V6The feasibility of laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer

Introduction:  Total mesorectal excision (TME) has offered the lowest recurrence rates and best survival in rectal cancer patients. Recently several multi-centre trials have demonstrated the feasibility of laparoscopic colonic resections for cancer. However the technical difficulties and lack of supporting data has prevented surgeons from attempting laparoscopic TME for operable rectal cancer. We present a video demonstration of lap TME technique performed at our unit for rectal cancer resections.
Methods:  The surgical technique involves using two 10 mm and two 5 mm ports to perform rectal resections. Adherence to advanced oncological principles like high tie of IMA and IMV is the rule. Splenic flexure is routinely mobilised for mid to low rectal cancers. Total mesorectal excision is performed using diathermy hook. Rectal washout is performed before transection of the rectum using lap stapler device.
Results:  Between October 2006–December 2007, 30 rectal cancers have been operated laparoscopically at our institution using this technique. There were four APER and 26 anterior resections. The median age was 72 years with a median BMI of 25. Median operative time was 235 min with a median hospital stay of 7 days. There were no leaks.
Conclusions:  With proper training and experience, laparoscopic rectal cancer resection is technically feasible and safe to perform with good oncological outcomes.     

Laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving total mesorectal excision: 10‐year report

Aim Total mesorectal excision (TME) is currently the gold standard for resection of mid or low rectal cancer and is associated with a low local recurrence rate. However, few studies have reported the long‐term oncological outcome following use of a laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long‐term oncological outcome after laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving TME with a median follow up of about 4 years. Method Patients with mid or low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving TME with curative intent between March 1999 and March 2009 were prospectively recruited for analysis. Results During the 10‐year study period, 177 patients underwent laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving TME with curative intent for rectal cancer. Conversion was required in two (1%) patients. There was no operative mortality. At a median follow‐up period of 49 months, local recurrence had occurred in nine (5.1%) patients. The overall metastatic recurrence rate after curative resection was 22%. The overall 5‐year survival and 5‐year disease‐free survival in the present study were 74% and 71%, respectively. Conclusion The results of this study show that laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving TME is safe with long‐term oncological outcomes comparable to those of open surgery.     

The selective use of splenic flexure mobilization is safe in both laparoscopic and open anterior resections

Aim Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is standard practice in anterior resections. No previous studies have compared outcomes with and without SFM in laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to determine whether routine or selective SFM should be advised. Method Data were collected prospectively on all elective anterior resections for cancer in our unit between October 2006 and November 2009. Results Of 263 resections, SFM data were recorded in 216; 138 were laparoscopic (32% with SFM, 3.6% converted) and 78 open (68% with SFM). Eighty‐eight were low anterior resections (LARs) for mid‐low rectal cancers, with 54 laparoscopic (50% with SFM) and 34 open (91% with SFM). Comparing laparoscopic with SFM to without, differences were found in the proportion of LARs (61%vs 29%, P < 0.001), defunctioning ileostomy rates (75%vs 46%, P = 0.001) and operative time (median 255 vs 185 min, P < 0.001), with no differences in age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology score, preoperative treatment, length of stay, lymph node yield, conversion rate, mortality, anastomotic leakage, reoperation, readmission and R0 resection. No differences in outcomes were seen between laparoscopic LARs with and without SFM or between open resections with and without SFM. Conclusion Our results show no disadvantage in short‐term clinical or oncological outcomes when SFM was avoided. Laparoscopic anterior resections with SFM take longer. A selective approach to SFM is safe during anterior resection (open or laparoscopic), including mid‐low rectal cancers.     

Impact of laparoscopic surgery on the long‐term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer

Background: This 20‐year retrospective study compared the results of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for patients with rectal cancer to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic surgery on long‐term oncological outcomes for rectal cancer. Methods: We analysed survival data collected over 20 years for patients with rectal cancer (n= 407) according to surgical methods and tumour stage between those treated with laparoscopic surgery (n= 272) and those with open surgery (n= 135). Clinical factors were analysed to ascertain possible risk factors that might have been associated with survival from and recurrence of rectal cancer. A multivariate analysis was applied by using Cox's regression model to determine the impact of laparoscopic surgery on long‐term oncological outcomes. Results: Overall survival, disease‐specific survival and disease‐free survival rates were statistically higher in the laparoscopic group than in the open‐surgery group. The incidence of local recurrence in the laparoscopic group (7.9%; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 4.2–11.5) was significantly lower than that for the open‐surgery group (30.2%; 95% CI, 21.0–39.3; P < 0.001). By using a multivariate analysis, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer appeared not to be an independent factor for disease‐specific survival or disease‐free survival. However, the laparoscopic surgery was an independent factor associated with reduced local recurrence (Hazard ratio (HR), 3.408; 95% CI, 1.890–6.149; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery did not adversely affect the long‐term oncological outcome for patients with rectal cancer.     

COLOR III: a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing transanal TME versus laparoscopic TME for mid and low rectal cancer

Introduction

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is an essential component of surgical management of rectal cancer. Both open and laparoscopic TME have been proven to be oncologically safe. However, it remains a challenge to achieve complete TME with clear circumferential resections margin (CRM) with the conventional transabdominal approach, particularly in mid and low rectal tumours. Transanal TME (TaTME) was developed to improve oncological and functional outcomes of patients with mid and low rectal cancer.

Methods

An international, multicentre, superiority, randomised trial was designed to compare TaTME and conventional laparoscopic TME as the surgical treatment of mid and low rectal carcinomas. The primary endpoint is involved CRM. Secondary endpoints include completeness of mesorectum, residual mesorectum, morbidity and mortality, local recurrence, disease-free and overall survival, percentage of sphincter-saving procedures, functional outcome and quality of life. A Quality Assurance Protocol including centralised MRI review, histopathology re-evaluation, standardisation of surgical techniques, and monitoring and assessment of surgical quality will be conducted.

Discussion

The difference in involvement of CRM between the two treatment strategies is thought to be in favour of the TaTME. TaTME is therefore expected to be superior to laparoscopic TME in terms of oncological outcomes in case of mid and low rectal carcinomas.

     

Surgeon experience with laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in Washington State

PURPOSE: To describe the current practice and opinions held by surgeons performing colorectal surgery in Washington regarding laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: After attempting to identify all surgeons with hospital privileges in colorectal surgery in Washington, a survey was sent to 303 surgeons. The survey asked about the surgeon's practice, volume of colon surgery in the preceding year, the number of laparoscopic colon resections ever performed, the surgeon's opinion on the future practice of laparoscopic colorectal surgery, and whether faced with the personal need to undergo colon resection at the present time, would the surgeon elect to have laparoscopic or open colon resection. RESULTS: In all 170 surveys were returned; 154 returned surveys were from surgeons who had performed at least one colon resection in the preceding year; 53 (34%) respondents had experience with fewer than 20 laparoscopic resections and 83 (55%) have never performed laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC). Only 4 (3%) surgeons had performed more than 50 laparoscopic colon resections. Forty-five percent of respondents indicated that they would currently seek a laparoscopic resection for themselves to treat either a benign condition or an incurable malignancy, and 84% of respondents indicated they would have an open colectomy for a curable malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of surgeons performing colorectal resections in Washington have limited experience with LAC. Surgeon opinion regarding the role of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in clinical practice is mixed. We suggest a model for proctoring of LAC for surgeons interested in implementing laparoscopic colorectal resection into their practice.     

Technical and oncological feasibility of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with pouch coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer

Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical and oncological feasibility of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with coloanal anastomosis for mid and low rectal cancer. Methods During a 2‐year period, 50 patients underwent laparoscopic TME with coloanal anastomosis for rectal carcinoma located at a median of 4.5 (range 2–11) cm from the anal verge. Pre‐operative radiotherapy was used in 46 patients. Intersphincteric dissection was combined with the laparoscopic procedure to achieve sphincter preservation. Results Conversion to a laparotomy was necessary in six patients. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 2% and 28%, respectively. Morbidity was lower in patients operated on during the second part of the study, who had extraction of the rectal specimen through a small laparotomy incision, than in those operated on during the first part of the study when removal of the specimen was by transanal extraction. Oncological quality of excision was safe in 44 patients with intact or almost intact rectal fascia in 88% and R0 resection in 90%. At a median follow‐up of 18 months, there was no local or port‐site recurrence. Conclusion This study confirms our preliminary results of oncological feasibility of laparoscopic TME with sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer, and showed that morbidity can be decreased by using a standardized surgical procedure.     

Colonic pouch confers better bowel function and similar postoperative outcomes compared to straight anastomosis for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUNDWith advancements in laparoscopic technology and the wide application of linear staplers, sphincter-saving procedures are increasingly performed for low rectal cancer. However, sphincter-saving procedures have led to the emergence of a unique clinical disorder termed anterior rectal resection syndrome. Colonic pouch anastomosis improves the quality of life of patients with rectal cancer > 7 cm from the anal margin. But whether colonic pouch anastomosis can reduce the incidence of rectal resection syndrome in patients with low rectal cancer is unknown.AIMTo compare postoperative and oncological outcomes and bowel function of straight and colonic pouch anal anastomoses after resection of low rectal cancer.METHODSWe conducted a retrospective study of 72 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent sphincter-saving procedures with either straight or colonic pouch anastomoses. Functional evaluations were completed preoperatively and at 1, 6, and 12 mo postoperatively. We also compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between two groups that had undergone low or ultralow anterior rectal resection.RESULTSThere were no significant differences in mean operating time, blood loss, time to first passage of flatus and excrement, and duration of hospital stay between the colonic pouch and straight anastomosis groups. The incidence of anastomotic leakage following colonic pouch construction was lower (11.4% vs 16.2%) but not significantly different than that of straight anastomosis. Patients with colonic pouch construction had lower postoperative low anterior resection syndrome scores than the straight anastomosis group, suggesting better bowel function (preoperative: 4.71 vs 3.89, P = 0.43; 1 mo after surgery: 34.2 vs 34.7, P = 0.59; 6 mo after surgery: 22.70 vs 29.0, P < 0.05; 12 mo after surgery: 15.5 vs 19.5, P = 0.01). The overall recurrence and metastasis rates were similar (4.3% and 11.4%, respectively).CONCLUSIONColonic pouch anastomosis is a safe and effective procedure for colorectal reconstruction after low and ultralow rectal resections. Moreover, colonic pouch construction may provide better functional outcomes compared to straight anastomosis.     

Laparoscopic rectal resection with anal sphincter preservation for rectal cancer

Background Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the surgical gold standard treatment for middle and low third rectal carcinoma. Laparoscopy has gradually become accepted for the treatment of colorectal malignancy after a long period of questions regarding its safety. The purposes of this study were to examine prospectively our experience with laparoscopic TME and high rectal resections, to evaluate the surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy, and to discuss the role of this procedure in the treatment of rectal cancer. Methods Between December 1992 and December 2004, all patients who underwent elective laparoscopic sphincter preserving rectal resection for rectal cancer were enrolled prospectively in this study. Data collection included preoperative, operative, postoperative and oncologic results with long-term follow-up. Results A total of 218 patients were operated on during the study period: 142 patients underwent laparoscopic TME and 76 patients underwent anterior resection. Of the TME patients, 122 patients were operated using the double-stapling technique, and 20 patients underwent colo-anal anastomosis with hand-sewn sutures. Mean operative time was 138 min (range, 107–205), and mean blood loss was 120 ml (range, 30–350). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 26 cases (12%). Mortality rate during the first 30 days was 1%. Anastomotic leaks were observed in 10.5% of the patients. Of these, 61.9% needed reoperation and diverting stoma, and the rest were treated conservatively. Three patients had postoperative bleeding requiring relaparoscopy. Other minor complications (infection and urinary retention) occurred in 9.1% of patients. Mean ambulation time and mean hospital stay were 1.6 days (range, 1–5) and 6.4 days (range, 3–28) , respectively. Patients were followed for a mean period of 57 months. No port site metastases were observed during follow-up. The recurrence rate was 6.8 %. Overall survival rate was 67% after 5 years and 53.5% after 10 years. Conclusion Laparoscopic anterior resection and TME with anal sphincter preservation for rectal cancer is feasible and safe. The short- and long-term outcomes reported in this series are comparable with those of conventional surgery.     

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer

Background The Laparoscopic approach has been applied to colorectal surgery for many years; however, there are only a few reports on laparoscopic low and ultralow anterior resection with construction of coloanal anastomosis. This study compares open versus laparoscopic low and ultralow anterior resections, assesses the feasibility and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach of total mesorectal excision (TME) with anal sphincter preservation (ASP), and analyzes the short-term results of patients with low rectal cancer.Methods We analyzed our experience via a prospective, randomized control trail. From June 2001 to September 2002, 171 patients with low rectal cancer underwent TME with ASP, 82 by the laparoscopic procedure and 89 by the open technique. The lowest margin of tumors was below peritoneal reflection and 1.5–8 cm above the dentate line (1.5–4.9 cm in 104 cases and 5–8 cm in 67 cases). The grouping was randomized.Results Results of operation, postoperative recovery, and short-term oncological follow-up were compared between 82 laparoscopic procedures and 89 controls who underwent open surgery during the same period. In the laparoscopic group, 30 patients in whom low anterior resection was performed had the anastomosis below peritoneal reflection and more than 2 cm above the dentate line, 27 patients in whom ultralow anterior resection was performed had anastomotic height within 2 cm of the dentate line, and 25 patients in whom coloanal anastomosis was performed had the anastomosis at or below the dentate line. In the open group, the numbers were 35, 27, and 27, respectively. There was no statistical difference in operation time, administration of parenteral analgesics, start of food intake, and mortality rate between the two groups. However, blood loss was less, bowel function recovered earlier, and hospitalization time was shorter in the laparoscopic group.Conclusion Totally laparoscopic TME with ASP is feasible, and it is a minimally invasive technique with the benefits of much less blood loss during operation, earlier return of bowel function, and shorter hospitalization.     

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision can be performed on a nonselective basis in patients with rectal cancer with excellent medium‐term results

Aim Concerns exist regarding laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery due to increased rates of open conversion, complications and circumferential resection margin positivity. This study reports medium‐term results from consecutive unselected cases in a single surgeon series. Method The results of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer over a 9‐year period within the context of an evolving ‘enhanced recovery protocol’ (ERP) were reviewed from analysis of a prospectively maintained database. Results One hundred and fifty patients (91 male, median age 69 years, median BMI 26) underwent laparoscopic TME over 9 years. Median follow up was 28.5 months (range 0–88). Sixteen (10.6%) patients underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Six (4.0%) required open conversion and 13 (9.0%) had an anastomotic leakage. The proportion of Dukes stages were: A, 33.3%; B, 30.7%; C, 31.3%; D, 4.7%. Five (3.3%) patients had an R1 and one an R2 resection. Median length of postoperative stay was 6 days. Three (2.0%) patients died within 30 days. Four (2.7%) developed local recurrence and 14 (9.3%) developed distant metastases. Predicted 5‐year disease‐free and overall survival rates by Kaplan–Meier analysis were 85.8% and 78.7%, respectively. Conclusion Laparoscopic TME surgery can safely be offered to unselected patients with rectal cancer with excellent medium‐term results.     

The uptake of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in Great Britain and Ireland: a questionnaire survey of consultant members of the ACPGBI

Objective  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended laparoscopic resection as an alternative to open surgery for patients with colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current uptake of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in Great Britain and Ireland.
Method  A questionnaire was distributed to members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) regarding their current surgical practice. Results were analysed individually, by region, and nationwide .
Results  Information was received on 436 consultants (in 155 replies), of whom 233 (53%) perform laparoscopic colorectal procedures. During the previous year, 25% of colorectal resections were performed laparoscopically by the respondents. However, of those surgeons who were performing laparoscopic resections, only 30% performed more than half of all their resections laparoscopically. Right hemicolectomy, left-sided resections, and rectopexy were the most frequently performed laparoscopic resections. There was an even distribution throughout the country of consultants performing laparoscopic resections (regional IQR 48–60%). The main reason for consultants not performing laparoscopic procedures was a lack of training or funding.
Conclusion  Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is being performed by more than half (53%) of colorectal consultants nationwide, although only a quarter of all procedures are being undertaken laparoscopically.     

Laparoscopic restorative proctectomy – hybrid approach or totally laparoscopic?

Background: Laparoscopic rectal resection is now a technique that is emerging from experience with laparoscopic colonic resection. We review and present our experience with restorative proctectomy for cancer and compare those performed with a hybrid technique with those performed totally laparoscopically. Methods: A total of 177 patients have undergone laparoscopic restorative proctectomy. All of the patients were planned to have the abdominal portion of their surgery performed laparoscopically and to convert to open for the rectal dissection as required. They were then stratified into those that had their surgery performed completely laparoscopically (laparoscopic group – LG), and to those who had their rectal dissection and or transection performed with an open incision (hybrid group – HG). Results: Short‐term outcomes were compared between the LG (n = 103) and the HG (n = 74). The overall complication rate was higher in the HG (12% versus 35% P < 0.001), mainly with a significantly higher pelvic abscess rate and higher rate of post‐operative ileus. There were no intraoperative or post‐operative deaths. Length of stay was equivalent in both groups (five days). To date, distal recurrence has occurred in 7.7% of the patients, eight in the LG and four in the HG (NS). Two patients, one in each group, have had local recurrence only. Conclusions: Laparoscopic open or laparoscopic hybrid approaches are techniques that can be used in suitable patients. Both have acceptable morbidity and mortality.     

肛外手工吻合在腹腔镜低位直肠癌保肛术中的应用

目的 探讨肛外手工吻合技术在腹腔镜低位直肠癌保肛术中的应用价值.方法 应用超声刀在腹腔镜下对15例低位直肠癌患者实施全直肠系膜切除原则的根治性手术,用肛外手工吻合的方式完成超低位结肠-直肠/肛管吻合术.结果 15例患者手术经过均顺利,无中转开腹.术后发生吻合口瘘1例,无腹腔出血、感染、吻合口狭窄等并发症.手术时间125～270 min,平均156 min.术中出血30～180 ml,平均70 ml.住院时间9～14 d,平均11 d.15例术后随访2～37个月,平均14个月.术后局部无复发,远处肝转移1例.结论 低位直肠癌行腹腔镜下超低位切除、肛外手工吻合保肛术是一种安全、经济、创伤小、疗效可靠的术式.     

低位直肠癌腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术(附42例报告)

目的:探讨应用腹腔镜微创技术与常规开放手术施行全直肠系膜切除术(total m esorectal exc ision,TME)在手术切除的彻底性、功能性神经保护、近期并发症等方面的差异。方法:低位直肠癌患者89例,分为腹腔镜组与开放组,比较两组治疗结果的差别。结果:腹腔镜的放大效应和超声刀的应用,使腹腔镜组对解剖间隙的正确选择和手术径路更得心应手,能更好的辨认和保护盆腔自主神经,患者手术创伤小,出血少,康复快,并发症少。结论:腹腔镜TME较开放手术更规范化和标准化。     

Is Laparoscopic Surgery the Standard of Care for GI Luminal Cancer?

As surgeons in India strive to keep pace with the technical advances in the field of laparoscopic surgery, we endeavor to evaluate the mounting global evidence regarding laparoscopic gastric and colorectal resections for cancer. We seem to be riding on the crest of excellence in traditional open surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies, opening avenues for research and for the establishment of practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery. Results from available trials along with those from ongoing studies are paving the path toward the acceptance and standardization of these procedures. What must be ascertained is whether sound oncological principles, which are ultimately exhibited by long-term outcomes, are being preserved while garnering the established benefits of minimally invasive surgery.     

Simultaneous laparoscopic abdominal and transanal excision for low rectal tumours

Aim: In performing laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving total mesorectal excision, one of the technical challenges is to obtain an adequate distal mural margin of 2 cm in the case of low rectal tumours. Herein we describe a technique, known as simultaneous laparoscopic abdominal and transanal excision, where an adequate distal margin can be safely achieved at the beginning of the operation. Methods and Results: As the specimen is delivered per anum, the patient can enjoy the full benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Additionally, the simultaneous approach helps to shorten the operating time. The technique was attempted in five patients with radiological T2 or T3 disease, with two patients having received neoadjuvant chemoirradiation. The outcomes of these five patients are presented. Conclusion: As treatment of rectal cancer is increasingly stage dependent, the simultaneous laparoscopic abdominal and transanal excision procedure offers a clear alternative for treating patients with low rectal tumours in this laparoscopic era.     

Updates in robotic colorectal surgery

Since the introduction of master-slave manipulators (otherwise known as telemanipulators) in 1990, minimally invasive surgery paved the way for the development of the first robotic surgical systems to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. The robotic system over the last decade has rapidly gained acceptance and popularity among surgeons, especially colorectal surgeons around the world. Advantages of robotic surgical systems includes superior instrumentation and stable field of vision which enable precise dissection in confined spaces such as the pelvis. The feasibility and safety of robotic rectal surgery is now well established and there is increasing evidence that it might offer superior perioperative and postoperative outcomes when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery. Robotic rectal surgery is easier to learn than laparoscopic surgery and the creation of a structured training program for robotic rectal surgery in Europe and USA has facilitated the learning of this technique in an environment that promotes patient safety and improved patient outcomes through equipment fidelity and operator skills. It is foreseeable that in the near future robotic systems will become part of routine surgical practice in colorectal surgery.     

Updates in robotic colorectal surgery

Since the introduction of master-slave manipulators (otherwise known as telemanipulators) in 1990, minimally invasive surgery paved way for the development of the first robotic surgical systems to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. Over the last decade, the robotic system has rapidly gained acceptance and popularity among surgeons, especially colorectal surgeons around the world. Advantages of robotic surgical systems includes superior instrumentation and stable field of vision which enable precise dissection in confined spaces such as the pelvis. The feasibility and safety of robotic rectal surgery is now well established and there is increasing evidence that it might offer superior perioperative and postoperative outcomes when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery. Robotic rectal surgery is easier to learn than laparoscopic surgery and the creation of a structured training program for robotic rectal surgery in Europe and USA has facilitated the learning of this technique in an environment that promotes patient safety and improved patient outcomes through equipment fidelity and operator skills. It is foreseeable that in the near future robotic systems will become part of routine surgical practice in colorectal surgery.     

What is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on outcomes in rectal cancer surgery?

Aim

Evidence for a positive volume–outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the volume–outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery at hospital and surgeon level in the English National Health Service (NHS).

Method

All patients undergoing a rectal cancer resection in the English NHS between 2015 and 2019 were included. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression was used to model relationships between outcomes and mean annual hospital and surgeon volumes (using a linear plus a quadratic term for volume) with adjustment for patient characteristics.

Results

A total of 13 858 patients treated in 166 hospitals were included. Six hospitals (3.6%) performed fewer than 10 rectal cancer resections per year, and 381 surgeons (45.0%) performed fewer than five such resections per year. Patients treated by high-volume surgeons had a reduced length of stay (p = 0.016). No statistically significant volume–outcome relationships were demonstrated for 90-day mortality, 30-day unplanned readmission, unplanned return to theatre, stoma at 18 months following anterior resection, positive circumferential resection margin and 2-year all-cause mortality at either hospital or surgeon level (p values > 0.05).

Conclusion

Almost half of colorectal surgeons in England do not meet national guidelines for rectal cancer surgeons to perform a minimum of five major resections annually. However, our results suggest that centralizing rectal cancer surgery with the main focus of increasing operative volume may have limited impact on NHS surgical outcomes. Therefore, quality improvement initiatives should address a wider range of evidence-based process measures, across the multidisciplinary care pathway, to enhance outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.