Modern Trends in Surgical Site Infection Rates for Colorectal Surgery: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Study 2013-2020.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies investigating trends in global surgical site infection rates in colorectal surgery in the last decade. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to describe changes in rates of different surgical site infections from 2013-2020, identify risk factors for SSI occurrence and evaluate the association of minimally invasive surgery and infection rates in colorectal resections. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database 2013-2020 identifying patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal resections by procedure codes was performed. Patient demographic information, comorbidities, procedures, and complications data were obtained. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were performed. SETTING: This was a retrospective study. PATIENTS: A total of 279,730 patients received colorectal resection from 2013 - 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was rate of surgical site infection, divided into superficial, deep incisional and organ space infections. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in rates of superficial infections (p < 0.01) and deep incisional infections (p < 0.01) from 5.9% in 2013 to 3.3% in 2020 and from 1.4% in 2013 to 0.6% in 2020, respectively, but a rise in organ space infections (p < 0.01) from 5.2% in 2013 to 7.1% in 2020. Use of minimally invasive techniques was associated with decreased odds of all surgical site infections compared to open techniques (p < 0.01) in multivariate analysis and adoption of minimally invasive techniques increased from 59% in 2013 to 66% in 2020. LIMITATIONS: Study is limited by retrospective nature and variables available for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Superficial and deep infection rates have significantly decreased, likely secondary to improved adoption of minimally invasive techniques and infection prevention bundles. Organ space infection rates continue to increase. Additional research is warranted to clarify current recommendations for mechanical bowel prep and oral antibiotic use as well as to study novel interventions to decrease postoperative infection occurrence. See Video Abstract.

Characteristics and symptomatology of colorectal cancer in the young.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of colorectal cancer in patients <50 years has rapidly risen recently. Understanding the presenting symptoms may facilitate earlier diagnosis. We aimed to delineate patient characteristics, symptomatology, and tumor characteristics of colorectal cancer in a young population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted evaluating patients <50 years diagnosed between 2005 and 2019 with primary colorectal cancer at a university teaching hospital. The number and character of colorectal cancer-related symptoms at presentation was the primary outcome measured. Patient and tumor characteristics were also collected. RESULTS: Included were 286 patients with a median age of 44 years, with 56% <45 years. Nearly all patients (95%) were symptomatic at presentation, with 85% having 2 or more symptoms. The most common symptoms were pain (63%), followed by change in stool habits (54%), rectal bleeding (53%), and weight loss (32%). Diarrhea was more common than constipation. More than 50% had symptoms for at least 3 months before diagnosis. The number and duration of symptoms were similar in patients older than 45 compared to those younger. Most cancers were left-sided (77%) and advanced stage at presentation (36% stage III, 39% stage IV). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of young patients with colorectal cancer, the majority presented with multiple symptoms having a median duration of 3 months. It is essential that providers be mindful of the ever-increasing incidence of colorectal malignancy in young patients, and that those with multiple, durable symptoms should be offered screening for colorectal neoplasms based on symptoms alone.

Male gender, smoking, younger age, and preoperative pain found to increase postoperative opioid requirements in 592 elective colorectal resections.

PURPOSE: With increased awareness of the opioid epidemic, understanding contributing factors to postoperative opioid use is important. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient and perioperative factors that contribute to postoperative opioid use after colorectal resections and their relation to pre-existing pain conditions and psychiatric diagnoses. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted identifying adult patients who underwent elective colorectal resection at a single tertiary center between 2015 and 2018. Patient demographics, preoperative factors, surgical approach, and perioperative pain management were evaluated to determine standard conversion morphine milligram equivalents required for postoperative days 0 to 3 and total hospital stay. RESULTS: Five hundred and ninety-two patients: 46% male, median age 58 years undergoing colorectal resections for indications including cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, and diverticulitis were identified. Less opioid use was found to be associated with female gender (ß = - 42), patients who received perioperative lidocaine infusion (ß = - 30), and older adults (equivalents/year) (ß = - 4, all p < 0.01). Preoperative opioid use, preoperative abdominal pain, epidural use, and smoking were all independently associated with increased postoperative opioid requirements. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients undergoing elective colorectal resection, factors that were associated with higher perioperative opioid use included male gender, smoking, younger age, preoperative opioid use, preoperative abdominal pain, and epidural use. Perioperative administration of lidocaine was associated with decreased opioid requirements. Understanding risk factors and stratifying postoperative pain regimens may aid in improved pain control and decrease long-term dependency.

Referrals and Decision-Making Considerations Involved in Selecting a Surgeon for Rectal Cancer Treatment in the Midwestern United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of superior outcomes for rectal cancer at high-volume, multidisciplinary cancer centers, many patients undergo surgery in low-volume hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine considerations of former patients with rectal cancer when selecting their surgeon and to evaluate which considerations were associated with surgery at high-volume hospitals. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, patients were surveyed about what they considered when selecting a cancer surgeon. SETTINGS: Study data were obtained via survey and the statewide Iowa Cancer Registry. PATIENTS: All eligible individuals diagnosed with invasive stages II/III rectal cancer from 2013 to 2017 identified through the registry were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the characteristics of the hospital where they received surgery (ie, National Cancer Institute designation, Commission on Cancer accreditation, and rectal cancer surgery volume). RESULTS: Among respondents, 318 of 417 (76%) completed surveys. Sixty-nine percent of patients selected their surgeon based on their physician's referral/recommendation, 20% based on surgeon/hospital reputation, and 11% based on personal connections to the surgeon. Participants who chose their surgeon based on reputation had significantly higher odds of surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated (OR 7.5; 95% CI, 3.8-15.0) or high-volume (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7) hospitals than those who relied on referral. LIMITATIONS: This study took place in a Midwestern state with a predominantly white population, which limited our ability to evaluate racial/ethnic associations. CONCLUSION: Most patients with rectal cancer relied on referrals in selecting their surgeon, and those who did were less likely to receive surgery at a National Cancer Institute-designated or high-volume hospitals compared to those who considered reputation. Future research is needed to determine the impact of these decision factors on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. In addition, patients should be aware that relying on physician referral may not result in treatment from the most experienced or comprehensive care setting in their area. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897.REMISIONES Y CONSIDERACIONES PARA LA TOMA DE DECISIONES RELACIONADAS CON LA SELECCIÓN DE UN CIRUJANO PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CÁNCER DE RECTO EN EL MEDIO OESTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOSANTECEDENTES:A pesar de la evidencia de resultados superiores para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto en centros oncológicos de gran volumen y multidisciplinarios, muchos pacientes se someten a cirugía en hospitales de bajo volumen.OBJETIVOS:Examinar las consideraciones de los antiguos pacientes con cáncer de recto al momento de seleccionar a su cirujano y evaluar qué consideraciones se asociaron con la cirugía en hospitales de gran volumen.DISEÑO:Encuestamos a los pacientes sobre qué aspectos consideraron al elegir un cirujano oncológico para completar este estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Los datos del estudio se obtuvieron mediante una encuesta y el Registro de Cáncer del estado de Iowa.PACIENTES:Se invitó a participar a todas las personas elegibles diagnosticadas con cáncer de recto invasivo en estadios II/III entre 2013 y 2017 identificadas a través del registro.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados principales fueron las características del hospital donde fue realizada la cirugía (es decir, designación del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer, acreditación de la Comisión de Cáncer y volumen de cirugía del cáncer de recto).RESULTADOS:Hubo 318 de 417 (76%) encuestas completadas. El sesenta y nueve por ciento seleccionó a su cirujano en función de la referencia / recomendación de su médico, el 20% por la reputación del cirujano/hospital, y el 11% por sus conexiones personales con el cirujano. Los participantes que eligieron a su cirujano en función a la reputación tuvieron probabilidades significativamente más altas de cirugía en el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer designado (OR = 7,5, IC del 95%: 3,8-15,0) o en hospitales de alto volumen (OR = 2,6, IC del 95%: 1,2-5,7) que aquellos que dependían de la derivación.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un estado del medio oeste con una población predominantemente blanca, lo que limitó nuestra capacidad para evaluar las asociaciones raciales/étnicas.CONCLUSIONES:La mayoría de los pacientes con cáncer de recto dependían de las derivaciones para seleccionar a su cirujano, y los que lo hacían tenían menos probabilidades de recibir cirugía en un hospital designado por el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer o en hospitales de gran volumen en comparación con los que consideraban la reputación. Se necesitan investigaciones a futuro para determinar el impacto de estos factores de decisión en los resultados clínicos, la satisfacción del paciente y la calidad de vida. Además, los pacientes deben ser conscientes de que depender de la remisión de un médico puede no resultar en el tratamiento más experimentado o integral en su área. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

Male sex, ostomy, infection, and intravenous fluids are associated with increased risk of postoperative ileus in elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus is a common and costly complication after elective colorectal surgery. Effects of intravenous fluid administration remain controversial, and the effect of ostomy construction has not been fully evaluated. Various restrictive intravenous fluid protocols may adversely affect renal function. We aimed to investigate the impact of intestinal reconstruction and intravenous fluid on ileus and renal function after colorectal resection under an enhanced recovery protocol. METHODS: A retrospective study of a prospectively maintained institutional database for a tertiary academic medical center following National Surgical Quality Improvement Program standards was reviewed, analyzing elective colorectal resections performed under enhanced recovery protocol from 2015 to 2018. Postoperative ileus was defined as nasogastric decompression, nil per os >3 days postoperatively, or nasogastric tube insertion. Patients with and without ileus were compared. Intravenous fluid and different anastomoses and ostomies were investigated. Acute kidney injury was a secondary outcome, due to the potential of renal damage with restriction of intravenous fluid volume during and after surgery and controversy in current literature in this matter. RESULTS: Postoperative ileus occurred in 18.5% of patients (n = 464). Male sex (odds ratio 1.97, 95% confidence interval 1.12-3.52) and postoperative infection (odds ratio 2.13, 95% confidence interval 1.03-4.35) were associated with ileus. Compared to colorectal anastomosis, ileostomy/ileorectal anastomosis had the highest risk of ileus (odds ratio 4.9, 95% confidence interval 2.33-11.3), colostomy second highest (odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.35-8.39), while ileocolic anastomosis did not significantly differ (odds ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 0.69-5.85) on multivariate analysis. Each liter of intravenous fluid within the first 72 hours significantly correlated with postoperative ileus (odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.27-1.59). Rates of acute kidney injury did not differ (P = .18). CONCLUSION: Each additional liter of intravenous fluid given in the first 72 hours increased the risk of postoperative ileus 1.4-fold. There is substantially higher risk of ileus with male sex, infection, ileostomy/ileorectal anastomosis, and colostomy. Judicious use of intravenous fluid, as described in our enhanced recovery protocol, is not detrimental for renal function in the setting of normal baseline.

Impact of routine mismatch repair screening on genetic counseling and surgical management in colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency in colorectal cancer (CRC) should prompt consideration of genetic counseling (GC) as a Lynch syndrome (LS) diagnosis may have several implications for the patient and family. The study aims were to examine how routine MMR testing influences the rate of GC and surgical resection extent. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed on CRC specimens (including colonoscopic biopsies) routinely screened for MMR deficiency from 2012 to 2018. MLH1-deficient cancers with mutated BRAF or MLH1-promoter hypermethylation were excluded. RESULTS: MMR deficiency was identified in 295 of 1139 CRC specimens. After exclusions, 57 patients remained. Forty-two patients (74%) were identified preoperatively, and 35 (83%) were referred to GC: 16 were seen preoperatively, 9 postoperatively. Eight patients were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome (LS) preoperatively: 2 had no resection, 2 underwent segmental resection and 4 underwent extended resection. CONCLUSIONS: Most MMR-deficient patients were identified and referred to GC preoperatively, though not all were seen. Of the preoperatively diagnosed LS patients, half underwent extended resection. Barriers to GC and decision-making around resection extent bears further study.

Hospital and Surgeon Selection for Medicare Beneficiaries With Stage II/III Rectal Cancer: The Role of Rurality, Distance to Care, and Colonoscopy Provider.

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with rectal cancer surgery performed at high-volume hospitals (HVHs) and by high-volume surgeons (HVSs), including the roles of rurality and diagnostic colonoscopy provider characteristics. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although higher-volume hospitals/surgeons often achieve superior surgical outcomes, many rectal cancer resections are performed by lower-volume hospitals/surgeons, especially among rural populations. METHODS: Patients age 66+ diagnosed from 2007 to 2011 with stage II/III primary rectal adenocarcinoma were selected from surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare data. Patient ZIP codes were used to classify rural status. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with surgery by HVH and HVS. RESULTS: Of 1601 patients, 22% were rural and 78% were urban. Fewer rural patients received surgery at a HVH compared to urban patients (44% vs 65%; P < 0.0001). Compared to urban patients, rural patients more often had colonoscopies performed by general surgeons (and less often from gastroenterologists or colorectal surgeons), and lived substantially further from HVHs; these factors were both associated with lower odds of surgery at a HVH or by a HVS. In addition, whereas over half of both rural and urban patients received their colonoscopy and surgery at the same hospital, rural patients who stayed at the same hospital were significantly less likely to receive surgery at a HVH or by a HVS compared to urban patients. CONCLUSIONS: Rural rectal cancer patients are less likely to receive surgery from a HVH/HVS. The role of the colonoscopy provider has important implications for referral patterns and initiatives seeking to increase centralization.