What Are the Cost Drivers for the Major Bowel Bundled Payment Care Improvement Initiative?

BACKGROUND: The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative links payments for service beneficiaries during an episode of care (limited to 90 days from index surgery discharge). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify drivers of costs/payments for the major bowel Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative. DESIGN: Discharges from the Medicare Standard Analytic Files of hospitals participating in the major bowel bundle of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative were analyzed. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at 4 tertiary care centers. PATIENTS: All patients in diagnostic related groups of 329, 330, or 331 treated at eligible facilities between September 1, 2012, and September 30, 2014, were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We calculated all costs/payments for the bundled period, that is, 3 days before surgery, the index hospitalization including surgery, and the 90-day postoperative period. We then determined costs for laparoscopic versus open procedures using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, procedure codes for each of the diagnostic related groups, as well as in aggregate. Last, we calculated differential impact of cost drivers on overall total episode costs. RESULTS: In the cohort of hospitals participating in the major bowel Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative, open procedures ($45,073) cost 1.6 times more than laparoscopic. For the lowest complexity diagnostic related group (331), performance of the procedure with open techniques was the largest total episode cost driver, because use of postdischarge services remained low. In the highest complexity diagnostic related group (329), readmission costs, skilled nursing facilities costs, and home health services costs were the greatest cost drivers after hospital services. LIMITATIONS: The analyses are limited by the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that efforts to safely perform open procedures with laparoscopic techniques would be most effective in reducing costs for lower complexity diagnostic related groups, whereas efforts to impact readmission and postdischarge service use would be most impactful for the higher complexity diagnostic related groups. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B420. ¿CUÁLES SON LOS FACTORES DETERMINANTES DE LOS COSTOS DE LA INICIATIVA DE MEJORA DE LA ATENCIÓN DE PAGOS COMBINADOS PARA EL INTESTINO MAYOR?: La iniciativa de pagos combinados para la mejora de la atención (BPCI) vincula los pagos para los beneficiarios del servicio durante un episodio de atención (limitado a 90 días desde el alta hospitalaria de la cirugía índice).Identificar los factores determinantes de los costos / pagos de la iniciativa BPCI intestinal mayor.Análisis de altas de los Archivos Analíticos Estándar de Medicare de los hospitales que participan en el paquete intestinal principal de la iniciativa BPCI.Todos los pacientes en Grupos Relacionados con el Diagnóstico (GRD) de 329, 330 o 331 tratados en instalaciones elegibles desde el 1 de Septiembre de 2012 hasta el 30 de Septiembre de 2014.Calculamos todos los costos / pagos para el período combinado, es decir, tres días antes de la cirugía, el índice de hospitalización incluida la cirugía y el período posoperatorio de 90 días. Luego, determinamos los costos de los procedimientos laparoscópicos versus abiertos utilizando códigos de procedimiento ICD-9 para cada uno de los GRD, así como en conjunto. Por último, calculamos el impacto diferencial de los generadores de costos sobre los costos totales del episodio.En la cohorte de hospitales que participan en la iniciativa BPCI del intestino principal, los procedimientos abiertos ($ 45.073) cuestan 1,6 veces más que los laparoscópicos. Para el GRD de menor complejidad (331), la realización del procedimiento con técnicas abiertas fue el mayor factor de costo total del episodio, ya que la utilización de los servicios posteriores al alta se mantuvo baja. En el GRD de mayor complejidad (329), los costos de readmisión, los costos de las instalaciones de enfermería especializada y los costos de los servicios de salud en el hogar fueron los mayores factores de costo después de los servicios hospitalarios.Los análisis están limitados por la naturaleza retrospectiva del estudio.Estos resultados indican que los esfuerzos para realizar procedimientos abiertos de manera segura con técnicas laparoscópicas serían más efectivos para reducir los costos de los GRD de menor complejidad, mientras que los esfuerzos para impactar la readmisión y la utilización del servicio posterior al alta serían más impactantes para los GRD de mayor complejidad. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B420.

Perioperative liberal versus restrictive fluid strategies and postoperative outcomes: a systematic review and metanalysis on randomised-controlled trials in major abdominal elective surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients' outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded. RESULTS: After full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (- 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I2 (95% CI) = 38.6% (0-66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02-0.09); p value = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value = 0.33) or late (p value = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups CONCLUSIONS: In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059 .

A Protocol is not Enough: Enhanced Recovery Program-Based Care and Clinician Adherence Associated with Shorter Stay After Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials have shown an Enhanced Recovery Program (ERP) can shorten stay after colorectal surgery. Previous research has focused on patient compliance neglecting the role of care providers. National data on implementation and adherence to standardised care are lacking. We examined care organisation and delivery including the ERP, and correlated this with clinical outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to surgeons and nurses in August-October 2015. All English National Health Service Trusts providing elective colorectal surgery were invited. Responses frequencies and variation were examined. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify underlying features of care. Standardised factor scores were correlated with elective clinical outcomes of length of stay, mortality and readmission rates from 2013-15. RESULTS: 218/600 (36.3%) postal responses were received from 84/90 (93.3%) Trusts that agreed to participate. Combined with email responses, 301 surveys were analysed. 281/301 (93.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that they had a standardised, ERP-based care protocol. However, 182/301 (60.5%) indicated all consultants managed post-operative oral intake similarly. After factor analysis, higher hospital average ERP-based care standardisation and clinician adherence score were significantly correlated with reduced length of stay, as well as higher ratings of teamwork and support for complication management. CONCLUSIONS: Standardised, ERP-based care was near universal, but clinician adherence varied markedly. Units reporting higher levels of clinician adherence achieved the lowest length of stay. Having a protocol is not enough. Careful implementation and adherence by all of the team is vital to achieve the best results.

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme.

MRI-Based Use of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Rectal Carcinoma: Surgical Quality and Histopathological Outcome of the OCUM Trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows highly reliable imaging of the mesorectal fascia (mrMRF) and its relationship to the tumor. The prospective multicenter observational study OCUM uses these findings to indicate neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in rectal carcinoma. METHODS: nCRT was indicated in patients with positive mrMRF (≤ 1 mm) in cT4 and cT3 carcinomas of the lower rectal third. RESULTS: A total of 527 patients (60.2%) underwent primary total mesorectal excision, and 348 patients (39.8%) underwent long-term nCRT followed by surgery. The mrMRF was involved in 4.6% of the primary surgery group and 80.7% of the nCRT group. Rates of resections within the mesorectal plane (90.8%), sparing of pelvic nerves on both sides (97.8%), and number of regional lymph nodes (95.3% with ≥ 12 lymph nodes examined) are indicative of high-quality surgery. Resection was classified as R0 in 98.3%, the pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM) was negative in 95.1%. Patients in the nCRT group had more advanced carcinomas with a significantly higher rate of abdominoperineal excision. Independent risk factors for pCRM positivity were advanced stage (T4), metastatic lymph nodes, resection in the muscularis propria plane, and location in the lower third. CONCLUSIONS: The risk classification of rectal cancer patients by MRI seems to be highly reliable and allows the restriction of nCRT to approximately half of the patients with clinical stage II and III rectal carcinoma, provided there is a high-quality MRI diagnostic protocol, high-quality surgery, and standardized examination of the resected specimen.

Impact of surgical indication on patient outcomes and compliance with enhanced recovery program for colorectal surgery: A Francophone multicenter retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The impact of surgical indication on compliance with enhanced recovery program (ERP) and on outcomes has never been assessed. This study aims to assess the impact of surgical indication (malignant vs benign) on postoperative outcomes and ERP compliance. METHODS: A multicenter nationwide database was analyzed. Patients who underwent colorectal surgery for benign disease and those who underwent colorectal surgery for cancer were compared. Inclusion criteria were elective colorectal resection with anastomosis. ERP components, postoperative morbidity, and hospital length of hospital stay data were collected. RESULTS: Among the 6472 patients registered in the database between October 2012 and June 2018, 4528 patients were included; 2647 in the malignant group and 1881 in the benign group. The ERP compliance over 70% was not different between groups. Postoperative morbidity rate was higher in the malignant group (22.5% vs 19.3%; P = .009) but not confirmed in multivariate analysis. Patients in the malignant group were more often readmitted after discharge, 6.6% vs 4.6% (P = .004). The mean LOS was 6.3 ± 5.0 days in the malignant group and 5.4 ± 4.7 days in the benign group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Indication for colorectal surgery did not significantly influence peri-operative management and postoperative major complications, in patients managed within an enhanced recovery program.

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Neonatal Intestinal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines integrate evidence-based practices into multimodal care pathways that have improved outcomes in multiple adult surgical specialties. There are currently no pediatric ERAS® Society guidelines. We created an ERAS® guideline designed to enhance quality of care in neonatal intestinal resection surgery. METHODS: A multidisciplinary guideline generation group defined the scope, population, and guideline topics. Systematic reviews were supplemented by targeted searching and expert identification to identify 3514 publications that were screened to develop and support recommendations. Final recommendations were determined through consensus and were assessed for evidence quality and recommendation strength. Parental input was attained throughout the process. RESULTS: Final recommendations ranged from communication strategies to antibiotic use. Topics with poor-quality and conflicting evidence were eliminated. Several recommendations were combined. The quality of supporting evidence was variable. Seventeen final recommendations are included in the proposed guideline. DISCUSSION: We have developed a comprehensive, evidence-based ERAS guideline for neonates undergoing intestinal resection surgery. This guideline, and its creation process, provides a foundation for future ERAS guideline development and can ultimately lead to improved perioperative care across a variety of pediatric surgical specialties.

Standardized Method of the Thiersch Operation for the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Conventionally, the Thiersch operation has typically involved blind positioning of the sling, and sling tension is subjectively based on a rule-of-thumb estimate. The aim of this study was to describe standardized methods for performing the Thiersch operation. METHODS: Seventeen patients with fecal incontinence underwent the calibrated method of the Thiersch procedure. As an encircling sling, a 6-mm-wide silastic tube was used. Through 4 minimal perianal skin incisions, the sling was placed proximal to the anal skin 3 cm from the anal verge and 4 cm in depth. The circumference of the sling was 10 cm in length. Results were assessed by clinical responses and by comparing pre- and postoperative Wexner scores. The data were collected retrospectively. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 9 months (range 6-19). In 16 out of 17 fecal incontinence patients (94.1%), the median Wexner incontinence score was 0 (range 0-3) postoperatively. Localized sepsis developed in three cases (17.7%, 3/17), which were controlled with drainage and antibiotics. Fecal impaction occurred in one case (5.9%, 1/17). There was no removal or breakage of the inserted sling. CONCLUSIONS: The elasticity of the silastic tube reduced the incidence of sling breakage. According to the standardized method, the sling was placed external to the external anal sphincter muscle and at the junction of the external anal sphincter muscle and puborectalis muscle. Fecal incontinence was controlled effectively, and the incidence of fecal impaction was negligible. High reproducibility was observed with this method.

Comparison of 3 Methods to Assess Occupational Sevoflurane Exposure in Abdominal Surgeons: A Single-Center Observational Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies demonstrated that operating room personnel are exposed to anesthetic gases such as sevoflurane (SEVO). Measuring the gas burden is essential to assess the exposure objectively. Air pollution measurements and the biological monitoring of urinary SEVO and its metabolite hexafluoroisopropanol (HFIP) are possible approaches. Calculating the mass of inhaled SEVO is an alternative, but its predictive power has not been evaluated. We investigated the SEVO burdens of abdominal surgeons and hypothesized that inhaled mass calculations would be better suited than pollution measurements in their breathing zones (25 cm around nose and mouth) to estimate urinary SEVO and HFIP concentrations. The effects of potentially influencing factors were considered. METHODS: SEVO pollution was continuously measured by photoacoustic gas monitoring. Urinary SEVO and HFIP samples, which were collected before and after surgery, were analyzed by a blinded environmental toxicologist using the headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method. The mass of inhaled SEVO was calculated according to the formula mVA = cVA·(Equation is included in full-text article.)·t·ρ VA aer. (mVA: inhaled mass; cVA: volume concentration; (Equation is included in full-text article.): respiratory minute volume; t: exposure time; and ρ VA aer.: gaseous density of SEVO). A linear multilevel mixed model was used for data analysis and comparisons of the different approaches. RESULTS: Eight surgeons performed 22 pancreatic resections. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) SEVO pollution was 0.32 ppm (0.09 ppm). Urinary SEVO concentrations were below the detection limit in all samples, whereas HFIP was detectable in 82% of the preoperative samples in a mean (SD) concentration of 8.53 µg·L (15.53 µg·L; median: 2.11 µg·L, interquartile range [IQR]: 4.58 µg·L) and in all postoperative samples (25.42 µg·L [21.39 µg·L]). The mean (SD) inhaled SEVO mass was 5.67 mg (2.55 mg). The postoperative HFIP concentrations correlated linearly to the SEVO concentrations in the surgeons' breathing zones (ß = 216.89; P < .001) and to the calculated masses of inhaled SEVO (ß = 4.17; P = .018). The surgeon's body mass index (BMI), age, and the frequency of surgeries within the last 24 hours before study entry did not influence the relation between HFIP concentration and air pollution or inhaled mass, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The biological SEVO burden, expressed as urinary HFIP concentration, can be estimated by monitoring SEVO pollution in the personnel's individual breathing zone. Urinary SEVO was not an appropriate biomarker in this setting.

The quality of lymph node harvests in extralevator abdominoperineal excisions.

BACKGROUND: Lymph node (LN) harvest in colorectal cancer resections is a well-recognised prognostic factor for disease staging and determining survival, particularly for node-negative (N0) diseases. Extralevator abdominoperineal excisions (ELAPE) aim to prevent "waisting" that occurs during conventional abdominoperineal resections (APR) for low rectal cancers, and reducing circumferential resection margin (CRM) infiltration rate. Our study investigates whether ELAPE may also improve the quality of LN harvests, addressing gaps in the literature. METHODS: This retrospective observational study reviewed 2 sets of 30 consecutive APRs before and after the adoption of ELAPE in our unit. The primary outcomes are the total LN counts and rates of meeting the standard of 12-minimum, particularly for those with node-negative disease. The secondary outcomes are the CRM involvement rates. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, laparoscopic or open surgery and the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were accounted for in our analyses. RESULTS: Median LN counts were slightly higher in the ELAPE group (16.5 vs. 15). Specimens failing the minimum 12-LN requirements were almost significantly fewer in the ELAPE group (OR 0.456, P = 0.085). Among node-negative rectal cancers, significantly fewer resections failed the 12-LN standard in the ELAPE group than APR group (OR 0.211, P = 0.044). ELAPE led to a near-significant decrease in CRM involvement (OR 0.365, P = 0.088). These improvements were persistently observed after taking into account baselines and potential confounders in regression analyses. CONCLUSION: ELAPE provides higher quality of LN harvests that meet the 12-minimal requirements than conventional APR, particularly in node-negative rectal cancers. The superiority is independent of potential confounding factors, and may implicate better clinical outcomes.

Management of rectal cancer in Canada: an evidence-based comparison of clinical practice guidelines

Background: Rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary and multimodality treatment approach. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide a framework for delivering consistent, evidence-based health care. We compared provincial/territorial CPGs across Canada to identify areas of variability and evaluate their quality. Methods: We retrieved CPGs from Canadian organizations responsible for cancer care oversight and evaluated their quality and developmental methodology using the AGREE-II instrument. Recommendations for diagnostic and staging investigations, treatment by stage, and post-treatment surveillance of stage I­III rectal cancers were abstracted and compared. Results: We identified 7 sets of CPGs for analysis, varying in content, presentation, quality, and year last updated. Differences were noted in locoregional staging: 4 recommended magnetic resonance imaging over endorectal ultrasonography, 2 recommended either modality, and 3 specified scenarios for one over the other. Recommendations also varied for use of staging computed tomography of the chest versus chest radiography and for surgical management and indications for transanal excision. Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy in stage II/III disease also differed: 3 guidelines recommended long-course chemoradiation over short-course radiation therapy alone, while 3 others recommended short-course radiation in specific clinical scenarios. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III disease was uniformly recommended, with variable protocols. The use of proctosigmoidoscopy and interval/duration of endoscopic post-treatment surveillance varied among guidelines. Conclusion: Canadian CPGs vary in their recommendations for staging, treatment, and surveillance of rectal cancer. Some of these differences reflect areas with limited definitive evidence. Consistent guidelines with uniform implementation across provinces/territories may lead to more equitable care to patients.

Contexte: Le cancer rectal requiert une approche thérapeutique multidisciplinaire et multimodalité. Les guides de pratique clinique (GPC) procurent un cadre pour assurer la prestation de soins de santé constants reposant sur des données probantes. Nous avons comparé les GPC des provinces et des territoires canadiens pour identifier les secteurs où ils varient et pour en évaluer la qualité. Méthodes: Nous avons obtenu les GPC des organisations canadiennes responsables des soins oncologiques et nous avons évalué leur qualité et la méthodologie de leur élaboration au moyen de l'outil AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). Nous avons extrait et comparé les recommandations en ce qui concerne les épreuves diagnostiques et la stadification, les traitements en fonction du stade et la surveillance post-thérapeutique du cancer rectal de stade I à III. Résultats: Nous avons recensé 7 GPC aux fins de cette analyse; leur contenu, leur présentation, leur qualité et l'année de leur plus récente mise à jour variaient. Des différences ont été observées au plan de la stadification locorégionale : 4 recommandaient l'imagerie par résonnance magnétique plutôt que l'échographie endorectale, 2 recommandaient l'une ou l'autre et 3 précisaient des circonstances où utiliser l'une plutôt que l'autre. Les recommandations variaient aussi pour ce qui est de l'utilisation de la scintigraphie c. radiographie thoracique de stadification, de la prise en charge chirurgicale et des indications de l'excision transanale. Les recommandations variaient également en ce qui concerne le traitement néoadjuvant pour la maladie de stade II/III : 3 guides recommandaient un traitement par chimioradiothérapie à long terme plutôt qu'une brève radiothérapie seule, tandis que 3 autres recommandaient une radiothérapie brève dans certains cas particuliers. La chimiothérapie adjuvante pour la maladie de stade II/III était uniformément recommandée, mais les protocoles variaient. L'utilisation de la proctosigmoïdoscopie et l'intervalle/durée de la surveillance endoscopique post-thérapeutique variaient d'un guide à l'autre. Conclusion: Les GPC canadiens varient quant à leurs recommandations pour la stadification, le traitement et la surveillance du cancer rectal. Certaines de ces différences témoignent du manque de données probantes concluantes dans certains secteurs. L'uniformisation des guides et de leur application entre les provinces et les territoires pourrait faciliter une prestation plus équitable des soins aux patients.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Noninferiority Meta-analysis of Quality of Surgical Resection Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether laparoscopic surgery is noninferior to open surgery for rectal cancer in terms of quality of surgical resection outcomes. BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have evaluated the oncologic safety of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer with conflicting results. Prior meta-analyses comparing these operative approaches in terms of quality of surgical resection aimed to demonstrate if one approach was superior. However, this method is not appropriate and potentially misleading when noninferiority RCTs are included. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched to identify RCTs comparing these operative approaches. Risk differences (RDs) were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. One-sided Z tests were used to determine noninferiority. Noninferiority margins (ΔNI) for circumferential resection margin (CRM), plane of mesorectal excision (PME), distal resection margin (DRM), and a composite outcome ("successful resection") were based on the consensus of 58 worldwide experts. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs were included. Laparoscopic resection was noninferior compared with open resection for the rate of positive CRM [RD 0.79%, 90% confidence interval (CI) -0.46 to 2.04, ΔNI = 2.33%, PNI = 0.026], incomplete PME (RD 1.16%, 90% CI -0.27 to 2.59, ΔNI = 2.85%, PNI = 0.025), and positive DRM (RD 0.15%, 90% CI -0.58 to 0.87, ΔNI = 1.28%, PNI = 0.005). For the rate of "successful resection" (RD 6.16%, 90% CI 2.30-10.02), the comparison was inconclusive when using the ΔNI generated by experts (ΔNI = 2.71%, PNI = 0.07), although no consensus was achieved for this ΔNI. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy was noninferior to open surgery for rectal cancer in terms of individual quality of surgical resection outcomes. These findings are concordant with RCTs demonstrating noninferiority for long-term oncologic outcomes between the 2 approaches.

The Role of Bowel Preparation in Colorectal Surgery: Results of the 2012-2015 ACS-NSQIP Data.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze potential benefits with regards to infectious complications with combined use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and ABP in elective colorectal resections. BACKGROUND: Despite recent literature suggesting that MBP does not reduce infection rate, it still is commonly used. The use of oral antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) has been practiced for decades but its use is also controversial. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective colorectal resection in the 2012 to 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program cohorts were selected. Doubly robust propensity score-adjusted multivariable regression was conducted for infectious and other postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 27,804 subjects were analyzed; 5471 (23.46%) received no preparation, 7617 (32.67%) received MBP only, 1374 (5.89%) received ABP only, and 8855 (37.98%) received both preparations. Compared to patients receiving no preparation, those receiving dual preparation had less surgical site infection (SSI) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.39, P < 0.001], organ space infection (OR = 0.56, P ≤ 0.001), wound dehiscence (OR = 0.43, P = 0.001), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P < 0.001). ABP alone compared to no prep resulted in significantly lower rates of surgical site infection (OR = 0.63, P = 0.001), organ space infection (OR = 0.59, P = 0.005), anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P = 0.002). MBP showed no significant benefit to infectious complications when used as monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Combined MBP/ABP results in significantly lower rates of SSI, organ space infection, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leak than no preparation and a lower rate of SSI than ABP alone. Combined bowel preparation significantly reduces the rates of infectious complications in colon and rectal procedures without increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection. For patients undergoing elective colon or rectal resection we recommend bowel preparation with both mechanical agents and oral antibiotics whenever feasible.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach in Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Results from a Clinical Practice Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Despite existence of international guidelines for diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in children, there might be differences in the clinical approach. METHODS: A survey on clinical practice in paediatric IBD was performed among members of the ESPGHAN Porto IBD working group and interest group, PIBD-NET, and IBD networks in Canada and German-speaking countries (CIDsCANN, GPGE), using a web-based questionnaire. Responses to 63 questions from 106 paediatric IBD centres were collected. RESULTS: Eighty-four percentage of centres reported to fulfil the revised Porto criteria in the majority of patients. In luminal Crohn disease (CD), exclusive enteral nutrition is used as a first-line induction therapy and immunomodulators (IMM) are used since diagnosis in the majority of patients. Infliximab (IFX) is mostly considered as first-line biological. Sixty percentage of centres have experience with vedolizumab and/or ustekinumab and 40% use biosimilars. In the majority of ulcerative colitis (UC) patients 5-aminosalicylates are continued as concomitant therapy to IMM (usually azathioprine [AZA]/6-MP). After ileocaecal resection (ICR) in CD patients without postoperative residual disease, AZA monotherapy is the preferred treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of centres follows both the Porto diagnostic criteria as well as paediatric (ESPGHAN/ECCO) guidelines on medical and surgical IBD management. This reflects the value of international societal guidelines. However, potentially desirable answers might have been given instead of what is true daily practice, and the most highly motivated people might have answered, leading to some bias.

Assessment of surgical performance of laparoscopic benign hiatal surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Operative skills correlate with patient outcomes, yet at the completion of training or after learning a new procedure, these skills are rarely formally evaluated. There is interest in the use of summative video assessment of laparoscopic benign foregut and hiatal surgery (LFS). If this is to be used to determine competency, it must meet the robust criteria established for high-stakes assessments. The purpose of this review is to identify tools that have been used to assess performance of LFS and evaluate the available validity evidence for each instrument. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted up to July 2017. Eligible studies reported data on tools used to assess performance in the operating room during LFS. Two independent reviewers considered 1084 citations for eligibility. The characteristics and testing conditions of each assessment tool were recorded. Validity evidence was evaluated using five sources of validity (content, response process, internal structure, relationship to other variables, and consequences). RESULTS: There were six separate tools identified. Two tools were generic to laparoscopy, and four were specific to LFS [two specific to Nissen fundoplication (NF), one heller myotomy (HM), and one paraesophageal hernia repair (PEH)]. Overall, only one assessment was supported by moderate evidence while the others had limited or unknown evidence. Validity evidence was based mainly on internal structure (all tools reporting reliability and item analysis) and content (two studies referencing previous papers for tool development in the context of clinical assessment, and four listing items without specifying the development procedures). There was little or no evidence supporting test response process (one study reporting rater training), relationship to other variables (two comparing scores in subjects with different clinical experience), and consequences (no studies). Two tools were identified to have evidence for video assessment, specific to NF. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence supporting the validity of assessment tools for laparoscopic foregut surgery. This precludes their use for summative video-based assessment to verify competency. Further research is needed to develop an assessment tool designed for this purpose.

The Impact of Anesthesia-Influenced Process Measure Compliance on Length of Stay: Results From an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Colorectal Surgery Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Process measure compliance has been associated with improved outcomes in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs. Herein, we sought to assess the impact of compliance with measures directly influenced by anesthesiology in an ERAS for colorectal surgery cohort. METHODS: From January 2013 to April 2015, data from 1140 consecutive patients were collected for all patients before (pre-ERAS) and after (ERAS) implementation of an ERAS program. Compliance with 9 specific process measures directly influenced by the anesthesiologist or acute pain service was analyzed to determine the impact on hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Process measure compliance was associated with a stepwise reduction in LOS. Patients who received >4 process measures (high compliance) had a significantly shorter LOS (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.85); P < .001) compared to low compliance (0-2 process measures) counterparts. Multivariable regression suggests that utilization of multimodal nausea and vomiting prophylaxis (IRR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89; P < .001), scheduled postoperative nonsteroidal pain medication use (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.85; P < .001), and strict adherence to a postoperative opioid administration (IRR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.67; P < .001) protocol for breakthrough pain were independently associated with reduced LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that increased compliance with process measures directly influenced by the anesthesiologists and in concert with a formal anesthesia protocol is associated with reduced LOS. Engaging anesthesiology colleagues throughout the surgical encounter increases the overall value of perioperative care.

Usefulness of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: short-term outcomes: a single-center and retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of laparoscopic surgery has become widespread, and many surgeons are striving to acquire the necessary techniques for it. The Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS), established by the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery, serves to maintain and improve the quality of laparoscopic surgery in Japan. In this study, we aimed to determine whether ESSQS certification is useful in maintaining and improving the quality of surgical techniques and in standardization of laparoscopic surgery in Japan. METHODS: This retrospective study used data from the Institute for Integrated Medical Sciences, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Japan. From January 2016 to October 2017, 241 patients with colorectal cancer underwent laparoscopic surgery. Of them, 220 patients were selected and divided into two groups on the basis of surgery performed by an ESSQS-qualified surgeon (QS group) (n = 170) and a non-ESSQS-QS (NQS) (n = 50). We compared the short-term results in the two groups and examined those before and after propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Mean operation time was longer in the NQS group than in the QS group. Furthermore, mean blood loss was significantly less in the QS group. These were similar before and after PSM. The rate of conversion to open surgery was significantly higher in the NQS group before PSM. However, the rate of postoperative complications was not different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: A laparoscopic procedure performed by ESSQS-QS often leads to good short-term outcomes. Thus, the ESSQS system works and is potentially useful in maintaining and improving the quality of surgical techniques and in standardization of laparoscopic surgery in Japan.

Pan-Canadian standards for cancer surgery

About the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer: The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) is an independent organization funded by the federal government to accelerate action on cancer control for all Canadians. As the steward of the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control (the Strategy), the Partnership works with Canada's cancer community to take action to ensure fewer people get cancer, more people survive cancer and those living with the disease have a better quality of life. This work is guided by the Strategy, which was refreshed for 2019 to 2029, and will help drive measurable change for all Canadians affected by cancer. The Strategy includes 5 priorities that will tackle the most pressing challenges in cancer control as well as distinct First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples­specific priorities and actions reflecting Canada's commitment to reconciliation. A specific action in the Strategy calls for reducing the differences in practice and service delivery by setting standards for high-quality care and promoting their adoption. The CPAC will oversee the implementation of the priorities in collaboration with organizations and individuals on the front lines of cancer care: the provinces and territories; health care professionals; people living with cancer and those who care for them; First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; governments and organizations; and its funder, Health Canada. Learn more about the Partnership and the refreshed Strategy at www.cancerstrategy.ca.

Stoma Bridge Types and Their Impact on Patient Outcomes: A Retrospective Analysis and Prospective Global Survey of Surgical Practice.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe the effect of rigid or flexible stoma bridges used for loop ostomy diversions on peristomal skin integrity. Additional aims were to describe surgeon practices related to stoma bridges, and determine the availability of an ostomy nurse specialist. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review and cross-sectional survey. SAMPLE AND SETTING: The sample used to address the first aim (effect of stoma bridges) comprised 93 adult patients cared for at Morristown Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, Morristown, New Jersey, an acute care facility. Data provided by 355 colorectal surgeons from 30 countries were used to describe surgeon practice in this area and determine the availability of an ostomy nurse specialist. Respondents were invited from an international roster of colorectal surgeons obtained with permission from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS). METHODS: In order to accomplish the initial aim, we retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients who underwent ostomy surgery from 2008 to 2015 and met inclusion criteria. In order to meet our additional aims, analyzed data were obtained from a survey of colorectal surgeons that queried practices related to stoma bridges, and availability of an ostomy nurse specialist. RESULTS: Patients managed with a rigid bridge were significantly more likely to experience leakage beneath the pouching system faceplate than were patients managed by a flexible bridge (42% vs 11%, P < .001). Slightly less than one quarter of patients who developed leakage (n = 22, 24%) experienced pressure and moisture-related peristomal skin complications. Peristomal wounds, inflammation, and infection were significantly higher when a rigid bridge was used (χ test, P < .003). The surgeon's survey (N = 355) showed variability in the use of bridges. Ninety-three percent of all surgeons indicated an ostomy nurse specialist was part of their health care team. CONCLUSIONS: Rigid ostomy bridges were associated with a higher likelihood of leakage from underneath the faceplate of the pouching system and impaired peristomal skin integrity. Analysis of colorectal surgeon responses to a survey indicated no clear consensus related to bridge use in patients undergoing loop ostomies.

[Standardization of surgical care for malignant colonic obstruction]. / Standartizatsiia khirurgicheskoi pomoshchi pri kolorektal'nom rake, oslozhnennom obturatsionnoi kishechnoi neprokhodimost'iu.

AIM: To standardize surgical care for malignant colonic obstruction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: There were 572 patients with malignant colonic obstruction: 247 of them were hospitalized in 2011-2013 (I group); 325 - in 2014-2017 (group II). Forty-six patients underwent medication; 302 - acute resection; 141 - stoma construction; 83 - stent deployment. Elective surgery and radiation or chemotherapy was performed after 0.5-6 months in 110 patients of group II. Acute resection was more common in I group, elective resection - in group II. Early and long-term results including Kaplan-Meier 3-year overall survival were compared in both groups. RESULTS: Complications occurred in 46.69% (group I) and 21% (group II). Postoperative mortality was significantly higher in group I compared with II group: 26.11 and 10.33%, respectively. Three-year overall survival was higher in group I compared with group II: 0.82 and 0.69, respectively. CONCLUSION: Advisability of new two-stage surgical standard is confirmed for malignant colonic obstruction. Stoma formation and stenting may be a valid alternative in some patients with malignant colonic obstruction due to significantly lower postoperative mortality.