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.

2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: The role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer has been questioned. 3D laparoscopic systems are suggested to aid optimal surgical performance but have not been evaluated in advanced procedures. We hypothesised that stereoscopic imaging could improve the performance of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME). METHODS: A multicentre developmental randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D laparoscopic TME was performed (ISRCTN59485808). Trial surgeons were colorectal consultants that had completed their TME proficiency curve and underwent stereoscopic visual testing. Patients requiring elective laparoscopic TME with curative intent were centrally randomised (1:1) to 2D or 3D using Karl Storz IMAGE1 S D3-Link™ and 10-mm TIPCAM®1S 3D passive polarising laparoscopic systems. Outcomes were enacted adverse events as assessed by the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique, intraoperative data, 30-day patient outcomes, histopathological specimen assessment and surgeon cognitive load. RESULTS: 88 patients were included. There were no differences in patient or tumour demographics, surgeon stereopsis, case difficulty, cognitive load, operative time, blood loss or conversion between the trial arms. 1377 intraoperative adverse events were identified (median 18 per case, IQR 14-21, range 2-49) with no differences seen between the 2D and 3D arms (18 (95% CI 17-21) vs. 17 (95% CI 16-19), p = 0.437). 3D laparoscopy had non-significantly higher mesorectal fascial plane resections (94 vs. 77%, p = 0.059; OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.05-1.16)) but equal lymph node yield and circumferential margin distance and involvement. 30-day morbidity, anastomotic leak, re-operation, length of stay and readmission rates were equal between the 2D and 3D arms. CONCLUSION: Feasibility of performing multicentre 3D laparoscopic multicentre trials of specialist performed complex procedures is shown. 3D imaging did not alter the number of intraoperative adverse events; however, a potential improvement in mesorectal specimen quality was observed and should form the focus of future 3D laparoscopic TME trials.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018.

BACKGROUND: This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol. METHODS: A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: All recommendations on ERAS® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for gastrointestinal surgery, part 1: pathophysiological considerations.

BACKGROUND: The present article has been written to convey concepts of anaesthetic care within the context of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme, thus aligning the practice of anaesthesia with the care delivered by the surgical team before, during and after surgery. METHODS: The physiological principles supporting the implementation of the ERAS programmes in patients undergoing major abdominal procedures are reviewed using an updated literature search and discussed by a multidisciplinary group composed of anaesthesiologists and surgeons with the aim to improve perioperative care. RESULTS: The pathophysiology of some key perioperative elements disturbing the homoeostatic mechanisms such as insulin resistance, ileus and pain is here discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based strategies aimed at controlling the disruption of homoeostasis need to be evaluated in the context of ERAS programmes. Anaesthesiologists could, therefore, play a crucial role in facilitating the recovery process.

Randomized clinical trial investigating the stress response from two different methods of analgesia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: One of the key elements of managed recovery is thought to be suppression of the neuroendocrine response using regional analgesics. This may be superfluous in laparoscopic colorectal surgery with small wounds. This trial assessed the effects of spinal analgesia versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) on neuroendocrine responses in that setting. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted with participation of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery within a managed recovery programme. Consenting patients were allocated randomly to spinal analgesia or morphine PCA as primary postoperative analgesia. The primary outcome was interleukin (IL) 6 levels; secondary outcomes were levels of cortisol, glucose, insulin and other cytokines, pain scores, morphine use and length of hospital stay. Stress response analysis was conducted before operation, and 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery. RESULTS: Of 143 eligible patients, 133 were randomized and 120 completed the study. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in the two groups. There were no significant differences in median levels of insulin, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, interferon γ, tumour necrosis factor α or vascular endothelial growth factor between the spinal analgesia and PCA groups at any time point. Three hours after surgery (but at no other time point) median (i.q.r.) levels of cortisol (468 (329-678) versus 701 (429-820) nmol/l; P = 0.004) and glucose (6.1 (5.4-7.5) versus 7.0 (6.0-7.7) mmol/l; P = 0.012) were lower in the spinal analgesia group than in the PCA group. Median (i.q.r.) levels of total intravenous morphine were lower in the spinal analgesia group (10.0 (3.3-15.8) versus 45.5 (34.0-60.5) mg; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Spinal analgesia reduced early neuroendocrine responses and overall parenteral morphine use. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01128088 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Laparoscopic repair of postoperative perineal hernia using a two-mesh technique.

AIM: Perineal herniation following abdomino-perineal excision of the rectum (APER) can be debilitating. Repair options include a transabdominal (laparoscopic or open), perineal or a combined approach, but there is no consensus on the optimal technique. We describe a novel laparoscopic two-mesh technique and short- to medium-term outcomes. METHOD: Six patients underwent this operation between 2008 and 2014. Patients were positioned in a modified Lloyd-Davies position, allowing perineal access, and steep Trendelenburg to aid displacement of small bowel from the pelvis. A polypropylene mesh was shaped, placed over the hernial defect, tacked postero-laterally and sutured antero-laterally to reconstitute the pelvic diaphragm. A second larger mesh (composite) was placed over the first supporting mesh and secured with tacks and sutures, overlapping the hernial defect, preventing small bowel contact with the mesh. RESULTS: The median time from the index operation to presentation of the hernia was 5 months. One patient with dense small bowel adhesions from the primary repair had a combined laparoscopic and perineal approach. The median operating time was 141 min and median length of stay was 3 days. There were no intra-operative complications and no recurrences over a follow-up of 1-76 months. CONCLUSION: We describe a novel laparoscopic technique for perineal hernia repair following APER with a low recurrence rate in the intermediate term.

Laparoscopy in the era of enhanced recovery.

Laparoscopy is one of the cornerstones in the surgical revolution and transformed outcome and recovery for various surgical procedures. Even if these changes were widely accepted for basic interventions, like appendectomies and cholecystectomies, laparoscopy still remains challenged for more advanced operations in many aspects. Despite these discussion, there is an overwhelming acceptance in the surgical community that laparoscopy did transform the recovery for several abdominal procedures. The importance of improved peri-operative patient management and its influence on outcome started to become a focus of attention 20 years ago and is now increasingly spreading, as shown by the incoming volume of data on this topic. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) concept incorporates simple measures of general management, and requires multidisciplinary collaboration from hospital staff as well as the patient and the relatives. Several studies have demonstrated a significant decrease in postoperative complication rate, length of hospital stay and reduced overall cost. The key elements of success are fluid restriction, a functioning epidural and preoperative carbohydrate intake. With the expansion of laparoscopic techniques, ERAS increasingly incorporates laparoscopic patients, especially in colorectal surgery. However, the precise impact of laparoscopy on ERAS is still not clearly defined. Increasing evidence suggests that laparoscopy itself is an additional ERAS item that should be considered as routine where feasible in order to obtain the best surgical outcomes.

Time to adjuvant chemotherapy following colorectal cancer resection is associated with an improved survival.

AIM: Multicentre randomized trials have demonstrated equivalent long-term outcomes for open and laparoscopic resection of colon cancer. Some studies have indicated a possible survival advantage in certain patients undergoing laparoscopic resection. Patients who receive adjuvant chemotherapy in < 8 weeks following surgery can have an improved survival. METHOD: Data were collated for patients having an elective laparoscopic or open resection for non-metastatic colorectal cancer between October 2003 and December 2010 and subsequently having adjuvant chemotherapy. Survival analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In all, 209 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy following open (n = 76) or laparoscopic (n = 133) surgery. Median length of stay was 3 days with laparoscopic resection and 6 days with open resection (P < 0.0005). Median number of days to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy was 52 with laparoscopic resection and 58 with open resection (P = 0.008). The 5-year overall survival was 89.6% in patients receiving chemotherapy in < 8 weeks after surgery, compared with 73.5% who started the treatment over 8 weeks (P = 0.016). The 5-year overall survival for those patients with a laparoscopic resection was 82.3% compared with 80.3% with an open resection (P = 0.049). CONCLUSION: There is an overall survival advantage when patients receive adjuvant chemotherapy < 8 weeks after surgery. Laparoscopic resection allows earlier discharge and, subsequently, earlier initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Bladder injuries in emergency/expedited laparoscopic surgery in the absence of previous surgery: a case series.

INTRODUCTION: The use of laparoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool is being used increasingly in the emergency setting with many of these procedures being performed by trainees. While the incidence of iatrogenic injuries is reported to be low, we present six emergency or expedited cases in which the bladder was perforated by the suprapubic trocar. CASES: Three cases were related to the management of appendicitis, two to negative diagnostic laparoscopies for lower abdominal pain and one to an ectopic pregnancy. Management of the bladder injuries varied from a urinary catheter alone to laparotomy with debridement of the abdominal wall due to sepsis and later reconstruction. Four of the six cases were performed by registrars. CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of bladder injury is low, its importance is highlighted by the large number of laparoscopies being performed. In addition to catheterisation of the patient, care must be taken with the insertion of low suprapubic ports and consideration should be made regarding alternative sites. Adequate laparoscopic supervision and training in port site planning is required for surgical trainees.

Laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: a prospective cost analysis.

AIM: Cost has been perceived to be a factor limiting the development of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. This study aimed to compare the costs of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. METHOD: Patients undergoing laparoscopic or open elective colorectal surgery were recruited into a prospective study to evaluate the healthcare costs of each operative procedure in a district general hospital in England. All healthcare resources used (operation, hospital and community) were recorded and converted to costs in British pounds, 2006-2007. Costs of laparoscopic and open surgery were compared. RESULTS: In all, 201 consecutive patients consented and were recruited (131 laparoscopic, 70 open). Operative costs were greater in the laparoscopic group (£2049 vs£1263, P < 0.001) due to the costs of disposable instruments, but the hospital costs were less (£1807 vs£3468, P < 0.001) due to longer lengths of stay in the open group. Community costs were similar in the two groups and had little impact on the overall costs, which were not significantly different (£3875 laparoscopic vs£4383 open, P = 0.308). In the subgroup of patients with a stoma, overall costs in the laparoscopic group are higher (not significant). CONCLUSION: The costs of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery are broadly equivalent. If there is an associated improvement in patient benefit, then laparoscopic colorectal surgery may be considered to be cost effective compared with open surgery.

Intra-operative oxygen delivery in infusion volume-optimized patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery programme: the effect of different analgesic modalities.

AIM: Patients undergoing major open surgery who have an indexed oxygen delivery (DO(2) I) > 600 ml/min/m(2) have been shown to have a lower incidence of morbidity and mortality compared with those whose DO(2) I is below this level. Laparoscopy and Trendelenburg positioning cause a reduction in DO(2) I. We aimed to quantify the effect of the type of analgesia on DO(2) I and to correlate the DO(2) I achieved with the incidence of anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. METHOD: Following ethical approval, patients were randomized to receive spinal anaesthesia (Group S), epidural analgesia (Group E) or intravenous morphine (Group P) followed by postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). In addition to standard monitoring, oesophageal Doppler monitoring of the stroke volume allowed directed intravenous fluid therapy. The mean DO(2) I was compared with the anastomotic leakage rate. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were recruited (Group S, 27; Group E, 23; Group P, 25). The mean (range) DO(2) I for all patients was 490 (230-750) ml/min/m(2) . The analgesic modality had no effect on DO(2) I. Of the 18 patients with a DO(2) I of < 400 ml/min/m(2) , four (22%) developed anastomotic leakage compared with one (%) of the 57 patients with a DO(2) I of > 400 ml/min/m(2) (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The analgesic modality used had no effect on the DO(2) I achieved. Anastomotic leakage was significantly higher in patients with a DO(2) I of < 400 ml/min/m(2) . A further study assessing the outcome after raising the DO(2) I with inotropes is required.

Optimizing patient outcomes in laparoscopic surgery.

There is increasing recognition that the entire peri-operative care delivered plays a vital role in determining patient's outcome. Optimisation of this care helps to prevent complications beyond immediate morbidity and mortality. Of the 20 factors described in Enhanced Recovery Programmes, some have a greater impact than others, with analgesia and fluid therapy being two of the main factors. 1 Analgesia - The main analgesic regimes used so far for laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been continuous thoracic epidural and patient controlled analgesia. There is a growing body of opinion that epidural analgesia may not be required for laparoscopic surgery. 2 Individualised goal directed therapy - It is now recognized that measuring flow rather than pressure within the cardiovascular system is more important. Fluid therapy impacts on the outcome by minimizing fluid shifts, optimizing stroke volume and restricting the salt load given whilst maintaining normovolaemia. Analgesia and fluid therapy, together with the remaining enhanced recovery criteria have led to the development of the trimodal approach.

Randomized clinical trial of epidural, spinal or patient-controlled analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia is considered fundamental in enhanced recovery protocols (ERPs). However, its value in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of different analgesic regimens on outcomes following laparoscopic colorectal surgery in fluid-optimized patients treated within an ERP. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients were randomized to receive epidural, spinal or patient-controlled (PCA) analgesia. The primary endpoints were time until medically fit for discharge and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints included return of bowel function, pain scores, and changes in pulmonary function and quality of life. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients completed the study. The median length of hospital stay was 3.7 days following epidural analgesia, significantly longer than that of 2.7 and 2.8 days for spinal analgesia and PCA respectively (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001). There was also a slower return of bowel function with epidural analgesia than with spinal analgesia and PCA. Epidural analgesia did not offer better preservation of pulmonary function or quality of life, although pain scores were higher in the PCA group in the early postoperative period. CONCLUSION: Many of the outcomes in the epidural analgesia group were significantly worse than those in the spinal analgesia and PCA groups, suggesting that either of these two modalities could replace epidural analgesia.

Laparoscopic excision of rectovaginal endometriosis: report of a prospective study and review of the literature.

AIM: The surgical management of rectovaginal endometriosis is challenging. We present our experience of the laparoscopic management of these difficult cases, together with a review of the current literature. METHOD: A prospective database was established for all patients undergoing surgery for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis (DIE) with rectovaginal and/or ureteric and bladder nodules. Outcomes analysed include operation performed, conversion and complication rates, and length of stay. These outcomes were compared with other laparoscopic rectal resections for alternative diagnoses recorded in the database and with outcomes seen in a literature review of studies on the surgical management of endometriosis. RESULTS: Between April 2004 and November 2007, 54 patients underwent laparoscopic excision of rectovaginal endometriosis by a combined colorectal and gynaecological surgical team. Out of the 54 patients, 37% of patients underwent a rectal wall shave, 13% had a disc excision of the rectal wall, and 50% underwent segmental resection. There was a conversion rate of 4%, median duration of stay was 3 days, with 2% requiring transfusion. Major complications occurred in 7% of patients, with 4% requiring reoperation. Patients undergoing segmental resection for endometriosis had a higher complication rate than those having surgery for other diagnoses. There was an increased incidence of anastomotic stenosis, with histopathological results suggesting that the disease process might have contributed to this occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection of rectovaginal endometriosis may be associated with a higher incidence of complications than resections performed for other diagnoses.

A systematic review of postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The use of epidural analgesia is considered fundamental in Enhanced Recovery Protocols. However its value in the perioperative management of laparoscopic colorectal surgical patients is unclear and analgesic regimens vary. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effects of various analgesic regimes on outcomes following laparoscopic colectomy. METHOD: A systematic review of studies assessing analgesic regimes following laparoscopic colorectal resection was performed. The primary outcome of interest was length of hospital stay whilst the secondary outcomes included pain, time to tolerate a normal diet, return of bowel function and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Eight studies were identified, five of which compared epidural vs patient controlled analgesia/intra-venous morphine. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of outcomes, except pain control which was superior in the epidural group. Spinal anaesthesia using intrathecal morphine in addition to local anaesthetic, and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents have also been shown to reduce postoperative pain. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of data assessing the benefits of postoperative analgesic regimes following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and none of the protocols were shown to be clearly superior. Further studies, including the assessment of spinal analgesia are required to determine the most appropriate analgesic regime following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

23-hour-stay laparoscopic colectomy.

PURPOSE: The combination of laparoscopic colorectal surgery together with an enhanced recovery program has resulted in short hospital stays. The purpose of this study was to assess the acceptability and safety of a 23-hour-stay protocol developed for patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection who met the inclusion criteria were invited to participate in the study. A specific preoperative, anesthetic, and postoperative protocol was used. Patients were discharged 23 hours after the start of surgery. Follow-up was by telephone contact on the evening of the day of discharge with outpatient follow-up at Day 3. RESULTS: Ten patients were included in the study. All patients were discharged within 23 hours from the commencement of surgery. There were no complications and no readmissions to the hospital. All patients were satisfied with the service; all ten would request to follow the same pathway again if required, and all would recommend it to other patients. CONCLUSION: A 23-hour-stay laparoscopic colectomy is possible with modification of the enhanced recovery program. Patients find it acceptable and it seems to be safe.

The uptake of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in Great Britain and Ireland: a questionnaire survey of consultant members of the ACPGBI.

OBJECTIVE: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended laparoscopic resection as an alternative to open surgery for patients with colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current uptake of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in Great Britain and Ireland. METHOD: A questionnaire was distributed to members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) regarding their current surgical practice. Results were analysed individually, by region, and nationwide. RESULTS: Information was received on 436 consultants (in 155 replies), of whom 233 (53%) perform laparoscopic colorectal procedures. During the previous year, 25% of colorectal resections were performed laparoscopically by the respondents. However, of those surgeons who were performing laparoscopic resections, only 30% performed more than half of all their resections laparoscopically. Right hemicolectomy, left-sided resections, and rectopexy were the most frequently performed laparoscopic resections. There was an even distribution throughout the country of consultants performing laparoscopic resections (regional IQR 48-60%). The main reason for consultants not performing laparoscopic procedures was a lack of training or funding. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is being performed by more than half (53%) of colorectal consultants nationwide, although only a quarter of all procedures are being undertaken laparoscopically.