Colonic stenting: is the bridge to surgery worth its cost? A cost-effectiveness analysis at a single Asian institution.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution's experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion: Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

The Role and Effect of Multimodal Prehabilitation Before Major Abdominal Surgery: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: For patients undergoing abdominal surgery, multimodal prehabilitation, including nutrition and exercise interventions, aims to optimize their preoperative physical and physiological capacity. This meta-analysis aims to explore the impact of multimodal prehabilitation on surgical and functional outcomes of abdominal surgery. METHODS: Medline, Embase and CENTRAL were searched for articles about multimodal prehabilitation in major abdominal surgery. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score ≥3, and functional outcomes, measured by the 6-Minute Walking Test (6MWT). Secondary outcome measures included the quality-of-life measures. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated, with DerSimonian and Laird random effects used to account for heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included, analysing 4,210 patients across 13 trials and 12 observational studies. Patients undergoing prehabilitation had significantly fewer overall complications (RR = 0.879, 95% CI 0.781-0.989, p = 0.034). There were no significant differences in the rates of wound infection, anastomotic leak and duration of hospitalization. The 6MWT improved preoperatively in patients undergoing prehabilitation (SMD = 33.174, 95% CI 12.674-53.673, p = 0.005), but there were no significant differences in the 6MWT at 4 weeks (SMD = 30.342, 95% CI - 2.707-63.391, p = 0.066) and 8 weeks (SMD = 24.563, 95% CI - 6.77-55.900, p = 0.104) postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: As preoperative patient optimization shifts towards an interdisciplinary approach, evidence from this meta-analysis shows that multimodal prehabilitation improves the preoperative functional capacity and reduces postoperative complication rates, suggesting its potential in effectively optimizing the abdominal surgery patient. However, there is a large degree of heterogenicity between the prehabilitation interventions between included articles; hence results should be interpreted with caution.

Colovaginal Fistula: An Uncommon Complication After Vaginal Hysterectomy and Pelvic Floor Repair With Mesh Surgery.

A colovaginal fistula (CVF) is an abnormal epithelialized connection between the colon and the vagina. It is a rare complication following gynaecology surgery and can significantly affect patients' quality of life. CVFs are commonly associated with diverticular disease and are usually seen in patients with a previous hysterectomy. We report an uncommon case of postsurgical CVF following vaginal hysterectomy with mesh-augmented pelvic floor repair, which was unrelated to diverticulitis. The patient was successfully managed by a multidisciplinary team with staged surgery.

Colorectal cancer surgery in Asia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A tale of 3 cities.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has put tremendous strain on healthcare systems. Surgical societies worldwide have advised minimizing non-essential surgeries in order to preserve hospital resources. Given the medical resources and COVID-19 incidence between countries across the world differ, so should colorectal practices. No formal guidelines have emerged from Asia. We wanted to find out what the current practice was in Asian colorectal centres outside China. INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted surgical practice worldwide. At the time of the writing of this paper, there are over 4.2 million cases reported with deaths exceeding 290 000 patients.1 With an abrupt disruption to worldwide supply chains, societal lockdowns and surge of cases into many hospitals, resource allocation was diverted and prioritised for all COVID-19 related services. METHODS: A questionnaire survey of current colorectal practice was carried out involving 3 major colorectal cancer centres, one each from 3 major cities: Singapore, Taichung and Daegu. Components of the survey include infrastructure and manpower, case selection, surgical approach, operating room management and endoscopy practice. RESULTS: All 3 centres continued to provide standard-of-care colorectal cancer surgery despite the COVID-19 pandemic. Two centres deferred surgery for benign colorectal conditions. Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) was still the preferred approach when indicated but with protocolized precautions undertaken. Other services such as pelvic exenteration, TATME and pelvic lymph node dissection were still offered if oncologically indicated. Elective diagnostic endoscopy services have also continued in two centres. CONCLUSION: Elective colorectal services continue to take place in the 3 surveyed Asian hospitals with heightened precautions. Provided there is adequate resource, colorectal cancer services should still continue to prevent consequences of neglecting or delaying cancer treatment. Practice should hence be tailored to the local resource of individual centres accordingly.