Contemporary Assessment of Adhesiolysis and Resection for Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction in the State of New York.

BACKGROUND: Adhesive small bowel obstruction (aSBO) is a common surgical problem, with some advocating for a more aggressive operative approach to avoid recurrence. Contemporary outcomes in a real-world setting were examined. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative database to identify adults admitted with aSBO, 2016-2020. Patients were stratified by the presence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and cancer history. Diagnoses usually requiring resection were excluded. Patients were categorized into four groups: non-operative, adhesiolysis, resection, and 'other' procedures. In-hospital mortality, major complications, and odds of undergoing resection were compared. RESULTS: 58,976 patients were included. 50,000 (84.8%) underwent non-operative management. Adhesiolysis was the most common procedure performed (n = 4,990, 8.46%), followed by resection (n = 3,078, 5.22%). In-hospital mortality in the lysis and resection groups was 2.2% and 5.9% respectively. Non-IBD patients undergoing operation on the day of admission required intestinal resection 29.9% of the time. Adjusted odds of resection were highest for those with a prior aSBO episode (OR 1.29 95%CI 1.11-1.49), delay to operation ≥3 days (OR1.78 95%CI 1.58-1.99), and non-New York City (NYC) residents being treated at NYC hospitals (OR1.57 95%CI 1.19-2.07). CONCLUSION: Adhesiolysis is currently the most common surgery for aSBO, however nearly one-third of patients will undergo a more extensive procedure, with an increased risk of mortality. Innovative therapies are needed to reduce the risk of resection.

Use of a novel endoscopic overtube with bilateral tool channels for endoscopic resection of experimental lesions and repair of intestinal defects in the right colon: preclinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic tumor resection and intestinal defect repair are technically challenging leading to invasive surgery and colectomy performed for resection of benign polyps. In this study, we evaluated the use of an endoscopic overtube with bilateral tool channels for these procedures. METHODS: Using a fresh porcine colorectum in a 3D ex vivo model, 3 cm lesions at the posterior wall of the transverse colon were removed by two different techniques: standard endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique (STD, n = 12) and ESD using the overtube with an endoscopic snare and grasper through the bilateral channels (OT, n = 12). Procedure times and the number of muscular injuries were evaluated. Using the same model, 5-10 mm full-thickness perforations within a 3 cm mucosal defect at the posterior wall of the transverse colon were closed by two different techniques: standard endoscopic closure technique (STD, n = 12) and endoscopic closure using the overtube with two graspers (OT, n = 12). The outcomes measured included bursting pressure and the number of endoscopic clips used for closure. RESULTS: Endoscopic resection of lesions was performed by the OT group in a significantly shorter total procedure time (STD vs. OT = median 38.9 min vs. 17.3, p < 0.001) and with fewer muscular injuries (median 0 vs. 2, p = 0.002), compared with the STD group. After repair of intestinal defects, the OT group showed higher median bursting pressures (STD vs. OT = 11.2 mmHg vs. 57.1, p = 0.008) despite using fewer clips (median 13 vs. 10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a novel traction technique with an endoscopic overtube using multiple instruments to remove lesions and repair intestinal defects in the colon more effectively. This endoscopic platform could provide a safe alternative to invasive surgical treatment.

Luminal mapping reveals mesenteric predominance of colonic adenomas and adenocarcinomas.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have examined the relationship between colorectal tumor distribution and metastasis, but the tumor luminal location and associative risk factors promoting tumor growth remain unknown. METHODS: In this study, we mapped the luminal distribution of human colonic adenomas/adenocarcinomas and their association with various physiologic parameters. RESULTS: We identified a mesenteric predominance for colonic adenomas and adenocarcinomas. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study raise the possibility of novel mechanistic pathways in the development of adenomas and subsequent transformation into adenocarcinomas.

A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing THUNDERBEAT to the Maryland LigaSure energy device in laparoscopic left colon surgery.

BACKGROUND: The THUNDERBEAT is a multi-functional energy device which delivers both ultrasonic and bipolar energy, but there are no randomized trials which can provide more rigorous evaluation of the clinical performance of THUNDERBEAT compared to other energy-based devices in colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of THUNDERBEAT energy device to Maryland LigaSure in patients undergoing left laparoscopic colectomy. METHODS: Prospective randomized trial with two groups: Group 1 THUNDERBEAT and Group 2 LigaSure in a single university hospital. 60 Subjects, male and female, of age 18 years and above undergoing left colectomy for cancer or diverticulitis were included. The primary outcome was dissection time to specimen removal (DTSR) measured in minutes from the start of colon mobilization to specimen removal from the abdominal cavity. Versatility (composite of five variables) was measured by a score system from 1 to 5 (1 being worst and 5 the best), and adjusted/weighted by coefficient of importance with distribution of the importance as follow: hemostasis 0.275, sealing 0.275, cutting 0.2, dissection 0.15, and tissue manipulation 0.1. Other variables were: dryness of surgical field, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and mortality. Follow-up time was 30 days. RESULTS: 60 Patients completed surgery, 31 in Group 1 and 29 in Group 2. There was no difference in the DTSR between the groups, 91 min vs. 77 min (p = 0.214). THUNDERBEAT showed significantly higher score in dissecting and tissue manipulation in segment 3 (omental dissection), and in overall versatility score (p = 0.007) as well as versatility score in Segment 2 (retroperitoneal dissection p = 0.040) and Segment 3 (p = 0.040). No other differences were noted between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both energy devices can be employed effectively and safely in dividing soft tissue and sealing mesenteric blood vessels during laparoscopic left colon surgery, with THUNDERBEAT demonstrating some advantages over LigaSure during omental dissection and tissue manipulation. CLINICALTRIAL: gov # NCT02628093.

Use of an endoscopic flexible grasper as a traction tool for excision of polyps: preclinical trial.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is challenging in the right colon. Traction devices can make it technically easier. In this study, we evaluated a flexible grasper with articulating tip and elbow-like bending (IgE) through a double-balloon surgical platform (DESP), compared with an earlier generation grasper without elbow-like bending (Ig). The reach of Ig/IgE was investigated at eight locations using a synthetic colon within a 3D model. Using a fresh porcine colorectum, 4 cm pseudo-polyps were created at the posterior wall of the ascending colon. Fifty-four ESD procedures were performed using three techniques: standard ESD (STD), ESD using Ig (DESP + Ig), and ESD using IgE (DESP + IgE). IgE was able to reach the full circumference at all the locations, whereas the medial walls proximal to the descending colon were out of Ig's reach. Compared with the STD, both DESP + Ig and DESP + IgE showed significantly shorter procedure time (STD vs. DESP + Ig vs. DESP + IgE = median 48.9 min vs. 38.6 vs. 29.9) and fewer injuries (1.5 vs. 0 vs. 0). Moreover, the DESP + IgE had a shorter procedure time than the DESP + Ig (p = 0.0025). The IgE with DESP increased instrument reach compared to Ig, and likely represented a traction tool for excision of large pseudo-polyps in the right colon.

Intraluminal gas escape from biopsy valves and endoscopic devices during endoscopy: caution advised during the COVID-19 era.

Background and study aims The risk of aerosolization of body fluids during endoscopic procedures should be evaluated during the COVID-19 era, as this may contribute to serious disease transmission. Here, we aimed to investigate if use of endoscopic tools during flexible endoscopy may permit gas leakage from the scope or tools. Material and methods Using a fresh 35-cm porcine rectal segment, a colonoscope tip, and manometer were placed intraluminally at opposite ends of the segment. The colonoscope handle, including the biopsy valve, was submerged in a water bath. Sequentially, various endoscopic devices (forceps, clips, snares, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) knives) were inserted into the biopsy valve, simultaneously submerging the device handle in a water bath. The bowel was slowly inflated up to 74.7 mmHg (40 inH 2 O) and presence of gas leakage, leak pressure, and gas leakage volume were measured. Results Gas leakage was observed from the biopsy valve upon insertion and removal of all endoscopic device tips with jaws, even at 0 mmHg (60/60 trials). The insertion angle of the tool affected extent of gas leakage. In addition, gas leakage was observed from the device handles (8 of 10 devices) with continuous gas leakage at low pressures, especially two snares at 0 mmHg, and an injectable ESD knife at 0.7 ±â€Š0.8 mmHg). Conclusions Gas leakage from the biopsy valve and device handles commonly occur during endoscopic procedures. We recommend protective measures be considered during use of any tools during endoscopy.

Rectal Prolapse Repair with Abdominal Fixation Under Sedation and Local or Epidural Anesthesia: Prospective Pilot Study in 10 Elderly Subjects.

Background: Rectal prolapse (RP) is primarily a disease of the elderly, where treatment may be associated with significant postoperative morbidity including that related to anesthesia. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a novel abdominal approach to RP repair under sedation and local anesthesia and to assess short- and long-term clinical outcomes in elderly patients (>70 years). Design Settings: This is a prospective pilot study with 10 patients using a novel RP repair. The anesthesia type was local or epidural with sedation. Follow-up was done at 30 days, 12, and 24 months. Patients: Patients were men and women >70 years of age with RP. Main Outcome Measures: (1) Feasibility: successful completion of RP repair using the novel abdominal approach with laparoscopic assistance. (2) Safety: safety was measured by the incidence of the intraoperative complications (bowel perforation, organ injury, and bleeding requiring blood transfusion). (3) Sedation and local anesthesia feasibility: surgery was safely completed without patient intubation. Results: Ten female patients >70 years of age underwent RP repair using the novel abdominal approach. General anesthesia was not required in any of the 10 patients. Two patients recurred within 6 months. One of the patients with recurrence of RP subsequently underwent laparoscopic rectopexy, and the other was minimal and required no further treatment. One mortality occurred at 3 months unrelated to the procedure. No other anesthetic or surgical intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed. Limitations: This is a single-institution pilot study. Conclusions: Abdominal RP repair under sedation and regional anesthesia appears feasible and safe in elderly patients and may, in the future, provide an effective alternative to current treatment options for RP, avoiding general anesthesia. ClinicalTrial.gov registration number: NCT01980043.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of large polyps in the right colon using an endoscopic snare with a double-balloon endolumenal interventional platform: an ex vivo study in a porcine colorectal model.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a challenging procedure for the removal of colorectal tumors, especially tumors located in the right colon. The use of traction could make this procedure technically easier and reduce procedure times and complication rates. In this study, we demonstrated the feasibility and utility of a traction technique utilizing an endoscopic snare through an overtube, a double-balloon endolumenal interventional platform (DEIP) in a porcine colorectal model. METHODS: A total of 120 procedures were performed using three different techniques: standard ESD technique (STD), ESD with DEIP (DEIP alone), and ESD with DEIP and a snare (DEIP + Snare). The snare was passed inside the overtube and used as a grasper on the tissue to provide traction. Lesions 3 or 4 cm in diameter were removed with a 5 mm margin from the anterior and posterior walls of the proximal Transverse Colon, the Hepatic Flexure, and the posterior wall of the Cecum. The outcomes measured included procedure times and the number of muscularis propria injuries. RESULTS: The DEIP + Snare group showed significantly shorter total procedure and submucosal dissection times for lesions in all locations (median 28.1 min (DEIP + Snare, n = 32) vs 39.8 (STD, n = 32) vs 39.7 (DEIP alone, n = 32); 7.5 min vs 25.3 vs 25.1) and had fewer muscularis propria injuries (median 0 [range 0-2] vs 2 [0-7] vs 1 [0-6]) than the two other groups. Larger lesions (4 cm) were successfully removed by regrasping the tissue in DEIP + Snare group, which showed significantly shorter total procedure time [31.4 min (DEIP + Snare, n = 8) vs 40.1 (STD, n = 8) vs 45.6 (DEIP alone, n = 8)] and submucosal dissection time (12.3 min vs 27.6 vs 29.1) than the two other groups. CONCLUSIONS: ESD traction technique with an endolumenal platform and snare enables faster removal of large polyps in the right colon with fewer injuries than standard methods of ESD.

Antigravity ESD - double-balloon-assisted underwater with traction hybrid technique.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Complex colorectal polyps or those positioned in difficult anatomic locations are an endoscopic therapeutic challenge. Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection (UESD) is a potential technical solution to facilitate efficient polyp removal. In addition, endoscopic tissue retraction has been confined to limited methods of varying efficacy and complexity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of a unique UESD technique for removing complex polyps using double-balloon-assisted retraction (R). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using fresh ex-vivo porcine rectum, 4-cm polyps were created using electrosurgery and positioned at "6 o'clock" within an established ESD model. Six resections were performed in each group. Underwater techniques were facilitated using a novel double-balloon platform (Dilumen, Lumendi, Westport, Connecticut, United States). RESULTS: UESD-R had a significantly shorter total procedural time than cap-assisted ESD and UESD alone (24 vs. 58 vs. 56 mins). UESD-R produced a dissection time on average of 5 minutes, attributed to the retraction provided. There was also a subjective significant reduction in electrosurgical smoke with the underwater techniques contributing to improved visualization. CONCLUSIONS: Here we report the first ex-vivo experience of a unique double-balloon endoscopic platform optimized for UESD with tissue traction capability. UESD-R removed complex lesions in significantly shorter time than conventional means. The combined benefits of UESD and retraction appeared to be additive when tackling complex polyps and should be studied further.

Hormone Replacement Therapy and Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hormone replacement therapy has been shown to reduce colorectal cancer incidence, but its effect on colorectal cancer mortality is controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of hormone replacement therapy on survival from colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, a large multicenter randomized trial run from 1993 to 2001, with follow-up data recently becoming mature. Participants were women aged 55 to 74 years, without recent colonoscopy. Data from the trial were analyzed to evaluate colorectal cancer incidence, disease-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality based on subjects' use of hormone replacement therapy at the time of randomization: never, current, or former users. RESULTS: A total of 75,587 women with 912 (1.21%) incident colorectal cancers and 239 associated deaths were analyzed, with median follow-up of 11.9 years. Overall, 88.6% were non-Hispanic white, and < 10% had not completed high school. The never-user group was slightly older than the current or former user groups (average, 63.8 vs. 61.4 vs. 63.3 years; P < .001). Almost one-half (47.1%) of the current users had undergone hysterectomy, compared with 21.6% of never-users and 34.0% of former users (P < .001). Adjusted colorectal cancer incidence in current users compared to never-users was lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.94; P = .005), as was death from colorectal cancer (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P = .002) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.80; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Hormone replacement therapy is associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer incidence and improved colorectal cancer-specific survival, as well as all-cause mortality.

Evaluation of Trends in the Use of InterStim for Fecal Incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Fecal incontinence (FI) represents a large source of morbidity and is a challenging clinical problem to manage. InterStim was approved to treat FI in 2011. Little is known about its adoption. We sought to characterize patterns of use of Interstim since Food and Drug Administration approval for FI. METHODS: The New York State SPARCS database was used to evaluate InterStim use for FI from 2011 to 2014. The primary endpoint was the number of successful implantations of InterStim. Secondary endpoints included device removal, median time to removal of device, 90-day infection rates, and percentage of procedures performed by surgeon specialty and geographic location. RESULTS: A total of 369 patients with FI underwent "Stage 1" of InterStim from 2011 to 2014. A total of 302 patients underwent "Stage 2," yielding a trial period failure rate of 18.2%. The majority of patients who underwent successful implantation were female (87.7%) and White (78.8%). Twenty-nine patients underwent device removal after a median duration of 147 days. Estimated risk of removal at median follow-up of 2 years was 11.8%. Colorectal surgeons comprised 51.1% of all providers followed by gynecologic (24.4%) and urologic surgeons (17.8%). A total of 71.7% of providers performed <5 procedures, while 3 of the highest volume providers performed 50.7% of all procedures. CONCLUSIONS: InterStim for FI has been used by a wide variety of providers in New York State although only a few high-volume providers have performed the majority of procedures. White, female patients with Medicare are the most common recipients of InterStim. Further work must be done to develop strategies for improving access to this technology and to determine whether volume relates to outcomes.

Long-term Postprocedural Outcomes of Palliative Emergency Stenting vs Stoma in Malignant Large-Bowel Obstruction.

Importance: Colonic stenting was introduced for palliation of malignant large-bowel obstruction (MLBO) more than 20 years ago but remains controversial. Objective: To compare outcomes after palliative stenting vs stoma creation in patients with MLBO requiring emergency management. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study assessed 345 patients from New York State with an urgent or emergency admission to the hospital for obstruction secondary to colorectal cancer and who underwent stenting or stoma creation from October 1, 2009, through December 31, 2013. Patients were excluded if they underwent resection within 1 year of the index admission. Exposures: Palliative stenting vs stoma creation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included subsequent operation and readmission within 90-day and 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital death, major medical and surgical complications, length of stay, total charges, and discharge dispositions. Multivariable hierarchical analyses and propensity score matching were used to compare outcomes between the exposure groups. Results: The cohort included 345 patients (mean [SD] age, 69.9 [14.4] years in the stoma group and 70.9 [16.8] years in the stent group; 87 men [50.3%] in the stoma group and 90 [52.3%] in the stent group; and 114 non-Hispanic white patients [65.9%] in the stoma group and 90 [52.3%] in the stent group). Most patients undergoing stenting were treated at high-volume (104 [60.5%]) vs medium-volume (42 [24.4%]) or low-volume (26 [15.1%]) hospitals (P < .001). Patients undergoing stenting were significantly less likely to experience prolonged length of stay (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.97; P = .04), more likely to be discharged to their usual residence (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07-0.28; P < .001), and tended to have similar or fewer complications (major events: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.30-2.18; P = .68; procedural complications: OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.11-1.22; P = .10). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of 90-day and 1-year readmission to the hospitals (90 days: OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.49-1.78; P = .83; 1 year: OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.37; P = .30). Subsequent operation at 90 days was also not different between the groups (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.26-6.89; P = .72), but there was a higher chance of subsequent operation at 1 year after the stenting procedure (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.12-7.68; P = .03), with most subsequent operations being restenting. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with MLBO and if resection is not part of the treatment plan, stenting is safe and improves the efficiency of care with obvious quality-of-life benefits. It should be offered at experienced centers, and patients should be counseled regarding increased risk of subsequent stenting within 1 year.

Surgeon Annual and Cumulative Volumes Predict Early Postoperative Outcomes after Rectal Cancer Resection.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if 5-year surgeon cumulative and annual volumes predict improved early postoperative outcomes in patients with rectal cancer. BACKGROUND: Operative experience has been shown to effect surgical outcomes. The differential role of cumulative versus annual volume has not yet been explored for rectal surgery. METHODS: The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was used to capture patients undergoing surgery in New York State from 2000 to 2013. A population-based sample of patients undergoing major rectal or rectosigmoid resection as their principal procedure during hospitalization between 2000 and 2013 were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes. Surgeons were identified using a unique physician number from 1995 to 2013. RESULTS: The percentage of surgeries performed by high cumulative/high annual (HC/HA) surgeons increased from 38.3% to 58.4% (P < 0.01) with a simultaneous decrease in that performed by low cumulative/low annual (LC/LA) surgeons (52.5% to 29.8%, P < 0.01). HC/HA volume surgeons had a significantly lower rate of surgical complications (odd ratio = 0.71, 95% confidence interval = 0.60-0.83, P < 0.05) as compared with LC/LA volume surgeons. There was no significant difference in rates of anastomotic leak, nonroutine discharges or readmission among all four groups. CONCLUSIONS: The best early postoperative surgical outcomes are achieved in centers where there are high cumulative and high annual volume surgeons caring for these patients. This suggests the need for specialized designation of rectal cancer centers to support ongoing regionalization of care.

Comparison of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Colectomies Using a Large National Database: Outcomes and Trends Related to Surgery Center Volume.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that high-volume centers and laparoscopic techniques improve outcomes of colectomy. These evidence-based measures have been slow to be accepted, and current trends are unknown. In addition, the current rates and outcomes of robotic surgery are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine current national trends in the use of minimally invasive surgery and to evaluate hospital volume trends over time. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: Using the National Inpatient Sample, we evaluated trends in patients undergoing elective open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies from 2009 to 2012. Patient and institutional characteristics were evaluated and outcomes compared between groups using multivariate hierarchical-logistic regression and nonparametric tests. The National Inpatient Sample includes patient and hospital demographics, admission and treating diagnoses, inpatient procedures, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, hospital charges, and discharge status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In-hospital mortality and postoperative complications of surgery were measured. RESULTS: A total of 509,029 patients underwent elective colectomy from 2009 to 2012. Of those 266,263 (52.3%) were open, 235,080 (46.2%) laparoscopic, and 7686 (1.5%) robotic colectomies. The majority of minimal access surgery is still being performed at high-volume compared with low-volume centers (37.5% vs 28.0% and 44.0% vs 23.0%; p < 0.001). A total of 36% of colectomies were for cancer. The number of robotic colectomies has quadrupled from 702 in 2009 to 3390 (1.1%) in 2012. After adjustment, the rate of iatrogenic complications was higher for robotic surgery (OR = 1.73 (95% CI, 1.20-2.47)), and the median cost of robotic surgery was higher, at $15,649 (interquartile range, $11,840-$20,183) vs $12,071 (interquartile range, $9338-$16,203; p < 0.001 for laparoscopic). LIMITATIONS: This study may be limited by selection bias by surgeons regarding the choice of patient management. In addition, there are limitations in the measures of disease severity and, because the database relies on billing codes, there may be inaccuracies such as underreporting. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the majority of colectomies in the United States are still performed open, although rates of laparoscopy continue to increase. There is a trend toward increased volume of laparoscopic procedures at specialty centers. The role of robotics is still being defined, in light of higher cost, lack of clinical benefit, and increased iatrogenic complications, albeit comparable overall complications, as compared with laparoscopic colectomy.

Driving Surgical Quality Using Operative Video.

Recent evidence suggests surgical quality may be demonstrated and evaluated using video capture during surgery. Operative video documentation may also aid in quality improvement initiatives. We discuss how operative video has the potential to help improve patient outcomes and increase professional accountability, patient safety, and surgical quality.