The incidence of venous thromboembolism after curative colon cancer surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme.

AIM: Based on three randomised controlled trials performed more than a decade ago, several national guidelines recommend prolonged venous thromboprophylaxis for 28 days following elective surgery for colon cancer. None of these studies were conducted within enhanced recovery after surgery setting. Newer studies indicate that prolonged prophylaxis might not be necessary with enhanced recovery after surgery. We aimed to provide further evidence to this unresolved discussion. METHOD: Retrospective study of patients undergoing elective surgery for colon cancer stage I-III with enhanced recovery after surgery in the Capital Region of Denmark from 2014 to 2017. Patients were excluded if discharged on postoperative day 28 or later, dying before discharge, undergoing concomitant rectum resection, or discharged with vitamin K antagonists, direct-oral anticoagulants, or low molecular weight heparin treatment. All patients received only low-dose low molecular weight heparin as prophylaxis during their admission. The primary endpoint was symptomatic lower limb deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism diagnosed within 60 days postoperatively. RESULTS: Out of the included population of 1806 patients, only three experienced a symptomatic venous thromboembolic event; none was fatal. Two had pulmonary embolism associated with pneumonia, while one patient was diagnosed with lower limb deep venous thrombosis at postoperative day 15 after an uncomplicated course with first discharge at postoperative day 2. CONCLUSION: The risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism after elective surgery for colon cancer with enhanced recovery after surgery seems negligible even without prolonged prophylaxis. The current guidelines need to be reconsidered.

A survey of preoperative diagnosis and management of complicated appendicitis.

INTRODUCTION: Complicated appendicitis is a severe condition, requiring early diagnosis and intervention to prevent complications. We aimed to investigate how resident surgeons distinguish and manage complicated appendicitis and their perspectives on preoperative diagnostic markers. METHODS: The electronic survey was face validated. It contained questions about demographics, resident surgeons' considerations on the preoperative diagnosis of complicated appendicitis, and views on the need for and relevance of preoperative diagnostic markers. It was sent to all resident surgeons in the Eastern part of Denmark. RESULTS: Seven hospitals and their 92 resident surgeons received the survey, and 90% responded. Most resident surgeons used symptoms and signs of pain to diagnose suspected complicated appendicitis. Half of the surgeons used computed tomographies, and 95% used routine blood tests. Most surgeons (83%) would change the management of patients with preoperatively diagnosed complicated appendicitis in comparison to uncomplicated appendicitis. However, only 17% felt the need for a preoperative diagnostic marker. CONCLUSIONS: Resident surgeons in Eastern Denmark use non-specific diagnostic techniques to distinguish complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis and would change treatment if appendicitis was diagnosed preoperatively. However, despite limited interest, our results suggest a need for new diagnostic markers to differentiate between the severity of appendicitis, thus enhancing education and training in managing such cases. FUNDING: None. TRIAL REGISTRATION: None.

Visceral obesity and short-term outcomes after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection.

BACKGROUND: Complications after rectal resection are frequent. Recently, methods to assess visceral obesity (VO) have become available as an alternative to measurement of body mass index (BMI). The aim of this study was to examine the association between visceral fat volume (VFV) and the short-term outcomes after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: We studied a consecutive series of patients undergoing LLAR at Bispebjerg University Hospital from 01.01.2013 to 01.01.2016. Preoperative VFV was calculated from abdominal CT scans using an automatic segmentation tool. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage (AL). Secondary outcomes included conversion to open surgery, number of lymph nodes harvested, the rates of 30-day complications as well as reoperations, and 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were included. VO was defined as a VFV above the 75 percentile. Thirteen (12.7%) patients developed AL, four (15.4%) of whom were in the VO group (p = 0.900). At least one postoperative complication developed in 38 (37.3%) patients, with no significant difference between the VO and non-VO patients after univariable analysis (42.3% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.702) or multivariable adjustment (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.38-2.65, p = 0.984). VO was significantly associated with an increased incidence of conversion to open surgery (OR 4.30, 95% CI 1.29-14.86, p = 0.018). There was a significant difference in the number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups (mean 23.5 vs. 29.1, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: In this study on patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection, VO was not associated with development of AL or other complications. However, we found that visceral obesity was associated with an increased risk of conversion to open surgery.

Enhanced recovery after abdominal wall reconstruction reduces length of postoperative stay: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery has been shown to lead to improved postoperative outcomes after several surgical procedures. However, only a few studies have examined the application of enhanced recovery after surgery after abdominal wall reconstruction. The aim of the current observational cohort study was to evaluate the outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery after abdominal wall reconstruction in a large cohort. METHOD: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction in a standard care pathway (control group) with patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction in an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. Registered outcomes included 30-day postoperative complications, length of stay, and readmission rate. RESULTS: A total of 190 patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction for large incisional hernias were included in the study, of which 96 were treated according to standard protocol, and 94 underwent enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. Length of stay was significantly reduced after the introduction of enhanced recovery after surgery (median 4, interquartile range 3-6 days vs. control 5, 4-7 days, P < .001). There was no difference between the cohorts in the incidence of postoperative complications requiring operative intervention (enhanced recovery after surgery 10.6% vs control 10.4%, P = 1.0) or the rate of readmissions (enhanced recovery after surgery 16.0% vs control 12.5%, P = .635). CONCLUSION: Enhanced recovery after surgery is feasible after abdominal wall reconstruction, leading to reduced length of stay without increasing the rate of complications or readmissions. Enhanced recovery should be implemented as standard in centers performing abdominal wall reconstruction.