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.

EAES, SAGES, and ESCP rapid guideline: bowel preparation for minimally invasive colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. METHODS: This is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej . CONCLUSION: This guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders. Guideline registration number PREPARE-2023CN045.

Management of Acutely Symptomatic Hernia (MASH) study.

BACKGROUND: Acutely symptomatic abdominal wall and groin hernias are a common reason for acute surgical hospital admissions. There are limited data to guide the treatment of these patients. This study aimed to assess outcomes of emergency hernia surgery and identify common management strategies, to improve care for these high-risk patients. METHODS: A 20-week, national multicentre, collaborative, prospective cohort study (NCT04197271) recruited adults with acutely symptomatic abdominal wall and groin hernias across the UK. Data on patient characteristics, inpatient management, quality of life, complications, and wound healing were collected. Follow-up telephone calls at 30 and 90 days were used to assessed complications and quality of life. Descriptive analyses were undertaken to describe the population and outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-three hospitals recruited 272 eligible patients. Inguinal (37.8 per cent) and umbilical (37.1 per cent) hernias were the most common. Some 13.9 per cent were awaiting elective surgery and 12.8 per cent had previously declined intervention. CT was performed in 47.1 per cent and 81.3 per cent underwent surgical management. Open repairs were carried out in 93.5 per cent, and 92.5 per cent of these were performed under general anaesthesia. Four of 13 laparoscopic procedures were converted to open surgery. Mesh was used in 55.1 per cent of repairs, typically synthetic non-absorbable (87.4 per cent). Complications were infrequent; surgical-site infection (9.4 per cent), delirium (3.2 per cent), and pneumonia (2.3 per cent) were the most common. The 90-day mortality rate was 4.9 per cent. Immediate surgical management was associated with a significant improvement in quality of life at 30 days (median score 0.73-0.82). CONCLUSION: There is variation in the investigation, management, and surgical technique used to treat acutely symptomatic abdominal wall and groin hernias in the UK. The optimal management strategy for specific acute presentations remains to be established. Presented to the Association of Surgeons in Training Conference, Birmingham, UK, March 2021, the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland Congress, May 2021, the World Society of Emergency Surgery, Edinburgh, UK, September 2021, and the European Hernia Society Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 2021.

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.

Use of prophylactic mesh during initial stoma creation to prevent parastomal herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIM: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication following stoma creation. Previous reviews found mesh reinforcement during initial stoma creation beneficial in reducing PSH incidence. Since then, several multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) produced widely ranging results rendering previous findings debatable. This current review assessed whether combining the latest larger multicentre RCTs would alter the previous findings. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase were searched from the respective dates of inception until 15 January 2021. RCTs were included if they compared mesh with no mesh during initial stoma creation in adult patients to prevent PSH. Included RCTs were summarised narratively and meta-analysed to estimate the relative risk (RR) of PSH incidence (primary analysis), peristomal complications and PSH repair (secondary analyses). Several subgroup analyses were performed, including mesh type (synthetic/biologic), surgical technique (open/laparoscopic) and mesh position (sublay/intraperitoneal). RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were included in the primary meta-analysis (1070 patients); PSH incidence was reduced in patients with mesh compared with patients without mesh at maximal follow-up (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.77; I2  = 67%; P < 0.01). The number of PSH repairs was fewer in patients who had mesh (RR = 0.63; 0.35-1.14; I2  = 6%; P = 0.39), with no difference in peristomal complications (RR = 0.96; 0.55-1.70; I2  = 0%; P = 0.71), comparing with no mesh. Subgroup analyses suggested that placing synthetic mesh using an open sublay technique might be more beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic mesh reinforcement during initial stoma creation reduces PSH incidence and potentially its repair, without an increase in peristomal complications. However, substantial heterogeneity among included RCTs limits confidence in the results.

A semi-Markov model comparing the lifetime cost-effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis to prevent parastomal hernia in patients undergoing end colostomy creation for rectal cancer.

AIM: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common problem following colostomy. Using prophylactic mesh during end colostomy creation may reduce PSH incidence, but concerns exist regarding the optimal type of mesh, potential long-term complications, and cost-effectiveness of its use. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis to prevent PSH in patients undergoing end colostomy creation for rectal cancer. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytical model, stratified by rectal cancer stages I-IV, to estimate the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and net monetary benefits (NMBs) of synthetic, biologic and no mesh from a UK NHS perspective. We pooled the mesh-related relative risks of PSH from 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and superimposed these on the baseline (no mesh) risk from a population-based cohort. Uncertainty was assessed in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Synthetic mesh was less costly and more effective than biologic and no mesh to prevent PSH for all rectal cancer stages. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, the incremental NMBs (95% CI) ranged between £1,706 (£1,692 to £1,720) (stage I) and £684 (£678 to £690) (stage IV) for synthetic versus no mesh, and £2,038 (£1,997 to £2,079) (stage I) and £1,671 (£1,653 to £1,689) (stage IV) for synthetic versus biologic mesh. Synthetic mesh was more cost-effective than no mesh unless the relative risk of PSH was ≥0.95 for stages I-III and ≥0.93 for stage IV. [Correction added on 05 October 2021 after first online publication: The estimation of health outcomes (QALYs) for all three interventions evaluated (synthetic mesh; biologic mesh; no mesh) have been corrected in this version.] CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic mesh was the most cost-effective strategy to prevent the formation of PSH in patients after end colostomy for any rectal cancer stage; however, conclusions are dependent on which subset of RCTs are considered to provide the most robust evidence.

Protocol for the UK cohort study to investigate the prevention of parastomal hernia (the CIPHER study).

AIM: Abdominal surgery sometimes necessitates the creation of a stoma, which can cause future complications including parastomal hernia (PSH), an incisional hernia adjacent to and related to the stoma. PSH affects approximately 40% of patients within 2 years of stoma formation. Complications of PSH reduce a patient's quality of life and can be severe (e.g. bowel obstruction). PSHs are difficult to manage and can recur after surgical repair. Therefore, it is very important to prevent a PSH. Surgeons create stomas in different ways and both patient and surgical factors are believed to influence the development of PSH. The aim of the CIPHER study is to investigate the influence of different surgical techniques on the development of PSH. METHOD: The UK cohort study to investigate the prevention of parastomal hernia (the CIPHER study) aims to recruit 4000 patients undergoing elective or expedited surgery with the intention of forming an ileostomy or colostomy, irrespective of the primary indication for the planned surgery. For each patient, surgeons will describe their methods of trephine formation, mesh reinforcement of the stoma trephine, use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site and wound closure. The primary outcome will be incident PSH during follow-up, defined as symptoms of PSH (custom-designed questionnaire) and anatomical PSH, ascertained by independent reading of usual care CT scans. Secondary outcomes will include surgical site infection, the Comprehensive Complication Index, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and SF-12), PSH repair and use of NHS resources. RESULTS: Results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. All publications relating to the results of CIPHER will use a corporate authorship, 'The CIPHER Study Investigators' with named writing committee members. CONCLUSION: The CIPHER study will be the first to investigate detailed surgical methods of stoma formation in a large, representative cohort of patients with a range of primary indications, both cancer and noncancer.

Translation and international validation of the Colostomy Impact score.

AIM: Optimal oncological resection in cancers of the lower rectum often requires a permanent colostomy. However, in some patients a colostomy may have a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The Colostomy Impact (CI) score is a simple questionnaire that identifies patients with stoma dysfunction that impairs HRQoL by dividing patients into 'minor' and 'major' CI groups. This aim of this study is to evaluate construct and discriminative validity, sensitivity, specificity and reliability of the CI score internationally, making it applicable for screening and identification of patients with stoma-related impaired HRQoL. METHOD: The CI score was translated in agreement with WHO recommendations. Cross-sectional cohorts of rectal cancer survivors with a colostomy in Australia, China, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden were asked to complete the CI score, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life 30-item core questionnaire, the stoma-specific items of the EORTC quality of life 29-item colorectal-specific questionnaire and five anchor questions assessing the impact of colostomy on HRQoL. RESULTS: A total of 2470 patients participated (response rate 51%-93%). CI scores were significantly higher in patients reporting reduced HRQoL due to their colostomy than in patients reporting no reduction. Differences in EORTC scale scores between patients with minor and major CI were significant and clinically relevant. Sensitivity was high regarding dissatisfaction with a colostomy. Regarding evaluation of discriminative validity, the CI score relevantly identified groups with differences in HRQoL. The CI score proved reliable, with equal CI scores between test and retest and an intraclass correlation coefficient in the moderate to excellent range. CONCLUSION: The CI score is internationally valid and reliable. We encourage its use in clinical practice to identify patients with stoma dysfunction who require further attention.

EAES rapid guideline: appendicitis in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of trustworthy evidence-informed guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in elderly patients. METHODS: We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE 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 three general surgeons, an intensive care physician, a geriatrician and a patient advocate. We conducted systematic reviews and the results of evidence synthesis 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 against the use of clinical scoring systems to replace cross-sectional imaging in the diagnostic approach of suspected appendicitis in elderly patients. It provides a weak recommendation against the use of antibiotics alone over surgical treatment in patients who are deemed fit for surgery, and a weak recommendation for laparoscopic over open surgery. Furthermore, it provides a summary of surgery-associated risks in elderly patients. The guidelines, 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 diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in elderly patients.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Colorectal Surgery: Construction of Core Measures Using Open-Source Research Method.

Purpose. The primary aim of the study was to review the existing literature about patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in colorectal cancer and IBD. The secondary aim was to present a road map to develop a core outcome set via opinion gathering using social media. Method. This study is the first step of a three-step project aimed at constructing simple, applicable PROMs in colorectal surgery. This article was written in a collaborative manner with authors invited both through Twitter via the #OpenSourceResearch hashtag. The 5 most used PROMs were presented and discussed as slides/images on Twitter. Inputs from a wide spectrum of participants including researchers, surgeons, physicians, nurses, patients, and patients' organizations were collected and analyzed. The final draft was emailed to all contributors and 6 patients' representatives for proofreading and approval. Results. Five PROM sets were identified and discussed: EORTC QLQ-CR29, IBDQ short health questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30, ED-Q5-5L, and Short Form-36. There were 315 tweets posted by 50 tweeters with 1458 retweets. Awareness about PROMs was generally limited. The general psycho-physical well-being score (GPP) was suggested and discussed, and then a survey was conducted in which more than 2/3 of voters agreed that GPP covers the most important aspects in PROMs. Conclusion. Despite the limitations of this exploratory study, it offered a new method to conduct clinical research with opportunity to engage patients. The general psycho-physical well-being score suggested as simple, applicable PROMs to be eventually combined procedure-specific, disease-specific, or symptom-specific PROMs if needed.

Definitions for Loss of Domain: An International Delphi Consensus of Expert Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: No standardized written or volumetric definition exists for 'loss of domain' (LOD). This limits the utility of LOD as a morphological descriptor and as a predictor of peri- and postoperative outcomes. Consequently, our aim was to establish definitions for LOD via consensus of expert abdominal wall surgeons. METHODS: A Delphi study involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) surgeons was performed. Four written and two volumetric definitions of LOD were identified via systematic review. Panelists completed a questionnaire that suggested these definitions as standardized definitions of LOD. Consensus on a preferred term was pre-defined as achieved when selected by ≥80% of panelists. Terms scoring <20% were removed. RESULTS: Voting commenced August 2018 and was completed in January 2019. Written definition: During Round 1, two definitions were removed and seven new definitions were suggested, leaving nine definitions for consideration. For Round 2, panelists were asked to select all appealing definitions. Thereafter, common concepts were identified during analysis, from which the facilitators advanced a new written definition. This received 100% agreement in Round 3. Volumetric definition: Initially, panelists were evenly split, but consensus for the Sabbagh method was achieved. Panelists could not reach consensus regarding a threshold LOD value that would preclude surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus for written and volumetric definitions of LOD was achieved from 20 internationally recognized AWR surgeons. Adoption of these definitions will help standardize the use of LOD for both clinical and academic activities.

Factors predicting outcome from enhanced recovery programmes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of published literature for the factors reported to predict outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: ERAS programmes and the use of laparoscopy have been widely adopted in colorectal surgery bringing short-term patient benefit. However, there is a minority of patients that do not benefit from these strategies and their identification is not well characterised. The factors that underpin outcomes from ERAS programmes for laparoscopic patients are not understood. METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2000 and 2015. The search strategy captured terms for ERAS, colorectal resection, prediction and outcome measures. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies containing 10,861 laparoscopic resections were included. Thirty-one (91 %) studies were confined to elective cases. Predictive analysis of outcome was most frequently based on length of stay (LOS), morbidity and readmission which were the main outcome measures of 29 (85 %), 26 (76 %) and 18 (53 %) of the included studies, respectively. Forty-seven percentage of included studies investigated the impact of ERAS programme compliance on these outcomes. Reduced protocol compliance was the most frequently identified modifiable predictive factor for adverse LOS, morbidity and readmission. CONCLUSION: Protocol compliance is the most frequently reported predictive factor for outcomes of ERAS programmes following laparoscopic colorectal resection. Reduced compliance increases LOS, morbidity and readmission to hospital. The impact of compliance with individual ERAS protocol elements is insufficiently studied, and the lack of a standardised framework for evaluating ERAS programmes makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions about which factors exert the greatest impact on outcome after laparoscopic colorectal resection.

A systematic review of new treatments for cryptoglandular fistula in ano.

AIM: In 2007 the ACPGBI published a position statement on the management of cryptoglandular fistula in ano. Over the last seven years a number of new treatments have been developed and the aim of this systematic review was to assess their effectiveness. METHOD: A systematic review of all English language literature relevant to novel treatment strategies for cryptoglandular fistula in ano, published between 1 January 2007 and 31 Dec 2014 was carried out using MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews/Controlled Trials for relevant literature. Technical notes, commentaries, letters and meeting abstracts were excluded. The different treatments were assessed with regards to fistula closure rate in relation to length of follow up and reported complications. RESULTS: Seventy potential articles published between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2014 were identified from the initial literature search. Twenty-one articles were included for final analysis although only two were randomized controlled trials, the remainder being retrospective or prospective series. CONCLUSION: This systematic review has demonstrated that whilst there have been technological advances to treat complex cryptoglandular fistula in ano, these are in an early stage of evolution and although early results were promising they are difficult to reproduce. Longer follow up data is not currently available and these treatments should not be introduced without further evidence.