need a randomized trial,” he said.

Dr. Kurbatov and Dr. Rafferty had no relevant disclosures to report. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – A new surgical option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases is beginning to attract attention: the liver-first approach.

It’s an alternative to usual care, meaning simultaneous bowel and liver resection or bowel resection with liver surgery later on.

Systemic chemotherapy comes first, followed by liver resection. If margins are microscopically negative, the patient gets another round of chemotherapy. If no additional lesions emerge, the primary tumor is taken out. The entire process can take up to a year.

The approach was developed in the Netherlands for rectal cancer with advanced liver metastases. The idea was to get the liver lesions out before they became unresectable, then remove the primary tumor later on. It’s gaining traction now for colon cancer, and beginning to trickle into the United States at a few academic medical centers.

It comes down to what’s more dangerous, the metastases or the primary tumor? Tumor science hasn’t answered that question yet. There’s general agreement that metastases are what kill people with cancer, but it’s not known if they come mostly from previous metastases or from the primary tumor. The liver-first approach assumes the former.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Liver-first is “extremely controversial. For older surgeons who are not in tertiary care centers, liver-first doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t seem to make sense to patients. They wonder why you would go after the liver when they were diagnosed with a colon tumor,” said Janice Rafferty, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at the University of Cincinnati, at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

“Well, it’s because the primary tumor doesn’t limit your life,” she continued. “The life-limiting disease is in the liver, not the colon. If you explain it to them that way, it makes sense. If we cannot get an R0 resection on the liver, it doesn’t make sense to go after the primary, unless it’s symptomatic with obstruction, bleeding, or fistula.”

There have been about 10 attempts at a randomized trial of this approach versus usual care, but they were not successful because of the difficulty of recruiting patients. Patients – and no doubt, some surgeons – may have some resistance to the logic of going after metastases first.

Dr. Rafferty moderated a review of research from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., that attempted to plug the evidence gap. The Yale investigators “presented really interesting data that shows that liver-first has improved survival,” she said.

The Yale team used the National Cancer Database to compare 2010-2015 outcomes from liver-first patients with patients who had simultaneous or bowel-first resections, followed by later liver resections. The database didn’t allow them to tease out simultaneous from bowel-first cases, so they lumped them together as usual care. To avoid confounding, rectal carcinomas and metastases to the lung, brain, and other organs were excluded.

Median survival was 34 months among 358 liver-first patients versus 24 months among 18,042 usual care patients in an intention-to-treat analysis. Among patients who completed their resections, median survival was 57 months among 140 liver-first patients versus 36 months with usual care in 3,988.

The benefit held after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics (hazard ratio for death 0.77 in favor of liver first). When further adjusted for chemotherapy timing, there was a strong trend for liver-first but it was not statistically significant, suggesting that up-front chemotherapy contributed to the results (HR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.01; P = .09).

There were many caveats. The liver-first patients were younger, with over half under the age of 60 years versus just over 40% in usual care. They were also healthier based on Charlson comorbidity scores and more likely to have upfront chemotherapy and be treated at an academic center.

So, what should surgeons make of these findings? Lead investigator Vadim Kurbatov, MD, a Yale surgery resident, argued that, at the very least, they suggest that liver-first is a viable option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases. Going further, they suggest that liver first may be the right way to go for younger, healthier patients at academic centers.

For sicker stage IV patients, however, the role of liver-first is unclear. “We really do need a randomized trial,” he said.

Dr. Kurbatov and Dr. Rafferty had no relevant disclosures to report. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – When pancreatitis symptoms don’t resolve within a month, patients need some sort of surgical intervention, according to Steven Hughes, MD, FACS, professor and chief of surgical oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Pancreatitis management has been evolving in recent years. Prophylactic antibiotics and total parenteral nutrition are out; tube feeds are in, and there’s compelling evidence to take the gallbladder out, regardless of etiology, he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

However, too many patients get drains placed in the first 2 weeks; it’s the wrong move because it consigns to surgery a lot of patients who otherwise would have recovered on their own. “In the first 2 weeks, please do not place drains. Once you place the drain, you have committed the patient to a very different clinical course,” Dr. Hughes said.

Surgery generally comes a month or more after the initial presentation. Infection is inevitable at that point; the delay gives the lesion time to consolidate and wall itself off, making for a cleaner, safer operation.

Transgastric necrosectomy is the go-to when pancreatic lesions are toward the midline. It’s Dr. Hughes’s favored approach when the anatomy is appropriate; he shared his thoughts at the meeting.

Transgastric necrosectomy provides “single-stop shopping. You can get a thorough debridement in a single procedure,” and durable internal drainage. “Most importantly, from a patient’s perspective, it leaves them without external drains. You can transition a patient who’s been percutaneously drained to no external drainage at the time of this operation,” he said.

Additional pluses include cholecystectomy either before or after necrosectomy and the ability to place enteric feeding systems. “I like to use a combination G-J tube that allows drainage of the emptying stomach along with distal tube feeds,” he said.

Laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches are possible, but Dr. Hughes favors an open procedure “because the finger is the best debriding tool I have found.” There’s an anterior and then posterior gastric incision to dig out the necroma. The anterior incision is closed, but the posterior cut is sealed open to the necroma with a running hemostatic suture to allow for a “large cavity between the cavity and the stomach” for ongoing drainage.

“I have ultrasound on the field, but typically finding the necroma is like falling out of a canoe and finding water.” Even so, “I like to bring a 10-mm straight scope for direct viewing onto the field to explore the necrotic cavity and ensure I’ve done an adequate necrosectomy,” he said.

“I do think that this operation can be performed in patients who have some retrocolic extension even over into the pancreatic head and down the right paracolic gutter, but certainly if the collection extends down towards the pelvis, the notion that this is going to be adequate in and of itself requires further investigation,” he said.

In a cohort of 18 patients he and his colleagues followed for at least 2 years, “I was impressed that this operation is rather durable,” with rapid resolution of disease, Dr. Hughes said. Just a couple people needed additional operations. “The majority created persistent fistulas between the pancreatic body tail and the stomach.”

He cautioned that the procedure “is not for the faint of heart. The splenic vein and the splenic artery as well the celiac axis and portal vein are at risk during this procedure, and if you get into them, you have got a wolf by both ears. I would encourage you to consider referral for these patients.”

Dr. Hughes strongly encouraged surgeons to “ make sure your interventional radiologists and advanced endoscopists are on board, whether for the postop pseudoaneurysm bleeding or recurrent sepsis.”

Dr. Hughes had no relevant disclosures to report.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – When pancreatitis symptoms don’t resolve within a month, patients need some sort of surgical intervention, according to Steven Hughes, MD, FACS, professor and chief of surgical oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Pancreatitis management has been evolving in recent years. Prophylactic antibiotics and total parenteral nutrition are out; tube feeds are in, and there’s compelling evidence to take the gallbladder out, regardless of etiology, he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

However, too many patients get drains placed in the first 2 weeks; it’s the wrong move because it consigns to surgery a lot of patients who otherwise would have recovered on their own. “In the first 2 weeks, please do not place drains. Once you place the drain, you have committed the patient to a very different clinical course,” Dr. Hughes said.

Surgery generally comes a month or more after the initial presentation. Infection is inevitable at that point; the delay gives the lesion time to consolidate and wall itself off, making for a cleaner, safer operation.

Transgastric necrosectomy is the go-to when pancreatic lesions are toward the midline. It’s Dr. Hughes’s favored approach when the anatomy is appropriate; he shared his thoughts at the meeting.

Transgastric necrosectomy provides “single-stop shopping. You can get a thorough debridement in a single procedure,” and durable internal drainage. “Most importantly, from a patient’s perspective, it leaves them without external drains. You can transition a patient who’s been percutaneously drained to no external drainage at the time of this operation,” he said.

Additional pluses include cholecystectomy either before or after necrosectomy and the ability to place enteric feeding systems. “I like to use a combination G-J tube that allows drainage of the emptying stomach along with distal tube feeds,” he said.

Laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches are possible, but Dr. Hughes favors an open procedure “because the finger is the best debriding tool I have found.” There’s an anterior and then posterior gastric incision to dig out the necroma. The anterior incision is closed, but the posterior cut is sealed open to the necroma with a running hemostatic suture to allow for a “large cavity between the cavity and the stomach” for ongoing drainage.

“I have ultrasound on the field, but typically finding the necroma is like falling out of a canoe and finding water.” Even so, “I like to bring a 10-mm straight scope for direct viewing onto the field to explore the necrotic cavity and ensure I’ve done an adequate necrosectomy,” he said.

“I do think that this operation can be performed in patients who have some retrocolic extension even over into the pancreatic head and down the right paracolic gutter, but certainly if the collection extends down towards the pelvis, the notion that this is going to be adequate in and of itself requires further investigation,” he said.

In a cohort of 18 patients he and his colleagues followed for at least 2 years, “I was impressed that this operation is rather durable,” with rapid resolution of disease, Dr. Hughes said. Just a couple people needed additional operations. “The majority created persistent fistulas between the pancreatic body tail and the stomach.”

He cautioned that the procedure “is not for the faint of heart. The splenic vein and the splenic artery as well the celiac axis and portal vein are at risk during this procedure, and if you get into them, you have got a wolf by both ears. I would encourage you to consider referral for these patients.”

Dr. Hughes strongly encouraged surgeons to “ make sure your interventional radiologists and advanced endoscopists are on board, whether for the postop pseudoaneurysm bleeding or recurrent sepsis.”

Dr. Hughes had no relevant disclosures to report.

aotto@mdedge.com

BOSTON – When pancreatitis symptoms don’t resolve within a month, patients need some sort of surgical intervention, according to Steven Hughes, MD, FACS, professor and chief of surgical oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Pancreatitis management has been evolving in recent years. Prophylactic antibiotics and total parenteral nutrition are out; tube feeds are in, and there’s compelling evidence to take the gallbladder out, regardless of etiology, he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

However, too many patients get drains placed in the first 2 weeks; it’s the wrong move because it consigns to surgery a lot of patients who otherwise would have recovered on their own. “In the first 2 weeks, please do not place drains. Once you place the drain, you have committed the patient to a very different clinical course,” Dr. Hughes said.

Surgery generally comes a month or more after the initial presentation. Infection is inevitable at that point; the delay gives the lesion time to consolidate and wall itself off, making for a cleaner, safer operation.

Transgastric necrosectomy is the go-to when pancreatic lesions are toward the midline. It’s Dr. Hughes’s favored approach when the anatomy is appropriate; he shared his thoughts at the meeting.

Transgastric necrosectomy provides “single-stop shopping. You can get a thorough debridement in a single procedure,” and durable internal drainage. “Most importantly, from a patient’s perspective, it leaves them without external drains. You can transition a patient who’s been percutaneously drained to no external drainage at the time of this operation,” he said.

Additional pluses include cholecystectomy either before or after necrosectomy and the ability to place enteric feeding systems. “I like to use a combination G-J tube that allows drainage of the emptying stomach along with distal tube feeds,” he said.

Laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches are possible, but Dr. Hughes favors an open procedure “because the finger is the best debriding tool I have found.” There’s an anterior and then posterior gastric incision to dig out the necroma. The anterior incision is closed, but the posterior cut is sealed open to the necroma with a running hemostatic suture to allow for a “large cavity between the cavity and the stomach” for ongoing drainage.

“I have ultrasound on the field, but typically finding the necroma is like falling out of a canoe and finding water.” Even so, “I like to bring a 10-mm straight scope for direct viewing onto the field to explore the necrotic cavity and ensure I’ve done an adequate necrosectomy,” he said.

“I do think that this operation can be performed in patients who have some retrocolic extension even over into the pancreatic head and down the right paracolic gutter, but certainly if the collection extends down towards the pelvis, the notion that this is going to be adequate in and of itself requires further investigation,” he said.

In a cohort of 18 patients he and his colleagues followed for at least 2 years, “I was impressed that this operation is rather durable,” with rapid resolution of disease, Dr. Hughes said. Just a couple people needed additional operations. “The majority created persistent fistulas between the pancreatic body tail and the stomach.”

He cautioned that the procedure “is not for the faint of heart. The splenic vein and the splenic artery as well the celiac axis and portal vein are at risk during this procedure, and if you get into them, you have got a wolf by both ears. I would encourage you to consider referral for these patients.”

Dr. Hughes strongly encouraged surgeons to “ make sure your interventional radiologists and advanced endoscopists are on board, whether for the postop pseudoaneurysm bleeding or recurrent sepsis.”

Dr. Hughes had no relevant disclosures to report.

aotto@mdedge.com