Deprivation and Rurality Mediate Income Inequality's Association with Colorectal Cancer Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Income inequality is associated with poor health outcomes, but its association with colorectal cancer is not well-studied. The authors aimed to determine the association between income inequality and colorectal cancer incidence/mortality in U.S. counties, and hypothesized that this association was mediated by deprivation. METHODS: The authors performed a cross-sectional study of U.S. counties from 2015-2019 using statewide cancer registries and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database. Generalized linear negative binomial regression was performed in 2024 to estimate the association between Gini coefficient (income inequality) and colorectal cancer incidence/mortality using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the entire cohort and stratified by rurality. RESULTS: A total of 697,981 colorectal cancer cases were diagnosed in the 5-year study period. On adjusted regression, for every 0.1 higher Gini coefficient, there was an 11% higher risk of both colorectal cancer incidence and mortality (IRR 1.11, 95%CI 1.03,1.19 and IRR 1.11, 95%CI 1.05, 1.18 respectively). The association between income inequality and incidence/mortality peaked in more rural counties, however there was not an overall dose-dependent relationship between rurality and these associations. Deprivation mediated the association between income inequality and colorectal cancer incidence (indirect effect B coefficient 0.088, p<0.001) and mortality (B coefficient 0.088, p<0.001). The magnitude and direction of the direct, indirect, and total effects differed in each rurality strata. CONCLUSIONS: Much of income inequality's association with colorectal cancer outcomes operates through deprivation. Rural counties have a stronger association between higher income inequality and higher mortality, which works in tandem with deprivation.

Use of Perioperative Intravenous Lidocaine as Part of an Abdominal Surgery Enhanced Recovery Pathway Does Not Significantly Impact Postoperative Pain.

BACKGROUND: The utility of perioperative intravenous lidocaine in improving postoperative pain control remains unclear. We aimed to compare postoperative pain outcomes in ERP abdominal surgery patients who did vs did not receive intravenous lidocaine. We hypothesized that patients receiving lidocaine would have lower postoperative pain scores and consume fewer opioids. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery at a single institution via an ERP from 2017 to 2018. Patients who received lidocaine in the 6 months prior to a lidocaine shortage were compared to those who did not receive lidocaine for 6 months following the shortage. The primary outcome measures were pain scores as measured on the visual analogue scale and opioid consumption as measured by oral morphine equivalents (OME). RESULTS: We identified 1227 consecutive ERP abdominal surgery patients for inclusion (519 patients receiving lidocaine and 708 patients not receiving lidocaine). Demographics between the two cohorts were similar, with the following exceptions: more females, and more patients with a history of psychiatric diagnoses in the group that did not receive lidocaine. Adjusted, mixed linear models for both OME (P = .23) and pain scores (P = .51) found no difference between the lidocaine and no lidocaine groups. DISCUSSION: In our study of ERP abdominal surgery patients, perioperative intravenous lidocaine did not offer improvement in postoperative pain scores or OME consumed. We therefore do not recommend the use of intravenous lidocaine as part of an ERP multimodal pain management strategy in abdominal surgery patients.

REMAP Periop: a randomised, embedded, multifactorial adaptive platform trial protocol for perioperative medicine to determine the optimal enhanced recovery pathway components in complex abdominal surgery patients within a US healthcare system.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) has resulted in improved patient-centred outcomes and decreased costs. However, there is a lack of high-level evidence for many ERP elements. We have designed a randomised, embedded, multifactorial, adaptive platform perioperative medicine (REMAP Periop) trial to evaluate the effectiveness of several perioperative therapies for patients undergoing complex abdominal surgery as part of an ERP. This trial will begin with two domains: postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis and regional/neuraxial analgesia. Patients enrolled in the trial will be randomised to arms within both domains, with the possibility of adding additional domains in the future. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In the PONV domain, patients are randomised to optimal versus supraoptimal prophylactic regimens. In the regional/neuraxial domain, patients are randomised to one of five different single-injection techniques/combination of techniques. The primary study endpoint is hospital-free days at 30 days, with additional domain-specific secondary endpoints of PONV incidence and postoperative opioid consumption. The efficacy of an intervention arm within a given domain will be evaluated at regular interim analyses using Bayesian statistical analysis. At the beginning of the trial, participants will have an equal probability of being allocated to any given intervention within a domain (ie, simple 1:1 randomisation), with response adaptive randomisation guiding changes to allocation ratios after interim analyses when applicable based on prespecified statistical triggers. Triggers met at interim analysis may also result in intervention dropping. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The core protocol and domain-specific appendices were approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. A waiver of informed consent was obtained for this trial. Trial results will be announced to the public and healthcare providers once prespecified statistical triggers of interest are reached as described in the core protocol, and the most favourable interventions will then be implemented as a standardised institutional protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04606264.

Impact of holistic review on diversity of interviewed and matriculating residents in graduate medical education: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Diversity in the physician workforce improves patient-centred outcomes. Patients are more likely to trust in and comply with care when seeing gender/racially concordant providers. A current emphasis on standardised metrics in academic achievement often serves as a barrier to the recruitment and retention of gender and racial minorities in medicine. Holistic review of residency applicants has been supported as a means of encouraging diversification but is not yet standardised. The current body of evidence examining the effects of holistic review on the recruitment of racial and gender minorities in surgical residencies is small. We therefore propose a systematic review to summarise the state of holistic review in graduate medical education in the USA and its impact on diversification. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our systematic review protocol has been designed with plans to report our review findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. PubMed and Embase will be searched with the assistance of a health sciences librarian with expertise in systematic review. We will include studies of graduate medical education programmes that describe the implementation of holistic review, outline the components of their holistic review process and compare proportions of under-represented minorities (URM) and women interviewed and matriculating before and after holistic review implementation. We will first report a summary of the findings regarding the operationalisation of holistic review as described by studies included. We will then pool the percentages of URM and women for interviewee and matriculant populations from each study and report the collective odds ratios of each for holistic review compared with traditional review as our primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a protocol for systematic review, and therefore does not involve any human subjects. Findings will be published in the form of a manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023401389.

Drainage of anorectal abscesses in the operating room is associated with a decreased risk of abscess recurrence and fistula formation.

BACKGROUND: Timely incision and drainage (I&D) is first line management for anorectal abscesses. We aimed to define current practices in anorectal abscess management and identify factors associated with abscess recurrence and fistula formation. METHODS: Index episodes of anorectal abscesses treated with I&D in 2014-2018 at a multi-hospital healthcare system were included. Association with one-year abscess recurrence or fistula formation was evaluated using Cox proportional hazard regression. Fistulae were captured only among patients without fistulae at the index operation. RESULTS: A total of 458 patients met study criteria. One-year rate of abscess recurrence or fistula formation was 20.3%. When compared to bedside procedures, drainage in the operating room was associated with a reduced risk of either recurrence or fistula formation (aHR 0.20 [95%CI 0.114-0.367]). CONCLUSIONS: Improved exposure and patient comfort in the operating room may allow more complete drainage contributing to decreased rates of abscess recurrence or fistula formation.

Exploring Characteristics of Academic General Surgery Residency Applicants: A Group Concept-Mapping Approach.

OBJECTIVE: Holistic review, which emphasizes qualitative attributes over objective measures, has been proposed as a method for selecting candidates for surgical residency in order to improve diversity in graduate medical education, and, ultimately, the field of surgery. This study seeks to articulate desirable traits of applicants as a first-step in standardizing the holistic review process. DESIGN: Using Group Concept Mapping, a web-based mixed-methods participatory research methodology, residency selection committee members were asked to 1) list desirable characteristics of applicants, 2) group these into categories, 3) rate their importance to academic/clinical success on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all important, 5 = extremely important), and 4) rate the degree to which each characteristic is feasible to assess on a 3-point Likert scale (1 = not at all feasible, 3 = very feasible). Grouped characteristics submitted to hierarchical cluster analysis depicted committee's consensus about desirable qualities/criteria for applicants. Bivariate scatter-plots and pattern-matching graphics demonstrated which of these criteria were most important and reliably assessed. SETTING: A single academic general surgery residency training program in Western Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the selection committee for the UPMC General Surgery Residency program who had participated in at least 1 prior cycle of applicant selection. RESULTS: Desirable characteristics of highly qualified applicants into an academic general surgery residency were clustered into domains of 1) scholarly work and research, 2) grades/formal assessments, 3) program fit, 4) behavioral assets, and 5) aspiration. Behavioral assets, which was felt to be the most important to clinical and academic success were considered to be the least feasible to reliably assess. Within this domain, initiative, being self-motivated, intellectual curiosity, work ethic, communication skills, maturity and self-awareness, and thoughtfulness were viewed as most frequently reliably assessed from the application and interview process. CONCLUSIONS: High quality applicants possess several behavioral assets that faculty deem are important to academic and clinical success. Adapting validated metrics for assessing these assets, may provide a solution for addressing subjectivity and other challenges scrutinized by critics of holistic review.

Developing Opioid Prescription Guidelines After Anorectal Surgery: Do Patient-Reported Outcomes and Risk Factors Influence Consumption?

BACKGROUND: Opioids prescribed to address postoperative pain drive opioid-related deaths in the United States. Prescribing guidelines have been developed for many general surgical procedures, which have decreased opioid prescription and consumption. The literature on opioids after anorectal surgery is lacking. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed our data on opioid prescription and consumption to create opioid-prescribing guidelines for anorectal procedures. DESIGN: We designed a prospectively collected postoperative survey given to consecutive patients undergoing anorectal surgery by colorectal surgeons. SETTINGS: Patients had surgery at 2 academic, university-affiliated hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing anorectal surgery from May 3, 2018, to December 18, 2019, were included in the study. Patients were excluded if they were <18 years of age, had a concurrent abdominopelvic surgery, consumed opioids in the week before their operation, or were without follow-up at 3 months postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of this study was the number of opioid pills needed to fulfill consumption of 80% of patients. Secondary outcome measures were patient, operative, and postoperative factors associated with increasing pill consumption. RESULTS: Eighteen 5-mg oxycodone tablets were needed to fulfill the needs of 80% of patients. An overall median of 8 pills was consumed. Pill prescription was independently predictive of increased consumption. The only patient factor associated with increased consumption was race; no other patient or operative factors were predictive of consumption. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include its partially retrospective nature, use of self-reported data, and lack of racial diversity among our cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Without any clinical factors predictive of increased consumption, prescription guidelines can be standardized to ≤18 5-mg oxycodone tablets across anorectal surgery patients. As prescription is correlated with consumption, further work is needed to determine whether lesser quantities of opioids prescribed offer similar postoperative pain relief for patients undergoing anorectal surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B821 .DESARROLLO DE PAUTAS PARA LA PRESCRIPCIÓN DE OPIOIDES DESPUÉS DE CIRUGÍA ANORRECTAL: ¿INFLUYEN EN EL CONSUMO LOS RESULTADOS INFORMADOS POR EL PACIENTE Y LOS FACTORES DE RIESGO? ANTECEDENTES: Los opioides recetados para tratar el dolor posoperatorio provocan muertes relacionadas con los opioides en los Estados Unidos. Se han desarrollado pautas de prescripción para muchos procedimientos quirúrgicos generales y estas han conducido a una disminución de la prescripción y el consumo de opioides. Hay una carencia de literatura sobre el uso de opioides después de cirugía anorrectal. OBJETIVO: Analizamos nuestros datos sobre prescripción y consumo de opioides para crear pautas de prescripción de opioides para procedimientos anorrectales. DISEO: Diseñamos una encuesta postoperatoria recopilada prospectivamente que se administró a pacientes consecutivos sometidos a cirugía anorrectal por cirujanos colorrectales. AJUSTES: Los pacientes fueron operados en dos hospitales académicos afiliados a la universidad. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron en el estudio pacientes sometidos a cirugía anorrectal desde el 3/05/2018 hasta el 18/12/2019. Se excluyó a los pacientes que tenían menos de 18 años, a los que se sometieron a cirugía abdominopélvica concurrente, a los que consumieron opioides en la semana anterior a la operación, o si no tenían seguimiento a los 3 meses del postoperatorio. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE DESENLACE: El desenlace principal de este estudio fue el número de píldoras de opioides necesarias para satisfacer el consumo del 80% de los pacientes. Las medidas de desenlace secundarias fueron los factores del paciente, operatorios y posoperatorios asociados con el aumento del consumo de píldoras. RESULTADOS: Fueron necesarios dieciocho comprimidos de oxicodona de 5 mg para cubrir las necesidades del 80% de los pacientes. Se consumió una mediana general de 8 píldoras. La prescripción de la píldora fue un predictor independiente de un mayor consumo. El único factor del paciente asociado con un mayor consumo fue la raza; ningún otro paciente o factores operativos fueron predictivos del consumo. LIMITACIONES: Las limitaciones de este estudio incluyen su naturaleza parcialmente retrospectiva, el uso de datos autoinformados y la falta de diversidad racial entre nuestra cohorte. CONCLUSIONES: Sin ningún factor clínico que prediga un aumento del consumo, las pautas de prescripción se pueden estandarizar a dieciocho o menos comprimidos de oxicodona de 5 mg en pacientes sometidos a cirugía anorrectal. Como la prescripción se correlaciona con el consumo, se necesita más trabajo para determinar si cantidades menores de opioides prescritos ofrecen un alivio del dolor posoperatorio similar para los pacientes sometidos a cirugía anorrectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B821 . (Traducción-Juan Carlos Reyes ).

Does umbilical contamination correlate with colorectal surgery patient outcomes?

PURPOSE: Most preoperative assessment tools to evaluate risk for postoperative complications require multiple data points to be collected and can be logistically burdensome. This study evaluated if umbilical contamination, a simple bedside assessment, correlated with surgical outcomes. METHODS: A 6-point score to measure umbilical contamination was developed and applied prospectively to patients undergoing colorectal surgery at an academic medical center. RESULTS: There were 200 patients enrolled (mean age 58.1 ± 14.8; 56% female). The mean BMI was 28.6 ± 7.4. Indications for surgery included colon cancer (24%), rectal cancer (18%), diverticulitis (13.5%), and Crohn's disease (12.5%). Umbilical contamination scores were 0 (23%, cleanest), 1 (26%), 2 (21%), 3 (24%), 4 (6%), and 5 (0%, dirtiest). Umbilical contamination did not correlate with preoperative functional status (p > 0.2). Umbilical contamination correlated with increased length of stay (rho = 0.19, p = 0.007) and postoperative complications (OR 1.3, 1.02-1.7, p = 0.04), but not readmission (p = 0.3) or discharge disposition (p > 0.2). CONCLUSION: Sterile preparation of the abdomen is an important component of proper surgical technique and umbilical contamination correlates with increased postoperative complications.

Colorectal Cancer Safety Net: Is It Catching Patients Appropriately?

BACKGROUND: Disparities in access to colorectal cancer care are multifactorial and are affected by socioeconomic elements. Uninsured and Medicaid patients present with advanced stage disease and have worse outcomes compared with similar privately insured patients. Safety net hospitals are a major care provider to this vulnerable population. Few studies have evaluated outcomes for safety net hospitals compared with private institutions in colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare demographics, screening rates, presentation stage, and survival rates between a safety net hospital and a tertiary care center. DESIGN: Comparative review of patients at 2 institutions in the same metropolitan area were conducted. SETTINGS: The study included colorectal cancer care delivered either at 1 safety net hospital or 1 private tertiary care center in the same city from 2010 to 2016. PATIENTS: A total of 350 patients with colorectal cancer from each hospital were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival across hospital systems was measured. RESULTS: The safety net hospital had significantly more uninsured and Medicaid patients (46% vs 13%; p < 0.001) and a significantly lower median household income than the tertiary care center ($39,299 vs $49,741; p < 0.0001). At initial presentation, a similar percentage of patients at each hospital presented with stage IV disease (26% vs 20%; p = 0.06). For those undergoing resection, final pathologic stage distribution was similar across groups (p = 0.10). After a comparable median follow-up period (26.6 mo for safety net hospital vs 29.2 mo for tertiary care center), log-rank test for overall survival favored the safety net hospital (p = 0.05); disease-free survival was similar between hospitals (p = 0.40). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective review, reporting from medical charts. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the value of safety net hospitals for providing quality colorectal cancer care, with survival and recurrence outcomes equivalent or improved compared with a local tertiary care center. Because safety net hospitals can provide equivalent outcomes despite socioeconomic inequalities and financial constraints, emphasis should be focused on ensuring that adequate funding for these institutions continues. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A454.

Surgery versus Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Appendicitis: Which Would a Medical Student Want?

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that treatment of acute, uncomplicated appendicitis (AUA) with antibiotics is as effective as surgery. A 2015 study indicated that more than 50% of patients would choose antibiotic therapy. Medical students represent a unique population of potential patients with greater medical knowledge than the general public and possibly less bias than practicing physicians. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate what the MEDICAL STUDENT'S treatment choice for AUA would be and what factors influence these decisions. METHODS: We conducted a survey of current medical students at a single institution. Survey data included demographics, interest in surgery or a procedure-related specialty, knowledge of and experience with surgery and antibiotics, and concerns about treatments. A summary of the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of antibiotics and surgery was presented. Each participant was asked which treatment he or she would choose if affected by AUA. RESULTS: A series of 255 medical students completed the survey (mean age 24.8 ± 2.4 y; 51.5% female). The largest number of respondents (41.2%) were second-year students, and more than half (54.2%) reported an interest in a procedure-related specialty. Nearly all (93%) reported prior antibiotic use (19% reporting adverse effects), and 50% had prior surgery (20% reporting adverse events). When asked to identify concerns about each treatment choice, "surgical complications" was selected most frequently (82%) for surgery, and "adverse events and side effects" was selected most frequently for antibiotics (57%). When asked how they would treat their own AUA, 66.3% selected surgery, 24.3% selected antibiotics, and 9.4% were unsure. Race, gender, specialty of interest, year of training, and history of adverse effects related to antibiotics or surgery were not significantly related to treatment choice (all p > 0.1). CONCLUSION: When informed of the benefits and risks of surgery and antibiotics to treat AUA, medical students in our study were more likely to choose surgery.

Are we catching women in the safety net? Colorectal cancer outcomes by gender at a safety net hospital.

BACKGROUND: Our goal was to evaluate presentation and outcomes for colorectal cancer across gender in a safety net hospital (SNH). METHODS: An institutional Tumor Registry was reviewed for colorectal cancer resections 12/2009-2/2016. Patients were stratified into male and female cohorts. The main outcome measures were stage at presentation and oncologic outcomes across gender. RESULTS: 170 women (48.6%) and 180 men (51.4%) were evaluated; 129 (84.1%) females and 143 (79.4%) males underwent curative resection. There were no significant differences in prior colorectal cancer screening. On presentation, there were similar rates of stage IV disease across genders (p = 0.3). After median follow-up of 26.5 months (female) and 29.9 months (male), there were no significant differences in overall survival, survival by stage, or disease-free survival by gender (all p = 0.7). The local (1.4% females vs. 2.6% males, p = 0.7) and distant recurrence (16.6% females vs. 14.9% males, p = 0.7) were similar across gender. CONCLUSION: With equal access to treatment, there were no significant differences in overall survival, survival by stage, or local or distant recurrence rates by gender. These findings stress the importance of the SNH system, and need for continued support.

Treatment for anal fissure: Is there a safe option?

BACKGROUND: Surgeons often approach anal fissure with chemical denervation (Botulinum toxin, BT) instead of initial lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) due to concerns for long-term incontinence. We evaluated the characteristics and outcomes of patients who received BT or LIS. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing LIS and BT for anal fissure between 2009 and 2015. In 2015, a telephone survey was performed to evaluate durability, long-term incontinence and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients met criteria: 73 LIS and 21 BT. Age (BT 49 vs. LIS 52) was similar between groups (p = 1.0). Cleveland Clinic Fecal Incontinence (CCFI) score pre-intervention was higher in BT than LIS patients (2.1 vs. 0.4, p = 0.007) with fewer BT patients with perfect continence (50% vs. 88%). Telephone survey response was 61%. Fissure recurrence was significantly higher for BT than LIS patients (36% vs. 9%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing LIS were less likely to recur. Both LIS and BT patients had some durable changes in continence raising the question of whether there is a safe technique.

Evaluating surgical management and outcomes of colovaginal fistulas.

BACKGROUND: Colovaginal fistula is a rare condition associated with significant morbidity. The literature characterizing colovaginal fistula repair is sparse. We present our institution's experience treating colovaginal fistulas. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients surgically treated for colovaginal fistula between 2005 and 2015 was performed. Patient demographics, intra-operative details, and post-operative outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: We identified 27 patients with a mean age of 71 (±13) and BMI of 30 (±9). The most common etiology for fistula was diverticulitis (n = 24, 89%). A laparoscopic approach was initiated in 19 patients (70%) and an open approach for 8 (30%) with 8 patients converted from laparoscopy to open (42%). At a mean follow-up of 18 months (±21), there were no recurrences. CONCLUSION: We present one of the largest series of the surgical management of colovaginal fistulas. Although our conversion rate was high, we recommend a laparoscopic approach be utilized when feasible.

Alvimopan in the setting of colorectal resection with an ostomy: To use or not to use?

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus (POI) is a major cause of morbidity, increased length of stay (LOS) and hospital cost after colorectal surgery. Alvimopan is a µ-opioid antagonist used to accelerate upper and lower gastrointestinal function after bowel resection. We hypothesized that alvimopan would reduce LOS in patients undergoing colorectal resection with stoma, a situation that has not been evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective review (2010-2015) identified 58 patients who underwent colorectal resection for benign or malignant disease with stoma creation and received alvimopan. They were case-matched to 58 non-alvimopan patients based on age, BMI, baseline comorbidities, stoma type created and surgical approach. We compared overall LOS, incidence of POI and other postoperative complications. RESULTS: There were equal numbers of laparoscopic (N = 18) and open resections (N = 40) in the alvimopan group and non-alvimopan group. There were also equal numbers of patients with an ileostomy (N = 37) or colostomy (N = 21) in each group. Overall, 41 patients underwent resection for malignant disease in the alvimopan group compared to 37 in the non-alvimopan group. There was a significant reduction in median LOS overall (alvimopan 5 (4-7) versus control 6 (4.75-9.25) days, P = 0.03). While the 6-day median LOS was similar for patients undergoing ileostomy creation (P = 0.25), alvimopan patients had a 3-day decreased median LOS that approached statistical significance (P = 0.06). The overall 30-day complication rate was higher in the control group (41.4 vs. 51.7%, P = 0.26), but the readmission rate within 30 days was higher in the alvimopan group (19 vs. 13.8%, P = 0.45). Neither of these differences reached statistically significance. CONCLUSION: The use of alvimopan in patients undergoing colorectal resection with stoma is associated with a significantly shorter LOS, but the increased readmission rate warrants further study. Based on these data, alvimopan should be evaluated in a controlled setting for patients undergoing colorectal resection with colostomy creation.