Modern Trends in Surgical Site Infection Rates for Colorectal Surgery: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Study 2013-2020.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies investigating trends in global surgical site infection rates in colorectal surgery in the last decade. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to describe changes in rates of different surgical site infections from 2013-2020, identify risk factors for SSI occurrence and evaluate the association of minimally invasive surgery and infection rates in colorectal resections. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database 2013-2020 identifying patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal resections by procedure codes was performed. Patient demographic information, comorbidities, procedures, and complications data were obtained. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were performed. SETTING: This was a retrospective study. PATIENTS: A total of 279,730 patients received colorectal resection from 2013 - 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was rate of surgical site infection, divided into superficial, deep incisional and organ space infections. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in rates of superficial infections (p < 0.01) and deep incisional infections (p < 0.01) from 5.9% in 2013 to 3.3% in 2020 and from 1.4% in 2013 to 0.6% in 2020, respectively, but a rise in organ space infections (p < 0.01) from 5.2% in 2013 to 7.1% in 2020. Use of minimally invasive techniques was associated with decreased odds of all surgical site infections compared to open techniques (p < 0.01) in multivariate analysis and adoption of minimally invasive techniques increased from 59% in 2013 to 66% in 2020. LIMITATIONS: Study is limited by retrospective nature and variables available for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Superficial and deep infection rates have significantly decreased, likely secondary to improved adoption of minimally invasive techniques and infection prevention bundles. Organ space infection rates continue to increase. Additional research is warranted to clarify current recommendations for mechanical bowel prep and oral antibiotic use as well as to study novel interventions to decrease postoperative infection occurrence. See Video Abstract.

Referrals and Decision-Making Considerations Involved in Selecting a Surgeon for Rectal Cancer Treatment in the Midwestern United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of superior outcomes for rectal cancer at high-volume, multidisciplinary cancer centers, many patients undergo surgery in low-volume hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine considerations of former patients with rectal cancer when selecting their surgeon and to evaluate which considerations were associated with surgery at high-volume hospitals. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, patients were surveyed about what they considered when selecting a cancer surgeon. SETTINGS: Study data were obtained via survey and the statewide Iowa Cancer Registry. PATIENTS: All eligible individuals diagnosed with invasive stages II/III rectal cancer from 2013 to 2017 identified through the registry were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the characteristics of the hospital where they received surgery (ie, National Cancer Institute designation, Commission on Cancer accreditation, and rectal cancer surgery volume). RESULTS: Among respondents, 318 of 417 (76%) completed surveys. Sixty-nine percent of patients selected their surgeon based on their physician's referral/recommendation, 20% based on surgeon/hospital reputation, and 11% based on personal connections to the surgeon. Participants who chose their surgeon based on reputation had significantly higher odds of surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated (OR 7.5; 95% CI, 3.8-15.0) or high-volume (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7) hospitals than those who relied on referral. LIMITATIONS: This study took place in a Midwestern state with a predominantly white population, which limited our ability to evaluate racial/ethnic associations. CONCLUSION: Most patients with rectal cancer relied on referrals in selecting their surgeon, and those who did were less likely to receive surgery at a National Cancer Institute-designated or high-volume hospitals compared to those who considered reputation. Future research is needed to determine the impact of these decision factors on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. In addition, patients should be aware that relying on physician referral may not result in treatment from the most experienced or comprehensive care setting in their area. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897.REMISIONES Y CONSIDERACIONES PARA LA TOMA DE DECISIONES RELACIONADAS CON LA SELECCIÓN DE UN CIRUJANO PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CÁNCER DE RECTO EN EL MEDIO OESTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOSANTECEDENTES:A pesar de la evidencia de resultados superiores para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto en centros oncológicos de gran volumen y multidisciplinarios, muchos pacientes se someten a cirugía en hospitales de bajo volumen.OBJETIVOS:Examinar las consideraciones de los antiguos pacientes con cáncer de recto al momento de seleccionar a su cirujano y evaluar qué consideraciones se asociaron con la cirugía en hospitales de gran volumen.DISEÑO:Encuestamos a los pacientes sobre qué aspectos consideraron al elegir un cirujano oncológico para completar este estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Los datos del estudio se obtuvieron mediante una encuesta y el Registro de Cáncer del estado de Iowa.PACIENTES:Se invitó a participar a todas las personas elegibles diagnosticadas con cáncer de recto invasivo en estadios II/III entre 2013 y 2017 identificadas a través del registro.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados principales fueron las características del hospital donde fue realizada la cirugía (es decir, designación del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer, acreditación de la Comisión de Cáncer y volumen de cirugía del cáncer de recto).RESULTADOS:Hubo 318 de 417 (76%) encuestas completadas. El sesenta y nueve por ciento seleccionó a su cirujano en función de la referencia / recomendación de su médico, el 20% por la reputación del cirujano/hospital, y el 11% por sus conexiones personales con el cirujano. Los participantes que eligieron a su cirujano en función a la reputación tuvieron probabilidades significativamente más altas de cirugía en el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer designado (OR = 7,5, IC del 95%: 3,8-15,0) o en hospitales de alto volumen (OR = 2,6, IC del 95%: 1,2-5,7) que aquellos que dependían de la derivación.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un estado del medio oeste con una población predominantemente blanca, lo que limitó nuestra capacidad para evaluar las asociaciones raciales/étnicas.CONCLUSIONES:La mayoría de los pacientes con cáncer de recto dependían de las derivaciones para seleccionar a su cirujano, y los que lo hacían tenían menos probabilidades de recibir cirugía en un hospital designado por el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer o en hospitales de gran volumen en comparación con los que consideraban la reputación. Se necesitan investigaciones a futuro para determinar el impacto de estos factores de decisión en los resultados clínicos, la satisfacción del paciente y la calidad de vida. Además, los pacientes deben ser conscientes de que depender de la remisión de un médico puede no resultar en el tratamiento más experimentado o integral en su área. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

Male gender, smoking, younger age, and preoperative pain found to increase postoperative opioid requirements in 592 elective colorectal resections.

PURPOSE: With increased awareness of the opioid epidemic, understanding contributing factors to postoperative opioid use is important. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient and perioperative factors that contribute to postoperative opioid use after colorectal resections and their relation to pre-existing pain conditions and psychiatric diagnoses. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted identifying adult patients who underwent elective colorectal resection at a single tertiary center between 2015 and 2018. Patient demographics, preoperative factors, surgical approach, and perioperative pain management were evaluated to determine standard conversion morphine milligram equivalents required for postoperative days 0 to 3 and total hospital stay. RESULTS: Five hundred and ninety-two patients: 46% male, median age 58 years undergoing colorectal resections for indications including cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, and diverticulitis were identified. Less opioid use was found to be associated with female gender (ß = - 42), patients who received perioperative lidocaine infusion (ß = - 30), and older adults (equivalents/year) (ß = - 4, all p < 0.01). Preoperative opioid use, preoperative abdominal pain, epidural use, and smoking were all independently associated with increased postoperative opioid requirements. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients undergoing elective colorectal resection, factors that were associated with higher perioperative opioid use included male gender, smoking, younger age, preoperative opioid use, preoperative abdominal pain, and epidural use. Perioperative administration of lidocaine was associated with decreased opioid requirements. Understanding risk factors and stratifying postoperative pain regimens may aid in improved pain control and decrease long-term dependency.

Hospital and Surgeon Selection for Medicare Beneficiaries With Stage II/III Rectal Cancer: The Role of Rurality, Distance to Care, and Colonoscopy Provider.

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with rectal cancer surgery performed at high-volume hospitals (HVHs) and by high-volume surgeons (HVSs), including the roles of rurality and diagnostic colonoscopy provider characteristics. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although higher-volume hospitals/surgeons often achieve superior surgical outcomes, many rectal cancer resections are performed by lower-volume hospitals/surgeons, especially among rural populations. METHODS: Patients age 66+ diagnosed from 2007 to 2011 with stage II/III primary rectal adenocarcinoma were selected from surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare data. Patient ZIP codes were used to classify rural status. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with surgery by HVH and HVS. RESULTS: Of 1601 patients, 22% were rural and 78% were urban. Fewer rural patients received surgery at a HVH compared to urban patients (44% vs 65%; P < 0.0001). Compared to urban patients, rural patients more often had colonoscopies performed by general surgeons (and less often from gastroenterologists or colorectal surgeons), and lived substantially further from HVHs; these factors were both associated with lower odds of surgery at a HVH or by a HVS. In addition, whereas over half of both rural and urban patients received their colonoscopy and surgery at the same hospital, rural patients who stayed at the same hospital were significantly less likely to receive surgery at a HVH or by a HVS compared to urban patients. CONCLUSIONS: Rural rectal cancer patients are less likely to receive surgery from a HVH/HVS. The role of the colonoscopy provider has important implications for referral patterns and initiatives seeking to increase centralization.

Provider Viewpoints in the Management and Referral of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal cancer treated at specialized or high-volume hospitals have better outcomes, but a minority of these patients are treated there. Physician recommendations are important considerations for patients with rectal cancer when making treatment decisions, yet little is known about the factors that affect these physician referral patterns. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in 2018-2019 with Iowa gastroenterologists (GIs) and general surgeons (GSs) who performed colonoscopies in a community setting. A thematic approach was used to analyze and code qualitative data. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 GIs and 6 GSs with self-reported averages of 15.5 y in practice, 1100 endoscopic procedures annually, and 6 rectal cancer diagnoses annually. Physicians believed surgeon experience and colorectal specialization were directly related to positive outcomes in rectal cancer resections. Most GSs performed resections on patients they diagnosed and typically only referred patients to colorectal surgeons (CRS) in complex cases. Conversely, GIs generally referred to CRS in all cases. Adhering to existing referral patterns due to the pressure of health care networks was a salient theme for both GIs and GSs. CONCLUSIONS: While respondents believe that high volume/specialization is related to improved surgical outcomes, referral recommendations are heavily influenced by existing referral networks. Referral practices also differ by diagnosing specialty and suggest rural patients may be less likely to be referred to a CRS because more GSs perform colonoscopies in rural areas and tend to keep patients for resection. System-level interventions that target referral networks may improve rectal cancer outcomes at the population level.

Impact of KRAS status on tumor response and survival after neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mutation of the KRAS oncogene (mKRAS) in colorectal cancer has been associated with aggressive tumor biology, resistance to epidermal growth factor inhibitors, and decreased overall survival (OS). The aim of the current study was to analyze the association of mKRAS with pathologic complete response (pCR) and neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score, and its impact on the survival of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were managed with multimodality therapy. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for stage II-III rectal cancer patients with a known KRAS status who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT) and proctectomy between 2004 and 2015. RESULTS: In total, 1886 patients were identified; 12% had pCR and 36% had mKRAS. Patients with mKRAS were more likely to have advanced pathologic T stage, tumor deposits, perineural invasion, and elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels (all p ≤ .05). After adjustment for available confounders, mKRAS status was not associated with pCR or NAR score. In multivariable analysis, patients with pCR and lower NAR score had better OS, whereas mKRAS was independently associated with a worse prognosis. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of locally advanced rectal cancer patients who underwent proctectomy after nCRT, mKRAS was not associated with lower pCR rates or NAR scores; however, these patients experienced worse survival.

Positive circumferential resection margins following locally advanced colon cancer surgery: Risk factors and survival impact.

BACKGROUND: While the prognostic implications of positive circumferential resection margins (CRM) have been established for rectal cancer, its significance in colon cancer has not been well defined. The aim of the current study was to determine national rates for positive CRM in locally advanced colon cancer, associated factors, and survival impact. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients with stage II-III adenocarcinoma of the colon (2004-2015). RESULTS: Positive CRM was identified in 9% of stage II and 12% of stage III patients. Factors associated with negative CRM included surgery in a high-volume facility, adequate lymph-node harvest, and negative distal/proximal margins. No difference in CRM rates was observed between surgical approaches, although having a positive CRM was significantly associated with higher conversion rates. Positive CRM was associated with significantly lower overall survival on both univariate and multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Positive CRM rates exceeded 10% nationally and have an adverse impact on survival. While several tumor characteristics were identified as independent risk factors, oncologic resections and surgery at high-volume centers were associated with lower rates of positive CRM. These findings emphasize the need for process improvement initiatives targeting modifiable factors, including adoption of appropriate oncologic techniques, standardized pathology reporting, and potential neoadjuvant strategies.

Identification of Collagenolytic Bacteria in Human Samples: Screening Methods and Clinical Implications for Resolving and Preventing Anastomotic Leaks and Wound Complications.

BACKGROUND: Bacteria that produce collagen-digesting enzymes (collagenolytic bacteria) have been shown to play a critical and previously unappreciated role in anastomotic leak pathogenesis by breaking down host tissue extracellular matrix proteins. Detection of these bacteria is labor intensive, and no screening method currently exists. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated a rapid screening method developed to detect the presence of these collagenolytic bacteria in clinical samples, such as drain fluid, anastomotic tissue, or feces. DESIGN: We compared a new method of detecting collagenolytic bacterial species with a previously used technique using samples from a murine experimental model and then demonstrated the utility of this screening method in samples from patients with anastomotic complications. SETTINGS: All of the laboratory work and previous murine experiments were performed in Dr Alverdy's laboratory at the University of Chicago under institutional review board-approved protocols. PATIENTS: Samples from patients with challenging wound complications were provided by participating clinicians with verbal patient consent. Given the small number of patients, this was determined to be institutional review board exempt. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether this analysis can influence patient management and outcomes will require additional study. RESULTS: This screening method detects numerous strains of bacteria with collagenolytic properties, including the collagenolytic species that have been implicated previously in anastomotic leak. Once collagenolytic strains are identified, they can be speciated and tested for antibiotic resistance using standard laboratory techniques. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by the small number of patient samples tested. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the potential applicability of this assay to evaluate rare and complex anastomotic complications that often require analysis beyond standard culture and sensitivity assays. Future applications of this method may allow the development of strategies to prevent anastomotic leak related to collagenolytic bacteria. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A962.

Association Between Hospital and Surgeon Volume and Rectal Cancer Surgery Outcomes in Patients With Rectal Cancer Treated Since 2000: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous reviews and meta-analyses, which predominantly focused on patients treated before 2000, have reported conflicting evidence about the association between hospital/surgeon volume and rectal cancer outcomes. Given advances in rectal cancer resection, such as total mesorectal excision, it is essential to determine whether volume plays a role in rectal cancer outcomes among patients treated since 2000. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is an association between hospital/surgeon volume and rectal cancer surgery outcomes among patients treated since 2000. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles published between January 2000 and December 29, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Articles that analyzed the association between hospital/surgeon volume and rectal cancer outcomes were selected. INTERVENTION: Rectal cancer resection was the study intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures of this study were surgical morbidity, postoperative mortality, surgical margin positivity, permanent colostomy rates, recurrence, and overall survival. RESULTS: Although 2845 articles were retrieved and assessed by the search strategy, 21 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was a significant protective association between higher hospital volume and surgical morbidity (OR = 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.93); I = 35%), permanent colostomy (OR = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.29-0.92); I = 34%), and postoperative mortality (OR = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.43-0.88); I = 34%), and overall survival (OR = 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00); I = 3%). Stratified analysis showed that the magnitude of association between hospital volume and rectal cancer surgery outcomes was stronger in the United States compared with other countries. Surgeon volume was not significantly associated with overall survival. The articles included in this analysis were high quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Funnel plots suggested that the potential for publication bias was low. LIMITATIONS: Some articles included rectosigmoid cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients diagnosed since 2000, higher hospital volume has had a significant protective effect on rectal cancer surgery outcomes.