A new surgical technique: robotic intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis in Crohn's - a safety and feasibility case series on short-term outcomes.

AIM: The Kono-S anastomosis was introduced as a possible solution to the high surgical recurrence rates in Crohn's disease. However, this technique is known to be challenging, which is why it was originally performed in an extracorporeal setting. The aim of this case series was to assess safety, in terms of intra-/postoperative complications, and feasibility, in terms of successful performance of anastomosis, of a robot-assisted intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis. METHOD: This is a prospective single-centre consecutive case series. Patients were considered eligible if they were diagnosed with refractory Crohn's disease with significant bowel stenosis of the terminal ileum. All patients underwent robot-assisted intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis. Perioperative care was provided according to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery® protocol. Follow-up for postoperative complications was 30 days. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included, of whom 11 (55%) were men. The median age was 30 years [interquartile range (IQR) 22-51 years] and the median BMI was 25 kg/m2 (IQR 19-28 kg/m2). Intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis was successfully performed in all cases. The median operating time was 155 min (IQR 144-176 min) and the median length of stay was 3 days (IQR 1-5 days). No conversions or 30-day mortality were observed. One patient experienced anastomotic leakage, which was treated with radiologically guided drainage. A total of three patients experienced postoperative complications in the first 30 days. CONCLUSION: Performance of intracorporeal robot-assisted Kono-S anastomosis seems safe and feasible in this case series for Crohn's disease. Since this is a first case series, further research is required to confirm results in a larger population-based cohort.

The Intervention Selection Toolbox to improve patient-relevant outcomes: an implementation and qualitative evaluation study in colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The concept of value-based healthcare is being used worldwide to improve healthcare. The Intervention Selection Toolbox was developed to bridge the gap of value-based healthcare, between insights in outcomes and actual quality improvement initiatives. In this study we aimed to evaluate the use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox in daily practice of a quality improvement team in a hospital setting. METHODS: A methodological triangulation design was used. The Intervention Selection Toolbox was used by a multidisciplinary quality improvement team for colorectal cancer care in a large teaching hospital. In-depth semi-structured interviews, focusing on the key elements of process evaluation, were conducted after implementation with representatives of the quality improvement team to evaluate the use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox. Quantitative data regarding improvement initiatives and degree of implementation was also collected. RESULTS: The use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox initially resulted in 80 potential quality improvement initiatives. Eventually, two high potential improvement initiatives were selected. Some components of the toolbox were successfully implemented in daily practice, although 'standard monitoring' and 'causal chain analysis' proved more difficult to implement. Qualitative analysis was performed with ten members of the multidisciplinary team before thematic saturation occurred. Interviewed members had a wide range in characteristics: age 28-61 years, clinical experience 6-38 years and educational attainment from vocational program to academic doctorate. The Interviews showed added value in the use of the toolbox, but identified time and organizational management as restricting factors. CONCLUSIONS: The Intervention Selection Toolbox is useful to systematically identify improvement initiatives with impact on health outcomes that matter to patients. However, before implementation organizational structure should be optimized to maximize success and efficiency on integration of the Intervention Selection Toolbox.

A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres.

Background: Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview. Method: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis. Results: In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

Use of ileostomy versus colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer: retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer causes the majority of large bowel obstructions and surgical resection remains the gold standard for curative treatment. There is evidence that a deviating stoma as a bridge to surgery can reduce postoperative mortality rate; however, the optimal stoma type is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between ileostomy and colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer. METHODS: This was a national, retrospective population-based cohort study with 75 contributing hospitals. Patients with radiological left-sided obstructive colon cancer between 2009 and 2016, where a deviating stoma was used as a bridge to surgery, were included. Exclusion criteria were palliative treatment intent, perforation at presentation, emergency resection, and multivisceral resection. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients underwent a deviating stoma; 41 (12.7 per cent) ileostomies and 280 (87.2 per cent) colostomies. The ileostomy group had longer length of stay (median 13 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 10-16) versus 9 (i.q.r. 6-14) days, P = 0.003) and more nutritional support during the bridging interval. Both groups showed similar complication rates in the bridging interval and after primary resection, including anastomotic leakage. Stoma reversal during resection was more common in the colostomy group (9 (22.0 per cent) versus 129 (46.1 per cent) for ileostomy and colostomy respectively, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that patients having a colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer had a shorter length of stay and lower need for nutritional support. No difference in postoperative complications were found.

Twenty-four hours stay after colorectal surgery: a systematic review

Introduction: The introduction of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery led to increasing twenty-four hours discharge pathways, for example in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and bariatric surgery. However, implementation in colorectal surgery still must set off. This systematic review assesses safety and feasibility of twenty-four hours discharge in colorectal surgery in terms of readmission and complications in current literature. Secondary outcome was identification of factors associated with success of twenty-four hours discharge. Methods: Pubmed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies investigating twenty-four hours discharge in colorectal surgery, without restriction of study type. Search strategy included keywords relating to ambulatory management and colorectal surgery. Studies were scored according to MINORS score. Results: Thirteen studies were included in this systematic review, consisting of six prospective and seven retrospective studies. Number of participants of the included prospective studies ranged from 5 to 157. Median success of discharge was 96% in the twenty-four hours discharge group. All prospective studies showed similar readmission and complication rates between twenty-four hours discharge and conventional postoperative management. Factors associated with success of twenty-four hours discharge were low ASA classification, younger age, minimally invasive approach, and relatively shorter operation time. Conclusions: Twenty-four hours discharge in colorectal surgery seems feasible and safe, based on retro- and prospective studies. Careful selection of patients and establishment of a clear and adequate protocol are key items to assure safety and feasibility. Results should be interpreted with caution, due to heterogeneity. To confirm results, an adequately powered prospective randomized study is needed. (AU)