Current Quality of Videos on Colorectal Cancer Screening for General Public.

BACKGROUND: One-third of American adults encompassed by current colorectal cancer screening guidelines fail to obtain recommended screening evaluations. Educational videos are a valuable medium through which to educate and encourage recommended health behaviors in patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study reviewing the quality of patient education videos addressing colorectal cancer screening. Video quality was assessed in 3 domains: accountability, content, and production. RESULTS: Forty-four videos met inclusion criteria. Out of 33 possible points, videos scored a median of 15.0 (interquartile range 12.9-16.6). Videos scored 1.0 (interquartile range .8-1.0) out of 4.0 for accountability, 6.0 (interquartile range 4.4-8.0) out of 20 for content, and 8.0 (interquartile range 7.4-8.0) out of 9.0 for production. Colonoscopy was the most frequently discussed method of screening (38, 86%). While 13 (34%) videos discussed the risk of colorectal cancer in the general population and 15 (32%) discussed the risk in those with a family history, few videos addressed those with other risk factors. Most (31, 70%) videos discussed the medical consequences of not receiving screening, but only 1 (2%) video discussed the social consequences. Similarly, medical benefits were discussed in 34 (77%) videos while other benefits were not discussed by any video. Only one-fifth of the videos address three or more barriers to screening. CONCLUSIONS: Videos on colorectal cancer screening have excellent production quality but need improvement in the domains of accountability and content. The videos included in this analysis did not adequately address the concerns of viewers nor the benefits of colorectal cancer screening.

Critical Evaluation of the Efficiency of Colorectal Fellowship Websites: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Websites are an important source of information for fellowship applicants, as they can influence ongoing interest and potential program selection. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the current state of colorectal fellowship websites. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluates the quantity and quality of information available on websites of colorectal fellowship programs verified by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 2019. RESULTS: A total of 63 colorectal fellowships were included for evaluation. Websites were surveyed for content items that previous studies have found to be influential to program applicants. The 58 (91%) programs with a functional website were evaluated using an information index (calculated as a function of availability of content items concerning education, application, personnel, and benefits) and an interactive index (calculated as a function of accessibility and usability of the webpage). Programs had a median total score of 27.8 (IQR 21.5-34.5) of 79. The median score for the interactive index was 7.5 of 15 and for the information index was 20 of 64. The median scores for website application, education, personnel, and benefits or life considerations were 5, 5.5, 3.3, and 4 of 13, 24, 13, and 14, respectively. There was no difference in total score between programs in different geographical regions (P=.46). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, colorectal surgery fellowship program websites do not provide enough content for applicants to make informed decisions. All training programs, regardless of specialty, should evaluate and improve their digital footprint to ensure their websites are accessible and provide the information desired by applicants.

Initial management and outcome of modern battlefield anal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential for morbidity and permanent lifestyle alteration, few reports exist examining traumatic injury to the anal canal, particularly among modern-day combatants. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to document the incidence, initial surgical management, and long-term outcomes of wartime anal trauma. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review. DATA SOURCES: Data were compiled from multiple electronic medical record systems, including the Department of Defense Trauma Registry, the Patient Administration Systems and Biostatistics Activity, and the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Tracking Application. SETTINGS: Combatants were treated at military treatment facilities with surgical capability during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2003 through early 2011. PATIENTS: All US and coalition combatants sustaining trauma to the anal canal or sphincter musculature were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quantification of incidence, the evaluation of initial treatment approach, and the determination of clinical and surgical factors correlating with restoration or preservation of GI tract continuity were the primary outcomes measured. RESULTS: Anal trauma occurred in 46 combatants, predominantly from blast injury (76.1%). Most (36, 78.2%) underwent fecal diversion. Concurrent severe systemic or intra-abdominal injuries correlated with colostomy creation. Acute anoplasty was attempted in 11 patients (23.7%) but did not influence eventual colostomy reversal. Among 33 US personnel, the permanent colostomy rate was 30.3%. Concurrent injury to the abdomen strongly predicted long-term colostomy (p = 0.009), along with hypogastric arterial ligation (p = 0.05) and pelvic fracture (p = 0.06). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the potential underdiagnosis of anal injury and the restricted follow-up of non-US personnel. CONCLUSIONS: Other injuries besides anal trauma typically have guided the decision for fecal diversion, and acute anal repair has rarely been indicated. The majority of patients with anal trauma regained normal GI continuity, although certain pelvic injuries increased the likelihood of permanent colostomy.

Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery has become increasingly common; however, it is unclear if its use for colectomy improves in-hospital outcomes compared with the laparoscopic approach. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare in-hospital outcomes and costs between patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic colectomy. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review of the 2008 to 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. SETTINGS, PATIENTS, INTERVENTIONS: All adult patients who underwent an elective robotic or laparoscopic colectomy in hospitals performing both procedures (N = 2583 representing an estimated 12,732 procedures) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of stay, and direct costs of care. Regression models were used to compare these outcomes between procedural approaches while controlling for baseline differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 6.1% of patients underwent a robotic procedure. Factors associated with robotic-assisted colectomy included younger age, benign diagnoses, and treatment at a lower-volume center. Patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic procedures experienced similar rates of intraoperative (3.0% vs 3.3%; adjusted OR = 0.88 (0.35-2.22)) and postoperative (21.7% vs 21.6%; adjusted OR = 0.84 (0.54-1.30)) complications, as well as risk-adjusted average lengths of stay (5.4 vs 5.5 days, p = 0.66). However, robotic-assisted colectomy resulted in significantly higher costs of care ($19,231 vs $15,807, p < 0.001). Although the overall postoperative morbidity rate was similar between groups, the individual complications experienced by each group were different. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of this study is the potential miscoding of robotic cases in administrative data. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted colectomy significantly increases the costs of care without providing clear reductions in overall morbidity or length of stay. As the use of robotic technology in colon surgery continues to evolve, critical appraisal of the benefits offered in comparison with the resources consumed is required.

Abdominoperineal resection: how is it done and what are the results?

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) for many years was the treatment of choice for most patients with rectal cancer. Recent advances in surgical technique and other treatment modalities have led to a marked increase in the rate of sphincter-sparing operations, with a concomitant decrease in APR. However, it is still necessary in selected patients, especially those with very distal tumors or poor sphincter function. This review will cover the history of APR, current operative strategy and complications, oncologic and quality of life results, as well as potential future advances.

Practice parameters for the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to assuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Standards Committee is composed of Society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive, and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all of the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

Practice parameters for the treatment of perianal abscess and fistula-in-ano (revised).

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to assuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Standards Committee is composed of Society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This Committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive, and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all of the circumstances presented by the individual patient.