The Patient Perspective on Colectomy for Recurrent Diverticulitis: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Understand the patient's decision-making process regarding colectomy for recurrent diverticulitis. BACKGROUND: The decision to pursue elective colectomy for recurrent diverticulitis is highly preference-sensitive. Little is known about the patient's perspective in this decision-making process. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study utilizing focus groups of patients with recurrent diverticulitis at 3 centers across the United States. Using an iterative inductive/deductive approach, we developed a conceptual framework to capture the major themes identified in the coded data. RESULTS: From March 2019 to July 2020, 39 patients were enrolled across 3 sites and participated in 6 focus groups. After coding the transcripts using a hierarchical coding system, a conceptual framework was developed. Major themes identified included participants' beliefs about surgery, such as normative beliefs (eg, subjective, value placed on surgery), control beliefs (eg, self-efficacy, stage of change), and anticipated outcomes (eg, expectations, anticipated regret); the role of behavioral management strategies (eg, fiber, eliminate bad habits); emotional experiences (eg, depression, embarrassment); current symptoms (eg, severity, timing); and quality of life (eg, cognitive load, psychosocial factors). Three sets of moderating factors influencing patient choice were identified: clinical history (eg, source of diagnosis, multiple surgeries), clinical protocols (eg, pre-op and post-op education), and provider-specific factors (eg, specialty, choice of surgeon). CONCLUSIONS: Patients view the decision to undergo colectomy through 3 major themes: their beliefs about surgery, their psychosocial context, and moderating factors that influence participant choice to undergo surgery. This knowledge is essential both for clinicians counseling patients who are considering colectomy and for researchers studying the process to optimize care for recurrent diverticulitis.

Opioid Utilization in Outpatient Anorectal Surgery: An Opportunity for Improvement.

INTRODUCTION: The opioid epidemic has resulted in close examination of postsurgical prescribing patterns. Little is known about postoperative opioid use in outpatient anorectal procedures. This study evaluated patient opioid use and created prescribing recommendations for these procedures. METHODS: One hundred and four patients undergoing outpatient anorectal procedures from January to May 2018 were surveyed on opioid consumption, surgical experience, and pain satisfaction. Patients were grouped into three tiers based on opioid usage. Multivariable models were used to determine factors associated with poor pain control. RESULTS: Patient satisfaction with pain control was 85.6%. Twenty five percent of patients reported leftover medication and 9.6% of patients requested opioid refills. Opioid prescribing recommendations were generated for each tier using 50th percentile with interquartile ranges. On multivariable modeling, the high-tier group was associated with poorer pain control. CONCLUSIONS: We created opioid quantity prescribing guidelines for common outpatient anorectal procedures. A multimodal approach to pain control utilizing nonopioids may reduce healthcare utilization.

National Variation in Elective Colon Resection for Diverticular Disease.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize the extent of geographic variation in elective sigmoid resection for diverticulitis and to identify factors associated with observed variation. INTRODUCTION: National guidelines for treatment of recurrent diverticulitis fail to offer strong recommendations for or against surgical intervention. We hypothesize that healthcare market factors will be significantly associated with geographic variation in colon resection for diverticulitis, a discretionary surgical intervention. METHODS: We used Center for Medicare Services 100% inpatient Limited Data Set (LDS) files from January 2013 through September 2015 to calculate an observed to expected standardized colon resection ratio for each hospital referral region (HRR). We then analyzed patient, hospital-, and market-level factors associated with variation of colectomy. For each HRR, a Herfindahl-Hirschman index, a measure of market competition, was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 19,557 Medicare patients underwent an elective colon resection for diverticulitis at 2462 hospitals over the study period. Standardized colon resection ratios ranged from 0 in the Tuscaloosa HRR to 3.7 in the Royal Oak, MI HRR. Few patient factors were associated with variation, but a number of hospital factors (size, area, profit status, and critical access designation) all were associated with variation. In an analysis of market factors, increased surgeon density, and decreased market competition were associated with higher predicted rates of colon resection. CONCLUSION: We observed pronounced variation (excess of 3-fold) in standardized colon resection ratios for recurrent diverticulitis. Surgeon density and hospital level factors were strongly associated with this variation and may be the main drivers of colonic resection for diverticular disease. Further investigation and stronger national guidelines are needed to optimize patient selection for colectomy.

Collection and Utilization of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Colorectal Surgery Clinic.

INTRODUCTION: The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) promises to improve patient care. However, in colorectal surgery, PROMs are uncommonly collected outside of clinical research studies and rarely used in clinical care. We designed and implemented a quality improvement project with the goals of routinely collecting PROMs and increasing the frequency that PROMs are utilized by colorectal surgeons in clinical practice. METHODS: This mixed-methods, quality improvement project was conducted in the colorectal surgery clinic of a tertiary academic medical center. Patients were administered up to five PROMs before each appointment. PROM completion rates were measured. Additionally, we performed two educational interventions to increase utilization of our electronic health record's PROM dashboard by colorectal surgeons. Utilization rates and attitudes toward the PROM dashboard were measured. RESULTS: Overall, patients completed 3600 of 3977 (90.9%) administered PROMs during the study period. At baseline, colorectal surgeons reviewed 6.7% of completed PROMs. After two educational interventions, this increased to 39.3% (P = 0.004). Colorectal surgeons also felt that the PROM dashboard was easier to use. Barriers to greater PROM dashboard utilization included poor user interface/user experience and a perceived lack of knowledge, time, and relevance. CONCLUSIONS: The collection of PROMs in colorectal surgery clinics is feasible and can result in high PROM completion rates. Educational interventions can improve the utilization of PROMs by colorectal surgeons in clinical practice. Our experience collecting PROMs through this quality improvement initiative can serve as a template for other colorectal surgery clinics interested in collecting and utilizing data from PROMs.

Is newer always better?: comparing cost and short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy.

BACKGROUND: Enthusiasm is high for expansion of robotic assisted surgery into right hemicolectomy. But data on outcomes and cost is lacking. Our objective was to determine the association between surgical approach and cost for minimally invasive right hemicolectomy. We hypothesized that a robot approach would have increased costs (both economic and opportunity) while achieving similar short-term outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis with a simulation of operating room utilization at a quaternary care, academic institution. We enrolled patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemicolectomy from November 2017 to August 2019. Patients were categorized by the intended approach- laparoscopic or robotic. The primary outcome was the technical variable direct cost. Secondary outcomes included total cost, supply cost, operating room utilization, operative time, conversion, length of stay and 30-day post-operative outcomes. RESULTS: 79 patients were included in the study. A robotic approach was used in 22% of the cohort. The groups differed significantly only in etiology of surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with a 1.5 times increase in the technical variable direct cost (p < 0.001), increased supply cost (2.6 times; p < 0.001) and increased total cost (1.3 times; p < 0.001). Significant differences were observed in median room time (Robotic: 285 min vs. Laparoscopic: 170 min; p < 0.001) and procedure time (Robotic: 203 min vs. Laparoscopic: 118 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences observed in post-operative outcomes including length of stay or readmission. In a simulation of OR utilization, 45 laparoscopic right hemicolectomies could be performed in an OR in a month compared to 31 robotic cases. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic right hemicolectomy was associated with increased costs with no improvement in post-operative outcomes. In a simulation of operating room efficiency, a robotic approach was associated with 14 fewer cases per month. Practitioners and administrators should be aware of the increased cost of a robotic approach.

Benchmarking patient satisfaction scores in a colorectal patient population.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare reimbursement is rapidly moving away from a fee-for-service model toward value-based purchasing. An integral component of this new focus on quality is patient-centered outcomes. One metric used to define patient satisfaction is the Press Ganey Patient Satisfaction Survey. Data are lacking to accurately benchmark these scores based on diagnosis. We sought to identify if different colorectal disease processes affected a patient's perception of their healthcare experience. METHODS: Adult colorectal patients seen between July 2015 and September 2016 in a tertiary hospital colorectal clinic were mailed a Press Ganey survey. Patients were stratified based on diagnosis: neoplasia, IBD, anorectal and benign colorectal disease. Survey scores were compared across the groups with adjustment for confounding variables. RESULTS: 312 patients responded and formed the cohort. The mean age was 61 (range 18-93) and 56% were women. The cohort breakdown was 38% neoplasia, 32% anorectal, 21% benign, and 9% IBD. In a multivariable model, there was a difference in PG scores by diagnosis; patients with neoplasia had higher Overall scores (ß 10.2; Std Error 4.0; p = 0.01), Care Provider scores (ß 8.5; Std Error 4.2; p = 0.04), Nurse Assistant scores (ß 15.0; Std Error 5.7; p = 0.01), and Personal Issues scores (ß 11.8; Std Error 5/0; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Press Ganey scores were found to vary significantly. Patients with a neoplasia diagnosis reported higher overall satisfaction, Care Provider, Nurse Assistant, and Personal Issues scores. Adjustment for disease condition is important when assessing patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality and as a metric for reimbursement. This study adds to increasing evidence about bias in these scores.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Colon and Rectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using patient-reported outcome measures to support value-based care in colorectal surgery. To draw valid conclusions regarding patient-reported outcomes data, measures with robust measurement properties are required. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the use and quality of patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal surgery. DATA SOURCES: Three major databases were searched for studies using patient-reported outcome measures in the context of colorectal surgery. STUDY SELECTION: Articles that used patient-reported outcome measures as outcome for colorectal surgical intervention in a comparative effectiveness analysis were included. Exclusion criteria included articles older than 11 years, non-English language, age <18 years, fewer than 40 patients, case reports, review articles, and studies without comparison. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This was a quality assessment using a previously reported checklist of psychometric properties. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, 368 studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. These studies used 165 distinct patient-reported outcome measures. Thirty were used 5 or more times and were selected for quality assessment. Overall, the measures were generally high quality, with 21 (70%) scoring ≥14 on an 18-point scale. Notable weaknesses included management of missing data (14%) and description of literacy level (0%). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its use of original articles for quality assessment. Measures were selected for quality analysis based on frequency of use rather than other factors, such as impact of the article or number of patients in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcome measures are widely used in colorectal research. There was a wide range of measures available, and many were used only once. The most frequently used measures are generally high quality, but a majority lack details on how to deal with missing data and information on literacy levels. As the use of patient-reported outcome measures to assess colorectal surgical intervention increases, researchers and practitioners need to become more knowledgeable about the measures available and their quality.

Comparing pathologic outcomes for robotic versus laparoscopic Surgery in rectal cancer resection: a propensity adjusted analysis of 7616 patients.

BACKGROUND: Margin negative resection of rectal cancer with minimally invasive techniques remains technically challenging. Robotic surgery has potential advantages over traditional laparoscopy. We hypothesize that the difference in the rate of negative margin status will be < 6% between laparoscopic and robotic approach. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (2010-2014) was queried for adults with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and curative resection to conduct an observational retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database. Patients were grouped by either robotic (ROB) or laparoscopic (LAP) approach in an intent-to-treat analysis. Primary outcome was negative margin status, defined as a composite of circumferential resection margin and distal margin. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), readmission, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. RESULTS: 7616 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent minimally invasive resection were identified. 2472 (32%) underwent attempted robotic approach. The overall conversion rate was 13% and was increased in the laparoscopic group [LAP: 15% vs. ROB: 8%; OR 0.47; 95% CI (0.39, 0.57)]. Differences in margin negative resection rate were within the prespecified range of practical equivalence (LAP: 93% vs.: ROB 94%; 95% CI (0.69, 1.06); [Formula: see text] = 1). For secondary outcomes, there was no difference in 30-day readmission [LAP: 9% vs.: ROB 8%; 95% CI (0.84, 1.24)] and 90-day mortality [LAP: 1% vs.: ROB 1%; 95% CI (0.38, 1.24)]. While the median LOS was 5 days in both groups, the mean LOS was 0.6 (95% CI: 0.24, 0.89) days shorter in the robotic group. CONCLUSION: This robust analysis supports either robotic or laparoscopic approach for resection of locally advanced rectal cancer from a margin perspective. Both have similar readmission and 5-year overall survival rates. Patients undergoing robotic surgery have a 0.6-day decrease in LOS and decreased conversion rate.

Assessing Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Referral Patterns to a Tertiary Care Center: A Novel Approach Using Geographic Information System Mapping.

BACKGROUND: Patients and their family members with hereditary colorectal cancer require longitudinal follow-up that is best achieved through a dedicated program with a registry. However, referrals for these conditions remain poor. Geographic information systems technology is a novel method to evaluate geographic variation in multiple realms but is being used more in health care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate referral patterns with geographic information systems technology to better target efforts for improving overall referrals. We hypothesized that marked variation would exist as to the geospatial locations of referrals and that gastroenterologists would be the dominant referral source. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. PATIENTS: The hereditary colorectal cancer registry was queried from June 2007 to August 2016 for demographics, distance to center, genetic mutations, and the specialty of the referring providers. Geospatial data on both patient and referring specialist were collected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We analyzed patient and referral data with geographic information systems technology to look for gaps and patterns. RESULTS: A total of 676 patients were entered into the registry during this period. Fifty-six percent were women, and the median age was 50 years (interquartile range, 42-60 y). The median distance from the center was 60 miles (interquartile range, 22-120 miles), and 31% carried an identified germline mutation. Gastroenterology represented the overall largest source of referrals and, when broken down by syndrome, they represented the top referral specialty for familial adenomatous polyposis. Surgeons were the largest referral source for Lynch syndrome. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by covariates in the database. CONCLUSIONS: Our hereditary colorectal cancer registry serves a large geographic area, with the largest group of referrals coming from gastroenterologists. Performing this analysis with geographic information systems technology mapping allowed us to identify clustering of patients and providers throughout the region as well as gaps. This information will help to target outreach and distribution of educational materials for providers and their patients to increase registry enrollment. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A950.

Surgical management of primary colonic lymphoma: Big data for a rare problem.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Primary colonic lymphoma (PCL) is rare, heterogeneous, and presents a therapeutic challenge for surgeons. Optimal treatment strategies are difficult to standardize, leading to variation in therapy. Our objective was to describe the patient characteristics, short-term outcomes, and five-year survival of patients undergoing nonpalliative surgery for PCL. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis in the National Cancer Database. Included patients underwent surgery for PCL between 2004 to 2014. Patients with metastases and palliative operations were excluded. Univariate predictors of overall survival were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: We identified 2153 patients. Median patient age was 68. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma accounted for 57% of tumors. 30- and 90-Day mortality were high (5.6% and 11.1%, respectively). Thirty-nine percent of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. For patients surviving 90 days, 5-year survival was 71.8%. Chemotherapy improved survival (surgery+chemo, 75.4% vs surgery, 68.6%; P = .01). Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with overall survival after controlling for age, comorbidity, and lymphoma subtype (HR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing surgery for PCL have high rates of margin positivity and high short-term mortality. Chemotherapy improves survival, but <50% receive it. These data suggest the opportunity for improvement of care in patients with PCL.

An enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery is associated with decreased organ level rates of complications: a difference-in-differences analysis.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative care has lacked coordination and standardization. Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have been shown to decrease aggregate complications across surgical specialties. We hypothesize that the sustained implementation of an ERP will be associated with a decrease in a broad range of complications at the organ system level. STUDY DESIGN: Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal procedures between 1/2011 and 10/2016 were included. Patients were stratified based on exposure to a sustained ERP (7/2014-10/2016) after an 18-month wash-in period in a pre-post analysis. The primary outcome was 30-day complication rate by organ category as collected by National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) abstractors. Demographic and other patient level data were collected. Complication rates were compared using multivariable regression employing a differences-in-differences (DiD) approach using the national NSQIP PUF file to account for secular trends. RESULTS: A total of 1182 patients were included in this study, with 47% treated in an ERP. The two groups were similar in age, gender, race, BMI, comorbidity index, and procedure type. In a multivariable DiD analysis, significant reductions were seen in surgical site infection (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.20-0.43), postoperative pulmonary complications (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24-0.90), transfusion (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.15-0.51), urinary tract infections (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.18-0.66), sepsis (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.20-0.61), and cardiac complications (OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.01-0.84). A reduction in return to the operating room and 30-day readmission was also observed. Median length of stay (LOS) decreased from 5.2 to 3.5 days (p < 0.001). No significant changes occurred for acute kidney injury and hematologic complications. CONCLUSION: An ERP was associated with reduced complication rates across a wide range of organ categories and > 1.5-day reduction in LOS in a colorectal surgery population.

Use of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator During Preoperative Risk Discussion: The Patient Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator (ACS Calculator) provides empirically derived, patient-specific risks for common adverse perioperative outcomes. The ACS Calculator is promoted as a tool to improve shared decision-making and informed consent for patients undergoing elective operations. However, to our knowledge, no data exist regarding the use of this tool in actual preoperative risk discussions with patients. Accordingly, we performed a survey to assess (1) whether patients find the tool easy to interpret, (2) how accurately patients can predict their surgical risks, and (3) the impact of risk disclosure on levels of anxiety and future motivations to decrease personal risk. METHODS: Patients (N = 150) recruited from a preoperative clinic completed an initial survey where they estimated their hospital length of stay and personal perioperative risks of the 12 clinical complications analyzed by the ACS Calculator. Next, risk calculation was performed by entering participants' demographics into the ACS Calculator. Participants reviewed their individualized risk reports in detail and then completed a follow-up survey to evaluate their perceptions. RESULTS: Nearly 90% of participants desire to review their ACS Calculator report before future surgical consents. High-risk patients were 3 times more likely to underestimate their risk of any complication, serious complication, and length of stay compared to low-risk patients (P < .001). After reviewing their calculated risks, 70% stated that they would consider participating in prehabilitation to decrease perioperative risk, and nearly 40% would delay their surgery to do so. Knowledge of personal ACS risk calculations had no effect on anxiety in 20% and decreased anxiety in 71% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: The ACS Calculator may be of particular benefit to high-risk surgical populations by providing realistic expectations of outcomes and recovery. Use of this tool may also provide motivation for patients to participate in risk reduction strategies.

American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative Joint Consensus Statement on Perioperative Opioid Minimization in Opioid-Naïve Patients.

Surgical care episodes place opioid-naïve patients at risk for transitioning to new persistent postoperative opioid use. With one of the central principles being the application of multimodal pain interventions to reduce the reliance on opioid-based medications, enhanced recovery pathways provide a framework that decreases perioperative opioid use. The fourth Perioperative Quality Initiative brought together a group of international experts representing anesthesiology, surgery, and nursing with the objective of providing consensus recommendations on this important topic. Fourth Perioperative Quality Initiative was a consensus-building conference designed around a modified Delphi process in which the group alternately convened for plenary discussion sessions in between small group discussions. The process included several iterative steps including a literature review of the topics, building consensus around the important questions related to the topic, and sequential steps of content building and refinement until agreement was achieved and a consensus document was produced. During the fourth Perioperative Quality Initiative conference and thereafter as a writing group, reference applicability to the topic was discussed in any area where there was disagreement. For this manuscript, the questions answered included (1) What are the potential strategies for preventing persistent postoperative opioid use? (2) Is opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia feasible and appropriate for routine operations? and (3) Is opioid-free (intraoperative) anesthesia associated with equivalent or superior outcomes compared to an opioid minimization in the perioperative period? We will discuss the relevant literature for each questions, emphasize what we do not know, and prioritize the areas for future research.

Ketorolac Use and Anastomotic Leak in Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Detailed Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent population-level analyses have linked ketorolac use to adverse outcomes. However, its use is also associated with decreased opioids and faster return of bowel function. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the association between ketorolac and anastomotic leak. We hypothesize that receiving at least 1 dose of ketorolac will not be associated with anastomotic leak in elective colorectal surgery. DESIGN: This is a retrospective, observational cohort study of a prospectively collected data base. Anastomotic leak rates and other patient outcomes were adjusted for patient-level factors and then compared via a multivariable logistic regression. A secondary analysis assessed a dose-response association with anastomotic leak. SETTING: This study was conducted at a tertiary care colorectal surgery service. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery with a nondiverted anastomosis were identified from 2012 to 2016. INTERVENTION: Exposure was defined as any administration of ketorolac during the perioperative time period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was anastomotic leak. RESULTS: A total of 877 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 479 (54.6%) were women, and the median age was 55 years. Overall, 566 (64.5%) patients were exposed to ketorolac. In the cohort, 27 (3.1%) patients experienced an anastomotic leak. In an unadjusted analysis, there was no association between ketorolac exposure and anastomotic leak (ketorolac: 3.1% vs no ketorolac: 3.3%; p = 0.84). This persisted in a multivariable model (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.38-2.57; p = 0.98). Neither AKI (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 0.51-20.6; p = 0.21), return to the operating room (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.40-2.85; p = 0.88), nor readmission (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.59-1.80; p = 0.93) was associated with ketorolac use. In a secondary analysis of patients receiving ketorolac, there was no association between total ketorolac dosing and anastomotic leak (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; p = 0.20). LIMITATIONS: This study was a retrospective review, and there was a low incidence of anastomotic leak. CONCLUSION: Ketorolac exposure was associated with neither anastomotic leak nor other important postoperative outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A784.

Barriers to laparoscopic colon resection for cancer: a national analysis.

BACKGROUND: Level one evidence has shown that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colon cancer improves short-term outcomes with equivalent long-term oncologic results when compared to open surgery. However, the adoption of MIS for patients with colon cancer has not been universal. The goal of this study is to identify barriers to the use of MIS surgery in colon cancer resection across the United States. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for all cases of colonic adenocarcinoma resection from 2010 to 2012. Patients undergoing an MIS approach were compared with those undergoing open surgery (OS). MIS was defined as either robotic or laparoscopic surgery. Patients with metastatic disease, surgery for palliation, or tumors >8 cm were excluded. Multivariable modeling was used to identify variables associated with the use of open surgery. RESULTS: After applying exclusion criteria, 124,205 cases were identified. An MIS approach was used in only 54,621 (44%) patients. In a multivariable model adjusting for stage and tumor size, a number of important factors were associated with decreased odds of a MIS approach including black race (OR .91; p < .0001), lack of insurance (OR .51; p < .0001), lower education (OR .88; p < .0001), lower income (OR .83; p < .0001), treatment at a community program (OR .86; p < .0001), and treatment at a low-volume center (OR .79; p < .0001). Utilization of MIS increased over the study period (2010: 38.7%, 2011: 44.0%, 2012: 49.1%; p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: MIS approach is utilized in less than half of all colon resections in this national database, which accounts for over 70% of all diagnosed cancers in the US. Significant variability exists among age, race, insurance status, socioeconomic status, region, and facility type. In light of the recognized benefits of the MIS approach, local and national policy should focus on narrowing these disparities and continuing the upward trend of MIS utilization.

Nodal Disease in Rectal Cancer Patients With Complete Tumor Response After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation: Danger Below Calm Waters.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients with rectal cancer who undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy will develop a complete pathologic tumor response. Complete nodal response is not universal in these patients and is difficult to assess clinically. Quantifying the risk of nodal disease would allow for targeted therapy with either radical resection or "watchful waiting." OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify risk factors for residual nodal disease in ypT0 rectal adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: This is a retrospective case control study. SETTINGS: The National Cancer Database 2006 to 2014 was used to identify patients for this study. PATIENTS: Patients with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma who completed chemoradiation therapy followed by resection and who had ypT0 tumors were included. Patients with metastatic disease and <2 lymph nodes evaluated were excluded. Patients were divided into 2 groups: node positive and node negative. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was nodal disease. The secondary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 42,257 patients with stage II/III rectal cancer underwent chemoradiation therapy and radical resection; 4170 (9.9%) patients had ypT0 tumors and 395 (9.5%) were node positive. Of patients with clinically node-negative disease (ie, pretreatment imaging), 6.2% were node positive after chemoradiation therapy and resection. In multivariable analysis, factors predictive of nodal disease included increasing (pretreatment) clinical N-stage, high tumor grade (3/4), perineural invasion, and lymphovascular invasion. Higher clinical T-stage was inversely associated with residual nodal disease. Overall 5-year survival was significantly different between patients with ypN0, ypN1, and ypN2 disease (87.4%, 82.2%, and 62.5%, p = 0.002). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the lack of clinical detail in the database and the inability to assess recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Ten percent of patients with ypT0 tumors had positive nodes after chemoradiation therapy and resection. Factors associated with residual nodal disease included clinical nodal disease at diagnosis and poor histologic features. Patients with any of these features should consider radical resection regardless of tumor response. Others could be suitable for "watchful waiting" strategies. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A458.

Increasing Lynch syndrome identification through establishment of a hereditary colorectal cancer registry.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome contributes to 5% of all colorectal cancers. Patients seen in most surgical clinics have limited or no family histories documented and are rarely assessed for hereditary syndromes. In 2007 a clinic-based hereditary colorectal cancer registry was established to screen for Lynch syndrome and facilitate genetic counseling/testing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the hereditary colorectal cancer registry to identify high-risk colorectal cancer patients and have them referred for genetic counseling/testing for Lynch syndrome. DESIGN: A retrospective review and cohort comparison of both prospectively collected and retrospective data. SETTING: The colorectal surgical clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. PATIENTS: All newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients seen between January 2006 and October 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To assess the identification of colorectal cancer patients at high risk for Lynch syndrome and for the occurrence of genetic counseling/testing before and after the establishment of a hereditary registry by comparing the results from the colorectal cancer patients seen the year prior to the establishment of the registry (January - December 2006, "control period") with those patients seen after initiation of the registry (January 2007 - October 2010, "registry period"). RESULTS: During the "registry period," 495 colorectal cancer patients were seen in the clinic and 257 (51.9%) were high risk for Lynch syndrome. Forty-nine patients (9.8%) underwent genetic testing, with 27 (5.4%) positive for a gene mutation, of which half were >50 years old. By comparison, in 2006, 115 colorectal cancer patients were seen in the clinic but only 4 patients (3.5%) went on for further assessment, and only 1 had genetic testing. Retrospective assessment showed that at least 22 patients (19.1%) had warranted further investigation in 2006. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-institution, retrospective review. CONCLUSION: Establishment of a hereditary colorectal cancer registry with a clinic-based protocol improves identification of Lynch syndrome.

Idiopathic Myointimal Hyperplasia of the Mesenteric Veins: A Rare Imitator of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Idiopathic myointimal hyperplasia of the mesenteric veins (IMHMV) is a rare cause of chronic colonic ischemia characterized by intimal smooth muscle proliferation and luminal narrowing of the small to medium sized mesenteric veins. It predominantly affects the rectosigmoid colon in otherwise healthy, middle-aged males. Definitive diagnosis and treatment are surgical; however, patients are frequently misdiagnosed, which often results in a protracted clinical course. We describe a case of IMHMV presenting as left hemicolitis in a 53-year-old male, as well as the endoscopic, histopathologic, and radiographic findings that established the diagnosis.

Shared Decision-Making in General Surgery: Prospective Comparison of Telemedicine vs In-Person Visits.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated a shift toward virtual telemedicine appointments with surgeons. While this form of healthcare delivery has potential benefits for both patients and surgeons, the quality of these interactions remains largely unstudied. We hypothesize that telemedicine visits are associated with lower quality of shared decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a mixed-methods, prospective, observational cohort trial. All patients presenting for a first-time visit at general surgery clinics between May 2021 and June 2022 were included. Patients were categorized by type of visit: in-person vs telemedicine. The primary outcome was the level of shared decision-making as captured by top box scores of the CollaboRATE measure. Secondary outcomes included quality of shared decision-making as captured by the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and satisfaction with consultation survey. An adjusted analysis was performed accounting for potential confounders. A qualitative analysis of open-ended questions for both patients and practitioners was performed. RESULTS: During a 13-month study period, 387 patients were enrolled, of which 301 (77.8%) underwent in-person visits and 86 (22.2%) underwent telemedicine visits. The groups were similar in age, sex, employment, education, and generic quality-of-life scores. In an adjusted analysis, a visit type of telemedicine was not associated with either the CollaboRATE top box score (odds ratio 1.27; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.20) or 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (ß -0.60; p = 0.76). Similarly, there was no difference in other outcomes. Themes from qualitative patient and surgeon responses included physical presence, time investment, appropriateness for visit purpose, technical difficulties, and communication quality. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, prospective study, there does not appear to be a difference in quality of shared decision making in patients undergoing in-person vs telemedicine appointments.