Double-row staple technology versus triple-row staple technology for colorectal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some observational data have suggested that anastomotic leak may be reduced with triple-row staple technology compared to double-row staple technology. We aimed to investigate this further by performing a systematic review comparing double- and triple-row staple technology for colorectal anastomoses. METHODS: This systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched up to November 2023. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were comparing double-row staple and triple-row staple technology for left-sided colo-colic, colorectal, or coloanal anastomosis. The main outcomes included anastomotic leak, anastomotic hemorrhage, 30-day mortality, and reoperation. Meta-analyses with inverse variance random effects were performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations. RESULTS: After reviewing 340 relevant citations, 6 retrospective cohort studies met inclusion. Overall, 19,372 patients (mean age: 60.2 years, 52.7% female sex) had anastomoses with double-row staple technology, and 2,298 patients (mean age: 61.3 years, 50.3% female sex) with triple-row staple technology. Most operations were anterior resections (double-row: 55.3%; triple-row: 43.6%). Across all included studies, the risk of anastomotic leak was reduced with triple-row staple technology (6.3% vs 7.5%, risk ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.94, P = .03, I2=75%). There were no significant differences in anastomotic hemorrhage (risk ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.15-1.49, P = .20, I2 = 57%), 30-day mortality (risk ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.17-2.55, P = .55, I2 = 0%), or reoperation (risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.42-2.64, P = .91, I2 = 56%). CONCLUSION: Triple-row staple technology may reduce the risk of anastomotic leak in left-sided colorectal anastomoses.

Frailty in inflammatory bowel disease: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample 2015-2019.

AIM: Preoperative frailty has been associated with adverse postoperative outcomes in various populations, but of its use in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains sparse. The present study aimed to characterize the impact of frailty, as measured by the modified frailty index (mFI), on postoperative clinical and resource utilization outcomes in patients with IBD. METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study assessed patients from the National Inpatient Sample database from 1 September 2015 to 31 December 2019. Corresponding International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision Clinical Modification codes were used to identify adult patients (>18 years of age) with IBD, undergoing either small bowel resection, colectomy or proctectomy. Patient demographics and institutional data were collected for each patient to calculate the 11-point mFI. Patients were categorized as either frail or robust using a cut-off of 0.27. Primary outcomes were postoperative in-hospital morbidity and mortality, whilst secondary outcomes included system-specific morbidity, length of stay, in-hospital healthcare costs and discharge disposition. Logistic and linear regression models were used for primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 7144 patients with IBD undergoing small bowel resection, colectomy or proctectomy were identified, 337 of whom were classified as frail (i.e., mFI < 0.27). Frail patients were more likely to be women, older, have lower income and a greater number of comorbidities. After adjusting for relevant covariates, frail patients were at greater odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.42, 95% CI 2.31-12.77, P < 0.001), overall morbidity (aOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.30-2.28, P < 0.001), increased length of stay (adjusted mean difference 1.3 days, 95% CI 0.09-2.50, P = 0.035) and less likely to be discharged to home (aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.77, P < 0.001) compared to their robust counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Frail IBD patients are at greater risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity, and reduced likelihood of discharge to home, following surgery. This has implications for clinicians designing care pathways for IBD patients following surgery.

The impact of operative approach for obese colorectal cancer patients: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample 2015-2019.

AIM: Obesity is a well-established risk factor for the development of colorectal cancer. As such, patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer have increasingly higher body mass indices (BMIs). The advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques in recent years have helped surgeons circumvent some of the challenges associated with operating in the setting of obesity. While previous studies suggest that laparoscopy improves outcomes compared with open surgery in obese patients, this has never been established at the population level. Therefore, we designed a retrospective database study using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) with the aim of comparing laparoscopic with open approaches for obese patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of the NIS from 2015 to 2019 was conducted including patients with a BMI of greater than 30 kg/m2 undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. The primary outcomes were postoperative in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative system-specific complications, total admission healthcare cost and length of stay (LOS). Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were utilized to compare the two operative approaches. RESULTS: A total of 4742 patients underwent open surgery and 3231 underwent laparoscopic surgery. We observed a significant decrease in overall postoperative morbidity [17.5% vs. 31.4%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.64; p < 0.001], gastrointestinal morbidity (8.1% vs. 14.5%, aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.50-0.69; p < 0.001) and genitourinary morbidity (10.1% vs. 18.6%, aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52-0.70; p < 0.001) with the use of laparoscopy. Postoperative LOS was 1.7 days shorter (95% CI 1.5-2.0, p < 0.001) and cost of admission was decreased by $9106 (95% CI $4638-$13 573, p < 0.001) with laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery for obese patients with colorectal cancer is associated with significantly decreased postoperative morbidity and improved healthcare resource utilization compared with open surgery. Laparoscopic approaches should be relied upon whenever feasible for these patients.

Ghost Ileostomy Versus Loop Ileostomy Following Oncologic Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and loop ileostomy (LI) in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: LIs are often fashioned to protect downstream anastomoses following oncologic resection for low rectal cancer at medium-to-high risk of anastomotic leak. More recently, GIs have been utilized in patients with low-to-medium risk anastomoses to reduce the rate of unnecessary stomas. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Studies investigating the use of GI in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcomes were anastomotic leak and postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included stoma-related complications and length of stay (LOS). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with inverse variance random effects. RESULTS: From 242 citations, 14 studies with 946 patients were included. In comparative studies, 359 patients were undergoing GI and 266 patients were undergoing LI. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed no differences in the prevalence of anastomotic leak (OR 1.40, 95%CI .73-2.68, P = .31), morbidity (OR .76, 95%CI .44-1.30, P = .32), or LOS (SMD -.05, 95%CI -.33-.23, P = .72). International Study Group of Rectal Cancer anastomotic leak grades were as follows: Grade A (GI 0% vs LI 13.3%), Grade B (GI 80.9% vs LI 86.7%), Grade C (GI 19.1% vs LI 0%). CONCLUSIONS: GI appears to be a safe alternative to LI following oncologic resection for rectal cancer. Larger, prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the use of GI in patients deemed to be at low-to-medium risk of anastomotic leak.

Preoperative carbohydrate loading before colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Preoperative carbohydrate loading has been introduced as a component of many enhanced recovery after surgery programs. Evaluation of current evidence for preoperative carbohydrate loading in colorectal surgery has never been synthesized. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched until May 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients undergoing colorectal surgery with and without preoperative carbohydrate loading were included. Primary outcomes were changes in blood insulin and glucose levels. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects. RESULTS: The search yielded 3656 citations, from which 12 RCTs were included. In total, 387 patients given preoperative carbohydrate loading (47.2% female, age: 62.0 years) and 371 patients in control groups (49.4% female, age: 61.1 years) were included. There was no statistical difference for blood glucose and insulin levels between both patient groups. Patients receiving preoperative carbohydrate loading experienced a shorter time to first flatus (SMD: - 0.48 days, 95% CI: - 0.84 to - 0.12, p = 0.008) and stool (SMD: - 0.50 days, 95% CI: - 0.86 to - 0.14, p = 0.007). Additionally, length of stay was shorter in the preoperative carbohydrate loading group (SMD: - 0.51 days, 95% CI: - 0.88 to - 0.14, p = 0.007). There was no difference in postoperative morbidity and patient well-being between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative carbohydrate loading does not significantly impact postoperative glycemic control in patients undergoing colorectal surgery; however, it may be associated with a shorter length of stay and faster return of bowel function. It merits consideration for inclusion within colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery protocols.

Prophylactic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia Following End Colostomy: an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement during end colostomy formation at reducing rates of parastomal hernia using the most recently available data. BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have uniformly concluded that the use of prophylactic surgical mesh when fashioning an end colostomy reduces the risk of parastomal hernia. However, recent RCTs have failed to corroborate these findings. This study was designed to provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement during end colostomy formation. METHODS: A search of Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was performed. Articles were included if they were RCTs that compared the use of prophylactic mesh to no prophylactic mesh during construction of an end colostomy following colorectal resection for benign or malignant disease. The primary outcome was parastomal hernia rate. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects. RESULTS: From 1,089 citations, 12 RCTs with 581 patients having prophylactic mesh placement and 671 patients not having prophylactic mesh placement met inclusion criteria. Incidence of parastomal hernia was significantly reduced in patients receiving prophylactic mesh (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80, p = 0.0003, I2 = 74%). Results were no longer significantly different when only studies conducted in the last 5 years were analyzed (p = 0.10). There was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity, postoperative mortality, colostomy-specific morbidity, or length of stay between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There remains a significant reduction in the risk of parastomal hernia with the use of prophylactic mesh at the time of end colostomy formation, despite recent evidence suggesting no difference. Further contemporary trials with the application of modern surgical technology are required.

Posterior mesorectal thickness as a predictor of increased operative time in rectal cancer surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In rectal cancer surgery, larger mesorectal fat area has been shown to correlate with increased intraoperative difficulty. Prior studies were mostly in Asian populations with average body mass indices (BMIs) less than 25 kg/m2. This study aimed to define the relationship between radiological variables on pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intraoperative difficulty in a North American population. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study analyzing all patients who underwent low anterior resection (LAR) or transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma from January 2015 until December 2019. Eleven pelvic magnetic resonance imaging measures were defined a priori according to previous literature and measured in each of the included patients. Operative time in minutes and intraoperative blood loss in milliliters were utilized as the primary indicators of intraoperative difficulty. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients (39.8% female, mean age: 62.4 ± 11.6 years) met inclusion criteria. The mean BMI of included patients was 29.4 ± 6.2 kg/m2. Mean operative times were 227.2 ± 65.1 min and 340.6 ± 78.7 min for LARs and TaTMEs, respectively. On multivariable analysis including patient, tumor, and MRI factors, increasing posterior mesorectal thickness was significantly associated with increased operative time (p = 0.04). Every 1 cm increase in posterior mesorectal thickness correlated with a 26 min and 6 s increase in operative time. None of the MRI measurements correlated strongly with BMI. CONCLUSION: As the number of obese rectal cancer patients continues to expand, strategies aimed at optimizing their surgical management are paramount. While increasing BMI is an important preoperative risk factor, the present study identifies posterior mesorectal thickness on MRI as a reliable and easily measurable parameter to help predict operative difficulty. Ultimately, this may in turn serve as an indicator of which patients would benefit most from pre-operative resources aimed at optimizing operative conditions and postoperative recovery.

Examining the transferability of colon and rectal operative experience on outcomes following laparoscopic rectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic rectal surgery is technically challenging and often low volume. Alternatively, colon resections utilize similar advanced laparoscopic skills and are more common but it is unknown whether this experience affects laparoscopic rectal surgery outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to determine the volume-outcome relationship between several colorectal procedures and laparoscopic rectal surgery outcomes. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort of all colorectal surgeries with primary anastomoses performed across Canada (excluding Quebec) between April 2008 and March 2015. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, procedures, and discharge details were collected from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Volumes for common colorectal procedures were calculated for individual surgeons. All-cause morbidity, defined as complications arising during the index admission and contributing to an increased length of stay by more than 24 h, was the primary outcome examined. RESULTS: A total of 5323 laparoscopic rectal surgery cases and 108,034 colorectal cases, between 180 hospitals and 620 surgeons, were identified. Data analysis demonstrated that high-volume laparoscopic rectal surgeons (OR 0.77, CI 0.61-0.96, p = 0.020) and high-volume open rectal surgeons (OR 0.76, CI 0.61-0.93, p = 0.009) significantly reduced all-cause morbidity. Conversely, surgeon volumes for laparoscopic and open colon cases had no effect on laparoscopic rectal outcomes. CONCLUSION: High-volume surgeon status in laparoscopic and open rectal surgery are important predictors of all-cause morbidity after laparoscopic rectal surgery, while laparoscopic colon surgery volumes did not impact outcomes. This may reflect more dissimilarity between colon and rectal cases and less transferability of advanced laparoscopic skills than previously thought.

Drivers of Inpatient Costs After Colorectal Surgery Within a Publicly Funded Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and mortality associated with colorectal resections are responsible for significant healthcare use. Identification of efficiencies is vital for decreasing healthcare cost in a resource-limited system. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the short-term cost associated with all colon and rectal resections. DESIGN: This was a population-based, retrospective administrative analysis. SETTINGS: This analysis was composed of all colon and rectal resections with anastomosis in Canada (excluding Quebec) between 2008 and 2015. PATIENTS: A total of 108,304 patients ≥18 years of age who underwent colon and/or rectal resections with anastomosis were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total short-term inpatient cost for the index admission and the incremental cost of each comorbidity and complication (in 2014 Canadian dollars) were measured. Cost predictors were modeled using hierarchical linear regression and Monte Carlo Markov Chain estimation. RESULTS: Multivariable regression demonstrated that the adjusted average cost of a 50-year-old man undergoing open colon resection for benign disease with no comorbidities or complications was $9270 ((95% CI, $7146-$11,624; p = <0.001). With adjustment for complications, laparoscopic colon resections carried a cost savings of $1390 (95% CI, $1682-$1099; p = <0.001) compared with open resections. Surgical complications were the main driver for increased cost, because anastomotic leaks added $9129 (95% CI, $8583-$9670; p = <0.001). Medical complications such as renal failure requiring dialysis ($16,939 (95% CI, $15,548-$18,314); p = <0.001) carried significant cost. Complications requiring reoperation cost $16,313 (95% CI, $15,739-$16,886; p = <0.001). The costliest complication cumulatively was reoperation, which exceeded $95 million dollars over the course of the study. LIMITATIONS: Inherent biases associated with administrative databases limited this study. CONCLUSIONS: Medical and surgical complications (especially those requiring reoperation) are major drivers of increased resource use. Laparoscopic colorectal resection with or without adjustment for complications carries a clear cost advantage. There is opportunity for considerable cost savings by reducing specific complications or by preoperatively optimizing select patients susceptible to costly complication. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A839.

Raoultella Planticola associated necrotizing appendicitis: A novel case report.

INTRODUCTION: Raoultella Planticola is a gram negative, aerobic, rod bacteria found in water and soil and is rarely reported to cause infections in humans. This case study is the first of its kind in reporting R. planticola appendicitis. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We report a case of a woman presenting with a two-day history of increased weakness, fatigue and anorexia, localized pain to the right lower quadrant, and elevated white blood cell count. CT results demonstrated acute uncomplicated appendicitis which was managed via laparoscopic appendectomy. The patient became febrile on the day of the procedure and was found to have R. planticola bacteremia which was treated with amoxicillin-clavulanate. She was discharged on postoperative day two and reported an unremarkable recovery at her five-week follow-up appointment. DISCUSSION: R. planticola is a common organism that is rarely, though increasingly, associated with human infection. Interestingly, prior to hospitalization, this patient did not have any risk factors commonly associated with R. planticola infection, such as seafood consumption. However, she may have had gastrointestinal tract colonization with R. planticola prior to onset of appendicitis and appendectomy. Bacteremia likely resulted from micro-perforation of the appendix. CONCLUSION: Although infection with R. planticola is typically benign when treated appropriately, this pathogen has homology with Klebsiella species, and has the potential to acquire antimicrobial resistance. The case presented here suggests that R. planticola should be considered as a potential source of bacteremia in inflammatory/infectious gastrointestinal tract diseases even in the absence of typical risk factors.

Evaluation of a physiatrist-directed prehabilitation intervention in frail patients with colorectal cancer: a randomised pilot study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Prehabilitation interventions have shown efficacy in the orthopaedic and cardiothoracic surgical populations, but there has been limited evidence for general surgical patients. We present the protocol for a pilot trial of a novel prehabilitation intervention, consisting of a physiatrist-directed preoperative assessment and treatment programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre pilot randomised controlled trial investigating physiatrist-directed prehabilitation for a 4 to 6-week preoperative period. We will block randomise 40-50 participants awaiting surgery for colorectal cancer to prehabilitation versus control. Participants in the prehabilitation arm will undergo assessment by a physiatrist and enrol in a supervised exercise programme. The control group will not undergo any prehabilitation interventions in the preoperative period. Our primary outcome is feasibility, measured by examining recruitment, refusal, retention and adherence rates as well as participant satisfaction and feedback. Secondary outcomes include physical fitness, functional ability, health-related quality of life, postoperative complications, mortality, readmissions, length of stay, prehabilitation interventions performed and exercise complications. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HIREB reference number 2015-0090-GRA). The results of this pilot study will be used to design a full-scale study and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02531620; Pre-results.

Is Daily Low-Dose Aspirin Safe to Take Following Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) surgery is a safe and effective procedure for patients with severe obesity. One potential complication of LRYGB is the development of marginal ulcers (MUs). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to significantly increase the likelihood of developing marginal ulcers after surgery. However, the risk associated with low-dose aspirin consumption is not well defined. We examined the impact of daily low-dose aspirin (81 mg) on the development of marginal ulcers following LRYGB. METHODS: A retrospective cohort design studied patients undergoing LRYGB surgery, between January 2009 and January 2013, at a single, high-volume bariatric center in Ontario, Canada. The marginal ulcer rate of patients taking low-dose aspirin after surgery was compared to that of the control patients who did not take any NSAID. Diagnosis of MU was confirmed by upper endoscopy in patients presenting with symptoms and a history indicative of marginal ulceration. A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the difference in marginal ulcer rates. RESULTS: A total of 1016 patients underwent LRYGB. Patients taking aspirin were more likely to be male, older, and have diabetes than patients not taking NSAIDs. Of the 1016 patients, 145 (14.3%) took low-dose aspirin following LRYGB and the rest did not (n = 871, 85.7%). The incidence of marginal ulceration was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (12/145, 8.3% versus 90/871, 10.3%; p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with LRYGB at our institution were not at increased risk of marginal ulcer formation when taking low-dose aspirin after surgery.

Neighborhood Variation in the Utilization of Laparoscopy for the Treatment of Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The rates of laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer have steadily increased since its inception. Laparoscopic colectomy currently accounts for a third of colectomy procedures in the United States, but little is known regarding the spatial pattern of the utilization of laparoscopy for colon cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the utilization of laparoscopy for colon cancer at the neighborhood level in Ontario. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. SETTING: This study was conducted at all hospitals in the province of Ontario. PATIENTS: This population-based study included all patients aged ≥18 who received an elective colectomy for colon cancer from April 2008 until March 2012 in the province of Ontario. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the neighborhood rates of laparoscopy. RESULTS: Overall, 9,969 patients underwent surgery, and the cluster analysis identified 74 cold-spot neighborhoods, representing 1.8 million people, or 14% of the population. In the multivariate analysis, patients from rural neighborhoods were less than half as likely to receive laparoscopy, OR 0.44 (95% CI, 0.24-0.84; p = 0.012). Additionally, having a minimally invasive surgery fellowship training facility within the same administrative health region as the neighborhood made it more than 23 times as likely to be a hot spot, OR 25.88 (95% CI, 12.15-55.11; p < 0.001). Neighborhood socioeconomic status was not associated with variation in the utilization of laparoscopy. LIMITATIONS: Patient case mix could affect laparoscopy use. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This study identified an unequal utilization of laparoscopy for colon cancer within Ontario with rural neighborhoods experiencing low rates of laparoscopic colectomy, whereas neighborhoods in the same administrative region as minimally invasive surgery training centers experienced increased utilization. Further study into the causes of this variation in resource allocation is needed to identify ways to improve more efficient spread of knowledge and technical skills advancement.

Structured simulation improves learning of the Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy™ curriculum: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Energy devices can result in devastating complications to patients. Yet, they remain poorly understood by trainees and surgeons. A single-institution pilot study suggested that structured simulation improves knowledge of the safe use of electrosurgery (ES) among trainees (Madani et al. in Surg Endosc 28(10):2772-2782, 2014). The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which the addition of this structured bench-top simulation improves ES knowledge across multiple surgical training programs. METHODS: Trainees from 11 residency programs in Canada, the USA and UK participated in a 1-h didactic ES course, based on SAGES' Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy™ (FUSE) curriculum. They were then randomized to one of two groups: an unstructured hands-on session where trainees used ES devices (control group) or a goal-directed hands-on training session (Sim group). Pre- and post-curriculum (immediately and 3 months after) knowledge of the safe use of ES was assessed using separate examinations. Data are expressed as mean (SD) and N (%), *p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 289 (145 control; 144 Sim) trainees participated, with 186 (96 control; 90 Sim) completing the 3-month assessment. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Total score on the examination improved from 46% (10) to 84% (10)* for the entire cohort, with higher post-curriculum scores in the Sim group compared with controls [86% (9) vs. 83% (10)*]. All scores declined after 3 months, but remained higher in the Sim group [72% (18) vs. 64% (15)*]. Independent predictors of 3-month score included pre-curriculum score and participation in a goal-directed simulation. CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional study confirms that a 2-h curriculum based on the FUSE program improves surgical trainees' knowledge in the safe use of ES devices across training programs with various geographic locations and resident volumes. The addition of a structured interactive bench-top simulation component further improved learning.

An Internet-Based Collaborative Cancer Conference for Rectal Cancer Influenced Surgeon Treatment Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: In many jurisdictions geographic and resource constraints are barriers to multidisciplinary cancer conference review of all patients undergoing cancer surgery. We piloted an internet-based collaborative cancer conference (I-CCC) for rectal cancer to overcome these barriers in the LHIN4 region of Ontario (population 1.4 million). METHODS: Surgeons practicing at one of 10 LHIN4 hospitals were invited to participate in I-CCC reviews. A secure internet audio and visual link facilitated review of cross-sectional images and case details. Before review, referring surgeons detailed initial treatment plans. Main treatment options included preoperative radiation, straight to surgery, and plan uncertain. Changes were noted following I-CCC review from initial to final treatment plan. Major changes included: redirect patient to preoperative radiation from straight to surgery or plan uncertain; and redirect patient to straight to surgery from preoperative radiation or plan uncertain. Minor changes included: change type of neoadjuvant therapy; request additional tests (e.g., pelvic MRI); or formal MCC review. RESULTS: From November 2010 to May 2012, 20 surgeons (7 academic and 13 community) submitted 57 rectal cancer cases for I-CCC review. After I-CCC review, 30 of 57 (53 %) cases had treatment plan changes: 17 major and 13 minor. No patient or tumour factors predicted for treatment plan change. CONCLUSIONS: An I-CCC for rectal cancer in a large geographic region was feasible and influenced surgeon treatment recommendations in 53 % of cases. Because no factor predicted for treatment plan change, it is likely prudent that all rectal cancer patients undergo some form of collaborative review.

Impact of the Surgical Research Methodology Program on surgical residents' research profiles.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether implementing the formal Surgical Research Methodology (SRM) Program in the surgical residency curriculum improved research productivity compared with the preceding informal Research Seminar Series (RSS). METHODS: The SRM Program replaced the RSS in July 2009. In the SRM Program, the curriculum in Year-1 consisted of 12 teaching sessions on the principles of clinical epidemiology and biostatistics, whereas the focus in Year-2 was on the design, conduct, and presentation of a research project. The RSS consisted of 8 research methodology sessions repeated annually for 2 years along with the design, conduct, and presentation of a research project. Research productivity was measured as the number of peer-reviewed publications and the generation of studies with higher levels of evidence. Outcome measures were independently assessed by 2 authors to avoid bias. Student t test and chi-square test were used for the analysis. Frequencies, mean differences with 95% CI, and effect sizes have been reported. RESULTS: In this study, 81 SRM residents were compared with 126 RSS residents. The performance of the SRM residents was superior on all metrics in our evaluation. They were significantly more productive and published more articles than the RSS residents (mean difference = 1.0 [95% CI: 0.5-1.5], p < 0.001) with an effect size of 0.26. The SRM residents presented significantly more projects that were of higher levels of evidence (systematic reviews/meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective cohorts) than the RSS residents (52.5% vs 29%, p = 0.005). In addition, the research performance improved 11.0 grades (95% CI: 8.5%-13.5%, p < 0.001) with an effect size of 0.51 in favor of the SRM Program. CONCLUSION: Although not all surgeons opt for a career as surgeon-scientist, knowledge of research methodology is crucial to appropriately apply evidence-based findings in clinical practice. The SRM Program has significantly improved the research productivity and performance of the surgical residents from all disciplines. The implementation of a similar research methodology program is highly recommended for the benefit of residents' future careers and ultimately, evidence-based patient care.

Standardized methodological assessment of research presentations (SHARP): development of a new instrument.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no validated guidelines to assess the quality of the content and the delivery style of scientific podium surgical presentations. We have developed a simple, short, and reliable instrument to objectively assess the overall quality of scientific podium presentations. METHODS: A simple and efficient rating instrument was developed to assess the scientific content and presentation style/skills of the surgical residents' presentations from 1996 to 2013. Absolute and consistency agreement for the different sections of the instrument was determined and assessed overtime, by stage of the project and study design. Intraclass correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and reported using a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability for both absolute and consistency agreement was substantial for total score and for each of the 3 sections of the instrument. The absolute agreement for the overall rating of the presentations was .87 (.63 to .98) and .78 (.50 to .95), and the consistency agreement was .90 (.70 to .99) and .87 (.67 to .97) for the 2012 and 2013 institutional research presentations, respectively. Rater agreement for evaluating project stage and different study designs varied from .70 to .81 and was consistent over the years. The consistency agreement in rating of the presentation was .77 for both faculty and resident raters. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized methodological assessment of research presentations (SHARP) instrument rates the scientific quality of the research and style of the delivered presentation. It is highly reliable in scoring the quality of the all study designs regardless of their stage. We recommend that researchers focus on presenting the key concepts and significant elements of their evidence using visually simple slides in a professionally engaging manner for effective delivery of their research and better communication with the audience.