Impact of structured multicentre enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol implementation on length of stay after colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Increased length of stay after surgery is associated with increased healthcare utilization and adverse patient outcomes. While enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown to reduce length of stay after colorectal surgery in trial settings, their effectiveness in real-world settings is more uncertain. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of ERAS protocol implementation on length of stay after colorectal surgery, using real-world data. METHODS: In 2012, ERAS protocols were introduced at 15 Ontario hospitals as part of the iERAS study. A cohort of patients undergoing colorectal surgery treated at these hospitals between 2008 and 2019 was created using health administrative data. Mean length of stay was computed for the intervals before and after ERAS implementation. Interrupted time series analyses were performed for predefined subgroups, namely all colorectal surgery, colorectal surgery without complications, right-sided colorectal surgery, and left-sided colorectal surgery. Sensitivity analyses were then conducted using adjusted length of stay, accounting for length of stay predictors, including: patient age, sex, marginalization, co-morbidities, and diagnosis; surgeon volume of cases, years in practice, and colorectal surgery expertise; hospital volume; and other contextual factors, including procedure type and timing, surgical approach, and in-hospital complications. RESULTS: A total of 32 612 patients underwent colorectal surgery during the study interval. ERAS implementation led to a decrease in length of stay of 1.05 days (13.7%). Larger decreases in length of stay were seen with more complex surgeries, with a level change of 1.17 days (15.6%) noted for the subgroup of patients undergoing left-sided colorectal surgery. The observed decreases in length of stay were durable for the length of the study interval in all analyses. When adjusting for predictors of length of stay, the effect of ERAS implementation on length of stay was larger (reduction of 1.46 days). CONCLUSION: Introducing formal ERAS protocols reduces length of stay after colorectal surgery significantly, independent of temporal trends toward decreasing length of stay. These effects are durable, demonstrating that ERAS protocol implementation is an effective hospital-level intervention to reduce length of stay after colorectal surgery.

Surgeon factors but not hospital factors associated with length of stay after colorectal surgery - A population based study.

AIM: Length of stay (LOS) after colorectal surgery (CRS) is a significant driver of healthcare utilization and adverse patient outcomes. To date, there is little high-quality evidence in the literature examining how individual surgeon and hospital factors independently impact LOS. We aimed to identify and quantify the independent impact of surgeon and hospital factors on LOS after CRS. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted using validated health administrative databases, encompassing all patients from the province of Ontario, Canada. All patients from 121 hospitals in Ontario who underwent elective CRS between 2008 and 2019 in Ontario were included, and factors pertaining to these patients and their treating surgeon and hospital were assessed. A negative binomial regression model was used to assess the independent effect of surgeon and hospital factors on LOS, accounting for a comprehensive collection of determinants of LOS. To minimize unmeasured confounding, the analysis was repeated in a subgroup comprising patients undergoing lower-complexity CRS without postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 90,517 CRS patients were analysed. Independent of patient and procedural factors, low surgeon volume (lowest volume quartile) was associated with a 20% increase in LOS (95% CI: 12-29, p < 0.0001) compared to high surgeon volume (highest volume quartile). In the 22,639 patients undergoing uncomplicated lower-complexity surgeries, a 43% longer LOS was seen in the lowest volume surgeon quartile (95% CI: 26-61, p < 0.0001). In both models, more years-in-practice was associated with a small increase in LOS (RR 1.02, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03, p < 0.0001). Hospital factors were not significantly associated with increased LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon factors, including low surgeon volume and increasing years-in-practice, were strongly and independently associated with longer LOS, whereas hospital factors did not have an independent impact. This suggests that LOS is driven primarily by surgeon-mediated care processes and may provide actionable targets for provider-level interventions to reduce LOS after CRS.

Lung transplantation for lung cancer: A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplant (LTx) is an accepted treatment for end-stage pulmonary failure. A small proportion of explanted lungs harbor incidentally identified nonsmall cell lung cancers (NSCLC). We review the literature on studies assessing LTx patients found to have NSCLC lung cancer in their explanted lungs, and perform a pooled analysis of outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. We included studies assessing outcomes of patients with incidentally identified NSCLC following LTx, or following LTx for diffuse lepidic adenocarcinoma as a primary indication. RESULTS: A total of 1404 articles were reviewed. 17 eligible studies were identified: 14 studies on incidental NSCLC (N = 169), 4 on diffuse lepidic adenocarcinoma (N = 70). Overall survival (OS) for patients with incidentally identified lung cancer at 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year was 60.8% (95%CI 43.7%-77.9%, I2 =81.8%), 25.5% (95%CI 1.6%-49.5%, I2 =93.6%), and 23.0% (95%CI 2.0%-44.0%, I2 =92.0%) respectively. When restricted to those with earlier stage disease, those with stage I or II NSCLC had better 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS at 72.7% (95%CI 57.2%-88.2%, I2 =67.3%), 41.6% (95%CI 14.0%-69.1%, I2 =89.1%), and 34.5% (95%CI 8.1%-61.0%, I2 =89.8%), respectively. A sensitivity analysis limited to stage I showed 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival of 73.0% (95%CI 56.3%-89.7%), 40.4% (95%CI 110.3%-70.6%), and 35.4% (95%CI 6.2%-64.5%), respectively. The 4 studies on diffuse lepidic adenocarcinoma were too heterogeneous for pooled analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We present a review and pooled analysis examining survival following LTx with incidentally identified NSCLC. Patients with earlier stage incidentally explanted NSCLC had better survival outcomes. OS in the stage I population approximates that of LTx without incidental NSCLC.

Impact of surgeon and hospital factors on length of stay after colorectal surgery systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although length of stay (LOS) after colorectal surgery (CRS) is associated with worse patient and system level outcomes, the impact of surgeon and hospital-level factors on LOS after CRS has not been well investigated. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for the impact of surgeon and hospital-level factors on LOS after CRS. METHODS: A comprehensive database search was conducted using terms related to LOS and CRS. Studies were included if they reported the effect of surgeon or hospital factors on LOS after elective CRS. The evidence for the effect of each surgeon and hospital factor on LOS was synthesized using vote counting by direction of effect, taking risk of bias into consideration. RESULTS: A total of 13 946 unique titles and abstracts were screened, and 69 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were retrospective and assessed a total of eight factors. Surgeon factors such as increasing surgeon volume, colorectal surgical specialty, and progression along a learning curve were significantly associated with decreased LOS (effect seen in 87.5 per cent, 100 per cent, and 93.3 per cent of studies respectively). In contrast, hospital factors such as hospital volume and teaching hospital status were not significantly associated with LOS. CONCLUSION: Provider-related factors were found to be significantly associated with LOS after elective CRS. In particular, surgeon-related factors related to experience specifically impacted LOS, whereas hospital-related factors did not. Understanding the mechanisms underlying these relationships may allow for tailoring of interventions to reduce LOS.

Non-operative Management of Small Bowel Obstruction in Patients with No Previous Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

While the contemporary management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) often includes a trial of non-operative management (NOM), surgical dogma dictates urgent operative exploration in patients without previous abdominal surgery. This dogma has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting most obstructions in this population are adhesive in nature. The objectives of this review were to evaluate the feasibility of NOM in patients with SBO and no history of previous abdominal surgery, to examine the etiologies of SBO in this population, and to explore the rate of adverse events seen following NOM. Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to September 24, 2019. Articles reporting on NOM for SBO in patients without previous abdominal surgery and without clinical or radiographic features necessitating an emergent operation were included. Data were combined to obtain a pooled proportion of patients discharged without operation following a trial of NOM. 6 studies reporting on a total of 272 patients were included. The pooled proportion of patients discharged following NOM was 49.5% (95% CI 23.7-75.3%). Adhesions were found to be the predominant cause of obstruction. NOM did not appear to increase short-term complications. Most SBOs in patients without previous abdominal surgery are adhesive in nature and many patients can be discharged from hospital without surgery. While the short-term outcomes of NOM are acceptable, future studies are needed to address the long-term outcomes and safety of NOM as a treatment strategy for SBO in patients without previous abdominal surgery.

Impairments in Bowel Function, Social Function and Quality of Life After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) can be associated with decreases in quality of life (QOL). Bowel-related QOL (BR-QOL) after CRS-HIPEC has not been previously studied. The objectives of the current study were to examine the effect of different types of bowel resection during CRS-HIPEC on overall QOL and BR-QOL. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed. QOL data were collected using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and CR-29 questionnaires at 3, 6, and 12 months after CRS-HIPEC. Patients were divided into groups that underwent no bowel resection, non-low anterior resection (LAR) bowel resection, LAR, and LAR with stoma. Primary outcomes were global QOL and BR-QOL. RESULTS: Overall, 158 patients were included in this study. Bowel resections were performed in 77% of patients, with 31% undergoing LAR. Global QOL was not significantly different between groups. LAR patients (with and without stoma) had significantly worse BR-QOL, embarrassment, and altered body image, with LAR + stoma patients having the largest impairments in these domains. Trends toward higher levels of impotence and anxiety were also seen in LAR patients. Although global QOL improved over time, impairments in BR-QOL and sexual and social function did not significantly improve over time. CONCLUSIONS: Although global QOL after CRS-HIPEC was not affected by the type of bowel resection, the use of LAR and ostomies was associated with clinically meaningful and persistent impairments in BR-QOL and related functional domains. Generic QOL questionnaires may not adequately capture these domains; however, targeted questionnaires in these patients may help improve QOL after CRS-HIPEC.