Diffusion de la réhabilitation améliorée après chirurgie en France. Étude nationale à grande échelle, à partir des données du PMSI.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to analyze the rate of enhanced recovery programs (ERP) implementation in a range of surgical specialties in both the public and private sectors. METHODS: This was a retrospective longitudinal study based on hospital stays between March to December 2019. We studied thirteen of the activity segments most frequently included in ERP protocol. The procedures selected included digestive, gynecological, orthopedic, thoracic, and urological procedures. The assessment criteria was the rate of ERP. The results were analyzed first overall and then matching ERP stays to non-ERP stays according to type of institution, patient age and sex, month of discharge, and Charlson comorbidity score. RESULTS: We took 420,031 stays into account, of which 78,119 were coded as ERP. There were 62,403 non-ERP stays. Depending on the type of surgery, the implementation rate ranged from 5 percent to 30 percent. The overall rate of ERP implementation was higher in the private sector (21.2 percent) than in the public sector (14.4 percent). The results are reversed for some surgeries, notably for some cancers. Patients had a higher Charlson score in the public sector. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale national study provides a picture of the degree of diffusion of ERPs in France. Although there are differences between sectors, this diffusion is still insufficient overall. Given the demonstrated benefits of ERPs, more educational efforts are needed to improve their implementation in France.

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic surgery (RS) is experiencing major development, particularly in the context of rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize data from the literature, focusing specifically on the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery in mid-low rectal cancers, based on the hypothesis that that robotic surgery can find its most rational indication in this anatomical location. METHOD: The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA 2000 recommendations, including all randomized trials that compared robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) that were found in the Medline-PICO, Cochrane Database, Scopus and Google databases. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane Handbook method and the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE method. The analysis was carried out with R software Version 4.2-3 using the Package for Meta-Analysis "meta" version 6.5-0. RESULTS: Eight randomized trials were included (with a total of 2342 patients), including four that focused specifically on mid-low rectal cancer (n=1,734 patients). No statistically significant difference was found for overall morbidity, intra-operative morbidity, anastomotic leakage, post-operative mortality, quality of mesorectal specimen, and resection margins. The main differences identified were a lower conversion rate for RS (RR=0.48 [0.24-0.95], p=0.04, I2=0%), and a longer operative time for RS (mean difference=39.11min [9.39-68.83], p<0.01, I2=96%). The other differences had no real clinical relevance, i.e., resumption of flatus passage (5hours earlier after RS), and lymph node dissection (one more lymph node for LS). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis does not confirm the initial hypothesis and does not show a statistically significant or clinically relevant benefit of RS compared to LS for mid-low rectal cancer.

A systematic review comparing the safety, cost and carbon footprint of disposable and reusable laparoscopic devices.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this systematic review of the literature is to compare a selection of currently utilized disposable and reusable laparoscopic medical devices in terms of safety (1st criteria), cost and carbon footprint. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was carried out on electronic databases for articles published up until 6 May 2022. The eligible works were prospective (randomized or not) or retrospective clinical or medical-economic comparative studies having compared disposable scissors, trocars, and mechanical endoscopic staplers to the same instruments in reusable. Two different independent examiners extracted the relevant data. RESULTS: Among the 2882 articles found, 156 abstracts were retained for examination. After comprehensive analysis concerning the safety and effectiveness of the instruments, we included four articles. A study on trocars highlighted increased vascular complications with disposable instruments, and another study found more perioperative incidents with a hybrid stapler as opposed to a disposable stapler. As regards cost analysis, we included 11 studies, all of which showed significantly higher costs with disposable instruments. The results of the one study on carbon footprints showed that hybrid instruments leave four times less of a carbon footprint than disposable instruments. CONCLUSION: The literature on the theme remains extremely limited. Our review demonstrated that from a medical and economic standpoint, reusable medical instruments, particularly trocars, presented appreciable advantages. While there exist few data on the ecological impact, those that do exist are unmistakably favorable to reusable instruments.

Is systematic histological examination of the cholecystectomy specimen always necessary?

INTRODUCTION: The histological examination (HE) of all cholecystectomy specimens removed for cholelithiasis is a widespread practice to rule out unrecognized gallbladder cancer. (GBC). But this dogmatic practice has been called into question by recent published data. The aim of this literature review was to answer two questions: (1) can HE be omitted in specific cases; (2) under what conditions is a selective strategy indicated? METHODS: A review of the literature was carried out that included selected multicenter studies, registry studies, or meta-analyses. A reliable technique for the surgeon's macroscopic examination of the specimen would allow the selection of dubious cases for HE. The cost-effectiveness of selective HE was discussed. The PICO methodology (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) was used in the selection of articles that compared routine and selective histological examination. RESULTS: If cases from countries with a high prevalence of gallbladder cancer are excluded and in the absence of high-risk situations (advanced age, female gender, calcified or porcelain gallbladder, acute cholecystitis, polyps, abnormalities noted intra-operatively), the macroscopic examination of the gallbladder in the operating room has a reliability approaching 100% in the majority of published studies. This would make it possible to omit systematic HE without compromising the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with unsuspected GBC and with a very favorable cost-effectiveness ratio. CONCLUSION: Through a selection of patients at very low risk of incidentally-discovered cancer and a routine macroscopic examination of the opened gallbladder, the strategy of selective HE could prove useful in both clinical and economic terms.

Is a care pathway for enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery environmentally responsible?

INTRODUCTION: Above and beyond the environmentally responsible operating theater, the environmental impact of the pathways of surgically treated patients seems essential but has seldom been considered in the literature. On a parallel track, enhanced recovery programmes (ERP) programs are presently deemed a standard of care. The objective of this review is to determine the carbon footprint of the ERP approach in colorectal surgery. METHOD: This a narrative review based on articles referenced in PubMed. Our search was centered on the environmental impact of an ERP in the context of colorectal surgery. A number of measures included in the national and international guidelines were studied. We utilized the terms "carbon footprint", "sustainability", "energy cost", "environmental footprint", "life cycle assessment" AND a key word for each subject found in the ERP recommendations. RESULTS: Most ERP measures in the context of colorectal surgery are factually or intuitively virtuous from an ecological standpoint. With a 3-day reduction in average hospital stay resulting from ERP, the program permits a reduction of at least 375kg CO2e/patient (Appendices 1 and 2). The most substantial part of this reduction is achieved during the perioperative period. While some measures, such as short fasting, are ecologically neutral, others (treatment of comorbidities, smoking cessation, hypothermia prevention, antibiotic prophylaxis, laparoscopy, absence of drains or probes, thromboprophylaxis, early feeding and mobilization…) lead to fewer postoperative complications, and can consequently be considered as environmentally responsible. Conversely, other measures, one example being robotic surgery, leave a substantial carbon footprint. CONCLUSION: ERP is congruent with two pillars of sustainable development: the social pillar (improved patient recovery, and better caregiver working conditions fostered by team spirit), and the economic pillar (decreased healthcare expenses). While the third, environmental pillar is intuitively present, the low number of published studies remains a limitation to be overcome in future qualitative studies.

Systematic review of carbon footprint of surgical procedures.

The ecological sustainability of the operating room (OR) is a matter of recent interest. The present systematic review aimed to review the current literature assessing the carbon footprint of surgical procedures in different surgical fields. Following to the PRISMA statement checklist, three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were searched by independent reviewers, who screened records on title and abstract first, and then on the full text. Risk of bias was evaluated using the MINORS system. Over the 878 articles initially identified, 36 original studies were included. They considered ophthalmologic surgical procedures (30.5%), general/digestive surgery (19.4%), gynecologic procedures (13.9%), orthopedic procedures (8.3%), neurosurgery (5.5%), otolaryngology/head and neck surgery (5.5%), plastic/dermatological surgery (5.5%), and cardiac surgery (2.8%). Despite a great methodological heterogeneity, data showed that a single surgical procedure emits 4-814 kgCO2e, with anesthetic gases and energy consumption representing the largest sources of greenhouse gas emission. Minimally invasive surgical techniques may require more resources than conventional open surgery, particularly for packaging and plastics, energy use, and waste production. Each OR has the potential to produce from 0.2 to 4kg of waste per case with substantial differences depending on the type of intervention, hospital setting, and geographic area. Overall, the selected studies were found to be of moderate quality. Based on a qualitative synthesis of the available literature, the OR can be targeted by programs and protocols implemented to reduce the carbon footprint and improve the waste stream of the OR.

Surgery, innovation, research and sustainable development.

In the healthcare sector, surgery (especially in the operating theatre) is responsible for emission of greenhouse gases, which is a source of global warming. The goal of this largely quantitative assessment is to address three questions on carbon footprint associated with surgery, the role of primary and secondary prevention prior to surgical procedures, and incorporation of the carbon footprint into judgment criteria in research and surgical innovations. It appears that while the impact of surgery on global warming is undeniable, its extent depends on means of treatment and geographical location. Before and after an operation, primary, secondary and tertiary prevention accompanied by surgical sobriety (avoiding unnecessary or unjustified actions) can be virtuous in terms of sustainable development. However, the sanitary benefits of these actions are often opposed to environmental benefit, which has yet to be satisfactorily assessed. Lastly, the carbon footprint has yet to be incorporated into research protocols or the innovations under development. This should impel us not only to sensitize the different healthcare actors to relevant issues, but also to improve working conditions.

Perioperative nutritional assessment and support in visceral surgery.

Malnutrition in visceral surgery is frequent; it calls for screening prior to an operation, and its postoperative occurrence should be sought out and prevented, if possible. Organization of an individualized nutritional support strategy is based on systematic nutritional assessment and adapted to the type of surgery, the objectives being to forestall malnutrition and to reduce induced morbidity (immunosuppression, delayed wound healing, anastomotic fistulas…). Nutritional support is part and parcel of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), and has shown effectiveness in the field of visceral surgery. Oral feeding should always be privileged to the greatest possible extent, complemented if necessary by nutritional supplements. If nutritional support is required, enteral nutrition should be favored over parenteral nutrition. As for the role of pharmaco-nutrition or immuno-nutrition, it remains ill-defined. Lastly, each type of visceral surgery entails specific modifications of the anatomy of the digestive system and is liable to have specific functional consequences, which should be known and taken into account in view of effectively tailoring nutritional support.

Postoperative nutrition in the setting of enhanced recovery programmes.

Patients undergoing major surgery for gastrointestinal cancer are at high risk of developing or worsening malnutrition and sarcopenia. In malnourished patients, preoperative nutritional support may not be sufficient and so postoperative support is advised. This narrative review addresses several aspects of postoperative nutritional care in the setting of enhanced recovery programmes. Early oral feeding, therapeutic diet, oral nutritional supplements, immunonutrition, and probiotics are discussed. When postoperative intake is insufficient, nutritional support favouring the enteral route is recommended. Whether this approach should use a nasojejunal tube or jejunostomy is still a matter of debate. In the setting of enhanced recovery programmes with early discharge, nutritional follow-up and care should be continued beyond the short time in hospital. In enhanced recovery programmes, the main specific aspects of nutrition are patient education, early oral intake, and post-discharge care. The other aspects do not differ from conventional care.