An international Delphi consensus for surgical quality assessment of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis in minimally invasive total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) is a mainstay for curative treatment of patients with gastric cancer. To define and standardize optimal surgical techniques and further improve clinical outcomes through the enhanced MITG surgical quality, there must be consensus on the key technical steps of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis creation, which is currently lacking. This study aimed to determine an expert consensus from an international panel regarding the technical aspects of the performance of MITG for oncological indications using the Delphi method. METHODS: A 100-point scoping survey was created based on the deconstruction of MITG into its key technical steps through local and international expert opinion and literature evidence. An international expert panel comprising upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in multiple rounds of a Delphi consensus. The panelists voted on the issues concerning importance, difficulty, or agreement using an online questionnaire. A priori consensus standard was set at > 80% for agreement to a statement. Internal consistency and reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's α. RESULTS: Thirty expert upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in three online Delphi rounds, generating a final consensus of 41 statements regarding MITG for gastric cancer. The consensus was gained from 22, 12, and 7 questions from Delphi rounds 1, 2, and 3, which were rephrased into the 41 statetments respectively. For lymphadenectomy and aspects of anastomosis creation, Cronbach's α for round 1 was 0.896 and 0.886, and for round 2 was 0.848 and 0.779, regarding difficulty or importance. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi consensus defined 41 steps as crucial for performing a high-quality MITG for oncological indications based on the standards of an international panel. The results of this consensus provide a platform for creating and validating surgical quality assessment tools designed to improve clinical outcomes and standardize surgical quality in MITG.

Gastroesophageal reflux after sleeve gastrectomy: The dimension of the problem.

Sleeve gastrectomy is a safe and effective bariatric surgery in terms of weight loss and longterm improvement or resolution of comorbidities. However, its achilles heel is the possible association with the development with the novo and/or worsening of pre-existing gastroesophageal reflux disease. The anatomical and mechanical changes that this technique induces in the esophagogastric junction, support or contradict this hypothesis. Questions such as «what is the natural history of gastroesophageal reflux in the patient undergoing gastric sleeve surgery?¼, «how many patients after vertical gastrectomy will develop gastroesophageal reflux?¼ and «how many patients will worsen their previous reflux after this technique?¼ are intended to be addressed in the present article.

Surgical treatment of retrorectal tumors: a plea for a laparoscopic approach.

INTRODUCTION: Retrorectal tumors (RRTs) are rare and often surgically excised due to the risk of malignant degeneration and compressive or obstructive symptoms. The approach for excision has traditionally been based on tumor location and performed using either a transabdominal or perineal approach depending on the position of the tumor. The advent of minimally invasive surgery, however, has challenged this paradigm. Here, we determined the applicability and potential advantages of a laparoscopic transabdominal approach in a series of 23 patients with RRTs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included 23 patients presenting with RRTs treated at the Surgical Gastrointestinal Unit at Hospital de Sant Pau that were registered prospectively since 1998. The preoperative evaluation consisted of colonoscopy, CT scan and/or MRI, mechanical bowel lavage, and antibiotic therapy. Signed consent was obtained from all patients for a laparoscopic transabdominal approach unless the tumor was easily accessible via a perineal approach. In case of recurrence, a transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) approach was considered. Surgical details, immediate morbidity, and short- and long-term outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 23 RRT cases evaluated, 16 patients underwent a laparoscopic transabdominal approach and 6 underwent a perineal approach. No patients required conversion to open surgery. In the laparoscopic transabdominal group, the mean operating time was 158 min, the average postoperative hospital stay was 5 days, and postoperative morbidity was 18%. Three patients had recurrent RRTs, two of the three underwent surgical reintervention. The third patient was radiologically stable and close follow-up was decided. CONCLUSION: Our results show that laparoscopic transabdominal excision of RRT is a safe and effective technique, offering the potential advantages of less invasive access and reduced morbidity. This approach challenges the traditional paradigm of excision of these infrequent tumors based solely on tumor location and offers a viable alternative for the treatment of these infrequent tumors.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Anterior Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score Matched, Population-Based Study in Catalonia, Spain.

BACKGROUND: The clinical value of transanal total mesorectal excision is debated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare short- and medium-term effects of transanal versus anterior total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The study included all Catalonian public hospitals. PATIENTS: All patients receiving transanal or anterior total mesorectal excision (open or laparoscopic) for nonmetastatic primary rectal cancer in 2015 to 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on vital status were collected to March 2019. Between-group differences were minimized by applying propensity score matching to baseline patient characteristics. Competing risk models were used to assess systemic and local recurrence along with death at 2 years, and multivariable Cox regression was used to assess 2-year disease-free survival. Results are expressed with their 95% CIs. RESULTS: The final subsample was 537 patients receiving total mesorectal excision (transanal approach: n = 145; anterior approach: n = 392). Median follow-up was 39.2 months (interquartile range, 33.0-45.8). Accounting for death as a competing event, there was no association between transanal total mesorectal excision and local recurrence (matched subhazard ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.55-2.96). There were no statistical differences in the comparative rate of local recurrence (transanal: 1.77 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 0.76-3.34; anterior: 1.37 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 0.8-2.15) or mortality (transanal: 3.98 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 2.36-6.16; anterior: 2.99 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 2.1-4.07). Groups presented similar 2-year cumulative incidence of local recurrence (4.83% versus 3.57%) and disease-free survival (HR, 1.33; 95% CI 0.92-1.92). LIMITATIONS: We used data only from the public system, the study is retrospective, and data on individual surgeons are not reported. CONCLUSION: These population-based results support the use of either the transanal, open, or laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer in Catalonia. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B744.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL TRANSANAL VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ANTERIOR PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UN ESTUDIO POBLACIONAL CON EMPAREJAMIENTO DE PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIÓN EN CATALUÑA, ESPAÑA. ANTECEDENTES: Se debate el valor clínico de la escisión mesorrectal total transanal. OBJETIVO: Comparar los efectos a corto y mediano plazo de la escisión mesorrectal total transanal versus anterior para el cáncer de recto. DISEO: Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico. AJUSTE: El estudio incluyó a todos los hospitales públicos de Cataluña. PACIENTES: Todos los pacientes no metastásicos que recibieron escisión mesorrectal total anterior o transanal (abierta o laparoscópica) por cáncer de recto primario en 2015-16. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION: Los datos sobre el estado vital se recopilaron hasta marzo de 2019. Las diferencias entre los grupos se minimizaron aplicando el emparejamiento de puntajes de propensión a las características iniciales del paciente. Se utilizaron modelos de riesgo competitivo para evaluar la recurrencia sistémica y local junto con la muerte a los dos años, y la regresión de Cox multivariable para evaluar la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a dos años. Los resultados se expresan con sus intervalos de confianza del 95%. RESULTADOS: La submuestra final fue de 537 pacientes que recibieron escisión mesorrectal total (abordaje transanal: n = 145; abordaje anterior: n = 392). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 39,2 meses (rango intercuartílico 33,0-45,8). Teniendo en cuenta la muerte como un evento competitivo, no hubo asociación entre la escisión mesorrectal total transanal y la recurrencia local (cociente de subriesgo apareado 1,28, 0,55-2,96). No hubo diferencias estadísticas en la tasa comparativa de recurrencia local (transanal: 1,77 por 100 personas-año, 0,76-3,34; anterior: 1,37 por 100 personas-año, 0,8-2,15) o mortalidad (transanal: 3,98 por 100 personas-año, 2,36-6,16; anterior: 2,99 por 100 personas-año, 2,1-4,07). Los grupos presentaron una incidencia acumulada de dos años similar de recidiva local (4,83% frente a 3,57%, respectivamente) y supervivencia libre de enfermedad (índice de riesgo 1,33, 0,92-1,92). LIMITACIONES: Utilizamos datos solo del sistema público, el estudio es retrospectivo y no se informan datos sobre cirujanos individuales. CONCLUSIONES: Estos resultados poblacionales apoyan el uso del abordaje transanal, abierto o laparoscópico para el cáncer de recto en Cataluña. Consulte. Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B744. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Accreditation of specialized surgical units in general and digestive surgery: A step forward by the AEC for quality improvement and subspecialized Fellowship training.

At present, in daily practice, the Departments of Surgery in most hospitals in Spain are organized into "Specialized Surgical Units", including specific structure, human resources, organization, teaching and research in the different subspecialties included in General and Digestive Surgery (GDS). Furthermore, there are also several specialized "fellowship-like", training programs in the different subspecialties already working in some of these "Specialized Surgical Units", although not officially financed. However, until now there was no model for accreditation or recognition of these Units or fellowship programs. The AEC has designed a regulation for the accreditation of Specialized Surgical Units in GDS, that will also serve as a model to define subspecialty training in these areas. The accreditation process, and with it, the process of quality improvement, includes different quality indicators, including unit structure, process quality, and result indicators.

Accreditation of specialized surgical units in general and digestive surgery: A step forward by the AEC for quality improvement and subspecialized Fellowship training. / Acreditación de unidades quirúrgicas especializadas en cirugía general y aparato digestivo: un paso de la Asociación Española de Cirujanos para mejorar la calidad asistencial y la formación subespecializada tipo fellowship.

At present, in daily practice, the Departments of Surgery in most hospitals in Spain are organized into "Specialized Surgical Units", including specific structure, human resources, organization, teaching and research in the different subspecialties included in General and Digestive Surgery (GDS). Furthermore, there are also several specialized "fellowship-like", training programs in the different subspecialties already working in some of these "Specialized Surgical Units", although not officially financed. However, until now there was no model for accreditation or recognition of these Units or fellowship programs. The AEC has designed a regulation for the accreditation of Specialized Surgical Units in GDS, that will also serve as a model to define subspecialty training in these areas. The accreditation process, and with it, the process of quality improvement, includes different quality indicators, including unit structure, process quality, and result indicators.

Contemporary snapshot of tumor regression grade (TRG) distribution in locally advanced rectal cancer: a cross sectional multicentric experience.

Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgical resection is still the standard treatment for locally advanced low rectal cancer. Nowadays new strategies are emerging to treat patients with a complete response to pre-operative treatment, rendering the optimal management still controversial and under debate. The primary aim of this study was to obtain a snapshot of tumor regression grade (TRG) distribution after standard CRT. Second, we aimed to identify a correlation between clinical tumor stage (cT) and TRG, and to define the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the restaging setting. Between January 2017 and June 2019, a cross sectional multicentric study was performed in 22 referral centers of colon-rectal surgery including all patients with cT3-4Nx/cTxN1-2 rectal cancer who underwent pre-operative CRT. Shapiro-Wilk test was used for continuous data. Categorical variables were compared with Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test, where appropriate. Accuracy of restaging MRI in the identification of pathologic complete response (pCR) was determined evaluating the correspondence with the histopathological examination of surgical specimens.In the present study, 689 patients were enrolled. Complete tumor regression rate was 16.9%. The "watch and wait" strategy was applied in 4.3% of TRG4 patients. A clinical correlation between more advanced tumors and moderate to absent tumor regression was found (p = 0.03). Post-neoadjuvant MRI had low sensibility (55%) and high specificity (83%) with accuracy of 82.8% in identifying TRG4 and pCR.Our data provided a contemporary description of the effects of pre-operative CRT on a large pool of locally advanced low rectal cancer patients treated in different colon-rectal surgical centers.

Prone Versus Supine Position in Abdominoperineal Resection: Outcomes in the Laparoscopic Era.

Background: It is unclear whether the supine or prone approach for abdominoperineal resection (APR) influences outcomes. Methods: In a retrospective study of patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative laparoscopic APR from 2005 to 2018, we compared perioperative data, postoperative outcomes, oncological outcomes, and survival between the two approaches. Results: We recruited 123 patients (58 for the supine group and 65 for the prone group), with a median age of 72 (41-93) years. Mean follow-up was 67.4-45.7 months (28-169) in the supine group and 47.8-30.9 months (13-158) in the prone group (P = .026). Duration of surgery was longer in the prone group at 237 ± 52.3 minutes versus 210 ± 56.6 minutes in the supine group (P = .007). The incidence of tumor perforation during surgery was 9% in the supine group versus 3% in the prone group (P = .208). The incidence of perineal wound infection did not differ significantly between groups (supine 22% versus prone 20%, P = .93). The mesorectum was incomplete in 25% cases in the supine group and 14% cases in the prone group (P = .175). Circumferential resection margin positivity was 21% in the supine group and 14% in the prone group (P = .374). Local and distant recurrence was higher in patients with adenocarcinoma in the supine group at 10% and 31% versus 4% and 17% in the prone group (P = .177). Overall survival was higher in the prone group: 4% of patients died due to disease progression compared with 24% in the supine group (P = .034). Conclusions: Our results suggest that morbidity is similar with both laparoscopic techniques, but long-term outcomes seem better with the prone approach.

Exploring the concept of centralization of surgery for benign esophageal diseases: a Delphi based consensus from the European Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

Surgery for benign esophageal diseases may be complex, requiring specialist training, but currently, unlike oncologic surgery, it is not centralized. The aim of the study was to explore the opinion of European surgeons on the centralization of surgery for benign esophageal diseases. A web-based questionnaire, developed through a modified Delphi process, was administered to general and thoracic surgeons of 33 European surgical societies. There were 791 complete responses (98.5%), in 59.2% of respondents, the age ranged between 41 and 60 years, 60.3% of respondents worked in tertiary centers. In 2017, the number of major surgical procedures performed for any esophageal disease by respondents was <10 for 56.5% and >100 for 4.5%; in responder's hospitals procedures number was <10 in 27% and >100 in 15%. Centralization of surgery for benign esophageal diseases was advocated by 83.4%, in centers located according to geographic/population criteria (69.3%), in tertiary hospitals (74.5%), with availability of advanced diagnostic and interventional technologies (88.4%), in at least 10 beds units (70.5%). For national and international centers accreditation/certification, criteria approved included in-hospital mortality and morbidity (95%), quality of life oriented follow-up after surgery (88.9%), quality audits (82.6%), academic research (58.2%), and collaboration with national and international centers (76.6%); indications on surgical procedures volumes were variable. The present study strongly supports the centralization of surgery for benign esophageal diseases, in large part modeled on the principles that have underpinned the centralization of cancer surgery internationally, with emphasis on structure, process, volumes, quality audit, and clinical research.

International Delphi Expert Consensus on Safe Return to Surgical and Endoscopic Practice: From the Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to formulate recommendations based on global expert consensus to guide the surgical community on the safe resumption of surgical and endoscopic activities. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused marked disruptions in the delivery of surgical care worldwide. A thoughtful, structured approach to resuming surgical services is necessary as the impact of COVID-19 becomes better controlled. The Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative sought to formulate, through rigorous scientific methodology, consensus-based recommendations in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of international experts and policymakers. METHODS: Recommendations were developed following a Delphi process. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of surgical care in the COVID-19 crisis. Forty-four experts from 15 countries across 4 continents drafted statements based on the specific questions. Anonymous Delphi voting on the statements was performed in 2 rounds, as well as in a telepresence meeting. RESULTS: One hundred statements were formulated across 10 domains. The statements addressed terminology, impact on procedural services, patient/staff safety, managing a backlog of surgeries, methods to restart and sustain surgical services, education, and research. Eighty-three of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting, and 11 during the second round. A final telepresence meeting and discussion yielded acceptance of 5 other statements. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process resulted in 99 recommendations. These consensus statements provide expert guidance, based on scientific methodology, for the safe resumption of surgical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Are Smoke and Aerosols Generated During Laparoscopic Surgery a Biohazard? A Systematic Evidence-Based Review.

Background. Laparoscopic surgery generates end products that can have potentially harmful effects for the surgical team from short- or long-time exposure. In view of the current SARS-CoV-2 circumstances, controversy has risen concerning the safety of surgical smoke (SS) and aerosols and the perception of an increased risk of exposure during laparoscopic surgery. Methods. The present qualitative systematic review was conducted according to Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies (MOOSE). A literature search was performed from March 2020 up to May 10, 2020, using the PubMed database, Cochrane, and Google Scholar to assess the risk of airborne transmission of viruses and the potential health risk of surgical smoke- and aerosol-generating procedures produced during laparoscopic surgery. The keywords were introduced in combination to obtain better search results. Application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria identified 44 relevant articles. Results. Genetic material from certain viruses, or the virus itself, has been detected in SS and aerosols. However, in the current SARS-CoV-2, as in other coronavirus situations, studies analyzing the presence of airborne transmission of viruses in surgical smoke are lacking. Conclusion. Despite the lack of clear evidence regarding the risk of diseases as the result of smoke- and aerosol-generating procedures during laparoscopic surgery, further investigation is needed. Meanwhile, all available precautions must be taken.