Effect of colorectal cancer screening on colorectal cancer surgery outcomes: nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: National colorectal cancer screening commenced in Denmark in 2014. Little is known about the effects of organized colorectal cancer screening on intraoperative and postoperative events. The aim of this nationwide cohort study was to evaluate the difference in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between patients with screen-detected colorectal cancer and non-screen-detected colorectal cancer within the first 90 days after surgery. METHODS: National register data were collected for Danish residents diagnosed with colorectal cancer between January 2014 and March 2018. Outcomes for the two cohorts were reported as relative risk or weighted mean difference. Intraoperative outcomes were blood loss, blood transfusion, tumour perforation, and organ lesion. Postoperative outcomes were complications (surgical and non-surgical) and 90-day mortality. Discrete data estimates were calculated from a general linear model. Analyses were adjusted for potential healthy user bias with respect to sex, age, location of the cancer (colon/rectum), and Charlson co-morbidity index. RESULTS: In total, 10 606 patients were included. Compared with patients in the non-screen-detected colorectal cancer group (4497 patients), patients in the screen-detected colorectal cancer group (6109 patients) had reduced intraoperative blood loss (-52 mL, 95% c.i. -67 to -37, P < 0.001), a shorter duration of hospitalization (-2.3 days, 95% c.i. -2.8 to -1.8, P < 0.001), and reduced rates of intraoperative organ lesion (0.76, 95% c.i. 0.59 to 0.99, P = 0.042), surgical complications (0.79, 95% c.i. 0.73 to 0.87, P < 0.001), non-surgical complications (0.68, 95% c.i. 0.60 to 0.78, P < 0.001), and 90-day mortality (0.29, 95% c.i. 0.21 to 0.39, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In comparison with non-screen-detected colorectal cancer, surgery for screen-detected colorectal cancer remains associated with improvement in several intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes after considering healthy user bias.

Less Invasive Primary Treatment for Colorectal Cancer After Implementation of National Screening: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The effect of organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening on type of primary treatment remains sparsely investigated. This study evaluated the difference in primary treatment strategy between patients diagnosed with screen-detected (SD-CRC) and non-screen-detected colorectal cancer (NSD-CRC) in a national CRC screening program. METHODS: This was a retrospective national register-based cohort study. Data on patients aged between 50 and 75 years and diagnosed with SD-CRC or NSD-CRC were retrieved from the national colorectal cancer screening database and the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Outcomes related to surgical invasiveness were compared between the two cohorts. Differences were expressed as relative risks using log-binomial generalized linear regression models. UICC stage IV specific outcomes were analyzed using the same method. All analyses were adjusted for sex, age, type of cancer (colonic/rectal), and Charlson comorbidity index. RESULTS: The study included 4707 patients with SD-CRC and 7328 with NSD-CRC. Therapeutic flexible endoscopy (SD-CRC: n = 636 vs. NSD-CRC: n = 334, RR: 2.50, P < 0.001), (robotic-assisted) laparoscopic resection ((n = 616 vs. n = 773, RR: 1.27, P < 0.001), n = 2759 vs. n = 3471, RR: 1.11, P < 0.001), and radical resection (n = 3890 vs. n = 4834, RR: 1.02, P = 0.002) were significantly more frequent in the SD-CRC group. The rates of emergency priority (n = 32 vs. n = 562, RR: 0.09, P < 0.001), open surgery (n = 391 vs. n = 1410, RR: 0.53, P < 0.001), supplementary organ resection (n = 259 vs. n = 860, RR: 0.56, P < 0.001), and stoma formation (n = 526 vs. n = 1040, RR: 0.89, P = 0.007) were significantly lower in the SD-CRC group. The rate of patients undergoing surgery with UICC stage IV disease was significantly higher in the SD-CRC group (SD-CRC: n = 262, NSD-CRC: n = 994, RR: 1.43, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SD-CRC remained associated with less invasive primary surgical treatment following adjustment for potential healthy user bias. UICC stage IV disease may be less advanced in patients with SD-CRC.

Barriers for Participation in the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: a Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: The participation rate in the Danish National Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer is around 60%. Since early detection of cancer through the colorectal cancer screening program (CRCS) reduces mortality rates, it is important to understand why people do not participate. The aim of this study was therefore to examine in depth why some people do not participate in the Danish CRCS program. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 people who had not participated in the national CRCS program. Data was analyzed using an inductive hermeneutic approach. RESULTS: The analysis uncovered three main themes describing barriers to screening: (a) the accountability for ensuring personal health covered the following sub-themes: (i) when invitation is out of sight it is out of mind, (ii) aversion against own stool sample collection, and (iii) the perceived risk of getting colorectal cancer (CRC); (b) attitudes towards the healthcare system and its organization covered the following sub-themes: (i) positivity towards CRCS, (ii) trust in the healthcare system, (iii) lack of internal communication in the healthcare system, and (iv) wish for involvement of the general practitioner (GP); (c) knowledge about disease and screening covered the following sub-themes: (i) knowledge about CRC and CRCS, (ii) wish for information via new channels, and (iii) CRC is rarely something you talk about. CONCLUSION: Among the informants included in this study, lack of participation in the CRCS program was not due to an active opt-out, as most informants had intentions of participating. The informants thought it would motivate them to participate if their GP would remind them of the screening program.

Enhanced recovery after abdominal wall reconstruction reduces length of postoperative stay: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery has been shown to lead to improved postoperative outcomes after several surgical procedures. However, only a few studies have examined the application of enhanced recovery after surgery after abdominal wall reconstruction. The aim of the current observational cohort study was to evaluate the outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery after abdominal wall reconstruction in a large cohort. METHOD: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction in a standard care pathway (control group) with patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction in an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. Registered outcomes included 30-day postoperative complications, length of stay, and readmission rate. RESULTS: A total of 190 patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction for large incisional hernias were included in the study, of which 96 were treated according to standard protocol, and 94 underwent enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. Length of stay was significantly reduced after the introduction of enhanced recovery after surgery (median 4, interquartile range 3-6 days vs. control 5, 4-7 days, P < .001). There was no difference between the cohorts in the incidence of postoperative complications requiring operative intervention (enhanced recovery after surgery 10.6% vs control 10.4%, P = 1.0) or the rate of readmissions (enhanced recovery after surgery 16.0% vs control 12.5%, P = .635). CONCLUSION: Enhanced recovery after surgery is feasible after abdominal wall reconstruction, leading to reduced length of stay without increasing the rate of complications or readmissions. Enhanced recovery should be implemented as standard in centers performing abdominal wall reconstruction.

The use of expanding ports in laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery may cause more pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses on the clinical outcome after laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not revealed any major differences in postoperative pain between the two procedures. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the difference in postoperative pain between the two procedures, focusing on whether LESS was conducted with a non-expanding port (LESSnonex) or a port expanding (LESSex) within the incision. METHOD: EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on LESS versus CLS for general abdominal procedures. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 29 RCTs with 2999 procedures were included. Pain (VAS 0-10) 6 h after surgery was significantly lower in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSnonex compared to CLS, WMD=-0.72 (- 1.10 to - 0.33). Pain 18-24 h was significantly higher in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSex compared to CLS, WMD = 0.38 (0.01-0.75). Wound-related complications were significantly more frequent in LESSex procedures compared to CLS, OR = 1.94 (1.03-3.63). CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis indirectly indicates that the type of access device that is used for an abdominal LESS procedure may contribute to the development of early postoperative pain as the use of a non-expanding model was associated with a more advantageous outcome. Direct randomized comparison of LESSnonex and LESSex is warranted to confirm if the use of expanding access devices generates more pain and wound complications.