The Impact of Prolonged Operative Time Associated With Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: A Report From the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program.

BACKGROUND: Increased operative time in colorectal surgery is associated with worse surgical outcomes. Laparoscopic and robotic operations have improved outcomes, despite longer operative times. Furthermore, the definition of "prolonged" operative time has not been consistently defined. OBJECTIVE: The first objective was to define prolonged operative time across multiple colorectal operations and surgical approaches. The second was to describe the impact of prolonged operative time on length of stay and short-term outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Forty-two hospitals in the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program from 2011 to 2019. PATIENTS: There were a total of 23,098 adult patients (age 18 years or older) undergoing 6 common, elective colorectal operations: right colectomy, left/sigmoid colectomy, total colectomy, low anterior resection, IPAA, or abdominoperineal resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prolonged operative time defined as the 75th quartile of operative times for each operation and approach. Outcomes were length of stay, discharge home, and complications. Adjusted models were used to account for factors that could impact operative time and outcomes across the strata of open and minimally invasive approaches. RESULTS: Prolonged operative time was associated with longer median length of stay (7 vs 5 days open, 5 vs 4 days laparoscopic, 4 vs 3 days robotic) and more frequent complications (42% vs 28% open, 24% vs 17% laparoscopic, 27% vs 13% robotic) but similar discharge home (86% vs 87% open, 94% vs 94% laparoscopic, 93% vs 96% robotic). After adjustment, each additional hour of operative time above the median for a given operation was associated with 1.08 (1.06-1.09) relative risk of longer length of stay for open operations and 1.07 (1.06-1.09) relative risk for minimally invasive operations. LIMITATIONS: Our study was limited by being retrospective, resulting in selection bias, possible confounders for prolonged operative time, and lack of statistical power for subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Operative time has consistent overlap across surgical approaches. Prolonged operative time is associated with longer length of stay and higher probability of complications, but this negative effect is diminished with minimally invasive approaches. See Video Abstract . EL IMPACTO DEL TIEMPO OPERATORIO PROLONGADO ASOCIADO CON LA CIRUGA COLORRECTAL MNIMAMENTE INVASIVA UN INFORME DEL PROGRAMA DE EVALUACIN DE RESULTADOS DE ATENCIN QUIRRGICA: ANTECEDENTES:El aumento del tiempo operatorio en la cirugía colorrectal se asocia con peores resultados quirúrgicos. Las operaciones laparoscópicas y robóticas han mejorado los resultados, a pesar de los tiempos operatorios más prolongados. Además, la definición de tiempo operatorio "prolongado" no se ha definido de manera consistente.OBJETIVO:Primero, definir el tiempo operatorio prolongado a través de múltiples operaciones colorrectales y enfoques quirúrgicos. En segundo lugar, describir el impacto del tiempo operatorio prolongado sobre la duración de la estancia y los resultados a corto plazo.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:42 hospitales en el Programa de Evaluación de Resultados de Atención Quirúrgica de 2011-2019.PACIENTES:23 098 pacientes adultos (de 18 años de edad y mayores), que se sometieron a seis operaciones colorrectales electivas comunes: colectomía derecha, colectomía izquierda/sigmoidea, colectomía total, resección anterior baja, anastomosis ileoanal con bolsa o resección abdominoperineal.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tiempo operatorio prolongado definido como el cuartil 75 de tiempos operatorios para cada operación y abordaje. Los resultados fueron la duración de la estancia hospitalaria, el alta domiciliaria y las complicaciones. Se usaron modelos ajustados para tener en cuenta los factores que podrían afectar tanto el tiempo operatorio como los resultados en los estratos de abordajes abiertos y mínimamente invasivos.RESULTADOS:El tiempo operatorio prolongado se asoció con una estancia media más prolongada (7 vs. 5 días abiertos, 5 vs. 4 días laparoscópicos, 4 vs. 3 días robóticos), complicaciones más frecuentes (42 % vs. 28 % abiertos, 24 % vs. 17 % laparoscópica, 27% vs. 13% robótica), pero similar alta domiciliaria (86% vs. 87% abierta, 94% vs. 94% laparoscópica, 93% vs. 96% robótica). Después del ajuste, cada hora adicional de tiempo operatorio por encima de la mediana para una operación determinada se asoció con un riesgo relativo de 1,08 (1,06, 1,09) de estancia hospitalaria más larga para operaciones abiertas y un riesgo relativo de 1,07 (1,06, 1,09) para operaciones mínimamente invasivas.LIMITACIONES:Nuestro estudio estuvo limitado por ser retrospectivo, lo que resultó en un sesgo de selección, posibles factores de confusión por un tiempo operatorio prolongado y falta de poder estadístico para los análisis de subgrupos.CONCLUSIONES:El tiempo operatorio tiene una superposición constante entre los enfoques quirúrgicos. El tiempo operatorio prolongado se asocia con una estadía más prolongada y una mayor probabilidad de complicaciones, pero este efecto negativo disminuye con los enfoques mínimamente invasivos. ( Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Health-care expenditures are less for minimally invasive than open colectomy for colon cancer: A US commercial claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most studies comparing surgical platforms focus on short-term outcomes. In this study, we compare the expanding societal penetration of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with open colectomy by assessing payer and patient expenditures up to one year for patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer. METHODS: We analyzed the IBM MarketScan Database for patients who underwent left or right colectomy for colon cancer between 2013 and 2020. Outcomes included perioperative complications and total health-care expenditures up to 1 year following colectomy. We compared results for patients who had open colectomy (OS) to those with MIS operations. Subgroup analyses were performed for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC+) versus no adjuvant chemotherapy (AC-) groups and for laparoscopic (LS) versus robotic (RS) approaches. RESULTS: Of 7,063 patients, 4,417 cases did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy (OS: 20.1%, LS: 67.1%, RS: 12.7%) and 2646 cases had adjuvant chemotherapy (OS: 28.4%, LS: 58.7%, RS: 12.9%) after discharge. MIS colectomy was associated with lower mean expenditure at index surgery and post-discharge periods for AC- patients (index surgery: $34,588 vs $36,975; 365-day post-discharge $20,051 vs $24,309) and for AC+ patients (index surgery: $37,884 vs $42,160; 365-day post-discharge $103,341vs $135,113; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). LS had similar index surgery expenditures but significantly higher expenditures at post-discharge 30 days (AC-: $2,834 vs $2276, p = 0.005; AC+: $9100 vs $7698, p = 0.020) than RS. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the MIS group than the open group for AC- patients (20.5% vs 31.2%) and AC+ patients (22.6% vs 39.1%, both p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MIS colectomy is associated with better value at lower expenditure than open colectomy for colon cancer at the index operation and up to one year after surgery. RS expenditure is less than LS in the first 30 postoperative days regardless of chemotherapy status and may extend to 1 year for AC- patients.

Comparison of health-care utilization and expenditures for minimally invasive vs. open colectomy for benign disease.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of minimally invasive approaches continues to increase, and there is a need to reassess outcomes and cost. We aimed to compare open versus minimally invasive colectomy short- and long-term health-care utilization and payer/patient expenditures for benign disease. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of IBM® MarketScan® Database patients who underwent left or right colectomy for benign disease between 2013 and 2018. Outcomes included total health-care expenditures, resource utilization, and direct workdays lost up to 365 days following colectomy. The open surgical approach (OS) was compared to minimally invasive colectomy (MIS) with subgroup analysis of laparoscopic (LS) and robotic (RS) approaches using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Of 10,439 patients, 2531 (24.3%) had open, 6826 (65.4%) had laparoscopic, and 1082 (10.3%) had robotic colectomy. MIS patients had shorter length of stay (LOS; mean difference, - 1.71, p < 0.001) and lower average total expenditures (mean difference, - $2378, p < 0.001) compared with open patients during the index hospitalization. At 1 year, MIS patients had lower readmission rates, and fewer mean emergency and outpatient department visits than open patients, translating into additional savings of $5759 and 2.22 fewer days missed from work for health-care visits over the 365-day post-discharge period. Within MIS, RS patients had shorter LOS (mean difference, - 0.60, p < 0.001) and lower conversion-to-open rates (odds ratio, 0.31 p < 0.001) during the index hospitalization, and lower hospital outpatient visits (mean difference, - 0.31, p = 0.001) at 365 days than LS. CONCLUSION: MIS colectomy is associated with lower mean health-care expenditures and less resource utilization compared to the open approach for benign disease at index operation and 365-days post-discharge. Health-care expenditures for LS and RS are similar but shorter mean LOS and lower conversion-to-open surgery rates were observed at index operation for the RS approach.

A national database propensity score-matched comparison of minimally invasive and open colectomy for long-term opioid use.

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence is a public health crisis and surgery is a risk factor for long-term opioid use. Though minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with less perioperative pain, demonstrating an association with less long-term opioid use would be another reason to justify adoption of minimally invasive techniques. We compared the rates for long-term opioid prescriptions among patients in a large national database who underwent minimally invasive and open colectomy. METHODS: Using the MarketScan Database, we retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing colon resection for benign and malignant diseases between 2013 and 2017. Among opioid-naïve patients who had ≥ 1 opioid prescriptions filled perioperatively (30 days before surgery to 14 days after discharge), propensity score matching was applied for group comparisons [open (OS) versus MIS, and laparoscopic (LS) versus robotic-assisted surgery (RS)]. The primary outcome was long-term opioid use defined as the proportion of patients with ≥ 1 long-term opioid prescriptions filled 90-180 days after discharge. Risks factors for long-term opioid use were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 5413 matched pairs in the MIS versus OS cohorts, MIS significantly reduced long-term opioid use of 'any opioids' (13.3% vs. 20.9%), schedule II/III opioids (11.7% vs. 19.2%), and high-dose opioids (4.3% vs. 7.7%; all p < 0.001). Among the 1195 matched pairs in the RS versus LS cohorts, RS was associated with less high-dose opioids (2.1% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.015) 90-180 days after discharge. Other risk factors for long-term opioid use included younger age, benign indications, tobacco use, mental health conditions, and > 6 Charlson comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive colectomy is associated with a significant reduction in long-term opioid use when compared to OS. Robotic-assisted colectomy was associated with less high-dose opioids compared to LS. Increasing adoption of minimally invasive surgery for colectomy and including RS, where appropriate, may decrease long-term opioid use.

Intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy: short-term outcomes of a multi-center prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies to date show contrasting conclusions when comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses for minimally invasive right colectomy. Large multi-center prospective studies comparing perioperative outcomes between these two techniques are needed. The purpose of this study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses outcomes for robotic assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy. METHODS: Multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients with malignant or benign disease scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic-assisted right colectomy. Outcomes included conversion rate, gastrointestinal recovery, and complication rates. RESULTS: There were 280 patients: 156 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) group and 124 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) group. The EA group was older (mean age 67 vs. 65 years, p = 0.05) and had fewer white (81% vs. 90%, p = 0.05) and Hispanic (2% vs. 12%, p = 0.003) patients. The EA group had more patients with comorbidities (82% vs. 72%, p = 0.04) while there was no significant difference in individual comorbidities between groups. IA was associated with fewer conversions to open and hand-assisted laparoscopic approaches (p = 0.007), shorter extraction site incision length (4.9 vs. 6.2 cm; p ≤ 0.0001), and longer operative time (156.9 vs. 118.2 min). Postoperatively, patients with IA had shorter time to first flatus, (1.5 vs. 1.8 days; p ≤ 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (1.6 vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.0005), time to resume soft/regular diet (29.0 vs. 37.5 h; p = 0.0014), and shorter length of hospital stay (median, 3 vs. 4 days; p ≤ 0.0001). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In this prospective, multi-center study of minimally invasive right colectomy across 20 institutions, IA was associated with significant improvements in conversion rates, return of bowel function, and shorter hospital stay, as well as significantly longer operative times compared to EA. These data validate current efforts to increase training and adoption of the IA technique for minimally invasive right colectomy.

Colon and Rectal Surgery Robotic Training Programs: An Evaluation of Gender Disparities.

BACKGROUND: Female surgeons are subjected to implicit bias throughout their careers. The evaluation of gender bias in training is warranted with increasing numbers of female trainees in colon and rectal surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate gender bias in colon and rectal surgery training program operative experience. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The Association of Program Directors for Colon and Rectal Surgery robotic case log database contains operative details (procedure, attending surgeon, case percentage, and operative segments) completed by trainees as console surgeon for 2 academic years (2016-2017, 2017-2018). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcomes measured are the percentage of trainee console participation and the completion of total mesorectal excision. Resident and attending surgeon gender was recorded retrospectively. The cohort was separated into 4 groups based on resident and attending surgeon gender combination. Case volume, average console participation per case, and completion of total mesorectal excisions were compared for each group by using interaction regression analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-two training programs participated, including 120 trainees and 190 attending surgeons. Forty-five (37.5%) trainees and 36 (18.9%) attending surgeons were women. The average number of cases per trainee was 23.27 per year for women and 28.15 per year for men (p = 0.19). Average console participation was 53.5% for women and 61.7% for men (p < 0.001). Male attending surgeons provided female trainees less console participation than male counterparts (52.1% vs 59.7%, p < 0.001). Female attending surgeons provided the same amount of console participation to female and male trainees (63.3% vs 61.8%, p = 0.62). Male trainees performed significantly more complete total mesorectal excision console cases than female trainees (57.16% vs 42.38%, p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: The data are subject to self-reporting bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is gender disparity in robotic operative experience in colon and rectal surgery training programs with less opportunity for console participation and less opportunity to complete total mesorectal excisions for female trainees. This trend should be highlighted and further evaluated to resolve this disparity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B224. PROGRAMAS DE CAPACITACIÓN ROBÓTICA SOBRE CIRUGÍA DE COLON Y RECTO: UNA EVALUACIÓN DE LAS DISPARIDADES DE GÉNERO: Cirujanos mujeres están sujetas a sesgos implícitos a lo largo de sus carreras. La evaluación del sesgo de género en el entrenamiento se amerita por un número cada vez mayor de aprendices femeniles en cirugía de colon y recto.Evaluar el sesgo de género en la experiencia operativa en programas de entrenamiento de cirugía de colon y recto.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.La base de datos de registro de casos robóticos de la Asociación de Directores de Programas para Cirugía de Colon y Rectal contiene detalles operativos (procedimiento, cirujano asistente, porcentaje de casos y segmentos operativos) completados por los alumnos como cirujanos de consola durante dos años académicos (2016-17, 2017-18).Porcentaje de participación de la consola de entrenamiento y finalización de la escisión mesorrectal total. Se registraron retrospectivamente el sexo de los médicos residentes y asistentes. La cohorte se separó en cuatro grupos según la combinación de género residente y asistente. El volumen de casos, la participación promedio de la consola por caso y la finalización de las extirpaciones mesorrectales totales se compararon para cada grupo mediante el análisis de regresión de interacción.Participaron 52 programas de capacitación, incluidos 120 aprendices y 190 cirujanos asistentes. Cuarenta y cinco (37.5%) aprendices y 36 (18.9%) cirujanos asistentes eran mujeres. El número promedio de casos por aprendiz fue de 23.27 / año para mujeres y 28.15 / año para hombres (p = 0.19). La participación promedio de la consola fue del 53.5% para las mujeres y del 61.7% para los hombres (p <0.001). Los cirujanos asistentes masculinos proporcionaron a las mujeres aprendices menos participación en la consola en comparación con sus compañeros masculinos (52.1% vs 59.7%, p <0.001). Los cirujanos asistentes femeninos proporcionaron la misma cantidad de participación en la consola a los aprendices femeninos y masculinos (63.3% vs 61.8%, p = 0.62). Los aprendices masculinos realizaron casos de consola TME significativamente más completos que las aprendices femeninas (57.16% vs 42.38%, p <0.0001).Los datos están sujetos a sesgos de autoinforme.Existe una disparidad de género en la experiencia quirúrgica robótica en los programas de entrenamiento de cirugía de colon y recto con menos oportunidades para la participación de la consola y menos oportunidades para completar las extirpaciones mesorrectales totales para las mujeres en formación. Esta tendencia debe destacarse y evaluarse para resolver esta disparidad. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B224. (Traducción-Dr. Adrián Ortega).

Incidence, associated risk factors, and impact of conversion to laparotomy in elective minimally invasive sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of minimally invasive surgical approaches to diverticular disease are limited by conversion to open surgery. A comprehensive analysis that includes risk factors for conversion may improve patient outcomes. METHODS: The US Premier Healthcare Database was used to identify patients undergoing primary elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease between 2013 and September 2015. Propensity-score matching was used to compare conversion rates for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy. Patient, clinical, hospital, and surgeon characteristics associated with conversion were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression, providing odds ratios for comparative risks. Clinical and economic impacts were assessed comparing surgical outcomes in minimally invasive converted, completed, and open cases. RESULTS: The study population included 13,240 sigmoidectomy patients (8076 laparoscopic, 1301 robotic-assisted, 3863 open). Analysis of propensity-score-matched patients showed higher conversion rates in laparoscopic (13.6%) versus robotic-assisted (8.3%) surgeries (p < 0.001). Greater risk of conversion was associated with patients who were Black compared with Caucasian, were Medicaid-insured versus Commercially insured, had a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 2 versus 0, were obese, had concomitant colon resection, had peritoneal abscess or fistula, or had lysis of adhesions. Significantly lower risk of conversion was associated with robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy (versus laparoscopic, OR 0.58), hand-assisted surgery, higher surgeon volume, and surgeons who were colorectal specialties. Converted cases had longer operating room time, length of stay, and more postoperative complications compared with minimally invasive completed and open cases. Readmission and blood transfusion rates were higher in converted compared with minimally invasive completed cases, and similar to open surgeries. Differences in inflation-adjusted total ($4971), direct ($2760), and overhead ($2212) costs were significantly higher for converted compared with minimally invasive completed cases. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion from minimally invasive to open sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease results in additional morbidity and healthcare costs. Consideration of modifiable risk factors for conversion may attenuate adverse associated outcomes.

Preoperative Immunonutrition and Elective Colorectal Resection Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials demonstrate the efficacy of arginine-enriched nutritional supplements (immunonutrition) in reducing complications after surgery. The effectiveness of preoperative immunonutrition has not been evaluated in a community setting. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine whether immunonutrition before elective colorectal surgery improves outcomes in the community at large. DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study with a propensity score-matched comparative effectiveness evaluation. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in Washington State hospitals in the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program from 2012 to 2015. PATIENTS: Adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery were selected. INTERVENTIONS: Surgeons used a preoperative checklist that recommended that patients take oral immunonutrition (237 mL, 3 times daily) for 5 days before elective colorectal resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serious adverse events (infection, anastomotic leak, reoperation, and death) and prolonged length of stay were the primary outcomes measured. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred seventy-five patients (mean age 59.9 ± 15.2 years, 56% female) underwent elective colorectal surgery. Patients receiving immunonutrition more commonly were in a higher ASA class (III-V, 44% vs 38%; p = 0.01) or required an ostomy (18% vs 14%; p = 0.02). The rate of serious adverse events was 6.8% vs 8.3% (p = 0.25) and the rate of prolonged length of stay was 13.8% vs 17.3% (p = 0.04) in those who did and did not receive immunonutrition. After propensity score matching, covariates were similar among 960 patients. Although differences in serious adverse events were nonsignificant (relative risk, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.16), prolonged length of stay (relative risk, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.01 p = 0.05) was lower in those receiving immunonutrition. LIMITATIONS: Patient compliance with the intervention was not measured. Residual confounding, including surgeon-level heterogeneity, may influence estimates of the effect of immunonutrition. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in prolonged length of stay, likely related to fewer complications, support the use of immunonutrition in quality improvement initiatives related to elective colorectal surgery. This population-based study supports previous trials of immunonutrition, but shows a lower magnitude of benefit, perhaps related to compliance or a lower rate of adverse events, highlighting the value of community-based assessments of comparative effectiveness.

Screening, Surveillance, and Treatment of Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia.

The prevalence of anal intraepithelial neoplasia has been increasing, especially in high-risk patients, including men who have sex with men, human immunodeficiency virus positive patients, and those who are immunosuppressed. Several studies with long-term follow-up have suggested that rate of progression from high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions to invasive anal cancer is ∼ 5%. This number is considerably higher for those at high risk. Anal cytology has been used to attempt to screen high-risk patients for disease; however, it has been shown to have very little correlation to actual histology. Patients with lesions should undergo history and physical exam including digital rectal exam and standard anoscopy. High-resolution anoscopy can be considered as well, although it is of questionable time and cost-effectiveness. Nonoperative treatments include expectant surveillance and topical imiquimod or 5-fluorouracil. Operative therapies include wide local excision and targeted ablation with electrocautery, infrared coagulation, or cryotherapy. Recurrence rates remain high regardless of treatment delivered and surveillance is paramount, although optimal surveillance regimens have yet to be established.

Addressing the appropriateness of elective colon resection for diverticulitis: a report from the SCOAP CERTAIN collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reported indications for elective colon resection for diverticulitis and concordance with professional guidelines. BACKGROUND: Despite modern professional guidelines recommending delay in elective colon resection beyond 2 episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis, the incidence of elective colectomy has increased dramatically in the last 2 decades. Whether surgeons have changed their threshold for recommending a surgical intervention is unknown. In 2010, Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program initiated a benchmarking and education initiative related to the indications for colon resection. METHODS: Prospective cohort study evaluating indications from chronic complications (fistula, stricture, bleeding) or the number of previously treated diverticulitis episodes for patients undergoing elective colectomy at 1 of 49 participating hospitals (2010-2013). RESULTS: Among 2724 patients (58.7 ± 13 years; 46% men), 29.4% had a chronic complication indication (15.6% fistula, 7.4% stricture, 3.0% bleeding, 5.8% other). For the 70.5% with an episode-based indication, 39.4% had 2 or fewer episodes, 56.5% had 3 to 10 episodes, and 4.1% had more than 10 episodes. Thirty-one percent of patients failed to meet indications for either a chronic complication or 3 or more episodes. Over the 4 years, the proportion of patients with an indication of 3 or more episodes increased from 36.6% to 52.7% (P < 0.001) whereas the proportion of those who failed to meet either clinical or episode-based indications decreased from 38.4% to 26.4% (P < 0.001). The annual rate of emergency resections did not increase significantly, varying from 5.6 to 5.9 per year (P = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to a guideline based on 3 or more episodes for elective colectomy increased concurrently with a benchmarking and peer-to-peer messaging initiative. Improving adherence to professional guidelines related to appropriate care is critical and can be facilitated by quality improvement collaboratives.

Peristomal cutaneous amebiasis causing rapidly progressive necrotic wound of a left lower quadrant end colostomy.

Cutaneous amebiasis is a rare clinical entity caused by the invasive protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica that can be readily diagnosed with skin biopsy if suspected. It presents as a rapidly progressive and destructive ulceration with necrosis. A man in his 40s with metastatic rectal cancer who underwent palliative abdominal perineal resection with end colostomy in his left lower quadrant and on systemic chemotherapy developed progressive breakdown of his peristomal skin unresponsive to antibiotics that was then diagnosed to be cutaneous amebiasis. It is important to be aware of cutaneous amebiasis and include it in the differential diagnosis when peristomal wounds do not respond to treatment.

Hemorrhoid management in patients with radiation proctitis.

PURPOSE: Management of rectal bleeding in patients with radiation proctitis presents a conundrum for practitioners. Surgeons are appropriately concerned about using conventional methods of treatment in these patients, such as cautery for bleeding areas in the rectum, rubber band ligation, or excision of internal and/or external hemorrhoids, for fear of poor healing and possible exacerbation of the original problem. Few randomized controlled trials are available on the treatment of radiation proctitis alone, and no literature exists pertaining to the management of symptomatic hemorrhoids in the radiated patient. METHODS: In the absence of observational studies, the authors created an email survey to distribute to the membership of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons in order to try to identify current management practices for radiation proctitis and for the treatment of their symptomatic hemorrhoids. RESULTS: Of the 327 respondents, 85 % favored the use of topical formalin to treat radiation proctitis, while 42 % additionally used argon plasma coagulation. Only 25 % of practitioners report using sucralfate, though existing data on this therapy are promising. Regarding the management of hemorrhoids in patients with a history of rectal irradiation, 55 % of respondents hoped treatment of radiation proctitis alone would solve the problem. Forty-three percent reported using rubber band ligation, 30 % using hemorrhoidectomy, and 18 % using sclerotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: While most respondents treated radiation proctitis alone in patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids, many also felt rubber band ligation, hemorrhoidectomy, and sclerotherapy are safe and effective alternative therapies in this population.

Neoadjuvant Pelvic Radiotherapy in the Management of Rectal Cancer with Synchronous Liver Metastases: Is It Worth It?

BACKGROUND: The use of neoadjuvant pelvic radiotherapy was a major advance in oncologic care for locally advanced rectal cancer in the twentieth century. The extrapolation of the care of locally advanced rectal cancer to the management of rectal cancer with treatable liver metastases is controversial. The aim of this review is to examine the available data on the role of pelvic radiotherapy and chemoradiation in the setting of treatable metastatic liver disease. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE was performed to report the landmark randomized controlled trials between 1993 and 2021. RESULTS: Attaining liver clearance and total mesorectal excision with R0 margin remains the mainstay of cure. There is uncertainty regarding the sequencing of treatment. The literature lacks randomized clinical trials comparing the rectal first, liver first, interval strategy, and simultaneous surgical approaches. A multidisciplinary discussion regarding the utility of radiotherapy is emphasized to achieve the goals of treatment. Short-course radiotherapy has proved comparable disease-control outcomes to long-course chemoradiation with a significantly improved cost-performance. The implementation of short-course radiotherapy in the interval strategy and simultaneous surgical approach is promising. Neoadjuvant pelvic radiotherapy can be omitted in patients with metastatic rectal cancer if adequate margin clearance is achievable. CONCLUSION: The use of radiotherapy in metastatic rectal cancer is popular but is based on limited data. Treatment should be tailored to the local extent of rectal cancer and priority of liver metastasis management. The optimal treatment strategy in patients with rectal cancer and synchronous liver metastatic disease needs to be studied in randomized trials.

The impact of obesity on minimally invasive colorectal surgery: A report from the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Operating on obese patients can increase case complexity and result in worse outcomes. We described the incremental impact of BMI on morbidity and outcomes of colorectal operations and whether laparoscopic and robotic(MIS) approaches mitigate this morbidity differently. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing elective colorectal operations in SCOAP was created to examine the association of increasing BMI on surgical outcomes. Additionally, multivariable logistic regression models were constructed. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2019, 22,863 elective colorectal operations (mean age 62, 55% female) were performed at 42 hospitals. Patients had BMI≥30 in 7576(33%) and BMI≥40 in 1180(5%) of operations. After risk adjustment, BMI≥40 was associated with increased conversions(OR1.57,95%CI1.26-1.96), increased combined adverse events(CAE)(OR1.32,95%CI1.15-1.52), and death(OR2.24, 95%CI1.41-3.55)(all p < 0.01). MIS approaches were each associated with lower CAE(lap OR0.49,95%CI0.46-0.53; robot OR0.42,95%CI0.37-0.47), and death(lap OR0.24,95%CI0.18-0.33; robot OR0.18,95%CI0.10-0.35)(all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Severe obesity is associated with increased conversion rates and worse short-term outcomes after colorectal surgery, though this trend is partially mitigated with a minimally invasive approach. These findings support the broad application of MIS for colorectal operations in obese patients.

Evaluating the Regional Uptake of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: a Report from the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal disease has well-known benefits, but many patients undergo open operations. When choosing an MIS approach, robotic technology may have benefits over traditional laparoscopy and is increasingly used. However, the broad adoption of MIS, and specifically robotics, across colorectal operations has not been well described. Our primary hypothesis is that rates of MIS in colorectal surgery are increasing, with different contributions of robotics to abdominal and pelvic colorectal operations. METHODS: Rates of MIS colorectal operations are described using a prospective cohort of elective colorectal operations at hospitals in the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) from 2011 to 2018. The main outcome was proportion of cases approached using open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Factors associated with increased use of MIS approaches were described. RESULTS: Across 21,423 elective colorectal operations, rates for MIS (laparoscopic or robotic surgery) increased from 44% in 2011 to 75% in 2018 (p < 0.001). Approaches for abdominal operations (n = 12,493) changed from 2 to 11% robotic, 43 to 63% laparoscopic, and 56 to 26% open (p < 0.001). Approaches for pelvic operations (n = 8930) changed from 3 to 33% robotic, 40 to 42% laparoscopic, and 57 to 24% open(p < 0.001). These trends were similar for high-(100 + operations/year) and low-volume hospitals and surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: At SCOAP hospitals, the majority of elective colorectal operations is now performed minimally invasively. The increase in the MIS approach is primarily driven by laparoscopy in abdominal procedures and robotics in pelvic procedures.

Minimally invasive sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease decreases inpatient opioid use: Results of a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery are at high risk for postoperative opioid use. METHODS: We evaluated inpatient opioid use among patients undergoing sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease from the Premier Hospital Database and compared across surgical approaches using propensity score-matching analysis. RESULTS: After the day of surgery, minimally invasive (MIS) patients were administered significantly lower doses of parenteral opioids (median daily morphine milligram equivalents [MME]: 33.3 versus 48.3, p < 0.001). Within MIS, significantly less parenteral opioids were used by the robotic-assisted (RS) than the laparoscopic (LS) group (median daily MME: 30.0 versus 36.8, p = 0.012). MIS patients were more likely than open to start oral opioids on the day of surgery (MIS vs. OS: 8.7% vs. 6.6%, p < 0.001; RS vs. LS: 12.6% vs. 10.2%, p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease was associated with less postoperative parenteral opioid use and starting oral opioids sooner after surgery compared to the open approach.

Incorporating a Detailed Case Log System to Standardize Robotic Colon and Rectal Surgery Resident Training and Performance Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate a novel case log used as part of a standardized robotic colon and rectal surgery resident training program. DESIGN: This observational study describes a detailed procedure log developed to standardize training of residents in robotic colorectal surgery. The procedure log tracks resident total case numbers and execution of specific steps of eleven colorectal procedures. Case log data were accumulated and analyzed to assess resident progress. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The study includes colon and rectal surgery residents during the 2016-2017 academic year. The national Colon and Rectal Surgery Robotic Training Program was developed and implemented during the 2010-2011 academic year in response to increasing adoption of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery. This program evolved to include online modules, dry lab exercises, simulation and cadaveric courses. RESULTS: Forty of 93 residents in 54 colon and rectal surgery programs participated in the case log system and the comprehensive training program. Residents participated as console surgeon in an average of 28 cases (range 1-115). Sixty-five percent of participating residents performed ≥20 complex colorectal cases as console surgeon. Of the 1080 operations entered, the three most frequently performed procedures were low anterior resections (n = 360, 33.3%), sigmoid resections (n = 172, 15.9%), and right colectomies with intracorporeal anastomosis (n = 138, 12.8%). Residents with 10 or more robotic cases had a 27% increase in cases as console surgeon and a 28% decrease in cases completed as bedside assistant. Experience and progression to the console varied by resident and by program. CONCLUSION: This detailed standardized case log system provides comprehensive assessment of resident experience that allows preparation for a robotic colon and rectal surgery practice after fellowship. As adoption of the robotic approach for colon and rectal cases continues to increase, novel methods that evaluate teaching methods and resident progress warrant further study.

The Effect of Formal Robotic Residency Training on the Adoption of Minimally Invasive Surgery by Young Colorectal Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: The minimally invasive approach to colorectal surgery is still underused. Only 50% to 60% of colectomies and 10% to 20% of rectal resections for cancer are performed laparoscopically. The increasing adoption of the robotic platform for colorectal surgery warrants re-evaluation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) training techniques. Although considering lessons learned from past laparoscopic training, a standardized national robotic training program for colon and rectal surgery residents was developed and implemented in 2011. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of this program on the usage of MIS in practice following residency training. DESIGN: An internet-based 18 question survey was sent to all colon and rectal surgeons who graduated from ACGME-approved colon and rectal surgery residencies from 2013 to 2016. The survey questions were designed to determine MIS practice patterns for young colon and rectal surgeons after residency training for those who participated in the standardized national robotics training course when compared to those who did not participate. Grouped bar charts with error bars are presented along with summary statistics to offer a descriptive overview of training experiences by cohort. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: This study is a survey of colon and rectal surgeons who completed colon and rectal surgery residencies to include all 52 programs across the United States. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 37.2% (109 of 293). Most (79.8%) of the colon and rectal surgery resident respondents participated in the formal robotic training course. The average respondent reported that 84% of colectomy cases and 74.8% of rectal resections done after residency training by all respondents were by the MIS approach. The laparoscopic approach was most prevalent for colectomies for both course participants (laparoscopic 55.1%, hand assisted lap 14.5%, and robotic 15.7%) and nonparticipants (laparoscopic 53.8%, hand assisted lap 12.3%, and robotic 15.9%). For rectal resections, the robotic approach was the preferred option for course participants (laparoscopic 24.5%, hand assist lap 14.0%, and robotic 39.2%) whereas laparoscopic and open approaches were used more often by nonparticipants (laparoscopic 36.8%, hand assist lap 8.0%, robotic 26.8%, and open 28.4%). Barriers to robotic implementation included lack of robotic mentors, inadequate robotic assistance, and the preference for the laparoscopic approach. CONCLUSION: The usage of MIS by young recently fellowship-trained colorectal surgeons is higher than previously reported. The proportion of rectal cases done robotically is higher compared to colon cases and with an apparent decrease in open rather than laparoscopic surgery, suggesting selective usage of robotic surgery for more challenging cases in the pelvis. Methods to more effectively increase the usage of minimally invasive approaches in colorectal surgery warrant further evaluation.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive right colectomy: A multi-center propensity score-matched comparison of outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to retrospectively compare short-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomies for benign and malignant disease. Recent studies suggest potential short-term outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis techniques for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy between January 11, 2010, and July 21, 2016. RESULTS: After propensity score-matching, there were a total of 1029 minimal invasive surgery cases for analysis-379 right colectomies (335 robotic-assisted and 44 laparoscopic) done with an intracorporeal anastomosis and 650 right colectomies (253 robotic-assisted and 397 laparoscopic) done with an extracorporeal anastomosis. There were no significant differences in any preoperative patient characteristics between groups. The minimally invasive intracorporeal anastomosis group had significantly longer operative times (p<0.0001), lower conversion to open rate (p = 0.01), shorter hospital length of stay (p = 0.02) and lower complication rate from after discharge to 30-days (p = 0.04) than the extracorporeal anastomosis group. CONCLUSIONS: This comparison shows several clinical outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique in minimally invasive right colectomy. These data may guide future refinements in minimally invasive training techniques and help surgeons choose among different minimally invasive options.

Outcome comparisons between high-volume robotic and laparoscopic surgeons in a large healthcare system.

Robotic colorectal surgery has been performed for nearly a decade, but has been criticized for high cost. We sought to assess outcomes of colorectal operations performed by surgeons with higher experience in robotics and laparoscopy across a large health system. We performed a retrospective review of colon or rectal resections performed between January 2013 and May 2016 within the Providence Health and Services. Surgeons were only included if they performed 30 or more procedures with an approach per year. We assessed outcomes including operative time, hospital length of stay, complications, readmission, conversion to open rates and total direct costs. When comparing the two groups, robotics surgery had a decreased length of hospital stay, lower conversion rate, and longer operative time. There was no statistical difference between complications and rate of readmission. There was no statistically significant difference in total direct cost. These data do suggest that high volume robotic surgery can carry the benefit of a lower length of stay and lower conversion rate, while not incurring an increase in total cost, complication or readmissions.