Early discharge after enhanced recovery rectal resection does not increase emergency department visits and readmissions: a single institution analysis.

BACKGROUND: Same-day discharge after colectomy in enhanced recovery pathways has been shown to be feasible. It is not clear how early patients with rectal resections may be safely discharged. The study aim was to determine if patients discharged ≤ 3 days after rectal resections are associated with increased rates of emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of enhanced recovery low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection, and proctocolectomy patients in a prospectively maintained single institution colorectal surgery database from 01/01/2018 to 07/15/2022. Clinic visits were scheduled within 4-7 days and at 30 days after discharge, and every 1-2 weeks for stoma patients until no longer needed. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the association of discharge on postoperative days (POD)-1-3, POD-4-5, and POD ≥ 6 days with incidence of ED visits and readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients met inclusion criteria, 76 with stomas. Median postoperative length of stay was 5 [IQR 6.5] days. Mean age was 58.6 years; 59.3% were ASA-3; and 69.5% had a minimally invasive surgical approach. ED visits were not significantly different between discharge-day groups (p = 0.096). No patients were discharged same-day, one without a stoma was discharged on POD-1, ten patients (2 with stomas) on POD-2, and twenty-four patients (13 with stomas) on POD-3. ED visits were lowest for the POD-1-3 group (14.3%) but not significantly different than later discharge groups (p = 0.166). Readmission rate was also lowest for the POD-1-3 group (11.4%) and also not significantly different than later discharge groups (p = 0.261) and this was confirmed with logistic regression. Complication rate was lowest in the POD-1-3 group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Early discharge after enhanced recovery partial or complete proctectomy is not associated with increased ED visits and readmissions. Follow up studies should identify post-discharge resources that allow safe early discharge and that may be standardized and generalizable.

Early Discharge after Enhanced Recovery Colectomy Does Not Increase Emergency Department Visits and Readmissions: A Single Institution Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Same-day discharge after colorectal surgery in enhanced recovery pathways is increasing. This study aimed to determine if discharge on postoperative days (POD) one or two is associated with increased rates of emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions after left and right colectomy. METHODS: Single institution retrospective analysis of prospective institutional colorectal surgery database between 07/01/2018 and 07/15/2022. Primary outcomes were ED visit and readmission rates for enhanced recovery open and minimally invasive right and left colectomy using logistic regressions models. RESULTS: 820 patients met inclusion criteria. There were significant differences in discharge-day by diagnosis-58.5% of patients with Crohn's disease were discharged on POD ≥4 and 21.6% with benign colon neoplasia were discharged on POD-0-1 (P < .001). ED visits occurred in 12.9% of the study population and were not significantly different between discharge-day groups (P = .096). Overall readmission rate was 8.5% and significantly different between discharge-day groups (0% POD-0 vs 8.3% POD-1 vs 5.8% POD-2 vs 6.9% POD-3 vs 12.9% POD ≥4, P = .041). Logistic regression showed that ED visits and readmissions for longer discharge-days (POD-2, POD-3, POD ≥4) were not significantly different than POD-0-1. Readmission diagnoses for the study population were higher for ileus (17.1%) and surgical site infection (SSI) type-III (22.9%) than for acute kidney injury (1.4%) and SSI type-I/II (1.4%). CONCLUSION: Early discharge after left and right colectomy is not associated with increased rates of ED visits and readmissions. Same-day discharge may be feasible in selected enhanced recovery patients. Standardized post-discharge resources that safely allow same-day discharge require further investigation.

Pain and opioid use after colorectal resection for benign versus malignant disease: A single institution analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing opioid needs between benign and malignant colorectal diseases are inconclusive. METHODS: Single institution analysis of prospectively maintained colorectal surgery database. Multiple regression analyses done on perioperative numeric pain scores (NPS) and opioids prescribed at discharge. RESULTS: 641 patients in Benign and 276 patients in the Malignant group. Unadjusted comparison revealed significantly higher NPS for the Benign than the Malignant group preoperative and postoperative day 0 (after surgery), 1, 2, and 3 (all p â€‹≤ â€‹0.001). Opioids prescribed at discharge were significantly higher in the Benign group (60.0% vs 51.1%, p â€‹= â€‹0.018). After regression analysis, there was no longer a significant difference in NPS (B â€‹= â€‹0.703, p â€‹= â€‹0.095) and opioids prescribed between groups [OR â€‹= â€‹0.803 (95%CI 0.586, 1.1), p â€‹= â€‹0.173]. CONCLUSIONS: Pain and opioids prescribed at discharge are not significantly different between benign and malignant diseases in an enhanced recovery pain management pathway that maximizes non-opioid multimodal analgesic strategies.

Operative trends following the adoption of nonoperative management of rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Differentiating clinical near-complete and complete responses (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is challenging in rectal cancer patients. We hypothesized that magnetic resonance imaging staging limitations for low rectal cancers may increase the proportion of abdominoperineal resection (APR) with permanent colostomy for those without a cCR. METHODS: Single institution retrospective analysis of rectal cancer cases before and after adoption of nonoperative "watch and wait" (W&W) pathway. APR as a percentage of rectal resections was the primary outcome. RESULTS: There were 76 total mesorectal excisions (TME) in the pre-W&W group and 98 in the post-W&W group. NT was significantly more common in the post-W&W group. There was no significant difference in the APR primary outcome (pre-W&W APR 33.3% vs. post-W&W APR 26.5%, p = 0.482). APR patients had fewer complete TME grades (69.2% vs. 46.2%) and more pathologic complete responses (0% vs. 26.9%) in the post-W&W period. The cCR rate for patients with nonoperative management was 51.4% (n = 37) and 13.5% (n = 5) had regrowths, all of whom underwent salvage surgery. CONCLUSION: APR for those without a cCR to NT has not increased in the nonoperative management era. Balancing the pathologic complete response rate may require restaging some patients with clinical near-complete responses.

Postoperative Oral Rehydration and Regimented Follow-up Decrease Readmissions After Colorectal Surgery That Includes Ileostomies.

BACKGROUND: Ileostomies constitute 15% to 43% of readmissions after colorectal surgery, often due to dehydration and acute kidney injury. Prior institutional interventions decreased readmissions but not among patients who underwent new ileostomies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate readmissions among patients who underwent new ileostomies after postoperative oral rehydration solution and standardized clinic visits. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospective database. SETTINGS: Enhanced recovery colorectal surgery service. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent new ileostomy before and after intervention. INTERVENTIONS: Postoperative oral rehydration solution and postdischarge clinic visits with review of inputs/outputs, antimotility and appliance needs, and trained nurse reeducation 4 to 7 days after discharge, 30 days postoperatively, and every 1 to 2 weeks thereafter as needed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Readmission rate due to dehydration/acute kidney injury (primary), emergency department visits, and readmission rates overall and for specific diagnoses. Analysis used univariate and weighted techniques. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients (199 preintervention; 113 postintervention) were included, with a mean age of 59.0 years. Patients were predominantly White (94.9%) and evenly split between men and women. The most common diagnosis was diverticulitis (43.3%). The most common procedure was high anterior resection (38.8%), followed by low anterior resection (16.35%). Patient and procedure characteristics were well matched between groups. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that readmission rate due to dehydration/acute kidney injury significantly decreased between pre- and postintervention study groups (45.7% vs 16.5%, p = 0.039). Emergency department visits due to dehydration/acute kidney injury (12.0% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001) and readmissions from all causes (24.33% vs 10.6%, p = 0.005) also significantly decreased. Other complications were not significantly different between groups. Average stoma output 24 hours before (776 vs 625 mL, p = 0.005) and after (993 vs 890 mL, p = 0.025) discharge was significantly decreased in the postintervention group. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: An oral rehydration solution and frequent standardized postdischarge visits led by trained nursing staff decreased readmissions and emergency department visits among patients who underwent new ileostomies after colorectal surgery. See Video Abstract . LA REHIDRATACIN ORAL POSOPERATORIA Y EL SEGUIMIENTO REGLAMENTADO REDUCEN LOS REINGRESOS EN PACIENTES DE CIRUGA COLORRECTAL CON ILEOSTOMAS: ANTECEDENTES:Las ileostomías constituyen del 15 al 43% de los reingresos después de la cirugía colorrectal, a menudo debido a la deshidratación y la lesión renal aguda. Las intervenciones institucionales previas redujeron los reingresos, pero no entre los pacientes con nuevas ileostomías.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los reingresos entre pacientes con nuevas ileostomías después del uso de solución de rehidratación oral postoperatoria y visitas clínicas estandarizadas.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de base de datos prospectiva.AJUSTES:Servicio de cirugía colorrectal de recuperación mejorada.PACIENTES:Pacientes con ileostomía nueva antes y después de la intervención.INTERVENCIÓN(ES):Solución de rehidratación oral posoperatoria y visitas clínicas posteriores al alta con revisión de entradas/salidas, antimotilidad y necesidades de aparatos, y reeducación de enfermeras capacitadas 4-7 días después del alta, 30 días después de la operación y cada 1-2 semanas después, según sea necesario.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tasa de readmisión debido a deshidratación/lesión renal aguda (primaria), tasa de urgencias y de readmisión en general y para diagnósticos específicos. El análisis utilizó técnicas univariadas y ponderadas.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 312 pacientes (199 preintervención; 113 postintervención), con una edad media de 59,0 años. Los pacientes eran predominantemente blancos (94,9%) y se dividieron equitativamente entre hombres y mujeres. El diagnóstico más frecuente fue diverticulitis (43,3%). El procedimiento más común fue la resección anterior alta (38,8 %) seguida de la resección anterior baja (16,35 %). Las características del paciente y del procedimiento coincidieron bien entre los grupos. El análisis multivariante demostró que la tasa de reingreso debido a deshidratación/lesión renal aguda disminuyó significativamente entre los grupos de estudio antes y después de la intervención (45,7 % frente a 16,5 %, p = 0,039). Las visitas a urgencias por deshidratación/insuficiencia renal aguda (12,0 % frente a 1,7 %, p < 0,001) y los reingresos por todas las causas (24,33 % frente a 10,6 %, p = 0,005) también disminuyeron significativamente. Otras complicaciones no fueron significativamente diferentes entre los grupos. El gasto medio del estoma 24 horas antes (776 ml frente a 625 ml, p = 0,005) y después (993 ml frente a 890 ml, p = 0,025) del alta disminuyó significativamente en el grupo posterior a la intervención.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo de centro único.CONCLUSIONES:Una solución de rehidratación oral y frecuentes visitas estandarizadas posteriores al alta dirigidas por personal de enfermería capacitado redujeron los reingresos y las visitas al servicio de urgencias entre los pacientes con nuevas ileostomías después de la cirugía colorrectal. ( Traducción-Dr. Yolanda Colorado ).

Ureteral Stents Do Not Increase the Risk for Acute Kidney Injury After Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Ureteral stents are thought to prevent or help identify ureteral injuries. Studies suggesting that ureteral stents increase the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury show inconsistent conclusions. The large ureteral stenting volume at our institution provided a unique opportunity for granular analysis not previously reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prophylactic ureteral stenting at colorectal surgery increases acute kidney injury. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of colorectal operations with prophylactic ureteral stents was compared to operations without stents. Adjusted analysis was performed with inverse probability treatment weighting. SETTINGS: Single institution enhanced recovery colorectal surgery service. PATIENTS: Prospective institutional database between July 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was acute kidney injury, defined as increase in creatinine ≥0. 3 mg/dL (definition 1) and 1.5-fold increase in creatinine (definition 2) within 48 hours postoperatively. RESULTS: There were 410 patients in the study population: 310 patients in the stent group and 100 in the no-stent group. There were 8 operative ureteral injuries: 4 (1.29%) in the stent group and 4 (4.0%) in the no-stent group ( p = 0.103). Unadjusted analysis revealed no significant difference in acute kidney injury between groups. After adjustment, there was still no significant difference in acute kidney injury between groups when defined as definition 1 (no-stent 23.76% vs stent 26.19%, p = 0.745) and as definition 2 (no-stent 15.86% vs stent 14.8%, p = 0.867). Subgroup analysis showed that lighted stents were associated with significantly more acute kidney injury than no-stent patients when defined as definition 1 ( p = 0.017) but not when defined as definition 2 ( p = 0.311). LIMITATIONS: Single-institution results may not be generalizable. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic ureteral stenting does not increase the risk of acute kidney injury for patients undergoing enhanced recovery colorectal surgery, although caution and further study may be warranted for lighted stents. Studies further examining contrasting roles of ureter stenting and imaging in open and minimally invasive colorectal surgery are warranted. See Video Abstract. LOS STENTS URETERALES NO AUMENTAN EL RIESGO DE LESIN RENAL AGUDA DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA COLORECTAL: ANTECEDENTES:Se cree que los stents ureterales previenen o ayudan a identificar las lesiones ureterales. Los estudios que sugieren que los stents ureterales aumentan el riesgo de lesión renal aguda post operatoria muestran conclusiones contradictorias. El gran volumen de endoprótesis ureterales en nuestra institución brindó una oportunidad única para el análisis granular que no se informó anteriormente.OBJETIVO:Determinar si la colocación de stent ureteral profiláctico en cirugía colorrectal aumenta el daño renal agudo.DISEÑO:El análisis retrospectivo de operaciones colorrectales con stents ureterales profilácticos se comparó con operaciones sin stents. El análisis ajustado se realizó con ponderación de tratamiento de probabilidad inversa.AJUSTES:Cirugía colorrectal de recuperación mejorada de una sola instituciónPACIENTES:Base de datos institucional prospectiva entre el 01/07/2018 y el 31/12/2021.MEDIDA DE RESULTADO PRINCIPAL:El resultado primario fue la lesión renal aguda definida como un aumento en la creatinina ≥ 0,3 mg/dL (Definición n.° 1) y un aumento de 1,5 veces en la creatinina (Definición n.° 2) dentro de las 48 horas posteriores a la operación.RESULTADOS:Hubo 410 pacientes en la población de estudio: 310 pacientes en el grupo Stent y 100 en el grupo No-Stent. Hubo 8 lesiones ureterales operatorias, 4 (1,29%) en el grupo Stent y 4 (4,0%) en el grupo No-Stent (p = 0,103). El análisis no ajustado no reveló diferencias significativas en la lesión renal aguda entre los grupos. Después del ajuste, todavía no hubo una diferencia significativa en la lesión renal aguda entre los grupos cuando se definió como Definición n.º 1 (sin stent 23,76 % frente a stent 26,19 %, p = 0,745) y por definición n.º 2 (sin stent 15,86 % frente a stent 14,8 %, p = 0,867). El análisis de sub grupos mostró que los stents iluminados se asociaron con una lesión renal aguda significativamente mayor que los pacientes sin stent cuando se definieron como Definición n.º 1 (p = 0,017), pero no cuando se los definió como Definición n.º 2 (p = 0,311).LIMITACIONES:Los resultados de una sola institución pueden no ser generalizables.CONCLUSIÓN:La colocación profiláctica de endoprótesis ureterales no aumenta el riesgo de lesión renal aguda en pacientes que se someten a cirugía colorrectal de recuperación mejorada, aunque es posible que se requiera precaución y estudios adicionales para las endoprótesis iluminadas. Se justifican estudios que examinen más a fondo las funciones contrastantes de la colocación de stents de uréter y las imágenes en la cirugía colorrectal abierta y mínimamente invasiva. (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Effect of Pharmacoprophylaxis on Postoperative Outcomes in Adult Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Framework.

BACKGROUND: The application of enhanced recovery after surgery principles decreases postoperative complications (POCs), length of stay (LOS), and readmissions. Pharmacoprophylaxis decreases morbidity, but the effect of specific regimens on clinical outcomes is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Records of 476 randomly selected adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgeries (ECRS) at 10 US hospitals were abstracted. Primary outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI), venous thromboembolism (VTE), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), pain, and ileus rates. Secondary outcomes included LOS and 7- and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: POC rates were SSI (3.4%), VTE (1.5%), PONV (47.9%), pain (58.1%), and ileus (16.1%). Cefazolin 2 g/metronidazole 500 mg and ertapenem 1 g were associated with the shortest LOS; cefotetan 2 g and cefoxitin 2 g with the longest LOS. No SSI occurred with ertapenem and cefotetan. More Caucasians than Blacks received oral antibiotics before intravenous antibiotics without impact. Enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously daily was the most common inpatient and discharge VTE prophylaxis. All in-hospital VTEs occurred with unfractionated heparin. Most received rescue rather than around-the-clock antiemetics. Scopolamine patches, spinal opioids, and IV lidocaine continuous infusion were associated with lower PONV. Transversus abdominis plane block with long-acting local anesthetics, celecoxib, non-anesthetic ketamine bolus, ketorolac IV, lidocaine IV, and pregabalin were associated with lower in-hospital pain severity rates. Gabapentinoids and alvimopan were associated with lower ileus rates. Acetaminophen, alvimopan, famotidine, and lidocaine patches were associated with shorter LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in pharmacotherapy regimens that may improve primary and secondary outcomes in ECRS were identified. In adult ECRS, cefotetan or ertapenem may be better regimens for preventing in-hospital SSI, while ertapenem or C/M may lead to shorter LOS. The value of OA to prevent SSI was not demonstrated. Inpatient enoxaparin, compared to UFH, may reduce VTE rates with a similar LOS. A minority of patients had a documented PONV risk assessment, and a majority used as-needed rather than around-the-clock strategies. Preoperative scopolamine patches continued postoperatively may lower PONV and PDNV severity and shorter LOS. Alvimopan may reduce ileus and shorten LOS. Anesthesia that includes TAP block, ketorolac IV, and pregabalin use may lead to reduced pain rates. Acetaminophen, alvimopan, famotidine, and lidocaine patches may shorten LOS. Given the challenges of pain management and the incidence of PONV/PDNV found in this study, additional studies should be conducted to determine optimal opioid-free anesthesia and the benefit of newer antiemetics on patient outcomes. Moreover, future research should identify latent pharmacotherapy variables that impact patient outcomes, correlate pertinent laboratory results, and examine the impact of order or care sets used for ECRS at study hospitals.

Anaphylactic Shock to Intravenous Indocyanine Green During a Robotic Right Colectomy.

Intravenous indocyanine green (IV ICG) is regarded as a safe immunofluorescence agent used to assess bowel perfusion prior to creating bowel anastomoses and aids in ureter identification during intra-abdominal surgery. We report the first instance of anaphylactic shock to IV ICG after prior toleration of ICG via an intra-ureteral route. Shortly after administering IV ICG, our patient became hypotensive and hypoxic requiring chest compressions, vasoactive medications, and thoracostomy tubes prior to identifying the symptoms as an allergic reaction. Anaphylaxis is not a recognized side effect of ICG and was not immediately considered. As ICG becomes increasingly utilized as an immunofluorescence agent among surgical specialties, increased awareness and recognition of anaphylactic shock as a potential side effect of ICG may lead to expedited diagnoses, treatment, and more critical evaluation of indications for future use. Additionally, our patient first tolerated intra-ureteral administration without a systemic reaction, suggesting a possible sensitization mechanism.

How Should Risk Be Communicated to Patients When Developing Resident Surgeon Robotic Skills?

This commentary on a case considers how to cultivate resident surgeon professional autonomy while ensuring patient safety. Specifically, the commentary briefly canvasses strategies for how to disclose the nature and scope of resident surgeon involvement in managing intraoperative care to patients and their loved ones. The commentary also suggests how to manage patients' and their loved ones' expectations and assumptions about surgical innovation, including robot-assisted surgery.

Early Urinary Catheter Removal After Colectomy for Colovesical Fistula is Not Associated With Increased Postoperative Complications.

BACKGROUND: Management of the bladder defect during colectomy for colovesical fistula (CVF) and recommendations for duration of urinary catheter drainage are inconsistent. This study aimed to determine if urinary catheter drainage duration was associated with postoperative complications. METHODS: Retrospective single institution cohort study of patients undergoing resection for diverticular CVF from 2015 through 2021. Urinary catheter drainage was defined as Early (≤7 days postoperative and then subdivided into 1-2 days, 3-5 days, 6-7 days), and Late (>7 days postoperative). Primary outcome was a composite measure of postoperative bladder leak, surgical site infection-III, sepsis, reoperation, and postoperative length-of-stay ≥7 days. RESULTS: There were 73 patients-64 Early group and 9 Late group. Composite measure between groups (Early 25% vs Late 33.33%, P = .688) was not significantly different. The Late group had more patients with large bladder defects (33.3% vs 7.8%, P = .054), significantly more patients who underwent suture repair (55.6% vs 14.1%, P = .01), and significantly more patients that had an intraoperative pelvic drain (66.7% vs 15.6%, P = .003). After propensity score inverse weighting, the Late group had significantly more cystogram-detected postoperative bladder leaks (P = .002) and ileus (P = .042) than the Early group. There were no bladder leaks or ileus in those who had urinary catheter removal on postoperative days 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: Early urinary catheter removal was associated with no increase in bladder leaks and fewer postoperative complications after definitive management of CVF. Further investigation is required to determine if intraoperative bladder leak testing and postoperative cystograms are useful adjuncts in decision making.

Alvimopan is associated with favorable outcomes in open and minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a regional database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alvimopan is a µ-opioid receptor antagonist associated with shorter time to gastrointestinal recovery in patients having open colorectal surgery. Data demonstrating the benefit of perioperative alvimopan for the minimally invasive surgical approach are inconsistent. The aim of this study is to determine colorectal surgery groups that benefit from perioperative alvimopan. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of colorectal surgery patients who had, and patients who did not have, perioperative alvimopan in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative regional risk-adjusted database from 2018 through 2021. Main outcome measures were postoperative length of hospital stay, time to return of bowel function, and postoperative ileus. RESULTS: There were 10,010 patients (30.3% open, 40.5% laparoscopic, 12.7% hand-assist laparoscopic, 43.5% robotic) who met inclusion criteria-4919 received alvimopan in the perioperative period and 5091 did not. When compared to those not receiving alvimopan, unadjusted outcomes showed that the alvimopan group had significantly shorter postoperative length of stay (4.75 days vs 5.5 days, p < 0.001), shorter time to return of bowel function (1.61 days vs 2.01 days, p < 0.001) and less postoperative ileus (5.45% vs 7.94%, p < 0.001). After adjustment, regression models confirmed that alvimopan was associated with an 9.6% reduction in hospital length of stay (p < 0.001), a 14.9% shorter time to return of bowel function (p < 0.001), and a 42.1% reduction in postoperative ileus (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed significant benefit of alvimopan for all three outcomes in patients having the minimally invasive approach. CONCLUSIONS: Alvimopan is associated with shorter hospital length of stay, shorter time to return of bowel function, and decreased postoperative ileus when administered to patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Benefit is not limited to the open approach and includes minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures.

Health-care expenditures are less for minimally invasive than open colectomy for colon cancer: A US commercial claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most studies comparing surgical platforms focus on short-term outcomes. In this study, we compare the expanding societal penetration of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with open colectomy by assessing payer and patient expenditures up to one year for patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer. METHODS: We analyzed the IBM MarketScan Database for patients who underwent left or right colectomy for colon cancer between 2013 and 2020. Outcomes included perioperative complications and total health-care expenditures up to 1 year following colectomy. We compared results for patients who had open colectomy (OS) to those with MIS operations. Subgroup analyses were performed for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC+) versus no adjuvant chemotherapy (AC-) groups and for laparoscopic (LS) versus robotic (RS) approaches. RESULTS: Of 7,063 patients, 4,417 cases did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy (OS: 20.1%, LS: 67.1%, RS: 12.7%) and 2646 cases had adjuvant chemotherapy (OS: 28.4%, LS: 58.7%, RS: 12.9%) after discharge. MIS colectomy was associated with lower mean expenditure at index surgery and post-discharge periods for AC- patients (index surgery: $34,588 vs $36,975; 365-day post-discharge $20,051 vs $24,309) and for AC+ patients (index surgery: $37,884 vs $42,160; 365-day post-discharge $103,341vs $135,113; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). LS had similar index surgery expenditures but significantly higher expenditures at post-discharge 30 days (AC-: $2,834 vs $2276, p = 0.005; AC+: $9100 vs $7698, p = 0.020) than RS. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the MIS group than the open group for AC- patients (20.5% vs 31.2%) and AC+ patients (22.6% vs 39.1%, both p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MIS colectomy is associated with better value at lower expenditure than open colectomy for colon cancer at the index operation and up to one year after surgery. RS expenditure is less than LS in the first 30 postoperative days regardless of chemotherapy status and may extend to 1 year for AC- patients.

Comparison of surgeon and pathologist total mesorectal excision grade after rectal cancer resection: A single institution analysis.

BACKGROUND: A Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Colorectal Cancer Project initiative sought to increase adoption of surgeon total mesorectal excision (TME) grading through standardized education and synoptic operative reporting. Our study aim was to assess initiative impact and level of agreement between surgeon and pathologist-determined TME grades. METHODS: This is a retrospective comparison of surgeon and pathologist TME grades before and after initiative implementation using a prospectively maintained enhanced recovery colorectal surgery database. RESULTS: There were 112 TMEs before, and 53 TMEs following initiative implementation. There was a significant increase in surgeon TME-grade reporting in the postinitiative period (25.0% pre- vs. 81.1% post-, p < 0.001). Pathologist TME-grade reporting was high in both time periods and there was no significant change (91.1% pre- vs. 88.7% post-, p = 0.84). Surgeon and pathologist agreement was 59.3% in the preinitiative period (Κ "minimal"   0.356) and 65.0% in the postinitiative period (Κ "moderate" = 0.605, p = 0.827). There was no significant association between clinical T-stage and surgeon or pathologist TME grade. CONCLUSION: Surgeon TME grading improves with education and synoptic operative reporting. There is only moderate agreement between surgeon and pathologist, a finding that requires further study. Organized regional initiatives are effective at implementing rectal cancer management quality improvement.

Lack of Complete Pretreatment Staging Is Associated With Omission of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer: A Statewide Study.

BACKGROUND: Standardized local staging and neoadjuvant therapy are rectal cancer management quality measures supported by the Commission on Cancer and National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer for the management of rectal cancer. Previous studies suggested that up to 25% of patients with stage II/III rectal cancer patients do not receive neoadjuvant therapy. We hypothesized that failure to receive neoadjuvant therapy may be caused by failure to properly stage patients before surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether lack of local rectal cancer staging is associated with underutilization of neoadjuvant therapy and to determine risk factors for omission of neoadjuvant therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed on patient, tumor, and 30-day outcome factors associated with neoadjuvant therapy and staging. SETTINGS: hospitals participated in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Colorectal Cancer Project from January 2014 to December 2019. PATIENTS: Elective, clinical stage II/III, mid-to-low rectal cancer resections. Patients with upper rectal cancer were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: The final cohort included 350 patients with clinical stage II/III mid or low rectal cancer-80.9% of patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and 83.2% of patients who had MRI and/or endoscopic ultrasound. A significant association was found between receiving neoadjuvant therapy and MRI/endorectal ultrasound staging ( p < 0.0001). Eighty-seven percent of patients who had MRI/endorectal ultrasound received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; 49% of patients who did not have MRI/endorectal ultrasound staging received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Multivariate analysis revealed that risk factors for the omission of neoadjuvant therapy were older age and incomplete staging. LIMITATIONS: Observational study with the possibility of unmeasured confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant therapy is underused in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer. Omission of pretreatment staging with MRI/endorectal ultrasound is associated with omission of neoadjuvant therapy. These data suggest the need for regional and national quality improvement strategies to standardize the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B923 . LA FALTA DE ESTADIFICACIN COMPLETA PREVIA AL TRATAMIENTO SE ASOCIA CON LA OMISIN DE LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO UN ESTUDIO ESTATAL: ANTECEDENTES: La estadificación local estandarizada y la terapia neoadyuvante son medidas de calidad de la Comisión sobre el Cáncer y el Programa Nacional de Acreditación para el Cáncer de Recto para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto. Estudios previos sugirieron que hasta el 25% de los pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio II/III no reciben terapia neoadyuvante. Planteamos la hipótesis de que la falla en recibir la terapia neoadyuvante puede deberse a la falla en la estadificación adecuada de los pacientes antes de la cirugía.OBJETIVO: El propósito de este estudio es determinar si la falta de estadificación local del cáncer de recto está asociada con la infrautilización de la terapia neoadyuvante y determinar los factores de riesgo para la omisión de la terapia neoadyuvante.DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. Se realizaron análisis bivariados y multivariados sobre el paciente, el tumor y los factores de resultado a los 30 días asociados con la terapia neoadyuvante y la estadificación.AJUSTE: Un total de 31 hospitales que participaron en el Proyecto Quirugico Colaborativo de Cáncer Colorrectal de Calidad de Michigan desde enero de 2014 hasta diciembre de 2019.PACIENTES: Resecciones electivas, en estadio clínico II/III, de cáncer de recto medio a bajo. Se excluyeron los pacientes con cáncer de recto superior.MEDIDA DE RESULTADO PRINCIPAL: Porcentaje de pacientes que reciben terapia neoadyuvante. Porcentaje de pacientes que reciben terapia neoadyuvante.RESULTADOS: La cohorte final fue de 350 casos con cáncer de recto medio o bajo en estadio clínico II/III. El 80,9% tenía terapia neoadyuvante y el 83,2%, resonancia magnética y/o ultrasonido endoscópico. Hubo una asociación significativa entre recibir terapia neoadyuvante y la estadificación MRI/ERUS ( p < 0,0001). El 87% de los pacientes a los que se les realizaron imágenes con MRI/ERUS recibieron NT, mientras que el 49% de los pacientes a los que no se les realizó la estadificación con MRI/ERUS tuvieron NT. El análisis multivariante reveló que los factores de riesgo para la omisión de la terapia neoadyuvante fueron la edad avanzada y la estadificación incompleta.LIMITACIONES: Estudio observacional con posibilidad de confusión de variables no medidas.CONCLUSIONES: La terapia neoadyuvante está infrautilizada en pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio II/III. La omisión de la estadificación previa al tratamiento con MRI/ERUS se asocia con la omisión de la terapia neoadyuvante. Estos datos sugieren la necesidad de estrategias regionales y nacionales de mejora de la calidad para estandarizar el manejo multidisciplinario del cáncer de recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B923 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Acute Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction.

CASE SUMMARY: A 33-year-old man with a history of chronic alcohol use, generalized anxiety disorder, and hypertension presented to the emergency department after a syncopal event. He was admitted to the medical intensive care unit for alcohol withdrawal, requiring intubation and sedation. On hospital day 7, abdominal x-ray image demonstrated a dilated cecum to 12 cm, transverse colon dilation to 7 cm, and decompressed distal colon ( Fig. 1 ). CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis confirmed dilation of the cecum and ascending and transverse colons ( Fig. 2 ). Colonoscopy showed no evidence of distal obstruction, but colonic distension persisted, and he subsequently underwent cecal decompression with an open "blow-hole" cecostomy fully matured at skin level via a small right lower quadrant incision. The nasogastric tube was removed on postoperative day 2, and his diet was slowly advanced. Abdominal x-ray image on postoperative day 5 demonstrated no colonic dilation. He was discharged home on postoperative day 7. The patient re-presented to the hospital 3 months later with cecostomy prolapse. He underwent cecostomy takedown with ileocecectomy via circumstomal incision. He was discharged home on postoperative day 2.

Comparison of health-care utilization and expenditures for minimally invasive vs. open colectomy for benign disease.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of minimally invasive approaches continues to increase, and there is a need to reassess outcomes and cost. We aimed to compare open versus minimally invasive colectomy short- and long-term health-care utilization and payer/patient expenditures for benign disease. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of IBM® MarketScan® Database patients who underwent left or right colectomy for benign disease between 2013 and 2018. Outcomes included total health-care expenditures, resource utilization, and direct workdays lost up to 365 days following colectomy. The open surgical approach (OS) was compared to minimally invasive colectomy (MIS) with subgroup analysis of laparoscopic (LS) and robotic (RS) approaches using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Of 10,439 patients, 2531 (24.3%) had open, 6826 (65.4%) had laparoscopic, and 1082 (10.3%) had robotic colectomy. MIS patients had shorter length of stay (LOS; mean difference, - 1.71, p < 0.001) and lower average total expenditures (mean difference, - $2378, p < 0.001) compared with open patients during the index hospitalization. At 1 year, MIS patients had lower readmission rates, and fewer mean emergency and outpatient department visits than open patients, translating into additional savings of $5759 and 2.22 fewer days missed from work for health-care visits over the 365-day post-discharge period. Within MIS, RS patients had shorter LOS (mean difference, - 0.60, p < 0.001) and lower conversion-to-open rates (odds ratio, 0.31 p < 0.001) during the index hospitalization, and lower hospital outpatient visits (mean difference, - 0.31, p = 0.001) at 365 days than LS. CONCLUSION: MIS colectomy is associated with lower mean health-care expenditures and less resource utilization compared to the open approach for benign disease at index operation and 365-days post-discharge. Health-care expenditures for LS and RS are similar but shorter mean LOS and lower conversion-to-open surgery rates were observed at index operation for the RS approach.

Locally advanced perforated appendiceal cancer: Case report and review.

Appendiceal cancers may be difficult to diagnose even after comprehensive investigation. This report of locally advanced perforated appendiceal adenocarcinoma attached to the terminal ileum, cecum, and rectosigmoid illustrates the management challenges that require comprehensive knowledge of pathologic variations and range from simple appendectomy to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Post-discharge Opioid Consumption After Minimally Invasive and Open Colectomy: Does Operative Approach Matter?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if patients consume less opioid after minimally invasive colectomy compared to open colectomy. BACKGROUND: Opioids are overprescribed after surgery, and surgeons are under increasing pressure to reduce postoperative opioid prescribing. In colorectal surgery, minimally invasive approaches are partly justified by reduced inpatient opioid use, but there are no studies comparing post-discharge opioid consumption between minimally invasive and open colectomy. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients undergoing colectomy from January 2017 to May 2018 in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative database. After postoperative day 30, patients were contacted by phone or email and asked to report post-discharge opioid consumption. The main outcome measure was post-discharge opioid consumption, and the primary predictor was surgical approach (minimally invasive vs open). Zero-inflated negative binomial regression analysis was used to test for an association between surgical approach and opioid consumption. RESULTS: We identified 562 patients who underwent minimally invasive or open colectomy from 43 hospitals. After multivariable adjustment, no significant difference was demonstrated in opioid consumption (P = 0.54) or the likelihood of using no opioids (P = 0.39) between patients undergoing minimally versus open colectomy. Larger prescriptions were associated with more opioid use and a lower likelihood of using no opioids. Age greater than 65 and diagnosis of cancer/adenoma were associated with less opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing minimally invasive and open colectomy consume similar amounts of opioid after discharge. The size of the postoperative prescription, patient age, and diagnosis are more important in determining opioid use. Understanding factors influencing postoperative opioid requirements may allow surgeons to better tailor prescriptions to patient needs.