Feasibility and safety of transvaginal specimen extraction in deep endometriosis colorectal resectional surgery and analysis of risk factors for postoperative complications.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to demonstrate that transvaginal specimen extraction is a feasible and safe approach in colorectal resection for deep endometriosis (DE) and to assess the risk factors for postoperative complications. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all the consecutive patients undergoing segmental bowel resection for symptomatic endometriosis at "La Paz" University Hospital (Madrid, Spain) and at "Hospital General Universitario de Valencia" (Valencia, Spain) from January 2014 to December to 2017. Patients were grouped according to specimen extraction approach into those who had transvaginal extraction (Group I) and those who had suprapubic extraction (Group II). Clinic-demographical, surgical and post-surgical data were recorded. Intra- and postoperative complications were classified according to Clavien-Dindo criteria. Postoperative data were compared between groups. Risk factors associated with surgery were investigated. RESULTS: Out of 99 female patients included (average age 36.91 ± 5.36 years), 23 patients (23.2%) had transvaginal and 76 (76.8%) had suprapubic specimen extraction. The groups were comparable regarding operative time, nodule size, level of anastomosis, hospital stay and intraoperative complications. We observed no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications and rectovaginal fistula rate between the groups. Binary logistic regression analyses determined that vaginal endometriosis is an independent risk factor for postoperative complications (OR: 2.63, 95% CI [1.10-6.48], p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal specimen extraction is a safe and feasible technique in DE colorectal surgery and should be taken into consideration whenever vaginal endometriosis exists. Nevertheless, vaginal endometriosis can be an independent risk factor for postoperative complications in DE surgery.

Global attitudes in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic: ACIE Appy Study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical strategies are being adapted to face the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations on the management of acute appendicitis have been based on expert opinion, but very little evidence is available. This study addressed that dearth with a snapshot of worldwide approaches to appendicitis. METHODS: The Association of Italian Surgeons in Europe designed an online survey to assess the current attitude of surgeons globally regarding the management of patients with acute appendicitis during the pandemic. Questions were divided into baseline information, hospital organization and screening, personal protective equipment, management and surgical approach, and patient presentation before versus during the pandemic. RESULTS: Of 744 answers, 709 (from 66 countries) were complete and were included in the analysis. Most hospitals were treating both patients with and those without COVID. There was variation in screening indications and modality used, with chest X-ray plus molecular testing (PCR) being the commonest (19·8 per cent). Conservative management of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was used by 6·6 and 2·4 per cent respectively before, but 23·7 and 5·3 per cent, during the pandemic (both P < 0·001). One-third changed their approach from laparoscopic to open surgery owing to the popular (but evidence-lacking) advice from expert groups during the initial phase of the pandemic. No agreement on how to filter surgical smoke plume during laparoscopy was identified. There was an overall reduction in the number of patients admitted with appendicitis and one-third felt that patients who did present had more severe appendicitis than they usually observe. CONCLUSION: Conservative management of mild appendicitis has been possible during the pandemic. The fact that some surgeons switched to open appendicectomy may reflect the poor guidelines that emanated in the early phase of SARS-CoV-2.

ANTECEDENTES: Las estrategias quirúrgicas están siendo adaptadas en presencia de la pandemia de la COVID-19. Las recomendaciones del tratamiento de la apendicitis aguda se han basado en la opinión de expertos, pero hay muy poca evidencia disponible. Este estudio abordó este aspecto a través de una visión de los enfoques mundiales de la cirugía de la apendicitis. MÉTODOS: La Asociación de Cirujanos Italianos en Europa (ACIE) diseñó una encuesta electrónica en línea para evaluar la actitud actual de los cirujanos a nivel mundial con respecto al manejo de pacientes con apendicitis aguda durante la pandemia. Las preguntas se dividieron en información basal, organización del hospital y cribaje, equipo de protección personal, manejo y abordaje quirúrgico, así como las características de presentación del paciente antes y durante de la pandemia. Se utilizó una prueba de ji al cuadrado para las comparaciones. RESULTADOS: De 744 respuestas, se habían completado 709 (66 países) cuestionarios, los datos de los cuales se incluyeron en el estudio. La mayoría de los hospitales estaban tratando a pacientes con y sin COVID. Hubo variabilidad en las indicaciones de cribaje de la COVID-19 y en la modalidad utilizada, siendo la tomografía computarizada (CT) torácica y el análisis molecular (PCR) (18,1%) las pruebas utilizadas con más frecuencia. El tratamiento conservador de la apendicitis complicada y no complicada se utilizó en un 6,6% y un 2,4% antes de la pandemia frente a un 23,7% y un 5,3% durante la pandemia (P < 0.0001). Un tercio de los encuestados cambió la cirugía laparoscópica a cirugía abierta debido a las recomendaciones de los grupos de expertos (pero carente de evidencia científica) durante la fase inicial de la pandemia. No hubo acuerdo en cómo filtrar el humo generado por la laparoscopia. Hubo una reducción general del número de pacientes ingresados con apendicitis y un tercio consideró que los pacientes atendidos presentaban una apendicitis más grave que las comúnmente observadas. CONCLUSIÓN: La pandemia ha demostrado que ha sido posible el tratamiento conservador de la apendicitis leve. El hecho de que algunos cirujanos cambiaran a una apendicectomía abierta podría ser el reflejo de las pautas deficientes que se propusieron en la fase inicial del SARS-CoV2.

Appraisal of the current guidelines for the management of diverticular disease using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

INTRODUCTION: Diverticular disease is one of the most frequent reasons for attending emergency departments and surgical causes of hospital admission. In the past decade, many surgical and gastroenterological societies have published guidelines for the management of diverticular disease. The aim of the present study was to appraise the methodological quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases were searched systematically. The methodological quality of the guidelines was appraised independently by five appraisers using the AGREE II instrument. FINDINGS: A systematic search of the literature identified 12 guidelines. The median overall score of all guidelines was 68%. Across all guidelines, the highest score of 85% was demonstrated in the domain 'Scope and purpose'. The domains 'Clarity and presentation' and 'Editorial independence' both scored a median of 72%. The lowest scores were demonstrated in the domains 'Stakeholder involvement' and 'Applicability' at 46% and 40%, respectively. Overall, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines performed consistently well, scoring 100% in five of six domains; NICE was one of the few guidelines that specifically reported stakeholder involvement, scoring 97%. Generally, the domain of 'Stakeholder involvement' ranked poorly with seven of twelve guidelines scoring below 50%, with the worst score in this domain demonstrated by Danish guidelines at 25%. CONCLUSION: Six of twelve guidelines (NICE, American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), American Gastroenterological Association, German Society of Gastroenterology/German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (German), Netherlands Society of Surgery) scored above 70%. Only three, NICE, ASCRS and ESCP, scored above 75% and were voted unanimously by the appraisers for use as they are. Therefore, use of AGREE II may help improve the methodological quality of guidelines and their future updates.

Diversion, resection, or stenting as a bridge to surgery for acute neoplastic left-sided colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies with curative intent.

INTRODUCTION: The debate on the best surgical management strategy for acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction is ongoing. Decompressing colostomy (DC) and stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) are the currently proposed alternative approaches to emergency colectomy (EC). However, the results of a traditional meta-analysis were inconclusive. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the three approaches for acute left-sided colonic obstruction. METHODS: A systematic literature search of Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library was performed. A traditional meta-analysis and subsequent NMA were conducted. FINDINGS: A significantly greater number of primary anastomoses were performed in the DC cohort than in the EC and SBTS cohorts. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the DC cohort than in the EC and SBTS cohorts. Higher costs were associated with the SBTS cohort (by US$2,000) than with the EC cohort. The locoregional recurrence rate was higher for the SBTS cohort than for the EC cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the first NMA suggests there may be some clinical advantages associated with DC as an alternative approach to the EC and SBTS approaches for adequately selected patients with malignant large bowel obstruction.

Laparoscopic appendectomy as an index procedure for surgical trainees: clinical outcomes and learning curve.

Surgical training is essential to maintain safety standards in healthcare. The aim of this study is to evaluate learning curves and short-term postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) performed by trainees (TRN) and attendings (ATT). The present study included the medical records of patients with acute appendicitis who underwent a fully LA in our department between January 2013 and December 2018. Cases were divided into trainees (TRN and ATT groups based on the experience of the operating surgeon. The primary outcome measures were 30-day morbidity and mortality. Preoperative patients' clinical characteristics, intraoperative findings, operative times, and postoperative hospitalization were compared. Operative times were used to extrapolate learning curves and evaluate the effects of changes in faculty using CUSUM charts. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to reduce differences between cohorts regarding both preoperative characteristics and intraoperative findings. A total of 1173 patients undergoing LA for acute appendicitis were included, of whom 521 (45%) in the TRN group and 652 (55%) in the ATT group. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of complication rates, operative times and length of hospital stay. However, CUSUM chart analysis showed decreased operating times in the TRN group. Operative times improved more quickly for advanced cases. The results of this study indicate that LA can be performed by trainees without detrimental effects on clinical outcomes, procedural safety, and operative times. However, the learning curve is longer than previously acknowledged.

Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction and the six w's: Who, How, Why, When, What, and Where to diagnose and operate?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Approximately 75% of patients admitted with small bowel obstruction have intra-abdominal adhesions as their cause (adhesive small bowel obstruction). Up to 70% of adhesive small bowel obstruction cases, in the absence of strangulation and bowel ischemia, can be successfully treated with conservative management. However, emerging evidence shows that surgery performed early during the first episode of adhesive small bowel obstruction is highly effective. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the current evidence on adhesive small bowel obstruction management strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of the literature published over the last 20 years was performed to assess Who, hoW, Why, When, What, and Where diagnose and operate on patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction. RESULTS: Adequate patient selection through physical examination and computed tomography is the key factor of the entire management strategy, as failure to detect patients with strangulated adhesive small bowel obstruction and bowel ischemia is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The indication for surgical exploration is usually defined as a failure to pass contrast into the ascending colon within 8-24 h. However, operative management with early adhesiolysis, defined as operative intervention on either the calendar day of admission or the calendar day after admission, has recently shown to be associated with an overall long-term survival benefit compared to conservative management. Regarding the surgical technique, laparoscopy should be used only in selected patients with an anticipated single obstructing band, and there should be a low threshold for conversion to an open procedure in cases of high risk of bowel injuries. CONCLUSION: Although most adhesive small bowel obstruction patients without suspicion of bowel strangulation or gangrene are currently managed nonoperatively, the long-term outcomes following this approach need to be analyzed in a more exhaustive way, as surgery performed early during the first episode of adhesive small bowel obstruction has shown to be highly effective, with a lower rate of recurrence.

Should enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways be preferred over standard practice for patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Although many studies assessing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) have recently demonstrated lower rates of postoperative morbidity and a decrease in postoperative length of stay compared to standard practice, the utility of ERAS in AWR remains largely unknown. METHODS: A systematic literature search for randomized and non-randomized studies comparing ERAS (ERAS +) pathways and standard protocols (Control) as an adopted practice for patients undergoing AWR was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. A predefined search strategy was implemented. The included studies were reviewed for primary outcomes: overall postoperative morbidity, abdominal wall morbidity, surgical site infection (SSI), and length of hospital stay; and for secondary outcome: operative time, estimated blood loss, time to discontinuation of narcotics, time to urinary catheter removal, time to return to bowel function, time to return to regular diet, and readmission rate. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous variables and Odds Ratio for dichotomous variables. RESULTS: Five non-randomized studies were included for qualitative and quantitative synthesis. 840 patients were allocated to either ERAS + (382) or Control (458). ERAS + and Control groups showed equivalent results with regard to the incidence of postoperative morbidity (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.32-1.63; I2= 76%), SSI (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.43-3.22; I2= 54%), time to return to bowel function (SMD - 2.57, 95% CI - 5.32 to 0.17; I2= 99%), time to discontinuation of narcotics (SMD - 0.61, 95% CI - 1.81 to 0.59; I2= 97%), time to urinary catheter removal (SMD - 2.77, 95% CI - 6.05 to 0.51; I2= 99%), time to return to regular diet (SMD - 0.77, 95% CI - 2.29 to 0.74; I2= 98%), and readmission rate (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52-1.27; I2= 49%). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ERAS + compared to the Control group (SMD - 0.93, 95% CI - 1.84 to - 0.02; I2= 97%). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of an ERAS pathway into the clinical practice for patients undergoing AWR may cause a decreased length of hospitalization. These results should be interpreted with caution, due to the low level of evidence and the high heterogeneity.

Correction to: Mesoglycan for pain control after open excisional HAEMOrrhoidectomy (MeHAEMO): an observational multicentre study on behalf of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR).

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Mesoglycan for pain control after open excisional HAEMOrrhoidectomy (MeHAEMO): an observational multicentre study on behalf of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR).

BACKGROUND: Excisional haemorrhoidectomy is the gold standard technique in patients with III and IV degree haemorrhoidal disease (HD). However, it is associated with a significant rate of post-operative pain. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of mesoglycan in the post-operative period of patients who underwent open excisional diathermy haemorrhoidectomy (OEH). METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre observational study. Three hundred ninety-eight patients from sixteen colorectal referral centres who underwent OEH for III and IV HD were enrolled. All patients were followed-up on the first post-operative day (T1) and after 1 week (T2), 3 weeks (T3) and 6 weeks (T4). BMI, habits, SF-12 questionnaire, VAS at rest (VASs), after defecation (VASd), and after anorectal digital examination (VASe), bleeding and thrombosis, time to surgical wound healing and autonomy were evaluated. RESULTS: In the mesoglycan group, post-operative thrombosis was significantly reduced at T2 (p < 0.05) and T3 (p < 0.005), and all patients experienced less post-operative pain at each time point (p < 0.001 except for VASe T4 p = 0.003). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the time to surgical wound healing or post-operative bleeding. There was an early recovery of autonomy in the mesoglycan group in all three follow-up periods (T2 p = 0.016; T3 p = 0.002; T4 p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The use of mesoglycan led to a significant reduction in post-operative thrombosis and pain with consequent early resumption of autonomy. Trial registration NCT04481698-Mesoglycan for Pain Control After Open Excisional HAEMOrrhoidectomy (MeHAEMO) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04481698?term=Mesoglycan+for+Pain+Control+After+Open+Excisional+HAEMOrrhoidectomy+%28MeHAEMO%29&draw=2&rank=1.

European Society of Coloproctology: guidelines for the management of diverticular disease of the colon.

AIM: The goal of this European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) guideline project is to give an overview of the existing evidence on the management of diverticular disease, primarily as a guidance to surgeons. METHODS: The guideline was developed during several working phases including three voting rounds and one consensus meeting. The two project leads (JKS and EA) appointed by the ESCP guideline committee together with one member of the guideline committee (WB) agreed on the methodology, decided on six themes for working groups (WGs) and drafted a list of research questions. Senior WG members, mostly colorectal surgeons within the ESCP, were invited based on publication records and geographical aspects. Other specialties were included in the WGs where relevant. In addition, one trainee or PhD fellow was invited in each WG. All six WGs revised the research questions if necessary, did a literature search, created evidence tables where feasible, and drafted supporting text to each research question and statement. The text and statement proposals from each WG were arranged as one document by the first and last authors before online voting by all authors in two rounds. For the second voting ESCP national representatives were also invited. More than 90% agreement was considered a consensus. The final phrasing of the statements with < 90% agreement was discussed in a consensus meeting at the ESCP annual meeting in Vienna in September 2019. Thereafter, the first and the last author drafted the final text of the guideline and circulated it for final approval and for a third and final online voting of rephrased statements. RESULTS: This guideline contains 38 evidence based consensus statements on the management of diverticular disease. CONCLUSION: This international, multidisciplinary guideline provides an up to date summary of the current knowledge of the management of diverticular disease as a guidance for clinicians and patients.