Safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by trainee surgeons with different cholangiographic techniques (SCOTCH): a prospective non-randomized trial on the impact of fluorescent cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by trainees.

AIMS: The identification of the anatomical components of the Calot's Triangle during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) might be challenging and its difficulty may increase when a surgical trainee (ST) is in charge, ultimately allegedly affecting also the incidence of common bile duct injuries (CBDIs). There are various methods to help reach the critical view of safety (CVS): intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC), critical view of safety in white light (CVS-WL) and near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography (NIRF-C). The primary objective was to compare the use of these techniques to obtain the CVS during elective LC performed by ST. METHODS: This was a multicentre prospective observational study (Clinicalstrials.gov Registration number: NCT04863482). The impact of three different visualization techniques (IOC, CVS-WL, NIRF-C) on LC was analyzed. Operative time and time to achieve the CVS were considered. All the participating surgeons were also required to fill in three questionnaires at the end of the operation focusing on anatomical identification of the general task and their satisfaction. RESULTS: Twenty-nine centers participated for a total of 338 patients: 260 CVS-WL, 10 IOC and 68 NIRF-C groups. The groups did not differ in the baseline characteristics. CVS was considered achieved in all the included case. Rates were statistically higher in the NIR-C group for common hepatic and common bile duct visualization (p = 0.046; p < 0.005, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in operative time (p = 0.089) nor in the time to achieve the CVS (p = 0.626). Three biliary duct injuries were reported: 2 in the CVS-WL and 1 in the NIR-C. Surgical workload scores were statistically lower in every domain in the NIR-C group. Subjective satisfaction was higher in the NIR-C group. There were no other statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: These data showed that using NIRF-C did not prolong operative time but positively influenced the surgeon's satisfaction of the performance of LC.

Sustainability in surgical practice: a collaborative call toward environmental sustainability in operating rooms.

BACKGROUND: The healthcare system plays a pivotal role in environmental sustainability, and the operating room (OR) significantly contributes to its overall carbon footprint. In response to this critical challenge, leading medical societies, government bodies, regulatory agencies, and industry stakeholders are taking measures to address healthcare sustainability and its impact on climate change. Healthcare now represents almost 20% of the US national economy and 8.5% of US carbon emissions. Internationally, healthcare represents 5% of global carbon emissions. US Healthcare is an outlier in both per capita cost, and per capita greenhouse gas emission, with almost twice per capita emissions compared to every other country in the world. METHODS: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) established the Sustainability in Surgical Practice joint task force in 2023. This collaborative effort aims to actively promote education, mitigation, and innovation, steering surgical practices toward a more sustainable future. RESULTS: Several key initiatives have included a survey of members' knowledge and awareness, a scoping review of terminology, metrics, and initiatives, and deep engagement of key stakeholders. DISCUSSION: This position paper serves as a Call to Action, proposing a series of actions to catalyze and accelerate the surgical sustainability leadership needed to respond effectively to climate change, and to lead the societal transformation towards health that our times demand.

EAES/SAGES evidence-based recommendations and expert consensus on optimization of perioperative care in older adults.

BACKGROUND: As the population ages, more older adults are presenting for surgery. Age-related declines in physiological reserve and functional capacity can result in frailty and poor outcomes after surgery. Hence, optimizing perioperative care in older patients is imperative. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) may influence surgical outcomes, but current use and impact on older adults patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations on perioperative care of older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Expert consensus determined working definitions for key terms and metrics related to perioperative care. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for 24 pre-defined key questions in the topic areas of prehabilitation, MIS, and ERAS in major abdominal surgery (colorectal, upper gastrointestinal (UGI), Hernia, and hepatopancreatic biliary (HPB)) to generate evidence-based recommendations following the GRADE methodology. RESULT: Older adults were defined as 65 years and older. Over 20,000 articles were initially retrieved from search parameters. Evidence synthesis was performed across the three topic areas from 172 studies, with meta-analyses conducted for MIS and ERAS topics. The use of MIS and ERAS was recommended for older adult patients particularly when undergoing colorectal surgery. Expert opinion recommended prehabilitation, cessation of smoking and alcohol, and correction of anemia in all colorectal, UGI, Hernia, and HPB procedures in older adults. All recommendations were conditional, with low to very low certainty of evidence, with the exception of ERAS program in colorectal surgery. CONCLUSIONS: MIS and ERAS are recommended in older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery, with evidence supporting use in colorectal surgery. Though expert opinion supported prehabilitation, there is insufficient evidence supporting use. This work has identified evidence gaps for further studies to optimize older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of high-energy devices for thyroid surgery.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of High Energy Devices (HEDs) versus conventional clamp and tie technique in thyroidectomy. This work is endorsed by the Italian Society of Surgical Endoscopy (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies-SICE) in the broader project on the evaluation of the role of HEDs in different surgical settings with the full health technology assessment report. MEHODS: Inclusion criteria were adult patients (≥ 18 years old) undergoing Thyroidectomy/Parathyroidectomy conducted with High Energy Devices (as ultrasonic (US), radiofrequency (RF), and hybrid energy (H-US/RF)) in the setting of thyroid surgery (both partial and total) for benign and malign diseases. However, some variability was found in included studies and described in the text. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews, and the recommendations of the 2020 updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were pursuit. Selection of abstracts was performed in Ryyan system by 2 independent reviewers, and doubts were solved by another independent reviewer. At the end of literature research, Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Risk of Bias was assessed with ROB2 for RCTs, and New Castle Ottawa Scale for Observational studies. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 47 studies, including 29 RCTs and 18 observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed for 29 randomized clinical trials. Outcomes included in the comparison between High Energy Devise and conventional technique groups were operative time, operative blood loss, overall post-operative drainage volume, length of stay, complications, and costs. HED significantly reduced operative time (28 studies, 3097patients; MD -128.8; 95% CI -34.4 to -23.20; I2 = 96%, p < 0.00001, Random-effect), intra-operative blood loss (13 studies, 642 vs 519 patients; SMD -0.82; 95% CI -1.33 to -0.32; I2 = 93%, p < 0.00001, Random-effect), LOS (22 studies, 2808 vs 2789 patients; MD -0.38, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.17; I2 = 98%, p < 0.00001 Random-effect), and healthcare costs (8 studies, 1138 vs 1129 patients, SMD 1.05; 95% CI -0.06 to 2.16; I2 = 99%, p < 0.00001 Random-effect). The rate of overall intraoperative complications was significantly different between both groups (25 studies, 2804 vs 2775 patients; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; I2 = 38%, p = 0.03 Random-effect), but the sensitivity analysis did not find a statistically significant difference (6 studies, 605 vs 594 patients, RR; 95% CI to; I2 = 0%, p = 0.50, Random-effect). There was no difference in the subgroup analysis for the occurrence of transient and permanent RLN palsy, nor hematoma formation and hypocalcaemia. DISCUSSION: Though findings of our systematic review and metanalysis are limited by heterogeneous data, surgeons, hospital managers, and policymakers should note that the use of High Energy Devices compared to conventional clamp and tie technique have reduced operative times, intra-operative blood loss, length of stay, and hospital costs in patients underwent to tyroid surgery. Future work must explore issues of equity to mitigate barriers to patient access to safe thyroid surgical care and define better this initial results.

Laparoscopic and robotic surgery for colorectal cancer in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: As life expectancy has been increasing, older patients are becoming more central to the healthcare system, leading to more intensive care use and longer hospital stays. Nevertheless, advancements in minimally invasive surgical techniques offer safe and effective options for older patients with colorectal diseases. This study aims to provide comprehensive evidence on the role of minimally invasive surgery in treating colorectal diseases in older patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All articles directly compared the minimally invasive approach with open surgery in patients aged ≥65 years. The present metanalysis took 30-day complications as primary outcomes. Length of hospital stay, readmission, and 30-day mortality were also assessed, as secondary outcomes. Further subgroup analyses were carried out based on surgery setting, lesion features, and location. RESULTS: After searching the main databases, 84 articles were included. Evaluation of 30-day complications rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality significantly favored minimally invasive approaches. The outcome readmission did not show any significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The current metanalysis demonstrates clear advantages of minimally invasive techniques over open surgery in colorectal procedures for older patients, particularly in reducing complications, mortality, and hospitalization. This suggests that prioritizing these techniques, based on available expertise and facilities, could improve outcomes and quality of care for older patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

AIM: The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR. METHOD: Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed. RESULTS: Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%). CONCLUSION: The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma.

The influence of prolonged instrument manipulation on gas leakage through trocars.

BACKGROUND: During laparoscopic surgery, CO2 insufflation gas could leak from the intra-abdominal cavity into the operating theater. Medical staff could therefore be exposed to hazardous substances present in leaked gas. Although previous studies have shown that leakage through trocars is a contributing factor, trocar performance over longer periods remains unclear. This study investigates the influence of prolonged instrument manipulation on gas leakage through trocars. METHODS: Twenty-five trocars with diameters ranging from 10 to 15 mm were included in the study. An experimental model was developed to facilitate instrument manipulation in a trocar under loading. The trocar was mounted to a custom airtight container insufflated with CO2 to a pressure of 15 mmHg, similar to clinical practice. A linear stage was used for prolonged instrument manipulation. At the same time, a fixed load was applied radially to the trocar cannula to mimic the reaction force of the abdominal wall. Gas leakage was measured before, after, and during instrument manipulation. RESULTS: After instrument manipulation, leakage rates per trocar varied between 0.0 and 5.58 L/min. No large differences were found between leakage rates before and after prolonged manipulation in static and dynamic measurements. However, the prolonged instrument manipulation did cause visible damage to two trocars and revealed unintended leakage pathways in others that can be related to production flaws. CONCLUSION: Prolonged instrument manipulation did not increase gas leakage rates through trocars, despite damage to some individual trocars. Nevertheless, gas leakage through trocars occurs and is caused by different trocar-specific mechanisms and design issues.

Escape of surgical smoke particles, comparing conventional and valveless trocar systems.

BACKGROUND: During minimal access surgery, surgical smoke is produced which can potentially be inhaled by the surgical team, leading to several health risks. This smoke can escape from the abdominal cavity into the operating room due to trocar leakage. The trocars and insufflator that are used during surgery influence gas leakage. Therefore, this study compares particle escape from a valveless (Conmed AirSeal iFS), and a conventional (Karl Storz Endoflator) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an in vitro model, a conventional and a valveless trocar system were compared. A protocol that simulated various surgical phases was defined to assess the surgical conditions and particle leakage. Insufflation pressures and instrument diameters were varied as these are known to affect gas leakage. RESULTS: The conventional trocar leaked during two distinct phases. Removal of the obturator caused a sudden release of particles. During instrument insertion, an average of 211 (IQR 111) particles per second escaped when using the 5 mm diameter instrument. With the 10 mm instrument, 50 (IQR 13) particles per second were measured. With the conventional trocar, a higher abdominal pressure increased particle leakage. The valveless trocar demonstrated a continuously high particle release during all phases. After the obturator was removed, particle escape increased sharply. Particle escape decreased to 1276 (IQR 580) particles per second for the 5 mm instrument insertion, and 1084 (IQR 630) particles per second for 10 mm instrument insertion. With the valveless trocar system, a higher insufflation pressure lowered particle escape. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a valveless trocar system releases more particles into the operating room environment than a conventional trocar. During instrument insertion, the leakage through the valveless system is 6 to 20 times higher than the conventional system. With a valveless trocar, leakage decreases with increasing pressure. With both trocar types leakage depends on instrument diameter.

Intracorporeal or extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy: cost analysis of the Torino trial.

BACKGROUND: Intracorporeal (IIA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (EIA) are two well-established techniques for restoration of bowel continuity after laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). Since no economic analysis comparing the two different anastomotic techniques has been performed yet, it is still unclear if IIA can reduce perioperative costs. The aim of the study was to compare costs of LRC with IIA or EIA for right-sided colon neoplasm. METHODS: This is a cost analysis of a single-institution double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes of LRC with IIA and LRC with EIA in patients with a right-sided colon neoplasm. All direct in-hospital costs related to patient's admission were recorded (intraoperative costs: operative room, surgical tools, blood units-postoperative costs: hospital stay, laboratory and microbiology analyses, diagnostic services, analgesic drugs and antibiotic therapy, blood units, reoperation-outpatient costs: post-discharge wound medications). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT03045107. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients were randomized and analyzed. Mean overall costs in the IIA group exceeded 349 € the mean overall costs of the EIA group (7926.87 ± 4617.23 € vs. 7577.45 ± 6131.17 €; P = 0.704). A mean extra charge of 608 € regarding total intraoperative costs was recorded in the IIA group (3058.84 ± 897.42 € vs. 2450.15 ± 558.90 €; P < 0.001). The cost of surgical instruments resulted in 542 € additional charge per patient in the IIA group compared to EIA group (1782.74 ± 541.26 € vs. 1240.55 ± 384.09 €; P < 0.001). The mean cost of operative room occupancy was comparable in IIA and EIA group: 1276.09 ± 514.94 € vs. 1209.60 ± 422.80 € (P = 0.405). No significant differences were observed in postoperative costs and in outpatient costs. CONCLUSION: This economic analysis showed that IIA and EIA after LRC had similar overall costs, even though there were intraoperative extra costs of IIA.

Use of High Energy Devices (HEDs) versus electrocautery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: According to the literature, there is no clear definition of a High Energy Devices (HEDs), and their proper indications for use are also unclear. Nevertheless, the flourishing market of HEDs could make their choice in daily clinical practice arduous, possibly increasing the risk of improper use for a lack of specific training. At the same time, the diffusion of HEDs impacts the economic asset of the healthcare systems. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On behalf of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies, experts performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and synthesised the evidence assessing the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies were included. Outcomes were: operating time, bleeding, intra-operative and post-operative complications, length of hospital stay, costs, and exposition to surgical smoke. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021250447). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included: 21 RCTs, one prospective parallel arm comparative non-RCT, and one retrospective cohort study, while three were prospective comparative studies. Most of the studies included laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in an elective setting. All the studies but three analysed the outcomes deriving from the utilisation of US sources of energy compared to electrocautery. Operative time was significantly shorter in the HED group compared to the electrocautery group (15 studies, 1938 patients; SMD - 1.33; 95% CI - 1.89 to 0.78; I2 = 97%, Random-effect). No other statistically significant differences were found in the other examined variables. CONCLUSIONS: HEDs seem to have a superiority over Electrocautery while performing LC in terms of operative time, while no difference was observed in terms of length of hospitalisation and blood loss. No concerns about safety were raised.

The EAES intellectual property awareness survey.

INTRODUCTION: The protection of intellectual property (IP) is one of the fundamental elements in the process of medical device development. The significance of IP, however, is not well understood among clinicians and researchers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current status of IP awareness and IP-related behaviors among EAES members. METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted via questionnaires sent to EAES members. Data collected included participant demographics, level of understanding the need, new ideas and solutions, basic IP knowledge, e.g., employees' inventions and public disclosure, behaviors before and after idea disclosures. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-nine completed forms were obtained through an email campaign conducted twice in 2019 (response rate = 4.8%). There was a dominancy in male, formally-trained gastrointestinal surgeons, working at teaching hospitals in European countries. Of the respondents, 71% demonstrated a high level of understanding the needs (frustration with current medical devices), with 66% developing specific solutions by themselves. Active discussion with others was done by 53%. Twenty-one percent of respondents presented their ideas at medical congresses, and 12% published in scientific journals. Only 20% took specific precautions or appropriate actions to protect their IPs before these disclosures. CONCLUSIONS: The current level of awareness of IP and IP-related issues is relatively low among EAES members. A structured IP training program to gain basic IP knowledge and skill should be considered a necessity for clinicians. These skills would serve to prevent the loss of legitimate IP rights and avoid failure in the clinical implementation of innovative devices for the benefit of patients.

Risk factors for Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision (TME) represents the "gold standard" of rectal cancer surgery. In locally advanced lesions neoadjuvant treatments (e.g. radiotherapy-nRT, radio chemotherapy-cnRT) have been shown to improve TME oncological results, reducing local recurrences rate. Nevertheless, these treatments have significant functional consequences impacting patients' quality of life (QoL). The resulting syndrome is known as Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS). The purpose of this work was to evaluate the association between risk factors and the development of LARS in a prospective series of laparoscopic sphincter-saving TME. METHODS: The study was conducted as a retrospective observational epidemiological study of a prospective database, including all patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection surgery for rectal cancer at our Unit from 1st January 2013 to 31st May 2018. The diagnosis of LARS was performed using the LARS Score. We classified risk factors in patient-related, pre-, intra- and post-operative factors. RESULTS: The sample included 153 consecutive patients. Forty-one were affected by "low" rectal cancer, 74 by "middle" rectal cancer, 38 by "high" rectal cancer. The prevalence of overall LARS (major LARS + minor LARS) in our series was 35.9% (55/153 cases). Association between nRT and overall/major LARS was significant (respectively p = 0.03 and 0.02). Distal localization of tumor was also significantly associated with LARS [overall LARS (p = 0.03), major LARS (p = 0.014)]. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and tumor localization resulted independent risk factors for LARS after laparoscopic sphincter-saving TME. Tumor localization in the "middle" and "high" rectum resulted a protective factor compared to the localization in "low" rectum.

Characterisation of trocar associated gas leaks during laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: During laparoscopy, the abdominal cavity is insufflated with carbon dioxide (CO2) that could become contaminated with viruses and surgical smoke. Medical staff is potentially exposed when this gas leaks into the operating room through the instruments and past trocar valves. No detailed studies currently exist that have quantified these leakage pathways. Therefore, the goal of this study was to quantify the gas leakages through trocars and instruments, during minimally invasive procedures. METHODS: A model of the surgical environment was created, consisting of a rigid container with an interface for airtight clamping of laparoscopic equipment such as trocars and surgical instruments. The model was insufflated to 15 mm Hg using a pressure generator and a pneumotachograph measured the equipment gas leak. A protocol of several use cases was designed to simulate the motions and forces the surgeon exerts on the trocar during surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-three individual trocars and twenty-six laparoscopic instruments were measured for leakage under the different conditions of the protocol. Trocar leakages varied between 0 L/min and more than 30 L/min, the instruments revealed a range of leakages between 0 L/min and 5.5 L/min. The results showed that leakage performance varied widely between trocars and instruments and that the performance and location of the valves influenced trocar leakage. CONCLUSIONS: We propose trocar redesigns to overcome specific causes of gas leaks. Moreover, an international testing standard for CO2 leakage for all new trocars and instruments is needed so surgical teams can avoid this potential health hazard when selecting new equipment.

Should be a locally advanced colon cancer still considered a contraindication to laparoscopic resection?

BACKGROUND: The role of elective laparoscopic resection (LR) for the treatment of locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) is unclear. Most studies have retrospectively investigated the outcomes of LR for pT4 cancers, while clinical T4 (cT4) cancers are excluded in the large randomized controlled trials comparing LR and open resection (OR). The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes in patients undergoing elective LR for LACC. METHODS: A prospective single-institution database including consecutive patients undergoing elective LR for clinical LACC (high-risk T3 or T4 N0-2) between March 1996 and March 2017 was retrospectively reviewed. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of conversion to OR and risk factors for adverse oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients undergoing LR for LACC were included. A multi-visceral resection was needed in 17 (5.7%) patients. A total of 63 (21%) LRs were converted to OR, mainly due to suspected adjacent organ invasion (82.5%) or obesity (9.5%). Overall postoperative Clavien-Dindo 3-4 complication rate was 4.7%, with no significant differences between completed and converted LRs. Final pathology showed 18 (6%) pT2, 215 (71.7%) pT3, 54 (18%) pT4a, and 13 (4.3%) pT4b cancers. A R0 resection was achieved in 98.3% of patients. On multivariate analysis, tumor size ≥ 7 cm and tumor site (splenic flexure) were the independent risk factors for conversion to OR. A pT4 colon cancer and LNR of 0.25 or greater, but not conversion to OR, were independently associated with both poorer OS and DFS. CONCLUSION(S): Clinical LACC should not be considered a contraindication to LR itself. Bulky tumors ≥ 7 cm and splenic flexure cancers are at higher risk of conversion to OR; however, there is no increased postoperative morbidity or adverse oncologic outcomes in converted patients.

ERas and COLorectal endoscopic surgery: an Italian society for endoscopic surgery and new technologies (SICE) national report.

BACKGROUND: Several reports demonstrated a strong association between the level of adherence to the protocol and improved clinical outcomes after surgery. However, it is difficult to obtain full adherence to the protocol into clinical practice and has still not been identified the threshold beyond which improved functional results can be reached. METHODS: The ERCOLE (ERas and COLorectal Endoscopic surgery) study was as a cohort, prospective, multi-centre national study evaluating the association between adherence to ERAS items and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The primary endpoint was to associate the percentage of ERAS adherence to functional recovery after minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery. The secondary endpoints of the study was to validate safety of the ERAS programme evaluating complications' occurrence according to Clavien-Dindo classification and to evaluate the compliance of the Italian surgeons to each ERAS item. RESULTS: 1138 patients were included. Adherence to the ERAS protocol was full only in 101 patients (8.9%), > 75% of the ERAS items in 736 (64.7%) and > 50% in 1127 (99%). Adherence to > 75% was associated with a better functional recovery with 90.2 ± 98.8 vs 95.9 ± 33.4 h (p = 0.003). At difference, full adherence to the ERAS components 91.7 ± 22.1 vs 92.2 ± 31.6 h (p = 0.8) was not associated with better recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Our results were encouraging to affirm that adherence to the ERAS program up to 75% could be considered satisfactory to get the goal. Our study could be considered a call to simplify the ERAS protocol facilitating its penetrance into clinical practice.

UEG and EAES rapid guideline: Systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed European recommendations on TaTME for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize best evidence and develop a rapid guideline using transparent, trustworthy, and standardized methodology. METHODS: We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE, G-I-N, and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of four general surgeons practicing colorectal surgery, a radiologist with expertise in rectal cancer, a radiation oncologist, a pathologist, and a patient representative. We conducted a systematic review and the results of evidence synthesis by means of meta-analyses were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus. RESULTS: This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation for the use of TaTME over laparoscopic or robotic TME for low rectal cancer when expertise is available. Furthermore, it details evidence gaps to be addressed by future research and discusses policy considerations. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494 . CONCLUSIONS: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the use of TaTME for rectal cancer.

EAES rapid guideline: systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed European recommendations on appendicitis in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice recommendations for the management of acute appendicitis in pregnancy are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-informed, trustworthy guideline on the management of appendicitis in pregnancy. We aimed to address the questions of conservative or surgical management, and laparoscopic or open surgery for acute appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence appraisal using the GRADE methodology. A European, multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, obstetricians/gynecologists, a midwife, and 3 patient representatives reached consensus through an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to formulate the recommendations. The project was developed in an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp). RESULTS: Research evidence was of very low certainty. We recommend operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with complicated appendicitis or appendicolith on imaging studies (strong recommendation). We suggest operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with uncomplicated appendicitis and no appendicolith on imaging studies (weak recommendation). We suggest laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis until the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is below the level of the umbilicus; and laparoscopic or open appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis beyond the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is above the level of the umbilicus, depending on the preference and expertise of the surgeon. CONCLUSION: Through a structured, evidence-informed approach, an interdisciplinary panel provides a strong recommendation to perform appendectomy for complicated appendicitis or appendicolith, and laparoscopic or open appendectomy beyond the 20th week, based on the surgeon's preference and expertise. GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER: IPGRP-2022CN210.

Development and validity evidence of an objective structured assessment of technical skills score for minimally invasive linear-stapled, hand-sewn intestinal anastomoses: the A-OSATS score.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to develop a reliable objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) score for linear-stapled, hand-sewn closure of enterotomy intestinal anastomoses (A-OSATS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Delphi methodology was used to create a traditional and weighted A-OSATS score highlighting the more important steps for patient outcomes according to an international expert consensus. Minimally invasive novices, intermediates, and experts were asked to perform a minimally invasive linear-stapled intestinal anastomosis with hand-sewn closure of the enterotomy in a live animal model either laparoscopically or robot-assisted. Video recordings were scored by two blinded raters assessing intrarater and interrater reliability and discriminative abilities between novices (n = 8), intermediates (n = 24), and experts (n = 8). RESULTS: The Delphi process included 18 international experts and was successfully completed after 4 rounds. A total of 4 relevant main steps as well as 15 substeps were identified and a definition of each substep was provided. A maximum of 75 points could be reached in the unweighted A-OSATS score and 170 points in the weighted A-OSATS score respectively. A total of 41 anastomoses were evaluated. Excellent intrarater (r = 0.807-0.988, p < 0.001) and interrater (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.923-0.924, p < 0.001) reliability was demonstrated. Both versions of the A-OSATS correlated well with the general OSATS and discriminated between novices, intermediates, and experts defined by their OSATS global rating scale. CONCLUSION: With the weighted and unweighted A-OSATS score, we propose a new reliable standard to assess the creation of minimally invasive linear-stapled, hand-sewn anastomoses based on an international expert consensus. Validity evidence in live animal models is provided in this study. Future research should focus on assessing whether the weighted A-OSATS exceeds the predictive capabilities of patient outcomes of the unweighted A-OSATS and provide further validity evidence on using the score on different anastomotic techniques in humans.

Robotic endoscopic submucosal dissection and full-thickness excision for laterally spreading tumors of the rectum.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically demanding and time-consuming. Moreover, it bears a high risk of adverse events compared to other endoscopic methods, due to the lack of tissue manipulation. Robotic technology can significantly reduce the time of the procedure and increase the rate of complete resection for ESD. In the case of an unclear deep margin it allows to proceed to the full-thickness excision of the bowel wall. While the gain over transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is limited today, the longer systems currently under development will allow these complex procedures to be performed at least in the left side of the colon. The Supplementary video shows the application of the Flex Robotic System to perform an ESD and a full-thickness excision.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal sessile/non-polypoid lesions.

BACKGROUND: Current international guidelines strongly advise endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) instead of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for the endoscopic resection of sessile colorectal tumours >20 mm. AIMS: To compare the safety and efficacy of EMR and ESD for treating large non-invasive colorectal lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) on February 21st, 2021 and a meta-analysis to assess en-bloc and R0 rates, and related adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included, comparing 3,424 ESD and 5,122 EMR procedures. The en-bloc resection rate was 90.8% in the ESD and 33.0% in the EMR group (p < .001). The R0 resection rate was 85.0% in the ESD and 64.6% in the EMR group (p = .005). The rate of perforation was 5.1% in the ESD and 1.67% in the EMR group (p < .001). The bleeding rate was 4.3% in the ESD and 3.6% in the EMR group (p = .008). The overall need for surgery, including oncologic reasons and complications, was 5.9% in the ESD and 3.1% in the EMR group (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ESD for large non-pedunculated colorectal lesions allows a higher rate of R0 resections than EMR, at the cost of a higher perforation rate and the need for additional surgery.