Risk factors for superficial surgical site infection after elective rectal cancer resection: a multivariate analysis of 8880 patients from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

BACKGROUND: Superficial surgical site infection (sSSI) is one of the most common complications after colorectal resection. The goal of this study was to determine the comorbidities and operative characteristics that place patients at risk for sSSI in patients who underwent rectal cancer resection. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried (via diagnosis and Current Procedural Terminology codes) for patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective resection between 2005 and 2012. Patients for whom data concerning 27 demographic factors, comorbidities, and operative characteristics were available were eligible. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify possible risk factors for sSSI. RESULTS: A total of 8880 patients met the entry criteria and were included. sSSIs were diagnosed in 861 (9.7%) patients. Univariate analysis found 14 patients statistically significant risk factors for sSSI. Multivariate analysis revealed the following risk factors: male gender, body mass index (BMI) >30, current smoking, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), American Society of Anesthesiologists III/IV, abdominoperineal resection (APR), stoma formation, open surgery (versus laparoscopic), and operative time >217 min. The greatest difference in sSSI rates was noted in patients with COPD (18.9 versus 9.5%). Of note, 54.2% of sSSIs was noted after hospital discharge. With regard to the timing of presentation, univariate analysis revealed a statistically significant delay in sSSI presentation in patients with the following factors and/or characteristics: BMI <30, previous radiation therapy (RT), APR, minimally invasive surgery, and stoma formation. Multivariate analysis suggested that only laparoscopic surgery (versus open) and preoperative RT were risk factors for delay. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal cancer resections are associated with a high incidence of sSSIs, over half of which are noted after discharge. Nine patient and operative characteristics, including smoking, BMI, COPD, APR, and open surgery were found to be significant risk factors for SSI on multivariate analysis. Furthermore, sSSI presentation in patients who had laparoscopic surgery and those who had preoperative RT is significantly delayed for unclear reasons.

Setting Performance Standards for Technical and Nontechnical Competence in General Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) create a technical and nontechnical performance standard for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy, (2) assess the classification accuracy and (3) credibility of these standards, (4) determine a trainees' ability to meet both standards concurrently, and (5) delineate factors that predict standard acquisition. BACKGROUND: Scores on performance assessments are difficult to interpret in the absence of established standards. METHODS: Trained raters observed General Surgery residents performing laparoscopic cholecystectomies using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) and the Objective Structured Assessment of Non-Technical Skills (OSANTS) instruments, while as also providing a global competent/noncompetent decision for each performance. The global decision was used to divide the trainees into 2 contrasting groups and the OSATS or OSANTS scores were graphed per group to determine the performance standard. Parametric statistics were used to determine classification accuracy and concurrent standard acquisition, receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to delineate predictive factors. RESULTS: Thirty-six trainees were observed 101 times. The technical standard was an OSATS of 21.04/35.00 and the nontechnical standard an OSANTS of 22.49/35.00. Applying these standards, competent/noncompetent trainees could be discriminated in 94% of technical and 95% of nontechnical performances (P < 0.001). A 21% discordance between technically and nontechnically competent trainees was identified (P < 0.001). ROC analysis demonstrated case experience and trainee level were both able to predict achieving the standards with an area under the curve (AUC) between 0.83 and 0.96 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study presents defensible standards for technical and nontechnical performance. Such standards are imperative to implementing summative assessments into surgical training.

Spin Is Common in Studies Assessing Robotic Colorectal Surgery: An Assessment of Reporting and Interpretation of Study Results.

BACKGROUND: Spin has been defined previously as "specific reporting that could distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers." OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and extent of misrepresentation of results in robotic colorectal surgery. DATA SOURCES: Publications referenced in MEDLINE or EMBASE between 1992 and 2014 were included in this study. STUDY SELECTION: Studies comparing robotic colorectal surgery with other techniques with a nonsignificant difference in the primary outcome(s) were included. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions included robotic versus alternative techniques. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency, strategy, and extent of spin, as previously defined, were the main outcome measures RESULTS: : A total of 38 studies (including 24,303 patients) were identified for inclusion in this study. Evidence of spin was found in 82% of studies. The most common form of spin was concluding equivalence between surgical techniques based on nonsignificant differences (76% of abstracts and 71% of conclusions). Claiming improved benefits, despite nonsignificance, was also commonly observed (26% of abstracts and 45% of conclusions). Because of the small sample size, we did not find evidence of an association between spin and study design, type of funding, publication year, or study size. Acknowledging the equivocal nature of the study happened rarely (47% of abstracts and 34% of conclusions). The absence of spin predicted whether authors acknowledged equivocal results (p = 0.02). A total of 50% of studies did not disclose whether they received funding, whereas 39% of studies failed to state whether a conflict of interest existed. LIMITATIONS: A limited number of randomized controlled trials were available. CONCLUSIONS: Spin occurred in >80% of included studies. Many studies concluded that robotic surgery was as safe as more traditional techniques, despite small sample sizes and limited follow-up. Authors often failed to recognize the difference between nonsignificance and equivalence. Failure to disclose financial relationships, which could represent potential conflict(s) of interest, is concerning. Readers of these articles need to be critical of author conclusions, and publishers should ensure that conclusions correspond with the study methods and results.

Family physicians' choices of and opinions on colorectal cancer screening modalities.

OBJECTIVE: To determine FPs' choices of and opinions on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options in the context of a new provincewide screening program. METHODS: Mailed survey, using a modified Dillman protocol, which asked about 5 recommended CRC screening modalities. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Computer-generated random sample of 894 eligible FPs and GPs from a commercially available physician directory. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' preferences for personal CRC screening; perceptions of patients' preferences for CRC screening; knowledge of screening test characteristics; and opinions on cost-effectiveness and mortality reduction of screening modalities. RESULTS: Of the 894 eligible FPs and GPs who received the mailed survey, 465 physicians responded (response rate of 52%). Respondents were diverse in demographic and practice characteristics. Decennial colonoscopy and biennial fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) were the 2 most popular screening methods. There was a statistically significant difference between physicians' preferences of screening options and their perceptions about patient preferences (P<.001), with 50.8% of physicians preferring colonoscopy (vs 39.6% FOBT) but 64.1% believing the average patient prefers FOBT (vs 29.0% colonoscopy). Opinions on the cost-effectiveness and effect on mortality of screening modalities and FOBT sensitivity, but not colonoscopy wait times, significantly influenced both physician preferences and their perceptions of patient preferences. Of the respondents, 54.4% believed colonoscopy had the greatest mortality reduction, while 66.1% chose FOBT as the most cost-effective CRC screening method. CONCLUSION: There was a significant difference between primary care physicians' preferences and their perceptions of patient preferences for CRC screening (P<.001). Screening choice was influenced by physicians' perceptions of FOBT sensitivity and their opinions on cost-effectiveness and mortality reduction of the screening modality. Colonoscopy wait times did not influence physicians' screening choices. As some screening programs emphasize FOBT for most people, this might result in fewer physican-patient discussions about options of other screening modalities. Further research into patient preferences for screening is warranted.