An analysis of the morbidity associated with abdominal wall resection and reconstruction after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC)

Challenges following CRS and HIPEC surgery in cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis: a comprehensive review of clinical outcomes

Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) are a pair of relatively modern therapeutic surgical methods in advanced cancerous patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). The goal of CRS + HIPEC is treatment or to improve survival outcomes, which are linked to high morbidity side effects and complications, even with their possible advantages. Surgical-related, chemotherapy-related, anesthetic-related, gastrointestinal, organs and systemic complications are the categories into which complications are separated according to frequency, risk factors, and effect on patient outcomes. In this narrative review of the literature, the side effects and complications of HIPEC + CRS in cancer patients with PM are examined. The present knowledge on the incidence, frequency, kinds, and risk factors of acute complications following CRS + HIPEC is summarized in this study. This review emphasizes the need for careful patient selection criteria, precise surgical technique, and thorough intraoperative care to reduce or manage these risks. Moreover, it highlights the need for interdisciplinary collaboration in treating these patients. This study aims to know these complications, improve clinical practice, and guide future studies to increase the safety and efficacy of CRS + HIPEC in treating metastatic colorectal cancer.

No Indication for Routine Resection of Surgical Scars during Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC

BACKGROUND

Careful macroscopic assessment of surgical scars is needed to avoid routine scar resection during cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for peritoneal metastases (PM). This study aimed to analyze the correlation between macroscopically suspected and microscopically confirmed scar metastases (SMs), and to analyze the prognostic impact of not undergoing routine scar resection.

METHOD

All patients with previous surgery, treated with CRS and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, for colorectal PM or pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP), at Uppsala University Hospital in 2013-2021, were included. Macroscopic SMs in surgical reports were compared with histopathological analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 227 patients were included. Among colorectal PM patients (n = 156), SM was macroscopically suspected in 41 (26%) patients, and 63 (40%) underwent scar resection. SM was confirmed in 19 (30%). Among patients with macroscopic suspicion, 45% had confirmed SM (positive predictive value, PPV). A total of 1 of 23 (4%) patients with no macroscopic suspicion had SM (negative predictive value, NPV = 96%). Among the PMP patients (n = 71), SM was macroscopically suspected in 13 (18%), and 28 (39%) underwent scar resection, of whom 12 (43%) had SM. The PPV was 77%. Occult SM was found in 1 of 14 (NPV = 93%). Not undergoing routine scar resection did not affect recurrence-free survival (RFS, p = 0.2) or overall survival (OS, p = 0.1) in colorectal PM patients or PMP patients (RFS p = 0.7, OS p = 0.7).

CONCLUSION

Occult SM is uncommon and scar resection does not affect RFS or OS. Therefore, macroscopically benign-appearing scars can be left without resection, though resection should be performed upon suspicion or uncertainty.

Incisional hernias post cytoreductive surgery/peritonectomy and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) is often combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of peritoneal tumour deposits. Considering CRS, the evidence relating the large incisions, local chemotherapy and abdominal wall trauma to incisional hernias (IH) has not been synthesized. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to examine the proportion of IH present in patients post CRS and the effect HIPEC had on these rates.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Registry of Trials were searched up to June 2023 to examine studies relating IH and CRS plus or minus HIPEC. The most up to date PRISMA guidelines were followed. Pertinent clinical information was synthesized in tabular form. A meta-analysis reporting the pooled proportions of IH post CRS plus or minus HIPEC, the odds of IH in HIPEC versus non-HIPEC CRS and the difference in follow-up time between groups was conducted.

RESULTS

Nine studies comprising 1416 patients were included. The pooled proportion of IH post CRS was 12% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8-16%) in HIPEC and 7% (95% CI 4-10%) in non-HIPEC patients and 11% (95% CI 7-14%) overall. Previously reported rates of IH in midline laparotomy range from 10 to 30%. The odds of IH in the HIPEC was 1.9 times higher compared to non-HIPEC cohorts however this was not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 1.9, 95% 0.7-5.2; p = 0.21). There was no significant difference in average follow-up times between HIPEC and non-HIPEC cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

IH post CRS plus or minus HIPEC were in the expected range for midline laparotomies. IH in patients receiving HIPEC may occur at a greater proportion than in non-HIPEC patients, however, there were too few studies in our meta-analysis to determine this with statistical significance.

Abdominal Closure With Reinforcing Suture Decreases Incisional Hernia Incidence After CRS/HIPEC

Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) entails several risk factors for incisional hernia (IH). A few reports available showing incidences between 7% and 17%. At our institution fascia closure has been performed in a 4:1 suture to wound length manner, with a continuous 2-0 polydiaxanone suture (PDS-group) or with a 2-0 polypropylene suture preceded by a reinforced tension line (RTL) suture (RTL-group). Our hypothesis was that these patients might benefit from reinforcing the suture line with a lower IH incidence in this group. The aim was to evaluate the 1-year IH-incidence of the two different closures. Methods: Patients eligible for inclusion were treated with CRS/HIPEC between 2004 and 2019. IH was diagnosed by scrutinizing CT-scans 1 year ±3 months after surgery. Additional data was retrieved from clinical records and a prospective CRS/HIPEC-database. Results: Of 193 patients, 129 were included, 82 in the PDS- and 47 in the RTL-group. RTL-patients were 5 years younger, had less blood loss and more frequent postoperative neutropenia. No difference regarding sex, BMI, recent midline incisions, excision of midline scars, peritoneal cancer index score, complications (≥Clavien-Dindo 3b), or chemotherapy. Ten IH (7.8%) were found, 9 (11%) in the PDS- and 1 (2.1%) in the RTL-group (p = 0.071). Conclusion: An IH incidence of 7.8% in patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC is not higher than after laparotomies in general. The IH incidence in the PDS-group was 11% compared to 2% in the RTL-group. Even though significance was not reached, the difference is clinically relevant, suggesting an advantage with RTL suture.