Audit of preoperative localisation of tumor with tattoo for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Fallibility of tattooing colonic neoplasia ahead of laparoscopic resection: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Precise geographical localisation of colonic neoplasia is a prerequisite for proper laparoscopic oncological resection. Preoperative endoscopic peri-tumoural tattoo practice is routinely recommended but seldom scrutinised.

METHODS

A retrospective review of recent consecutive patients with preoperative endoscopic lesional tattoo who underwent laparoscopic colonic resection as identified from our prospectively maintained cancer database with supplementary clinical chart and radiological, histological, endoscopic and theatre database/logbook interrogation.

RESULTS

Some 210 patients with 'tattooed' colonic neoplasia were identified, of whom 169 underwent laparoscopic surgery (mean age 68 years, median BMI 27.8kg/m2, male-to-female ratio 95:74). The majority of tumours were malignant (149; 88%), symptomatic (133; 79%) and proximal to the splenic flexure (92; 54%). Inaccurate colonoscopist localisation judgement occurred in 12% of cases, 60% of which were corrected by preoperative staging computed tomography scan. A useful lesional tattoo was absent in 11/169 cases (6.5%) being specifically stated as present in 104 operation notes (61%) and absent in 10 (5.9%). Tumours missing overt peritumoral tattoos intraoperatively were more likely to be smaller, earlier stage and injected longer preoperatively (p=0.006), although half had histological ink staining. Eight lesions missing tattoos were radiologically occult. Four (44%) of these patients had on-table colonoscopy, and five (55%) needed laparotomy (conversion rate 55% vs 23% overall, p<0.005) with one needing a second operation to resect the initially missed target lesion. Mean (range) operative duration and postoperative length of stay of those missing tattoos compared with those with tattoos was 200 (78-300) versus 188 (50-597) min and 15.5 (4-22) versus 12(4-70) days (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Tattoo in advance of attempting laparoscopic resection is vital for precision cancer surgery especially for radiologically unseen tumours to avoid adverse clinical consequence.

Inking outside the box: systematic review on the utility of tattooing lesions in rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Endoscopic tattooing in rectal cancer is infrequently utilized for fear of tattoo ink obscuring anatomical planes, increasing the difficulty of surgical excision. Colon cancer tattooing has demonstrated increased lymph node yields and increased accuracy in establishing adequate margins. Rectal cancer tattooing may be especially helpful after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, where complete clinical responses could limit lesion identification and lymph node yields are typically less robust. We seek to review and identify the effects of tattooing in rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS. Studies on endoscopic tattooing with cohorts consisting of at least ≥ 25% of rectal cancer patients were selected. Studies focusing solely on rectal cancer were also reviewed separately.

RESULTS

Of 416 studies identified, 10 studies encompassing 2460 patients were evaluated. Seven studies evaluated lymph node yields; five reported beneficial effects of endoscopic tattooing, while two reported no significant difference. Among four studies reporting lesion localization, successful localization rates were between 63 and 100%. Rates of intraoperative endoscopy performed to reevaluate lesion location ranged from 5.7 to 20%. The distal margin was evaluated in two studies, which reported more accurate placement of the distal resection margin after tattooing. When complications of tattooing were documented (7 studies with 889 patients), only five direct complications of endoscopic tattooing were observed (0.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the data is heterogenous, it suggests that endoscopic tattooing in rectal cancer may improve lymph node yields and assist in determining accurate distal margins without high rates of complication. Further research must be completed before practice management guidelines can change.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

No. CRD42021271784.

Clip or Tattooing: A Comparative Study for Preoperative Colon Cancer Endoscopic Localization

Background and Aim

Preoperative endoscopic markers have been extensively used for the localization of colonic neoplastic lesions in laparoscopic surgery. We conducted this respective cohort study to compare the localization accuracy of two commonly used endoscopic marker strategies (endoscopic clip plus abdominal plain film and endoscopic tattooing).

Methods

Patients who received preoperative colonoscopy localization for colonic neoplasia and underwent an elective laparoscopic operation afterward between 2013 and 2020 were included in this retrospective study. The localization accuracy of the two endoscopic strategies was compared, and the predictors of successful endoscopic localization were identified by multivariate regression.

Results

In total, 195 patients [average age 62.4 ± 9.2 years, 123 male (63.1%)] undergoing preoperative colonoscopy localization and subsequent laparoscopic colectomy for colonic neoplasms were included. Endoscopic localization was finally proven to be successful in 150 (76.9%) patients in the surgery. Compared to the tattooing group, patients who had successful localization for colonic lesions were fewer in the clip group (64 of 101 cases, 63.4% vs. 86 of 94 cases, 91.5%, p < 0.001). The multivariate regression analysis showed that the endoscopic tattooing strategy, endoscopic clip strategy, and lesion location were all predictors for successful localization (all with p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Compared with endoscopic clip plus abdominal plain film, endoscopic tattooing had higher localization accuracy and less intraoperative colonoscopy counseling; the endoscopic clip strategy, tattooing strategy, and colonic lesion location were all predictors of successful endoscopic localization.

Small-Dose Endoscopic Tattooing Using a Novel Needle for Localization Prior to Laparoscopic Surgery of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUNDS

Endoscopic tattooing failure by deep mural injection or tattoo leakage-induced massive staining causes localization errors or decreased laparoscopic visualization. To overcome these, we developed a novel tattoo needle with comparatively shorter needle (length, 2.5 mm) and minimal-caliber catheter (volume, 0.3 mL).

AIMS

The single-center, prospective observational study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of a small-doze endoscopic tattooing prior to laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer, using the needle.

METHODS

Patients with colorectal cancer indicated for laparoscopic surgery were recruited. With the novel needle, a single tattoo was created at the anterior wall close to the lesion. During laparoscopic surgery, surgeons assessed the tattoo visibility, tattoo leakage, and the disturbance of laparoscopic view by tattoo leakage. The primary endpoint was an accurate localization by visible tattoo. Secondary endpoints were adverse events related to tattooing, the need for intraoperative endoscopy, and tattoo leakage.

RESULTS

A total of 383 tattoos in 358 patients were analyzed. Accurate tumor localization rate was 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.3-98.0%). No adverse events occurred. Intraoperative colonoscopy was performed in 7 (1.8%) patients with invisible tattoo. Tattoo leakage was found in 4.2% (95%CI: 2.6-6.7%), and leakage disturbed the laparoscopic view of the surgical plane in 0.7% (95%CI: 0.3-2.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer, our endoscopic tattooing with a standardized protocol using a novel needle is considered a simple, highly reliable localization technique with an extremely safe profile, which would be valuable to reduce physician's efforts and redundant medical resources. Trial registration number UMIN000021012. Date of registration: June 2016.

Intraoperative Colonoscopy During Colorectal Surgery Does Not Increase Postoperative Complications: An Assessment From the ACS-NSQIP Procedure-targeted Cohort

Intraoperative colonoscopy (IOC) is an adjunct in colorectal surgery to detect the location of the lesions and assessing anastomotic integrity. The authors aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility and postoperative morbidity of IOC in left-sided colectomy patients for colorectal cancer. Patients undergoing elective left-sided colectomy without any proximal diversion for colorectal cancer between 2013 and 2016 were reviewed from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted database. Demographics, comorbidities, short-term outcomes, and postoperative morbidity of patients were evaluated. A total of 8811 patients were identified and IOC was performed for 1143 (12.97%) patients. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the IOC and non-IOC groups. Patients with IOC had shorter total hospital length of stay. The use of IOC does not adversely affect short-term outcomes after colorectal resections. Surgeons may utilize IOC liberally for left-sided colorectal resections.

Intraoperative colonoscopy in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A review of recent publications

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colorectal resection is becoming the gold standard for treating colorectal cancers because it offers superior short-term and comparable long-time outcomes compared to open surgery. Intraoperative colonoscopy (IOC) is increasingly performed for tumor localization and mucosal assessment. The aim of this report was to review the safety and efficacy of IOC in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHOD

A MEDLINE search of studies of IOC in laparoscopic colorectal surgery was performed. We focused on three aspects of IOC use: (i) IOC for intraoperative tumor localization; (ii) colonic irrigation and IOC for obstructive left-sided colorectal cancers; and (iii) IOC for assessing colorectal anastomosis.

RESULTS

During laparoscopic colorectal surgery, IOC enables accurate localization of early mucosal tumors, detection of lesions in the proximal unexamined colon for obstructive left-sided cancer, and visual assessment of anastomosis. Additionally, IOC allows for proper surgical resection, management of concomitant lesions, immediate maintenance of hemostasis, suture repair of leaks, and the creation of a protective stoma as necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative colonoscopy is beneficial in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Experienced surgical endoscopists should be trained to safely perform IOC.

Inconsistencies in Colonic Tattooing Practice: Differences in Reported and Actual Practices at a Tertiary Medical Center

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death within the United States. Identification of previously identified colon cancer and large colon polyps at the time of surgery and repeat endoscopy is crucial to allow for accurate assessment and resection. This study reports actual and reported colonic tattooing practices as well as their impact on surgical and endoscopic evaluation at a tertiary medical center.

Objectives

Accurate localization of a colonic lesion is crucial to successful resection. Although colonic tattooing is a widely accepted technique to mark lesions for future identification surgery or repeat colonoscopy, no consensus guidelines exist. The objective of this study was to determine whether the current tattooing practice at a tertiary medical center differs from recommendations in the literature and self-reported provider practice.

Methods

The study consisted of an observational retrospective chart review of patients who received colonic tattoos, as well as a provider survey of reported tattooing practices at a tertiary academic medical center. A total of 747 patients older than 18 years of age who underwent colonoscopy with tattoo were included. Forty-four gastroenterologists performing endoscopy were surveyed on tattooing techniques.

Results

In the majority of cases, neither the number of tattoos, location of the tattoo nor the distance from the lesion was specified within the report. Following the index procedure, a tattoo was detected in 75% of surgical resections and 73% of endoscopies. At the time of surgery, however, the tattoo and/or the lesion was detected approximately 94% of the time. Twenty-five endoscopists (56.8%) completed the survey. Differences were seen the between the chart review and reported practice. Most providers report placing ≥2 marks (87.2%); however, chart review revealed that only 56.2 % were tattooed with ≥2 marks.

Conclusions

Variation exists between the reported tattooing practice and actual practice. Despite this, most tattoos are identified at the time of surgery or repeat endoscopy. Further research is needed to determine whether a standardized approach to tattooing and reporting could improve localization at repeat endoscopy.

Preoperative localization of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative colorectal tumor localization is crucial for appropriate resection and treatment planning. As the localization accuracy of conventional colonoscopy is considered to be low, several localization techniques have been developed. We systematically reviewed the tumor localization error rates of several preoperative endoscopic techniques and synthesized information on risk factors for localization errors and procedure-related adverse events.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they reported tumor localization errors in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing resection with curative intent. Using random-effects models, pooled incidence of tumor localization errors were derived for conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopic tattooing. Due to the lack of comparative studies, a direct comparison of the pooled estimates was performed. Procedure-related adverse events, risk factors for localization errors, and the localization outcomes of other techniques such as colonoscopic clip placement, radioguided occult colonic lesion identification, and the use of magnetic endoscope imaging were also synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 38 non-randomized controlled and observational studies were included in this review (2578 patients underwent conventional colonoscopy and 643 colonoscopic tattooing). The pooled incidence of localization errors with conventional colonoscopy was 15.4 % (95 % CI 12.0-18.7), whereas that of colonoscopic tattooing was 9.5 % (95 % CI 5.7-13.3), mean difference 5.9 % (95 % CI 0.65-11.14, p = 0.03). Adverse events secondary to tattooing were infrequent, and most were cases of ink spillage. Limited information was available for other localization techniques.

CONCLUSION

Conventional colonoscopy has a higher incidence of localization error compared to colonoscopic tattooing for localization of colorectal cancer. Colonoscopic tattooing is safe and leads to fewer tumor localization errors. Given the widespread adoption of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer, routine colonoscopic tattooing should be adopted. However, studies directly comparing different localization techniques are needed.