Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago.

BACKGROUND: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. METHODS: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. CONCLUSIONS: After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception.

Long-term outcomes and risk factors for diverticulitis recurrence after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in Hinchey III peritonitis.

PURPOSE: Recently, treatment of Hinchey III diverticulitis by laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has been questioned. Moreover, long-term outcomes have been scarcely reported. Primary outcome was to determine the recurrence rate of diverticulitis after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in Hinchey III diverticulitis. Secondary outcomes were identification of associated risk factors for recurrence and elective sigmoidectomy rate. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study in a tertiary referral center was performed. Patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis who underwent a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage between June 2006 and December 2019 were eligible. Diverticulitis recurrence was analyzed according to the Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test, censoring for death, loss of follow-up, or elective sigmoid resection in the absence of recurrence. Risk factors for recurrence were identified using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients had a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (mean age: 63 years; 53.6% women). Four patients had an elective sigmoid resection without recurrences. Recurrence rate was 42% (n = 29) after a median follow-up of 63 months. The cumulative global recurrence at 1, 3, and 5 years was 30% (95% CI, 20-43%), 37.5% (95% CI, 27-51%), and 48.9% (95% CI, 36-64%), respectively. Smoking (HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.22-6.5; p = 0.016) and episodes of diverticulitis prior to laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.11-12.81; p < 0.001) were independently associated with an increased risk of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Diverticulitis recurrence after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage is high, decreasing after the first year of follow-up. Smoking and previous episodes of acute diverticulitis independently increase the risk of new episodes of diverticulitis.

Benchmarks in colorectal surgery: multinational study to define quality thresholds in high and low anterior resection.

BACKGROUND: Benchmark comparisons in surgery allow identification of gaps in the quality of care provided. The aim of this study was to determine quality thresholds for high (HAR) and low (LAR) anterior resections in colorectal cancer surgery by applying the concept of benchmarking. METHODS: This 5-year multinational retrospective study included patients who underwent anterior resection for cancer in 19 high-volume centres on five continents. Benchmarks were defined for 11 relevant postoperative variables at discharge, 3 months, and 6 months (for LAR). Benchmarks were calculated for two separate cohorts: patients without (ideal) and those with (non-ideal) outcome-relevant co-morbidities. Benchmark cut-offs were defined as the 75th percentile of each centre's median value. RESULTS: A total of 3903 patients who underwent HAR and 3726 who had LAR for cancer were analysed. After 3 months' follow-up, the mortality benchmark in HAR for ideal and non-ideal patients was 0.0 versus 3.0 per cent, and in LAR it was 0.0 versus 2.2 per cent. Benchmark results for anastomotic leakage were 5.0 versus 6.9 per cent for HAR, and 13.6 versus 11.8 per cent for LAR. The overall morbidity benchmark in HAR was a Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) score of 8.6 versus 14.7, and that for LAR was CCI® score 11.9 versus 18.3. CONCLUSION: Regular comparison of individual-surgeon or -unit outcome data against benchmark thresholds may identify gaps in care quality that can improve patient outcome.

Implementación de un programa ERAS® / Implementation of an ERAS® program

RESUMEN Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) constituye una forma de trabajo que implica la puesta en marcha de medidas de cuidado antes, durante y después de una cirugía con el propósito de mejorar la experiencia del paciente a lo largo del periodo perioperatorio. Sin embargo, la aplicación aislada de medidas determinadas no es suficiente. Esta forma de trabajo requiere la creación de un equipo de trabajo multidisciplinario, el registro sistemático de datos y su utilización para aplicar un ciclo de mejora continua. En el Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, se han registrado 1331 pacientes desde no viembre del año 2015. La mediana de internación fue de 4 días y la readmisión de 7,3%. La adherencia global a las medidas del programa fue del 56% (preoperatorio 88%, intraoperatorio 60%, postopera torio 39%). En los procedimientos quirúrgicos más frecuentes pudimos observar una relación lineal e inversamente proporcional entre adherencia al programa y el tiempo de internación, con una dismi nución promedio de un día de internación por cada 10% de adherencia al programa en los procedi mientos quirúrgicos más frecuentes. A pesar de estos resultados, hemos encontrado dificultades en el sistema de registro de datos que limitan la aplicación del ciclo de mejora continua. La conformación de un equipo multidisciplinario, con una comunicación fluida y eficiente es fundamental para la imple mentación de un programa ERAS® que sea capaz de disminuir el tiempo de internación, la morbilidad y el índice de readmisión.

ABSTRACT Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a model of care that involves the implementation of care pathways before, during and after surgery designed to improve patient's experience throughout the perioperative period. Yet, the implementation of individual ERAS protocol elements is not sufficient. This approach requires the creation of a multidisciplinary work team, systematic recording of data and the use of the information recorded to implement a cycle of continuous improvement. Since 2015, 1331 patients have been recorded by Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Median length of hospital stay was 4 days and median readmission rate was 7.3%. The overall adherence to the protocol elements was 56% (88% in the preoperative period, 60% in the intraoperative period and 39% in the postope rative period) There was a linear and inverse correlation between the adherence to the program and length of hospitalization for the most common surgical procedures, with an average decrease of one day of hospitalization for each 10% increase in adherence with the program for the most common sur gical procedures. Despite these results, we have encountered difficulties in the data recording systems limiting the implementation of the cycle of continuous improvement. The creation of a multidiscipli nary team, with fluent and efficient communication, is essential for the implementation of an ERAS® program capable of reducing length of hospital stay, morbidity and readmission rates.

Right versus left laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: does side make any difference?

PURPOSE: To compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between right laparoscopic colectomy (RLC) and left laparoscopic colectomy (LLC) for colon cancer. METHOD: Patients who underwent elective RLC or LLC for colon cancer between January 2004 and December 2014 were identified and elected for a retrospective analysis. Primary outcomes were technical difficulty (including operative time, intraoperative complications, and conversion rate) and postoperative outcome (including postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, reinterventions, readmissions, and mortality). RESULTS: A total of 547 patients (mean age: 68.5 years old; 48.4% males) were analyzed. The RLC group had a higher mean age (71 vs 65; p < 0.001), ASA 3/4 grade (36 vs 26%; p = 0.02), and comorbidity rate (61 vs 48%, p = 0.003). Regarding technical difficulty, no difference was found between the groups in intraoperative complications (4.1 vs 5.9%; p = 0.34) or conversion rate (6.2 vs 3.9%, p = 0.24). Mean operative time was significantly shorter for RLC (162 vs 185 min, p < 0.001). Regarding postoperative outcome, the RLC group had a higher overall morbidity (20.5 vs 13.3%, p = 0.03), ileus (10.6 vs 2.4%, p < 0.001), and a longer hospital stay (4.7 vs 3.9 days, p = 0.003), with no differences regarding reoperations, readmissions, or mortality. The multivariate analysis showed that RLC were independently associated with a longer operative time and postoperative ileus. CONCLUSIONS: RLC for colon cancer was independently associated with a shorter operative time, an increased risk of ileus, and a longer hospital stay than left laparoscopic colectomy in high-volume centers.