Abstract:The national Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry [1] first established in 1995–1996, and a number of previous regional colon cancer registries were merged into the national Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry (SCRCR) in 2007. The aim was to register all patients in Sweden [2]. It is a population-based registry and includes more than 99% of those with colorectal cancer diagnosed every year. The main objective is quality control and to assess practice, performance and patient outcomes over time and in relation to individual hospitals. It can also be used for research purposes, and registered data are often validated by research projects, where data in the registry are compared to the original data from patient records. However not all data are validated and research reports based on non validated registry data may be flawed by information bias. One requested piece of information in reporting to the registry is to record the placement of vascular ligatures during the surgical procedure. Data on vascular ligation may be reported by the responsible surgeon, or by another surgeon, a nurse or a secretary, based on the surgical report. In an attempt to assess the accuracy of reported data on vascular ligation, Bostr€ om et al. [3] found suboptimal validation. In addition, reported placements of vascular ligatures in operation charts may not always reflect their true placement. Another important piece of information that is not reported to the registry is the quality of the specimen and therefore it is impossible to assess whether a poor or high-quality resection has been performed. In this issue of Colorectal Disease, Olofsson et al. report patient outcomes in relation to the extent of mesenteric resection in right sided colon cancer. The title of the paper, ‘No benefit of extended mesenteric resection with central vascular ligation in right-sided colon cancer’ and the conclusions presented must be read and interpreted with caution. Based on registry information on the position of the vascular ligature, they define three groups of patients; central ligation of ileocolic vessels (ICV) or central ligation of ICV + right branch of middle colic vessels or central ligation of ICV + central ligation of middle colic vessels. The authors conclude that ‘there is no need to extend the mesenteric resection to involve the middle colic vessels in cancer of the caecum or ascending colon. On the contrary, increased perioperative mortality by more extensive mesenteric resection was noted suggesting that a more conservative approach may be favorable’. Looking more carefully at the presented data, the authors’ conclusions seem to be unfounded. In a substantial proportion of the patients (27%) it was impossible to determine the level of ligation of mesenteric vessels and the presented data do not establish any relation between the level of ligation and the extent of mesenteric resection. In addition, there are no data on measurements of removed mesentery or quality control of specimens. There are obvious differences between the three groups in relation to age, tumour location and proportion receiving adjuvant treatment. Thus, the groups are not comparable and therefore the conclusions are not valid. The quality of surgery and the extent of mesenteric resection probably varied considerably within the three groups and most likely this is a much stronger prognostic determinant than the level of vessel ligation, which again makes the conclusion unsound. Such a report is potentially misleading because it challenges recent concepts of colorectal cancer surgery, aimed at improving patient outcomes by improved surgical quality, such as total mesorectal excision (TME), complete mesocolic excision (CME) and D3 resections. Reports from Australia, Germany, Denmark and Japan on CME and D3 resections show that precise, high quality surgery in well defined anatomical planes can achieve excellent oncological outcomes in colon cancer, substantially better than the Swedish data presented by Olofsson et al. [4–7]. Quality of surgery can be established by assessment of the excised specimen and related to oncological outcomes [8]. This sort of specimen quality control is vital and should be the basis for evaluating current and novel surgical techniques. As colorectal surgeons we should focus on precise anatomical definitions of surgical procedures and emphasize surgical perfection. We are not opposed to a well constructed debate, but mixing up terminology and using poorly validated data to confront new surgical concepts does not benefit high quality colorectal cancer surgery or our patients.

[A 90-day repeated dose oral toxicity study of magnesium chloride in F344 rats].

Errors in data interpretation and terminology must not deter us from meticulous, high quality colorectal cancer surgery

Dysbiosis of the Intestinal Microbiota in Neurocritically Ill Patients and the Risk for Death.

Effect of absorbable polydioxanone flexor tendon repair and restricted active mobilization in a canine model.

Gut Microbiota Improves Prognostic Prediction in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Alongside Immunological and Hematological Indicators

Lung Microbiota Predict Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients

Gut dysbiosis in acute-on-chronic liver failure and its predictive value for mortality.

Pathogenesis and therapeutic opportunities of gut microbiome dysbiosis in critical illness

Amplifying mechanisms of lymphomagenesis.

Lower gastrointestinal tract dysbiosis in persistent critical illness: a systematic review

The gut-lung axis in critical illness: microbiome composition as a predictor of mortality at day 28 in mechanically ventilated patients

Deep longitudinal lower respiratory tract microbiome profiling reveals genome-resolved functional and evolutionary dynamics in critical illness

Respiratory Tract Dysbiosis Is Associated with Worse Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Microbiome in Critical Care: An Unconventional and Unknown Ally

Gut Microbiota and Critically Ill Patients: Immunity and Its Modulation via Probiotics and Immunonutrition

The role of the microbiota in the management of intensive care patients

Prospective Correlation Between the Patient Microbiome with Response to and Development of Immune-Mediated Adverse Effects to Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer.

The central and biodynamic role of gut microbiota in critically ill patients

Early reduction in gut microbiota diversity in critically ill patients is associated with mortality

Profiling gut microbiota and bile acid metabolism in critically ill children

The Importance of the Microbiome in Critically Ill Patients: Role of Nutrition