RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. METHODS: A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.
Asunto(s)
Fuga Anastomótica , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Anastomosis Quirúrgica , Fuga Anastomótica/etiología , Aprendizaje Automático , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Italia/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Written radiological report remains the most important means of communication between radiologist and referring medical/surgical doctor, even though CT reports are frequently just descriptive, unclear, and unstructured. The Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) promoted a critical shared discussion between 10 skilled radiologists and 10 surgical oncologists, by means of multi-round consensus-building Delphi survey, to develop a structured reporting template for CT of GC patients. METHODS: Twenty-four items were organized according to the broad categories of a structured report as suggested by the European Society of Radiology (clinical referral, technique, findings, conclusion, and advice) and grouped into three "CT report sections" depending on the diagnostic phase of the radiological assessment for the oncologic patient (staging, restaging, and follow-up). RESULTS: In the final round, 23 out of 24 items obtained agreement ( ≥ 8) and consensus ( ≤ 2) and 19 out 24 items obtained a good stability (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The structured report obtained, shared by surgical and medical oncologists and radiologists, allows an appropriate, clearer, and focused CT report essential to high-quality patient care in GC, avoiding the exclusion of key radiological information useful for multidisciplinary decision-making. KEY POINTS: ⢠Imaging represents the cornerstone for tailored treatment in GC patients. ⢠CT-structured radiology report in GC patients is useful for multidisciplinary decision making.
Asunto(s)
Radiología Intervencionista , Neoplasias Gástricas , Consenso , Humanos , Italia , Neoplasias Gástricas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Gástricas/terapia , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos XRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs influence morbidity rates and length of stay after colorectal surgery (CRS), and may also impact major complications and anastomotic leakage rates. A prospective multicenter observational study to investigate the interactions between ERAS program adherence and early outcomes after elective CRS was carried out. METHODS: Prospective enrolment of patients submitted to elective CRS with anastomosis in 18 months. Adherence to 21 items of ERAS program was measured upon explicit criteria in every case. After univariate analysis, independent predictors of primary endpoints [major morbidity (MM) and anastomotic leakage (AL) rates] were identified through logistic regression analyses including all significant variables, presenting odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: Institutional ERAS protocol was declared by 27 out of 38 (71.0%) participating centers. Median overall adherence to ERAS program items was 71.4%. Among 3830 patients included in the study, MM and AL rates were 4.7% and 4.2%, respectively. MM rates were independently influenced by intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (OR 7.79, 95% CI 5.46-11.10; p < 0.0001) and standard anesthesia protocol (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96; p = 0.028). AL rates were independently influenced by male gender (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06-2.07; p = 0.021), intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.93-6.50; p < 0.0001) and non-standard resections (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01-2.22; p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: This study disclosed wide room for improvement in compliance to several ERAS program items. It failed to detect any significant association between institutionalization and/or adherence rates to ERAS program with primary endpoints. These outcomes were independently influenced by gender, intra- and postoperative blood transfusions, non-standard resections, and standard anesthesia protocol.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Colorrectal , Recuperación Mejorada Después de la Cirugía , Fuga Anastomótica/epidemiología , Fuga Anastomótica/etiología , Fuga Anastomótica/prevención & control , Cirugía Colorrectal/efectos adversos , Humanos , Institucionalización , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Morbilidad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To analyze different types of management and one-year outcomes of anastomotic leakage (AL) after elective colorectal resection. METHODS: All patients with anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery with anastomosis (76/1,546; 4.9%), with the exclusion of cases with proximal diverting stoma, were followed-up for at least one year. Primary endpoints were as follows: composite outcome of one-year mortality and/or unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission and additional morbidity rates. Secondary endpoints were as follows: length of stay (LOS), one-year persistent stoma rate, and rate of return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT). RESULTS: One-year mortality rate was 10.5% and unplanned ICU admission rate was 30.3%. Risk factors of the composite outcome included age (aOR = 1.08 per 1-year increase, p = 0.002) and anastomotic breakdown with end stoma at reoperation (aOR = 2.77, p = 0.007). Additional morbidity rate was 52.6%: risk factors included open versus laparoscopic reoperation (aOR = 4.38, p = 0.03) and ICU admission (aOR = 3.63, p = 0.05). Median (IQR) overall LOS was 20 days (14-26), higher in the subgroup of patients reoperated without stoma. At 1 year, a stoma persisted in 32.0% of patients, higher in the open (41.2%) versus laparoscopic (12.5%) reoperation group (p = 0.04). Only 4 out of 18 patients (22.2%) were able to RIOT. CONCLUSION: Mortality and/or unplanned ICU admission rates after AL are influenced by increasing age and by anastomotic breakdown at reoperation; additional morbidity rates are influenced by unplanned ICU admission and by laparoscopic approach to reoperation, the latter also reducing permanent stoma and failure to RIOT rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT03560180.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Colorrectal , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/efectos adversos , Fuga Anastomótica/etiología , Fuga Anastomótica/cirugía , Cirugía Colorrectal/efectos adversos , Humanos , ReoperaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Fluorescence-guided visualization is a recently proposed technology in colorectal surgery. Possible uses include evaluating perfusion, navigating lymph nodes and searching for hepatic metastases and peritoneal spread. Despite the absence of high-level evidence, this technique has gained considerable popularity among colorectal surgeons due to its significant reliability, safety, ease of use and relatively low cost. However, the actual use of this technique in daily clinical practice has not been reported to date. METHODS: This survey was conducted on April 2020 among 44 centers dealing with colorectal diseases and participating in the Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group. Surgeons were approximately equally divided based on geographical criteria from multiple Italian regions, with a large proportion based in public (89.1%) and nonacademic (75.7%) centers. They were invited to answer an online survey to snapshot their current behaviors regarding the use of fluorescence-guided visualization in colorectal surgery. Questions regarding technological availability, indications and techniques, personal approaches and feelings were collected in a 23-item questionnaire. RESULTS: Questionnaire replies were received from 37 institutions and partially answered by 8, as this latter group of centers do not implement fluorescence technology (21.6%). Out of the remaining 29 centers (78,4%), fluorescence is utilized in all laparoscopic colorectal resections by 72.4% of surgeons and only for selected cases by the remaining 27.6%, while 62.1% of respondents do not use fluorescence in open surgery (unless the perfusion is macroscopically uncertain with the naked eye, in which case 41.4% of them do). The survey also suggests that there is no agreement on dilution, dosing and timing, as many different practices are adopted based on personal judgment. Only approximately half of the surgeons reported a reduced leak rate with fluorescence perfusion assessment, but 65.5% of them strongly believe that this technique will become a minimum requirement for colorectal surgery in the future. CONCLUSION: The survey confirms that fluorescence is becoming a widely used technique in colorectal surgery. However, both the indications and methods still vary considerably; furthermore, the surgeons' perceptions of the results are insufficient to consider this technology essential. This survey emphasizes the need for further research to reach recommendations based on solid scientific evidence.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Cirugía Colorrectal , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Cirugía Colorrectal/métodos , Humanos , Verde de Indocianina , Italia , Imagen ÓpticaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Gastrectomy for gastric cancer is a significant cause of secondary exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy may influence nutritional status and quality of life after gastrectomy, but the pertinent clinical research to date remains controversial. A randomized controlled trial to test this hypothesis was carried out. METHODS: After gastrectomy, 43 patients with gastric cancer were randomly assigned to a normal diet (Normal-d; n = 21) or to a pancreatic enzyme supplementation diet (PES-d; n = 22) and were followed up during a 12-month period, assessing nutritional status and quality of life through body mass index (BMI), instant nutritional assessment (INA) class status, serum pre-albumin (SPA) values, and GastroiIntestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). RESULTS: BMI was not significantly influenced by the type of diet; INA class status was significantly improved in the PES-d arm, particularly during the first 3 months after gastrectomy; SPA levels increased in both arms at 6 months after gastrectomy, reaching significantly higher values in the PES-d arm at 12 months. GIQLI was not significantly influenced by the type of diet throughout the follow-up period; however, this index significantly improved in the PES-d arm between the first and third month after gastrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: PES-d improves nutritional status and quality of life after gastrectomy for gastric cancer, particularly within 3 months from the operation. A larger, multicenter trial is necessary to address the potential influence of several confounding variables such as disease stage and adjuvant treatments.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma/cirugía , Insuficiencia Pancreática Exocrina/tratamiento farmacológico , Fármacos Gastrointestinales/uso terapéutico , Pancrelipasa/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Gástricas/cirugía , Anciano , Insuficiencia Pancreática Exocrina/etiología , Femenino , Gastrectomía/efectos adversos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estado Nutricional/efectos de los fármacosRESUMEN
The evidence regarding the role of oral antibiotics alone (oA) or combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MoABP) for elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. A prospective database of 8359 colorectal resections gathered over a 32-month period from 78 Italian surgical units (the iCral 2 and 3 studies), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables together with 60-day adverse events, was re-analyzed to identify a subgroup of 1013 cases (12.1%) that received either oA or MoABP. This dataset was analyzed using a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 243 patients each were obtained: group A (oA) and group B (MoABP). The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher AL risk [14 (5.8%) vs. 6 (2.5%) events; OR: 3.77; 95%CI: 1.22-11.67; p = 0.021], while no significant difference was recorded between the two groups regarding SSIs. These results strongly support the use of MoABP for elective colorectal resections.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Current evidence about intraoperative anastomotic testing after left-sided colorectal resections is still controversial. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of Indocyanine Green fluorescent angiography (ICG-FA) and air-leak test (ALT) over standard assessment on anastomotic leakage (AL) rates according to surgeon's perception of anastomosis perfusion and/or integrity in clinical practice. METHODS: A database of 2061 patients who underwent left-sided colorectal resections was selected from patients enrolled in a prospective multicenter study. It was retrospectively analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering standard visual assessment (NW; No. = 899; 43.6%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to ICG-FA alone (WP; No. = 409; 19.8%), ALT alone (WI; No. = 420; 20.4%) or both (WPI; No. = 333; 16.2%). Twenty-four covariates potentially affecting the outcomes were included and balanced into the model within the subgroups. The primary endpoint was AL, the secondary endpoints were overall morbidity (OM), major morbidity (MM), reoperation for AL, and mortality. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: The WPI subgroup showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.02-3.59; p 0.043), MM risk (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.39-3.97; p 0.001), and reoperation for AL risk (OR 2.44; 95% CI 1.12-5.31; p 0.025). No other significant differences were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the surgeons' perception of both anastomotic perfusion and integrity (WPI subgroup) was associated to a significantly higher risk of AL and related morbidity, notwithstanding the extensive use of both ICG-FA and ALT testing.
RESUMEN
Retrospective evaluation of the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on data derived from two prospective open-label observational multicenter studies in Italy regarding elective colorectal surgery. MBP for elective colorectal surgery remains a controversial issue with contrasting recommendations in current guidelines. The Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group, therefore, decided to estimate the effects of no MBP (treatment variable) versus MBP for elective colorectal surgery. A total of 8359 patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis were enrolled in two consecutive prospective studies in 78 surgical centers in Italy from January 2019 to September 2021. A retrospective PSMA was performed on 5455 (65.3%) cases after the application of explicit exclusion criteria to eliminate confounders. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infections (SSI) rates; the secondary endpoints included SSI subgroups, overall and major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. Overall length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was also considered. Two well-balanced groups of 1125 patients each were generated: group A (No MBP, true population of interest), and group B (MBP, control population), performing a PSMA considering 21 covariates. Group A vs. group B resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of AL [42 (3.5%) vs. 73 (6.0%) events; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.84; p = 0.005]. No difference was recorded between the two groups for SSI [73 (6.0%) vs. 85 (7.0%) events; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63-1.22; p = 0.441]. Regarding the secondary endpoints, no MBP resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of reoperation and LOS > 6 days. This study confirms that no MBP before elective colorectal surgery is significantly associated with a lower risk of AL, reoperation rate, and LOS < 6 days when compared with MBP.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Cirugía Colorrectal , Humanos , Fuga Anastomótica/epidemiología , Estudios Prospectivos , Cirugía Colorrectal/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Puntaje de Propensión , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/epidemiología , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/prevención & control , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos/métodos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Cuidados Preoperatorios/métodos , CatárticosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In Italy, surgeons continue to drain the abdominal cavity in more than 50 per cent of patients after colorectal resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement on early adverse events in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: A database was retrospectively analysed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 21 covariates. The primary endpoint was the postoperative duration of stay, and the secondary endpoints were surgical site infections, infectious morbidity rate defined as surgical site infections plus pulmonary infections plus urinary infections, anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate, major morbidity rate, reoperation and mortality rates. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent c.i. RESULTS: A total of 6157 patients were analysed to produce two well-balanced groups of 1802 patients: group (A), no abdominal drain(s) and group (B), abdominal drain(s). Group A versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of postoperative duration of stay >6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P < 0.001). A mean postoperative duration of stay difference of 0.86 days was detected between groups. No difference was recorded between the two groups for all the other endpoints. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that placement of abdominal drain(s) after elective colorectal surgery is associated with a non-clinically significant longer (0.86 days) postoperative duration of stay but has no impact on any other secondary outcomes, confirming that abdominal drains should not be used routinely in colorectal surgery.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Colorrectal , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica , Humanos , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/epidemiología , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/prevención & control , Estudios Retrospectivos , Puntaje de Propensión , Cirugía Colorrectal/efectos adversos , Drenaje/métodosRESUMEN
In the multimodal strategy context, to implement healthcare-associated infection prevention, bundles are one of the most commonly used methods to adapt guidelines in the local context and transfer best practices into routine clinical care. One of the most important measures to prevent surgical site infections is surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP). This narrative review aims to present a bundle for the correct SAP administration and evaluate the evidence supporting it. Surgical site infection (SSI) prevention guidelines published by the WHO, CDC, NICE, and SHEA/IDSA/APIC/AHA, and the clinical practice guidelines for SAP by ASHP/IDSA/SIS/SHEA, were reviewed. Subsequently, comprehensive searches were also conducted using the PubMed®/MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, in order to identify further supporting evidence-based documentation. The bundle includes five different measures that may affect proper SAP administration. The measures included may be easily implemented in all hospitals worldwide and are based on minimal drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics knowledge, which all surgeons should know. Antibiotics for SAP should be prescribed for surgical procedures at high risk for SSIs, such as clean-contaminated and contaminated surgical procedures or for clean surgical procedures where SSIs, even if unlikely, may have devastating consequences, such as in procedures with prosthetic implants. SAP should generally be administered within 60 min before the surgical incision for most antibiotics (including cefazolin). SAP redosing is indicated for surgical procedures exceeding two antibiotic half-lives or for procedures significantly associated with blood loss. In principle, SAP should be discontinued after the surgical procedure. Hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship programmes can optimise the treatment of infections and reduce adverse events associated with antibiotics. In the context of a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach, it is essential to encourage an institutional safety culture in which surgeons are persuaded, rather than compelled, to respect antibiotic prescribing practices. In that context, the proposed bundle contains a set of evidence-based interventions for SAP administration. It is easy to apply, promotes collaboration, and includes measures that can be adequately followed and evaluated in all hospitals worldwide.
RESUMEN
Blood transfusions are considered a risk factor for adverse outcomes after colorectal surgery. However, it is still unclear if they are the cause (the hen) or the consequence (the egg) of adverse events. A prospective database of 4529 colorectal resections gathered over a 12-month period in 76 Italian surgical units (the iCral3 study), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables, together with 60-day adverse events, was retrospectively analyzed identifying a subgroup of 304 cases (6.7%) that received intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (IPBTs). The endpoints considered were overall and major morbidity (OM and MM, respectively), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality (M) rates. After the exclusion of 336 patients who underwent neo-adjuvant treatments, 4193 (92.6%) cases were analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score matching model including 22 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 275 patients each were obtained: group A, presence of IPBT, and group B, absence of IPBT. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher risk of overall morbidity (154 (56%) vs. 84 (31%) events; OR 3.07; 95%CI 2.13-4.43; p = 0.001), major morbidity (59 (21%) vs. 13 (4.7%) events; OR 6.06; 95%CI 3.17-11.6; p = 0.001), and anastomotic leakage (31 (11.3%) vs. 8 (2.9%) events; OR 4.72; 95%CI 2.09-10.66; p = 0.0002). No significant difference was recorded between the two groups concerning the risk of mortality. The original subpopulation of 304 patients that received IPBT was further analyzed considering three variables: appropriateness of BT according to liberal transfusion thresholds, BT following any hemorrhagic and/or major adverse event, and major adverse event following BT without any previous hemorrhagic adverse event. Inappropriate BT was administered in more than a quarter of cases, without any significant influence on any endpoint. The majority of BT was administered after a hemorrhagic or a major adverse event, with significantly higher rates of MM and AL. Finally, a major adverse event followed BT in a minority (4.3%) of cases, with significantly higher MM, AL, and M rates. In conclusion, although the majority of IPBT was administered with the consequence of hemorrhage and/or major adverse events (the egg), after adjustment accounting for 22 covariates, IPBT still resulted in a definite source of a higher risk of major morbidity and anastomotic leakage rates after colorectal surgery (the hen), calling urgent attention to the implementation of patient blood management programs.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Since most anastomoses after left-sided colorectal resections are performed with a circular stapler, any technological change in stapling devices may influence the incidence of anastomotic adverse events. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of a three-row circular stapler on anastomotic leakage and related morbidity after left-sided colorectal resections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A circular stapled anastomosis was performed in 4255 (50.9%) out of 8359 patients enrolled in two prospective multicenter studies in Italy, and, after exclusion criteria to reduce heterogeneity, 2799 (65.8%) cases were retrospectively analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates relative to patient characteristics, to surgery and to perioperative management. Two well-balanced groups of 425 patients each were obtained: group (A) - true population of interest, anastomosis performed with a three-row circular stapler; group (B) - control population, anastomosis performed with a two-row circular stapler. The target of inferences was the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT). The primary endpoints were overall and major anastomotic leakage and overall anastomotic bleeding; the secondary endpoints were overall and major morbidity and mortality rates. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses for the outcomes, including the 20 covariates selected for matching, were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Group A versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of overall anastomotic leakage (2.1 vs. 6.1%; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15-0.73; P =0.006), major anastomotic leakage (2.1 vs. 5.2%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17-0.87; P =0.022), and major morbidity (3.5 vs. 6.6% events; OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24-0.91; P =0.026). CONCLUSION: The use of three-row circular staplers independently reduced the risk of anastomotic leakage and related morbidity after left-sided colorectal resection. Twenty-five patients were required to avoid one leakage.
Asunto(s)
Fuga Anastomótica , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Humanos , Fuga Anastomótica/etiología , Fuga Anastomótica/prevención & control , Fuga Anastomótica/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estudios Prospectivos , Puntaje de Propensión , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/métodos , Grapado Quirúrgico/efectos adversos , Grapado Quirúrgico/métodos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Neoplasias Colorrectales/complicacionesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This Italian multicentric retrospective study aimed to investigate the possible changes in outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Our primary endpoint was to determine whether the pandemic scenario increased the rate of patients with colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers resected at an advanced stage in 2020 compared to 2019. Considering different cancer staging systems, we divided tumors into early stages and advanced stages, using pathological outcomes. Furthermore, to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical outcomes, perioperative data of both 2020 and 2019 were also examined. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 8250 patients, 4370 (53%) and 3880 (47%) were surgically treated during 2019 and 2020 respectively, in 62 Italian surgical Units. In 2020, the rate of patients treated with an advanced pathological stage was not different compared to 2019 (P = 0.25). Nevertheless, the analysis of quarters revealed that in the second half of 2020 the rate of advanced cancer resected, tented to be higher compared with the same months of 2019 (P = 0.05). During the pandemic year 'Charlson Comorbidity Index score of cancer patients (5.38 ± 2.08 vs 5.28 ± 2.22, P = 0.036), neoadjuvant treatments (23.9% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001), rate of urgent diagnosis (24.2% vs 20.3%, P < 0.001), colorectal cancer urgent resection (9.4% vs. 7.37, P < 0.001), and the rate of positive nodes on the total nodes resected per surgery increased significantly (7 vs 9% - 2.02 ± 4.21 vs 2.39 ± 5.23, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic did not influence the pathological stage of colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers at the time of surgery, our study revealed that the pandemic scenario negatively impacted on several perioperative and post-operative outcomes.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemias , Estudios Retrospectivos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugíaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The concept of "weekend effect", that is, substandard healthcare during weekends, has never been fully demonstrated, and the different outcomes of emergency surgical patients admitted during weekends may be due to different conditions at admission and/or different therapeutic approaches. Aim of this international audit was to identify any change of pattern of emergency surgical admissions and treatments during weekends. Furthermore, we aimed at investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the alleged "weekend effect". METHODS: The database of the CovidICE-International Study was interrogated, and 6263 patients were selected for analysis. Non-trauma, 18+ yo patients admitted to 45 emergency surgery units in Europe in the months of March-April 2019 and March-April 2020 were included. Demographic and clinical data were anonymised by the referring centre and centrally collected and analysed with a statistical package. This study was endorsed by the Association of Italian Hospital Surgeons (ACOI) and the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). RESULTS: Three-quarters of patients have been admitted during workdays and only 25.7% during weekends. There was no difference in the distribution of gender, age, ASA class and diagnosis during weekends with respect to workdays. The first wave of the COVID pandemic caused a one-third reduction of emergency surgical admission both during workdays and weekends but did not change the relation between workdays and weekends. The treatment was more often surgical for patients admitted during weekends, with no difference between 2019 and 2020, and procedures were more often performed by open surgery. However, patients admitted during weekends had a threefold increased risk of laparoscopy-to-laparotomy conversion (1% vs. 3.4%). Hospital stay was longer in patients admitted during weekends, but those patients had a lower risk of readmission. There was no difference of the rate of rescue surgery between weekends and workdays. Subgroup analysis revealed that interventional procedures for hot gallbladder were less frequently performed on patients admitted during weekends. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed that demographic and clinical profiles of patients admitted during weekends do not differ significantly from workdays, but the therapeutic strategy may be different probably due to lack of availability of services and skillsets during weekends. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact on this difference.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemias , COVID-19/epidemiología , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Cocaine abuse is rising in the young population, triggering uncommon and potentially life-threatening causes of acute abdomen in this age group. The authors present the case of a 30-year-old man with emergency admission due to abdominal pain, with no history of drug abuse. Several signs and symptoms elicited toxicologic blood screening, which disclosed high serum levels of cocaine and its metabolites. Twelve hours after admission, the onset of acute abdomen with signs of diffuse peritonitis prompted surgical exploration through a minimally invasive approach. Two segmental small bowel ischemic loops and diffuse peritonitis, but no bowel perforation, were identified and treated by laparoscopic peritoneal lavage with 5 l of heated saline and intravenous administration of sodium heparin, 10 000 IU. Postoperative course was uneventful with home discharge on postoperative day 5. High index of suspicion is required to establish a prompt diagnosis and treatment of this uncommon cocaine abuse-related disease.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: how best to manage patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastasis is still controversial, with specific concerns of increased risk of postoperative complications following combined resection. We aimed at analyzing the influence of combined liver resection on the risk of anastomotic leak (AL) following colorectal resection. METHODS: we reviewed the iCral prospectively maintained database to compare the relative risk of AL of patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer to that of patients receiving simultaneous liver and colorectal resection for cancer with isolated hepatic metastases. The incidence of AL was the primary outcome of the analysis. Perioperative details and postoperative complications were also appraised. RESULTS: out of a total of 996 patients who underwent colorectal resection for cancer, 206 receiving isolated colorectal resection were compared with a matched group of 53 patients undergoing simultaneous liver and colorectal resection. Combined surgery had greater operative time and resulted in longer postoperative hospitalization compared to colorectal resection alone. The proportion of overall morbidity following combined resection was significantly higher than after isolated colorectal resection (56.6% vs. 37.9%, p = 0.021). Overall, the two groups of patients did not differ neither on the rate of major postoperative complications, nor in terms of AL (9.4% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.381). At specific multivariate analysis, the duration of surgery was the only risk factor independently associated with the likelihood of AL. CONCLUSIONS: combining hepatic with colorectal resection for the treatment of synchronous liver metastasis from colorectal cancer does not increase significantly the incidence of AL.
Asunto(s)
Fuga Anastomótica/epidemiología , Colectomía/métodos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Hepatectomía/métodos , Neoplasias Hepáticas/cirugía , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos , Femenino , Humanos , Incidencia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/secundario , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Puntaje de Propensión , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Although there is clear evidence that an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program in colorectal surgery leads to significantly reduced morbidity rates and length of hospital stay (LOS), it is still unclear what modalities and levels of implementation of the program are necessary to achieve these results. The purpose of this study is to analyze the methods and results of the first year of structured implementation of a colorectal ERAS program in two surgical units of the Azienda Sanitaria Unica Regionale (ASUR) Marche in Italy. A two-center observational study on a prospectively maintained database was performed on 196 consecutive colorectal resections (excluding emergencies and American Society of Anesthesiologists class > III cases) over a 1-year period. More than 50 variables including adherence to the individual items of the ERAS program were considered. Primary outcomes were overall morbidity, major morbidity, mortality and anastomotic leakage rates; secondary outcomes were LOS, re-admission and re-operation. The results were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses through logistic regression. After a median follow-up of 39.5 days, we recorded complications in 72 patients (overall morbidity 36.7%), major complications in 14 patients (major morbidity 7.1%), 6 deaths (mortality 3.1%), anastomotic dehiscence in 9 cases (4.9%), mean overall LOS of 6.6 days, 10 readmissions (5.1%) and 13 reoperations (6.7%). The mean adherence rate to the items of the ERAS program was 85.4%, showing a significant dose-effect curve for overall and major morbidity rates, anastomotic leakage rates and LOS. The implementation methods of a colorectal ERAS program in this study led to a high adherence (> 80%) to the program items. High adherence had significant effects also on major morbidity and anastomotic leakage rates.
Asunto(s)
Colon/cirugía , Enfermedades del Colon/cirugía , Cirugía Colorrectal/métodos , Vías Clínicas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo/métodos , Recuperación Mejorada Después de la Cirugía , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Enfermedades del Recto/cirugía , Recto/cirugía , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Fuga Anastomótica/epidemiología , Fuga Anastomótica/etiología , Fuga Anastomótica/prevención & control , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo/efectos adversos , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is a very common complication of gallstone-related disease. Its currently recommended management changes according to severity of disease and fitness for surgery. The aim of this observational study is to assess the short- and long-term outcomes in all-comers admitted with diagnosis of ACC, treated according to 2013 Tokyo Guidelines (TG13). A retrospective analysis was conducted on a prospectively maintained database of 125 patients with diagnosis of ACC consecutively admitted between January 2017 and September 2019, subdivided in three groups according to TG13: percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC group), cholecystectomy (CH group), and conservative medical treatment (MT group). The primary end point was a composite of morbidity and/or mortality rates; the secondary end points were ACC recurrence, readmission, need for cholecystectomy rates and overall length of hospital stay (LOS). After a median follow-up of 639 days, overall morbidity rate was 20.8% and mortality rate was 6.4%. Death was directly related to AC during the index admission in two out of eight cases. There were no significant differences in primary end point according to the treatment group. Concerning secondary end points, ACC recurrence rate was not significantly different after PC (10.0%) or MT (9.1%); the readmission rates were significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the MT group (48.5%) and in the PC group (25.0%) than in the CH group (5.8%); need for cholecystectomy rates was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the MT group (42.4%) than in the PC group (20.0%); median overall LOS was significantly higher in the PC (16 days) than in the MT (9 days) and than in the CH group (5 days). PC is an effective and safe rescue procedure in high-risk patients with ACC, representing a definitive treatment in 80% of cases of this specific subgroup.
Asunto(s)
Colecistitis Aguda , Colecistostomía , Colecistitis Aguda/cirugía , Humanos , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: An Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program in colorectal surgery is able to significantly reduce the morbidity rates and postoperative hospital stay (LOS) related to the intervention. However, it is not clear what modalities and levels of implementation are necessary to achieve these results. The purpose of this work is to analyze the methods and results of the first year of implementation of the program in two centers of the Agenzia Sanitaria Unica Regionale (ASUR) Marche. MATERIALS: After a structured implementation pathway, characterized by the creation of a core team, field training, internal courses and coaching, the details of 196 consecutive cases of patients submitted to colorectal resection over a one-year period in two surgical units of the ASUR Marche were prospectively loaded in a database, considering over 50 variables including adherence to the individual items of the ERAS program. The primary outcomes were: overall and major morbidity, mortality and anastomotic dehiscence rates; secondary outcomes were: LOS, re-admission and re-intervention rates. The results of primary endpoints were evaluated by univariable and multivariable analyses with logistic regression and, thereafter, according to ERAS item adherence rate. RESULTS: After a median (interquartile range, IQR) follow-up of 40 (32-94) days, we recorded complications in 72 patients (overall morbidity 36.7%), major morbidity in 14 patients (7.1%), 6 deaths (mortality 3.1%), an anastomotic dehiscence in 9 cases (4.9%), median (IQR) overalll LOS 5 (3-7) days, 10 readmissions (5.1%) and 13 reoperations (6.7%). The mean adherence rate to the items of the ERAS program was 85.4%, showing a significant dose-effect curve for overall morbidity, major morbidity, anastomotic leakage and for overall LOS. DISCUSSION: The ERAS implementation methods in this project led to a high adherence (>80%) to the program items. All the results showed a significant improvement compared to the previous pre-implementation period and according to the adherence to program items rate.