Routine diversion following delayed IPAA construction does not reduce the incidence of pouch-related sepsis or failure in patients with ulcerative colitis.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare modified 2-stage and 3-stage IPAA construction techniques to evaluate the effect of diverting loop ileostomy following completion proctectomy and IPAA for ulcerative colitis. In addition, our overall institutional experience was reviewed to describe long-term outcomes and changes in staging trends over time. METHODS: Our institutional database was searched to identify all cases of IPAA for ulcerative colitis between 1981 and 2018. Patient, pouch and outcome characteristics were abstracted. Primary study outcomes were the incidence of primary pouch failure and pouch-related sepsis. Failure was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival over time. The adjusted effect of pouch stage was evaluated using multivariable Cox and logistic regression models. Exploratory analysis evaluated the effect of stage on failure in the pouch related sepsis subgroup. RESULTS: A total of 2105 patients underwent primary IPAA over the study period. The 5, 10 and 20-year pouch survival probabilities were 95.2%, 92.7% and 86.6%. The incidence of pouch related sepsis was 12.3%. Adjusted analysis demonstrated no difference in pouch failure (HR = 0.64: 95% 0.39-1.07, p = 0.09) or post-operative sepsis (aOR = 0.79: 95% CI 0.53-1.17, p = 0.24) by stage of construction. Among patients experiencing pouch sepsis, there was no difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates of pouch survival by stage (p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Pouch related sepsis and IPAA failure did not differ between modified 2-stage and 3-stage construction techniques. Among the sub-group of patients experiencing pouch related sepsis, there was no difference in failure between groups. The results suggest diverting ileostomy may be safely avoided following delayed pouch reconstruction in appropriately selected patients.

Transabdominal IPAA Revision: Does Indication Dictate Outcome?

BACKGROUND: Following IPAA failure, select patients are eligible for IPAA revision. Presently, there is limited evidence describing long-term revision outcomes and predictors of revision failure. This represents an important knowledge gap when selecting and counseling patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to define long-term IPAA survival outcomes after transabdominal IPAA revision and identify preoperative clinical factors associated with revision failure. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: This study included all patients who underwent revisional IPAA surgery between 1982 and 2017 for pouch failure. INTERVENTION: Transabdominal IPAA revision was included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was pouch failure, defined as pouch excision or permanent pouch diversion, after IPAA revision. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients (64.2% women) were included with a median age of 36 years (interquartile range, 28.5-46.5) at revision. Eighty percent of patients had a primary diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The most common indication for revision was leak/pelvic sepsis, representing 41% of the cohort, followed by pouch-vaginal fistula (22.2%), mechanical factors (20.4%), and poor pouch function (14.6%). During the study period, 56 patients (35.2%) experienced pouch failure. The 3-year pouch survival probability was 82.3% (95% CI, 75.5%-87.5%), 5-year pouch survival probability was 77.2% (95% CI, 69.8%-83.0%), and 10-year pouch survival probability was 70.6% (95% CI, 62.6%-77.2%). Compared to mechanical factors, pouch failure was significantly associated with pelvic sepsis (HR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.50-12.0) and pouch-vaginal fistula (HR, 4.37; 95% CI, 1.47-12.99). No significant association was found between revision failure and previous revision, redo ileoanal anastomosis, or new pouch construction. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Revisional IPAA can be undertaken with favorable long-term outcomes at high-volume centers. Consideration should be given to indication for revision when counseling patients regarding the risk of failure. Further research on risk stratifying patients before revision is required. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B966 . REVISIN DE LA ANASTOMOSIS ANAL DE LA BOLSA ILEAL TRANSABDOMINAL LA INDICACIN DICTA EL RESULTADO: ANTECEDENTES:Después de la falla en la anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal, los pacientes seleccionados son elegibles para la revisión de la anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal. Actualmente, hay evidencias limitadas que describen los resultados de la revisión a largo plazo y los predictores del fracaso de la revisión. Esto representa un importante vacío de investigación a la hora de seleccionar y asesorar a los pacientes.OBJETIVO:Definir los resultados de supervivencia a largo plazo de la IPAA después de la revisión de la anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal transabdominal e identificar los factores clínicos preoperatorios asociados con el fracaso de la revisión.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Este estudio se realizó en un centro de referencia terciario.PARTICIPANTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a una cirugía de revisión de la anastomosis ileoanal del reservorio entre 1982 y 2017, por falla del reservorio.INTERVENCIÓN:Revisión de la anastomosis de reservorio ileoanal transabdominal.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario es el fracaso del reservorio, definido como escisión del reservorio o derivación permanente del reservorio, después de la revisión de la anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 159 pacientes (64,2% mujeres) con una mediana de edad a la revisión de 36 años (RIC: 28,5-46,5). El ochenta por ciento tenía un diagnóstico primario de colitis ulcerosa. La indicación más común para la revisión fue la fuga/sepsis pélvica, que representó el 41 % de la cohorte, seguida de la fístula vaginal del reservorio (22,2 %), factores mecánicos (20,4 %) y mala función del reservorio 14,6 %. Durante el período de estudio, 56 pacientes (35,2 %) experimentaron fallas en la bolsa. Las probabilidades de supervivencia de la bolsa a los 3, 5 y 10 años fueron del 82,3% (IC del 95%: 75,5%-87,5%), del 77,2% (IC del 95%: 69,8%-83,0%) y del 70,6% (IC del 95%: 62,6%- 77,2%), respectivamente. En comparación con los factores mecánicos, la falla de la bolsa se asoció significativamente con sepsis pélvica (HR = 4,25, IC del 95 %: 1,50 a 12,0) y fístula vaginal de la bolsa (HR = 4,37, IC del 95 %: 1,47 a 12,99). No hubo una asociación significativa entre el fracaso de la revisión y la revisión previa, el rehacer la anastomosis ileoanal o la construcción de una nueva bolsa.LIMITACIONES:El estudio está limitado por su diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:La revisión de la anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal se puede realizar con resultados favorables a largo plazo en centros de alto volumen. Se debe considerar la indicación de revisión al asesorar a los pacientes sobre el riesgo de fracaso. Se requiere investigación adicional sobre la estratificación del riesgo de los pacientes antes de la revisión. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B966 . (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Quality indicator selection for the Canadian Partnership against Cancer rectal cancer project: A modified Delphi study.

AIM: It is well established that (i) magnetic resonance imaging, (ii) multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCCs), (iii) preoperative radiotherapy, (iv) total mesorectal excision surgery and (v) pathological assessment as described by Quirke are key processes necessary for high quality, rectal cancer care. The objective was to select a set of multidisciplinary quality indicators to measure the uptake of these clinical processes in clinical practice. METHOD: A multidisciplinary panel was convened and a modified two-phase Delphi method was used to select a set of quality indicators. Phase 1 included a literature review with written feedback from the panel. Phase 2 included an in-person workshop with anonymous voting. The selection criteria for the indicators were strength of evidence, ease of capture and usability. Indicators for which ≥90% of the panel members voted 'to keep' were selected as the final set of indicators. RESULTS: During phase 1, 68 potential indicators were generated from the literature and an additional four indicators were recommended by the panel. During phase 2, these 72 indicators were discussed; 48 indicators met the 90% inclusion threshold and included eight pathology, five radiology, 11 surgical, six radiation oncology and 18 MCC indicators. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi method was used to select 48 multidisciplinary quality indicators to specifically measure the uptake of key processes necessary for high quality care of patients with rectal cancer. These quality indicators will be used in future work to identify and address gaps in care in the uptake of these clinical processes.

Short-term and Long-term Outcomes Following Pelvic Pouch Excision: The Mount Sinai Hospital Experience.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported surgical outcomes following pouch excision and fewer have described the long-term sequelae. Given the debate regarding optimal surgical management following pouch failure, an accurate estimation of the morbidity associated with this procedure addresses a critical knowledge gap. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to review our institutional experience with pouch excision with a focus on indications, short-term outcomes, and long-term reintervention rates. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients registered in the prospectively maintained IBD database with a diagnosis of pelvic pouch failure between 1991 and 2018 were selected. INTERVENTION: The patients had undergone pelvic pouch excision was measured. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Indications for excision, incidence of short-term and long-term complications, and long-term surgical reintervention were the primary outcomes. In addition, multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify predictors of chronic perineal wound complications and the effect of preoperative diversion. The positive predictive value of a clinical suspicion of Crohn's disease of the pouch was also evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred forty cases were identified. Fifty-nine percent of patients experienced short-term complications and 49.3% experienced delayed morbidity. Overall, one-third of patients required long-term reoperation related to perineal wound, stoma, and hernia complications. On multivariable regression, immunosuppression was associated with increased odds of perineal wound complications, and preoperative diversion was not associated with perineal wound healing. Crohn's disease was suspected in 24 patients preoperatively but confirmed on histopathology in only 6 patients. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective chart review of a single institution's experience, whereby complication rates may be underestimates of the true event rates. CONCLUSIONS: Pouch excision is associated with high postoperative morbidity and long-term reintervention due to nonhealing perineal wounds, stoma complications, and hernias. Further study is required to clarify risk reduction strategies to limit perineal wound complications and the appropriate selection of patients for diversion alone vs pouch excision in IPAA failure. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B348. RESULTADOS A CORTO Y LARGO PLAZO DESPUÉS DE LA EXTIRPACIÓN DE LA BOLSA PéLVICA: LA EXPERIENCIA DEL HOSPITAL MOUNT SINAÍ: Pocos estudios han informado resultados quirúrgicos después de la escisión de bolsa pélvica (reservorio ileoanal) y menos han descrito las secuelas a largo plazo. Dado el debate sobre el manejo quirúrgico óptimo después de la falla de la bolsa, una estimación precisa de la morbilidad asociada con este procedimiento aborda una brecha crítica de conocimiento.El objetivo de este estudio fue revisar nuestra experiencia institucional con la extirpación de la bolsa con un enfoque en las indicaciones, los resultados a corto plazo y las tasas de reintervención a largo plazo.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.Hospital Mt Sinaí, Toronto, Ontario, Canadá.Pacientes adultos registrados en la base de datos de EII mantenida prospectivamente con un diagnóstico de falla de la bolsa pélvica entre 1991 y 2018.Escisión de bolsa pélvica.Las indicaciones para la escisión, la incidencia de complicaciones a corto y largo plazo y la reintervención quirúrgica a largo plazo fueron los resultados primarios valorados. Además, se ajustaron modelos de regresión logística multivariable para identificar predictores de complicaciones de la herida perineal crónica y el efecto de la derivación preoperatoria. También se evaluó el valor predictivo positivo de una sospecha clínica de enfermedad de Crohn de la bolsa.Se identificaron 140 casos. El 59% de los pacientes desarrollaron complicaciones a corto plazo y el 49,3% con morbilidad tardía. En general, 1/3 de los pacientes requirieron una reoperación a largo plazo relacionada con complicaciones de herida perineal, estoma y hernia. En la regresión multivariable, la inmunosupresión se asoció con mayores probabilidades de complicaciones de la herida perineal y la derivación preoperatoria no se asoció con la cicatrización de la herida perineal. La enfermedad de Crohn se sospechó en 24 pacientes antes de la operación, pero se confirmó por histopatología en solo 6 pacientes.Revisión retrospectiva del cuadro de la experiencia de una sola institución por la cual las tasas de complicaciones pueden ser subestimadas de las tasas de eventos reales.La escisión de la bolsa se asocia con una alta morbilidad postoperatoria y una reintervención a largo plazo debido a complicaciones de heridas perineales, complicaciones del estoma y hernias. Se requieren más estudios para aclarar las estrategias de reducción de riesgos para limitar las complicaciones de la herida perineal y la selección adecuada de pacientes para la derivación sola versus la escisión de la bolsa en caso de falla de reservorio ileoanal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B348.

The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Rectal Cancer Project: Protocol for a Pan-Canadian, Multidisciplinary Quality Improvement Initiative to Optimize the Quality of Rectal Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 2 decades, the use of multimodal strategies, including total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, preoperative chemotherapy, multidisciplinary case conference, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, and pathologic assessment using Quirke method, has led to significant improvements in oncologic outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. Although the literature supports claims on the effectiveness of these multimodal strategies, the uptake of these multimodal strategies varies considerably among centers, suggesting that the best evidence is not always implemented into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform a quality improvement initiative to (1) identify existing gaps in care for these multimodal strategies and (2) implement knowledge translation (KT) interventions to close these gaps to optimize quality of care for patients with rectal cancer across high-volume centers in Canada. METHODS: Process indicators for the selected multimodal strategies to optimize rectal cancer care will be selected and prospectively collected for all patients with stages 1 to 3 rectal cancer undergoing TME surgery. KT interventions, including audit and feedback, opinion leaders, and community of practice, will be implemented to increase the uptake of these clinical strategies. RESULTS: The uptake of the process indicators over time and the effect of the uptake of the process indicators on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes will be evaluated for each multimodal strategy. CONCLUSIONS: This quality improvement initiative will identify existing gaps in care for the selected multimodal strategies and implement KT interventions to close these gaps. The results of this study will inform further efforts to optimize rectal cancer care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15535.

Safety and Feasibility of Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Criteria to Identify Patients With "Good Prognosis" Rectal Cancer Eligible for Primary Surgery: The Phase 2 Nonrandomized QuickSilver Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT), followed by surgery, is the recommended approach for stage II and III rectal cancer. While CRT decreases the risk of local recurrence, it does not improve survival and leads to poorer functional outcomes than surgery alone. Therefore, new approaches to better select patients for CRT are important. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) criteria to select patients with "good prognosis" rectal tumors for primary surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective nonrandomized phase 2 study at 12 high-volume colorectal surgery centers across Canada. From September 30, 2014, to October 21, 2016, a total of 82 patients were recruited for the study. Participants were patients newly diagnosed as having rectal cancer with MRI-predicted good prognosis rectal cancer. The MRI criteria for good prognosis tumors included distance to the mesorectal fascia greater than 1 mm; definite T2, T2/early T3, or definite T3 with less than 5 mm of extramural depth of invasion; and absent or equivocal extramural venous invasion. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with rectal cancer with MRI-predicted good prognosis tumors underwent primary surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate. Assuming a 10% baseline probability of a positive CRM, a sample size of 75 was estimated to yield a 95% CI of ±6.7%. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (74% male) participated in the study. The median age at the time of surgery was 66 years (range, 37-89 years). Based on MRI, most tumors were midrectal (65% [n = 53]), T2/early T3 (60% [n = 49]), with no suspicious lymph nodes (63% [n = 52]). On final pathology, 91% (n = 75) of tumors were T2 or greater, 29% (n = 24) were node positive, and 59% (n = 48) were stage II or III. The positive CRM rate was 4 of 82 (4.9%; 95% CI, 0.2%-9.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The use of MRI criteria to select patients with good prognosis rectal cancer for primary surgery results in a low rate of positive CRM and suggests that CRT may not be necessary for all patients with stage II and III rectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com identifier: ISRCTN05107772.

Selection of Patients With Rectal Cancer for Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy: Are T Category and Nodal Status All That Matters?

BACKGROUND: Although the accuracy of preoperative MRI staging has been established on follow-up histopathologic examination, the reproducibility of MRI staging has been evaluated in studies with expert radiologists reading a large sample of MRI images and therefore is not generalizable to the real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interrater reliability of MRI for distance to the mesorectal fascia, T category, mesorectal lymph node status, and extramural depth of invasion for preoperative staging of primary rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was a prospective, cross-sectional survey. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included GI radiologists. INTERVENTIONS: Participants read 5 preselected staging MRIs using a synoptic report and participated in an educational Webinar. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distance to the mesorectal fascia, T category, extramural depth of invasion, and mesorectal lymph node status for each MRI were abstracted. Data were analyzed in aggregate using percentage of agreement, Fleiss κ, and interclass correlation coefficients to assess interrater reliability. RESULTS: Reliability was highest for distance to the mesorectal fascia with an intraclass correlation of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.27-0.80). Kappa scores for T category, mesorectal lymph node status, and extramural depth of invasion were 0.38 (95% CI, 0.23-0.46), 0.41 (95% CI, 0.32-0.49), and 0.37 (95% CI, 0.16-0.82). There was no difference when radiologists were stratified by experience or volume. LIMITATIONS: Scores may have been affected by MRI selection, because they were chosen to demonstrate diagnostic challenges for the Webinar and did not reflect a representative sample. CONCLUSIONS: Interrater reliability was highest for distance to mesorectal fascia, and therefore, it may be a more reliable criterion than T category, extramural depth of invasion, or mesorectal lymph node status. Combined with the fact that an uninvolved mesorectal fascia is more consistent with the overall goal of rectal cancer surgery, it should be considered as an important MRI criterion for preoperative treatment decision making in the real-world setting. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A763.

Quality of inguinal hernia operative reports: room for improvement.

BACKGROUND: Operative reports (ORs) serve as the official documentation of surgical procedures. They are essential for optimal patient care, physician accountability and billing, and direction for clinical research and auditing. Nonstandardized narrative reports are often of poor quality and lacking in detail. We sought to audit the completeness of narrative inguinal hernia ORs. METHODS: A standardized checklist for inguinal hernia repair (IHR) comprising 33 variables was developed by consensus of 4 surgeons. Five high-volume IHR surgeons categorized items as essential, preferable or nonessential. We audited ORs for open IHR at 6 academic hospitals. RESULTS: We audited 213 ORs, and we excluded 7 femoral hernia ORs. Tension-free repairs were the most common (82.5%), and the plug-and-patch technique was the most frequent (52.9%). Residents dictated 59% of ORs. Of 33 variables, 15 were considered essential and, on average, 10.8 ± 1.3 were included. Poorly reported elements included first occurrence versus recurrent repair (8.3%), small bowel viability in incarcerated hernias (10.7%) and occurrence of intraoperative complications (32.5%). Of 18 nonessential elements, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, preoperative antibiotics and urgency were reported in 1.9%, 11.7% and 24.3% of ORs, respectively. Repair-specific details were reported in 0 to 97.1% of ORs, including patch sutured to tubercle (55.1%) and location of plug (67.0%). CONCLUSION: Completeness of IHR ORs varied with regards to essential and nonessential items but were generally incomplete, suggesting there is opportunity for improvement, including implementation of a standardized synoptic OR.

CONTEXTE: Les notes opératoires (NO) servent à documenter officiellement les interventions chirurgicales. Elles sont indispensables à des soins optimaux aux patients, à l'imputabilité des médecins, à la facturation de leurs actes, à l'orientation de la recherche clinique et aux vérifications. Les notes narratives non standardisées sont souvent de piètre qualité et incomplètes. Nous avons voulu vérifier l'exhaustivité des notes opératoires narratives concernant les réparations d'hernies inguinales (RHI). MÉTHODES: Une équipe de 4 chirurgiens a créé une liste de vérification standardisée consensuelle comprenant 33 variables applicables à la RHI. Cinq chirurgiens experts des RHI ont classé ces éléments selon qu'ils leurs semblaient essentiels, préférables ou non essentiels. Nous avons passé en revue les NO des RHI ouvertes effectuées dans 6 hôpitaux universitaires. RÉSULTATS: Nous avons passé en revue 213 NO et nous avons exclus les NO concernant 7 hernies fémorales. Les réparations sans tension se sont révélées les plus communes (82,5 %) et la technique plug-and-patch a été la plus fréquente (52,9 %). Les résidents ont dicté 59 % des NO. Sur les 33 variables, 15 étaient considérées essentielles et en moyenne, 10,8 ± 1,3 ont été incluses dans les NO. Parmi les éléments qui laissaient à désirer, mentionnons : première réparation c. réparation récurrente (8,3 %), viabilité du grêle dans les hernies incarcérées (10,7 %) et complications peropératoires (32,5 %). Parmi les 18 éléments jugés non essentiels, la prophylaxie contre la thrombose veineuse profonde, l'antibioprophylaxie et le degré d'urgence ont été mentionnés dans 1,9 %, 11,7 % et 24,3 % des NO, respectivement. Les détails spécifiques à la réparation ont été notés dans 0 à 97,1 % des NO, y compris la fixation de la prothèse au tubercule par des sutures (55,1 %) et la localisation du bouchon (67,0 %). CONCLUSION: L'exhaustivité des NO consignées dans les cas de RHI a varié en ce qui a trait aux éléments jugés essentiels et non essentiels et les NO se sont généralement révélées incomplètes. On en conclut qu'il y a place à amélioration, entre autre par l'adoption d'un modèle synoptique standardisé de NO.