The economic impact of anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains a burdensome complication following colorectal surgery, with increased morbidity, oncological compromise, and mortality. AL may impose a substantial financial burden on hospitals and society due to extensive resource utilization. Estimated costs associated with AL are important when exploring preventive measures and treatment strategies. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the existing literature on (socio)economic costs associated with AL after colorectal surgery, appraise their quality, compare reported outcomes, and identify knowledge gaps. METHODS: Health economic evaluations reporting costs related to AL after colorectal surgery were identified through searching multiple online databases until June 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated the quality using an adapted version of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. Extracted costs were converted to 2022 euros (€) and also adjusted for purchasing power disparities among countries. RESULTS: From 1980 unique abstracts, 59 full-text publications were assessed for eligibility, and 17 studies were included in the review. The incremental costs of AL after correcting for purchasing power disparity ranged from €2250 (+39.9%, Romania) to €83,633 (+ 513.1%, Brazil). Incremental costs were mainly driven by hospital (re)admission, intensive care stay, and reinterventions. Only one study estimated the economic societal burden of AL between €1.9 and €6.1 million. CONCLUSIONS: AL imposes a significant financial burden on hospitals and social care systems. The magnitude of costs varies greatly across countries and data on the societal burden and non-medical costs are scarce. Adherence to international reporting standards is essential to understand international disparities and to externally validate reported cost estimates.

Patients' perspectives and the perceptions of healthcare providers in the treatment of early rectal cancer; a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making has become of increased importance in choosing the most suitable treatment strategy for early rectal cancer, however, clinical decision-making is still primarily based on physicians' perspectives. Balancing quality of life and oncological outcomes is difficult, and guidance on patients' involvement in this subject in early rectal cancer is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore preferences and priorities of patients as well as physicians' perspectives in treatment for early rectal cancer. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were performed with early rectal cancer patients (n = 10) and healthcare providers (n = 10). Participants were asked which factors influenced their preferences and how important these factors were. Thematic analyses were performed. In addition, participants were asked to rank the discussed factors according to importance to gain additional insights. RESULTS: Patients addressed the following relevant factors: the risk of an ostomy, risk of poor bowel function and treatment related complications. Healthcare providers emphasized oncological outcomes as tumour recurrence, risk of an ostomy and poor bowel function. Patients perceived absolute risks of adverse outcome to be lower than healthcare providers and were quite willing undergo organ preservation to achieve a better prospect of quality of life. CONCLUSION: Patients' preferences in treatment of early rectal cancer vary between patients and frequently differ from assumptions of preferences by healthcare providers. To optimize future shared decision-making, healthcare providers should be aware of these differences and should invite patients to explore and address their priorities more explicitly during consultation. Factors deemed important by both physicians and patients should be expressed during consultation to decide on a tailored treatment strategy.

Preoperative Risk Stratification in Esophageal Cancer Surgery: Comparing Risk Models with the Clinical Judgment of the Surgeon.

BACKGROUND: Numerous prediction models estimating the risk of complications after esophagectomy exist but are rarely used in practice. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical judgment of surgeons using these prediction models. METHODS: Patients with resectable esophageal cancer who underwent an esophagectomy were included in this prospective study. Prediction models for postoperative complications after esophagectomy were selected by a systematic literature search. Clinical judgment was given by three surgeons, indicating their estimated risk for postoperative complications in percentage categories. The best performing prediction model was compared with the judgment of the surgeons, using the net reclassification improvement (NRI), category-free NRI (cfNRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) indexes. RESULTS: Overall, 159 patients were included between March 2019 and July 2021, of whom 88 patients (55%) developed a complication. The best performing prediction model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.56. The three surgeons had an AUC of 0.53, 0.55, and 0.59, respectively, and all surgeons showed negative percentages of cfNRIevents and IDIevents, and positive percentages of cfNRInonevents and IDIevents. This indicates that in the group of patients with postoperative complications, the prediction model performed better, whereas in the group of patients without postoperative complications, the surgeons performed better. NRIoverall was 18% for one surgeon, while the remainder of the NRIoverall, cfNRIoverall and IDIoverall scores showed small differences between surgeons and the prediction models. CONCLUSION: Prediction models tend to overestimate the risk of any complication, whereas surgeons tend to underestimate this risk. Overall, surgeons' estimations differ between surgeons and vary between similar to slightly better than the prediction models.

Benefit of Risk-stratified Prophylactic Treatment on Clinical Outcome in Postoperative Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Whereas immediate postoperative treatment has shown effectiveness in reducing endoscopic postoperative recurrence [POR], evidence regarding the clinical benefit is limited. We compared rates of clinical POR in Crohn's disease [CD] patients receiving immediate prophylactic treatment with rates in patients receiving endoscopy-driven treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from 376 consecutive CD patients who underwent an ileocaecal resection with anastomosis between 2007 and 2018 with at least 3 years of follow-up at three sites. Subsequently, high- and low-risk patients categorised by established guidelines, who underwent endoscopy within 12 months postoperatively, were grouped according to a prophylactic- or endoscopy-driven approach and compared for incidence and time till endoscopic and clinical POR. RESULTS: Prophylactic treatment reduced rates of and time till endoscopic POR within 1 year in high-risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.86, p = 0.04, number needed to treat [NNT] = 5) but not low-risk [HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.32-2.56, p = 0.85] patients. Conversely, no significant differences in clinical POR within 3 years between prophylactic- and endoscopy-driven low-risk [HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.41-3.29, p = 0.75] and high-risk patients were observed [HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63-1.79, p = 0.82, NNT = 22]. However, a large numerical albeit not statistical significant difference in 3-year clinical POR [28.6% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.11] in a subset of high-risk patients with three or more ECCO-defined risk factors was observed, indicating a cumulative effect of having multiple risk factors. CONCLUSION: Our observations favour step-up treatment guided by early endoscopic evaluation with prophylactic treatment reserved for carefully selected high-risk patients, in order to avoid potential overtreatment of a significant number of patients.

The use of fluorescence angiography to assess bowel viability in the acute setting: an international, multi-centre case series.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing bowel viability can be challenging during acute surgical procedures, especially regarding mesenteric ischaemia. Intraoperative fluorescence angiography (FA) may be a valuable tool for the surgeon to determine whether bowel resection is necessary and to define the most appropriate resection margins. The aim of this study is to report on FA use in the acute setting and to judge its impact on intraoperative decision making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a multi-centre, retrospective case series of patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery between February 2016 and 2021 in three general/colorectal units where intraoperative FA was performed to assess bowel viability. Primary endpoint was change of management after the FA assessment. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients (50 males, 66.6 ± 19.2 years, ASA score ≥ III in 85%) were identified and studied. Initial surgical approach was laparotomy in 66 (71%) patients and laparoscopy in 27 (29% and seven, 26% conversions). The most common aetiologies were mesenteric ischaemia (n = 42, 45%) and adhesional/herniae-related strangulation (n = 41, 44%). In 50 patients a bowel resection was performed. Overall rates of anastomosis after resection, reoperation and 30-day mortality were 48% (n = 24/50, one leak), 12% and 18%, respectively. FA changed management in 27 (29%) patients. In four patients (4% overall), resection was avoided and in 21 (23%) extra bowel length was preserved (median 50 cm of bowel saved, IQR 28-98) although three patients developed further ischaemia. FA prompted extended resection (median of 20 cm, IQR 10-50 extra bowel) in six (6%) patients. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative use of FA impacts surgical decisions regarding bowel resection for intestinal ischaemia, potentially enabling bowel preservation in approximately one out of four patients. Prospective studies are needed to optimize the best use of this technology for this indication and to determine standards for the interpretation of FA images and the potential subsequent need for second-look surgeries.

Staging laparoscopy in gastric cancer surgery. A population-based cohort study in patients undergoing gastrectomy with curative intent.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the value of a staging laparoscopy in detecting metastases in gastric cancer patients show great variation. This study investigates the avoidable surgery rate in patients with and without a staging laparoscopy scheduled for surgery with curative intent. METHODS: This population-based cohort study included all patients with an intentional resection for a potentially curable gastric adenocarcinoma, between 2011 and 2016, registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer audit. Patients with and without a staging laparoscopy were compared. The primary outcome was the avoidable surgery rate (detection of metastases and/or locoregional non-resectable tumor during intentional gastrectomy). Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value, postoperative morbidity and pathology parameters. RESULTS: 2849 patients who underwent an intentional gastrectomy were included. 414 of 2849 (14.5%) patients underwent a staging laparoscopy before initiation of treatment. The avoidable surgery rate was 16.2% in the staging laparoscopy group, compared to 8.5% in the non-staging group (P < 0.001), resulting in a negative predictive value of 83.8%. The avoidable surgery rate remained significantly different after correction for possible confounders. The main reason for not executing the gastrectomy was the presence of distant metastasis in both groups. cT and cN stage were significantly higher in patients who underwent a staging laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The staging laparoscopy group had a higher cTN and pTN stage, implicating selection of patients with more advanced disease for a staging laparoscopy. Despite the staging laparoscopy, a higher rate of avoidable surgery was found, suggesting a low sensitivity for detecting metastases or locoregional non-resectability in this patient group.

Optimizing imaging in suspected appendicitis (OPTIMAP-study): a multicenter diagnostic accuracy study of MRI in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: In patients with clinically suspected appendicitis, imaging is needed to substantiate the clinical diagnosis. Imaging accuracy of ultrasonography (US) is suboptimal, while the most accurate technique (CT) is associated with cancer related deaths through exposure to ionizing radiation. MRI is a potential replacement, without associated ionizing radiation and no need for contrast medium administration. If MRI is proven to be sufficiently accurate, it could be introduced in the diagnostic pathway of patients with suspected appendicitis, increasing diagnostic accuracy and improving clinical outcomes, without the risk of radiation induced cancer or iodinated contrast medium-related drawbacks. The multicenter OPTIMAP study was designed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI in patients with suspected acute appendicitis in the general population. METHODS/DESIGN: Eligible for this study are consecutive patients presenting with clinically suspected appendicitis at the emergency department in six centers. All patients will undergo imaging according to the Dutch guideline for acute appendicitis: initial ultrasonography in all and subsequent CT whenever US does not confirm acute appendicitis. Then MRI is performed in all patients, but the results are not used for patient management. A final diagnosis assigned by an expert panel, based on all available information including 3-months follow-up, except MRI findings, is used as the reference standard in estimating accuracy. We will calculate the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and inter-observer agreement of MRI, and aim to include 230 patients. Patient acceptance and total imaging costs will also be evaluated. DISCUSSION: If MRI is found to be sufficiently accurate, it could replace CT in some or all patients. This will limit or obviate the ionizing radiation exposure associated risk of cancer induction and contrast medium induced nephropathy with CT, preventing the burden and the direct and indirect costs associated with treatment. Based on the high intrinsic contrast resolution of MRI, one might envision higher accuracy rates for MRI than for CT. If so, MRI could further decrease the number of unnecessary appendectomies and the number of missed appendicitis cases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2148.