Pelvic Reconstruction following Abdominoperineal Resection and Pelvic Exenteration: Management Practices among Plastic and Colorectal Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic reconstruction with a muscle flap significantly improves postoperative outcomes following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Despite it being the gold standard, significant surgeon-selection bias remains with respect to the necessity of pelvic obliteration, flap choice, and ostomy placement. The objective of the study was to characterize management practices among colorectal surgeons (CSs) and plastic surgeons (PSs). METHODS: Specialty-specific surveys were distributed electronically to CSs and PSs via surgical societies. Surveys were designed to illustrate geographic and specialty-specific differences in management. RESULTS: Of 106 (54 CSs and 52 PSs) respondents (58% Canada, 21% Europe, 14% the United States, and 6% Asia/Africa), significant interdisciplinary differences in practices were observed. Most respondents indicated that multidisciplinary meetings were not performed (74% of CSs and 78% of PSs). For a nonradiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, 91% of CSs and 56% of PSs indicated that flap reconstruction was not required. For a radiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, only 54% of CSs and 6% of PSs indicated that there was no need for flap reconstruction. With respect to ostomy placement, 87% of CSs and 21% of PSs indicated that stoma placement through the rectus was superior. When two ostomies were required, most CSs preferred exteriorizing ostomies through bilateral recti and requesting thigh-based reconstruction. PSs favored the vertical rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM; 52%) over the gracilis (23%) and inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP; 23%) flaps. Among PSs, North Americans favor abdominally based flaps (VRAM 60%), while Europeans favor gluteal-based flaps (IGAP 78%). CONCLUSION: A lack of standardization continues to exist with respect to the reconstruction of pelvic defects following APR and pelvic exenteration. Geographic and interdisciplinary biases with respect to ostomy placement, flap choice, and role for pelvic obliteration continues to influence reconstructive practices. These cases should continue to be approached on a case by case basis, driven by pathology, presence of radiation, comorbidities, and the size of the pelvic and perineal defect.

Failure to Rescue Deteriorating Patients: A Systematic Review of Root Causes and Improvement Strategies.

OBJECTIVES: "Failure to rescue" (FTR) is the failure to prevent a death resulting from a complication of medical care or from a complication of underlying illness or surgery. There is a growing body of evidence that identifies causes and interventions that may improve institutional FTR rates. Why do patients "fail to rescue" after complications in hospital? What clinically relevant interventions have been shown to improve organizational fail to rescue rates? Can successful rescue methods be classified into a simple strategy? METHODS: A systematic review was performed and the following electronic databases searched between January 1, 2006, to February 12, 2018: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and BNI databases. All studies that explored an intervention to improve failure to rescue in the adult population were considered. RESULTS: The search returned 1486 articles. Eight hundred forty-two abstracts were reviewed leaving 52 articles for full assessment. Articles were classified into 3 strategic arms (recognize, relay, and react) incorporating 6 areas of intervention with specific recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Complications occur consistently within healthcare organizations. They represent a huge burden on patients, clinicians, and healthcare systems. Organizations vary in their ability to manage such events. Failure to rescue is a measure of institutional competence in this context. We propose "The 3 Rs of Failure to Rescue" of recognize, relay, and react and hope that this serves as a valuable framework for understanding the phases where failure of patient salvage may occur. Future efforts at mitigating the differences in outcome from complication management between units may benefit from incorporating this proposed framework into institutional quality improvement.

Post surgical rectovaginal fistula: who really benefits from stoma diversion?

To analyze the role of stoma diversion and timing of stoma maintenance in the healing of post-surgical Recto Vaginal Fistulae (psRVF). A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained registry. All patients with a psRVF diagnosed at IRCCS Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria Hospital of Negrar di Valpolicella from January 2002 to December 2016 were analyzed. The baseline treatment was a fecal diversion. Patients were divided into two groups according to healing time: < 6 months (Group 1) or > 6 months (Group 2). 2043 women underwent rectal resections in the study period. We recorded 37 patients with psRVF (1.8%). Nineteen women (51.3%) healed (Group 1) within 6 months. The median time of psRVF recovery in group 1 was 99.7 days. Concomitant local treatment of the fistula did not influence the healing rate (p 0.8). Colostomies were significantly higher in group 1 (p 0.003). The size of the psRVF influenced the success rate of fistula healing with loop stoma (p 0.07). A multivariate analysis the presence of fever and pelvic abscess (pelvis sepsis) were significantly associated with diversion failure (p 0.035). A step-up approach with the maintenance of loop stoma at least for six months for all patients with psRVF could be changed. Patients with larger fistula and pelvic sepsis at index procedure should be addressed earlier to a specific second-level treatment.

LAP-VEGaS Practice Guidelines for Reporting of Educational Videos in Laparoscopic Surgery: A Joint Trainers and Trainees Consensus Statement.

OBJECTIVE: Consensus statement by an international multispecialty trainers and trainees expert committee on guidelines for reporting of educational videos in laparoscopic surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Instructive laparoscopy videos with appropriate exposition could be ideal for initial training in laparoscopic surgery, but there are no guidelines for video annotation or procedural educational and safety evaluation. METHODS: Delphi questionnaire of 45 statements prepared by a steering group and voted on over 2 rounds by committee members using an electronic survey tool. Committee selection design included representative surgical training experts worldwide across different laparoscopic specialties, including general surgery, lower and upper gastrointestinal surgery, gynecology and urology, and a proportion of aligned surgical trainees. RESULTS: All 33 committee members completed both the first and the second round of the Delphi questionnaire related to 7 major domains: Video Introduction/Authors' information; Patient Details; Procedure Description; Procedure Outcome; Associated Educational Content; Peer Review; and Use in Educational Curriculae. The 17 statements that did not reach at least 80% agreement after the first round were revised and returned into the second round. The committee consensus approved 37 statements to at least an 82% agreement. CONCLUSION: Consensus guidelines on how to report laparoscopic surgery videos for educational purposes have been developed. We anticipate that following our guidelines could help to improve video quality.These reporting guidelines may be useful as a standard for reviewing videos submitted for publication or conference presentation.

A systematic review to identify the factors that affect failure to rescue and escalation of care in surgery.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between the ability to recognize and respond to patient deterioration (escalate care) and its role in preventing failure to rescue (FTR; mortality after a surgical complication) has not been explored. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the incidence of, and factors contributing to, FTR and delayed escalation of care for surgical patients. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE PsycINFO, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted to identify articles exploring FTR, escalation of care, and interventions that influence outcomes. Screening of 19,887 citations led to inclusion of 42 articles. RESULTS: The reported incidence of FTR varied between 8.0 and 16.9%. FTR was inversely related to hospital volume and nurse staffing levels. Delayed escalation occurred in 20.7-47.1% of patients and was associated with greater mortality rates in 4 studies (P < .05). Causes of delayed escalation included hierarchy and failures in communication. Of five interventional studies, two reported a significant decrease in intensive care admissions (P < .01) after introduction of escalation protocols; only 1 study reported an improvement in mortality. CONCLUSION: This systematic review explored factors linking FTR and escalation of care in surgery. Important factors that contribute to the avoidance of preventable harm include the recognition and communication of serious deterioration to implement definitive treatment. Targeted interventions aiming to improve these factors may contribute to enhanced patient outcome.

National outcomes and uptake of laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Gastrectomy remains the mainstay of curative treatment for gastric cancer, yet it is associated with significant postoperative mortality. The laparoscopic approach has been introduced in an attempt to improve surgical outcomes. This study examines the uptake of laparoscopic gastrectomy in England and quantifies postoperative mortality and morbidity following gastrectomy for cancer. METHODS: A population-based study of a national administrative database was undertaken. Patients undergoing gastrectomy for cancer in any National Health Services hospital in England between April 2000 and March 2010 were included. The main outcome measures were mortality, morbidity and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 10,713 patients underwent gastrectomy, of which 10,233 (95.5%) underwent open gastrectomy (OG), and 480 (4.5%) underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). There was no significant difference in 30-day in-hospital mortality between OG and LG (5.6% vs. 4.8%; p = 0.461). Medical complications occurred in 2,311 (22.6%) and 120 (25%) patients from OG and LG groups respectively (p = 0.217). Patients in the LG groups had a shorter hospital stay than OG with median (interquartile range) of 11 (8-17) versus 14 (11-19) days respectively (p < 0.001). Readmission and reoperation rates were 10.2 versus 12.1% (p = 0.175) and 4 versus 4.6% (p = 0.523) for OG and LG respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LG is increasingly being performed in England. Postoperative morbidity and mortality of LG is similar to that of OG, but it is associated with a shorter hospital stay. Data from randomised controlled trials evaluating long term survival and patients' reported outcomes are essential before the final judgement on the value of LG in the management of gastric cancer.

Failure to rescue patients after reintervention in gastroesophageal cancer surgery in England.

IMPORTANCE: Gastroesophageal cancer resections are associated with significant reintervention and perioperative mortality rates. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes following operative and nonoperative reinterventions between high- and low-mortality gastroesophageal cancer surgical units in England. DESIGN: All elective esophageal and gastric resections for cancer between 2000 and 2010 in English public hospitals were identified from a national administrative database. Units were divided into low- and high-mortality units (LMUs and HMUs, respectively) using a threshold of 5% or less for 30-day adjusted mortality. The groups were compared for reoperations and nonoperative reinterventions following complications. SETTING: Both LMUs and HMUs. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent esophageal and gastric resections for cancer. EXPOSURE: Elective esophageal and gastric resections for cancer, with reoperations and nonoperative reinterventions following complications. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Failure to rescue is defined as the death of a patient following a complication; failure to rescue-surgical is defined as the death of a patient following reoperation for a surgical complication. RESULTS: There were 14 955 esophagectomies and 10 671 gastrectomies performed in 141 units. For gastroesophageal resections combined, adjusted mortality rates were 3.0% and 8.3% (P < .001) for LMUs and HMUs, respectively. Complications rates preceding reoperation were similar (5.4% for LMUs vs. 4.9% for HMUs; P = .11). The failure to rescue-surgical rates were lower in LMUs than in HMUs (15.3% vs. 24.1%; P < .001). The LMUs performed more nonoperative reinterventions than the HMUs did (6.7% vs. 4.7%; P < .001), with more patients surviving in LMUs than in HMUs (failure to rescue rate, 7.0% vs. 12.5%; P < .001). Overall, LMUs reintervened more than HMUs did (12.2% vs 9.6%; P < .001), and LMUs had lower failure to rescue rates following reintervention than HMUs did (9.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .001). All P values stated refer to 2-sided values. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Overall, LMUs were more likely to reintervene and rescue patients following gastroesophageal cancer resections in England. Patients were more likely to survive following both reoperations and nonsurgical interventions in LMUs.

An observational study of the frequency, severity, and etiology of failures in postoperative care after major elective general surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the nature of process failures in postoperative care, to assess their frequency and preventability, and to explore their relationship to adverse events. BACKGROUND: Adverse events are common and are frequently caused by failures in the process of care. These processes are often evaluated independently using clinical audit. There is little understanding of process failures in terms of their overall frequency, relative risk, and cumulative effect on the surgical patient. METHODS: Patients were observed daily from the first postoperative day until discharge by an independent surgeon. Field notes on the circumstances surrounding any nonroutine or atypical event were recorded. Field notes were assessed by 2 surgeons to identify failures in the process of care. Preventability, the degree of harm caused to the patient, and the underlying etiology of process failures were evaluated by 2 independent surgeons. RESULTS: Fifty patients undergoing major elective general surgery were observed for a total of 659 days of postoperative care. A total of 256 process failures were identified, of which 85% were preventable and 51% directly led to patient harm. Process failures occurred in all aspects of care, the most frequent being medication prescribing and administration, management of lines, tubes, and drains, and pain control interventions. Process failures accounted for 57% of all preventable adverse events. Communication failures and delays were the main etiologies, leading to 54% of process failures. CONCLUSIONS: Process failures are common in postoperative care, are highly preventable, and frequently cause harm to patients. Interventions to prevent process failures will improve the reliability of surgical postoperative care and have the potential to reduce hospital stay.

Single measures of performance do not reflect overall institutional quality in colorectal cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate overall performance of English colorectal cancer surgical units identified as outliers for a single quality measure--30 day inhospital mortality. DESIGN: 144,542 patients that underwent primary major colorectal cancer resection between 2000/2001 and 2007/2008 in 149 English National Health Service units were included from hospital episodes statistics. Casemix adjusted funnel plots were constructed for 30 day inhospital mortality, length of stay, unplanned readmission within 28 days, reoperation, failure to rescue-surgical (FTR-S) and abdominoperineal excision (APE) rates. Institutional performance was evaluated across all other domains for institutions deemed outliers for 30 day mortality. Outliers were those that lay on or breached 3 SD control limits. 'Acceptable' performance was defined if units appeared under the upper 2 SD limit. RESULTS: 5 high mortality outlier (HMO) units and 15 low mortality outlier (LMO) units were identified. Of the five HMO units, two were substandard performance outliers (ie, above 3 SD) on another metric (both on high reoperation rates). A further two HMO institutions exceeded the second but not the third SD limits for substandard performance on other outcome metrics. One of the 15 LMO units exceeded 3 SD for substandard performance (APE rate). One LMO institution exceeded the second but not the third SD control limits for high reoperation rates. Institutional mortality correlated with FTR-S and reoperations (R=0.445, p<0.001 and R=0.191, p<0.020 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Performance appraisal in colorectal surgery is complex and dependent on stakeholder perspective. Benchmarking units solely on a single performance measure is over simplistic and potentially hazardous. A global appraisal of institutional outcome is required to contextualise performance.

Poor 1-year survival in elderly patients undergoing nonelective colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal resection in elderly patients is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, especially in an emergency setting. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to quantify the risks associated with nonelective colorectal resection up to 1 year after surgery in elderly patients. DESIGN: This is a population-based observational study. SETTING: Data were obtained from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. POPULATION: All patients aged 70 years and older who underwent a nonelective colorectal resection in an English National Health Service Trust hospital between April 2001 and March 2008 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: : The primary outcomes measured were 30-day in hospital mortality, 365-day mortality, unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge, and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: During the study period, 36,767 nonelective colorectal resections were performed in patients aged ≥ 70 years in England. Patients were classified into 3 age groups: A (70-75 years), B (76-80 years), and C (>80 years). Thirty-day mortality was 17.0%, 23.3%, and 31.0% in groups A, B, and C (p < 0.001). The overall 30-day medical complication rate was 33.7%, and the reoperation rate was 6.3%. Cardiac and respiratory complications were significantly higher in group C (22.2% and 18.2%, p < 0.001). Mortality in Group C was 51.2% at 1-year postsurgery. Advanced age was an independent determinant of mortality in risk-adjusted regression analyses. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database. Stage of disease at presentation, severity of complications, and cause of death cannot be ascertained from this database. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, half of all English patients aged over 80 years undergoing nonelective colorectal resection died within 1 year of surgery. Further research is required to identify perioperative and postdischarge strategies that may improve survival in this vulnerable cohort.

A framework to establish a mentoring programme in surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Mentoring programmes help to facilitate the process of continuous professional development in surgery, providing an organizational structure around a mentor-mentee relationship which helps to develop the mentee. The lack of guidelines outlining how to set up such mentoring programmes, the fragmented inter-relationships of existing schemes and the lack of a unified strategy for their implementation are obstacles to the creation of such initiatives within many surgical departments. METHODS: We draw upon previous research, the experiences of certain authors and our own reflections to identify the key features of a surgical mentoring programme. RESULTS: We propose a ten step process which aims to encourage the development of formalised mentoring programmes in surgery. CONCLUSION: This outline may improve the delivery and effectiveness of mentoring programmes, which may ultimately enhance surgical training and hence quality of patient care.

Curriculum-based solo virtual reality training for laparoscopic intracorporeal knot tying: objective assessment of the transfer of skill from virtual reality to reality.

BACKGROUND: Very few studies have addressed the transferability of skills from virtual reality (VR) to real life. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of teaching intracorporeal knot tying (ICKT) by VR simulation only. METHODS: Twenty novices underwent structured training of basic skills training on the Minimally Invasive Surgical Trainer simulator (Mentice AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) followed by knot tying training on the LapSim simulator (Surgical Science, Gothenburg, Sweden). They were assessed pre- and post-training on a video trainer. Assessment of performance included motion tracking and video-based checklist. Nonparametric statistical analysis was used, and P < .05 was deemed significant. RESULTS: All participants completed a correct knot as compared with only 25% before VR training. Time to completion was 66% faster and knot quality 45% better after VR training. Significant reduction in number of movements (P = .006) and distance traveled (P < .000) by both hands after VR training. CONCLUSIONS: Teaching ICKT by VR simulators only is feasible and effective. Furthermore, this study highlights the complementary use of different VR simulators within a structured curriculum.