Estudio observacional nacional sobre tratamiento quirúrgico de fístula anal: ¿tiene impacto en los resultados el tipo de hospital? / National observational study about the surgical treatment of anal fistula: does the kind of hospital modify the results?

Introducción: En algunos procedimientos quirúrgicos se ha demostrado que la centralización en hospitales de alto volumen mejora los resultados obtenidos. Sin embargo, este punto aún no ha sido estudiado en los pacientes que son intervenidos por una fístula anal (FA). Material y métodos: Se realizó un estudio multicéntrico retrospectivo en el que se incluyeron los pacientes operados de FA durante el año 2019 en 56 centros españoles. Se hizo un análisis uni y multivariante para analizar la relación entre el tamaño del lugar, el porcentaje de curación de la fístula y el desarrollo de incontinencia fecal (IF). Resultados: Se incluyeron en el estudio a 1.809 pacientes. La cirugía se llevó a cabo en un hospital pequeño en 127 usuarios (7,0%), uno mediano en 571 (31,6%) y uno grande en 1.111 (61,4%). Tras un seguimiento medio de 18,9 meses, 72,3% de los participantes (1.303) se consideraron curados y 132 (7,6%) presentaron IF. El porcentaje de los rehabilitados de la FA fue de 74,8, 75,8 y 70,3% (p = 0,045) en los centros pequeño, mediano y grande, respectivamente. En cuanto a la IF no se evidenciaron diferencias significativas según el tipo de lugar (4,8, 8,0 y 7,7%, respectivamente, p = 0,473). En el análisis multivariante no se observó relación entre el tamaño del hospital y la curación de la fístula o el desarrollo de IF. Conclusión: Los resultados de curación e IF posoperatoria en los pacientes sometidos a una cirugía por FA fueron independientes del volumen hospitalario.(AU)

Introduction: Performing the surgical procedure in a high-volume center has been seen to be important for some surgical procedures. However, this issue has not been studied for patients with an Anal Fistula (AF). Material and methods: A retrospective multicentric study was performed including the patients who underwent AF surgery in 2019 in 56 Spanish hospitals. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to analyse the relationship between hospital volume and AF cure and Fecal Incontinence (FI). Results: 1809 patients were include. Surgery was performed in a low, middle, and high-volume hospitals in 127 (7.0%), 571 (31.6%) y 1111 (61.4%) patients respectively. After a mean follow-up of 18.9 months 72.3% (1303) patients were cured and 132 (7.6%) developed FI. The percentage of patients cured was 74.8%, 75.8% and 70.3% (p=0.045) for low, middle, and high-volume hospitals. Regarding FI, no statistically significant differences were observed depending on the hospital volume (4.8%, 8.0% and 7.7% respectively, p=0.473). Multivariate analysis didńt observe a relationship between AF cure and FI. Conclusion: Cure and FI in patients who underwent AF surgery were independent from hospital volume.(AU)

National observational study about the surgical treatment of anal fistula: Does the kind of hospital modify the results?

INTRODUCTION: Performing the surgical procedure in a high-volume center has been seen to be important for some surgical procedures. However, this issue has not been studied for patients with an anal fistula (AF). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective multicentric study was performed including the patients who underwent AF surgery in 2019 in 56 Spanish hospitals. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to analyse the relationship between hospital volume and AF cure and fecal incontinence (FI). RESULTS: 1809 patients were include. Surgery was performed in a low, middle, and high-volume hospitals in 127 (7.0%), 571 (31.6%) y 1111 (61.4%) patients respectively. After a mean follow-up of 18.9 months 72.3% (1303) patients were cured and 132 (7.6%) developed FI. The percentage of patients cured was 74.8%, 75.8% and 70.3% (p = 0.045) for low, middle, and high-volume hospitals. Regarding FI, no statistically significant differences were observed depending on the hospital volume (4.8%, 8.0% and 7.7% respectively, p = 0.473). Multivariate analysis didnt observe a relationship between AF cure and FI. CONCLUSION: Cure and FI in patients who underwent AF surgery were independent from hospital volume.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Abdominal CT for Locally Advanced Colon Tumors: Can We Really Entrust Certain Decisions to the Reliability of CT?

Many different options of neoadjuvant treatments for advanced colon cancer are emerging. An accurate preoperative staging is crucial to select the most appropriate treatment option. A retrospective study was carried out on a national series of operated patients with T4 tumors. Considering the anatomo-pathological analysis of the surgical specimen as the gold standard, a diagnostic accuracy study was carried out on the variables T and N staging and the presence of peritoneal metastases (M1c). The parameters calculated were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios, as well as the overall accuracy. A total of 50 centers participated in the study in which 1950 patients were analyzed. The sensitivity of CT for correct staging of T4 colon tumors was 57%. Regarding N staging, the overall accuracy was 63%, with a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 62%; however, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.7 and 0.58, respectively. For the diagnosis of peritoneal metastases, the accuracy was 94.8%, with a sensitivity of 40% and specificity of 98%; in the case of peritoneal metastases, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 24.4 and 0.61, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of CT in the setting of advanced colon cancer still has some shortcomings for accurate diagnosis of stage T4, correct classification of lymph nodes, and preoperative detection of peritoneal metastases.

Social media and surgery.

During the last years, social media use has increased in the surgical community. Social Media in surgery has created new challenges such as surgical education, patient privacy, professionalism, and the difference between the private and public virtual life. Facebook, YouTube or WebSurg are some of the main social media in the surgical field. Nevertheless, Twitter is the most common and relevant Media for surgeons. Some Twitter Hashtag such as #SoMe4Surgery or #colorectalsurgery went viral and had a significant influence in the surgical community. Some of the uses of social media in surgery are education of younger surgeons, surgical research, and relationship between surgeons. However, not everything in social media is positive. Some negative issues of social media use in surgery are, for example, lack of privacy, intellectual property conflicts, conflicts of interest and mistakes in the published information. In this article, the main social media, the use of these media, the advantages and the possible risks and negative issues of social media are discussed.

Lessons Learned in Elective Surgeries After 6 Pandemic Waves of SARS-CoV-2. A Single European Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: The reported high surgical morbidity and mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 prompted preoperative screening and modification of surgical protocols. Although vaccination and treatment of COVID-19 have resulted in lower hospitalization rates and infection severity, publications on postoperative results have not been updated. The aim of the study was to analyze the outcomes of patients undergoing surgery in two periods with high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, before and after vaccination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing surgery in two periods: March-June 2020 (Group2020) and December 2021-February 2022 (Group2022) (after massive vaccination). RESULTS: In total, 618 patients who underwent surgery were included in the analysis (Group2020: 343 vs. Group2022: 275). Significantly more oncological procedures were performed in Group2020, and there were no differences in postoperative complications. Nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in 4 patients in Group2020 and 1 patient in Group2022. In Group 2022, 70 patients (25.4%) had COVID-19 prior to surgery, and 68 (97.1%) were vaccinated. Comparative analysis between patients with past COVID-19 and those without showed no difference in postoperative morbidity and mortality. According to the time elapsed between SARS-CoV-2 infection and surgery (≤ 7 or > 7 weeks), comparative analysis showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: The establishment of preoperative screening protocols for SARS-CoV-2 infection results in a low incidence of nosocomial infection and optimal postoperative outcomes. Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated patients was not associated with increased postoperative complications, even in shorter periods after infection. In surgical patients, individualized preoperative evaluation after SARS-CoV-2 infection may be more important than strict time limitation.

Workshop for Basic Gynaecological Examinations: Improving Medical Student Learning through Clinical Simulation.

INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to evaluate whether the Workshop on Basic Principles for Clinical Gynaecological Exploration, offered to medical students, improves theoretical-practical knowledge, safety, confidence, global satisfaction and the achievement of the proposed objectives in the area of gynaecological clinical examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental pre-post-learning study carried out at the Gynaecology and Obstetrics department of Gregorio Marañón Hospital in Madrid (Spain). The volunteer participants were 4th-year students earning a degree in Medicine during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 academic years. The study period was divided into the following stages: pre-workshop, intra-workshop and 2 weeks post-workshop. In the pre-workshop stage, students completed a brief online course to prepare for the workshop. The effectiveness of the workshop was evaluated through multiple-choice tests and self-administered questionnaires to assess self-assurance, self-confidence, self-satisfaction and the achievement of the objectives. RESULTS: Of the 277 students invited in both academic years, 256 attended the workshop (92.4%), with a total participation in the different stages of the study greater than 70%. A total of 82.5% of the students in the 2020-2021 academic year and 80.6% of students in the 2021-2022 academic year did not have any type of experience performing gynaecological clinical examinations. Between the pre-workshop and 2 weeks post-workshop stages, there was significant improvement in theoretical-practical knowledge (improvement mean = 1.38 and 1.21 in 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 academic years, respectively). The security and confidence of the students prior to the workshop were low (average scores less than 5 points) in both academic years. However, post-workshop scores for satisfaction and the achievement of objectives were high in the two academic years; all the values approached or exceeded 8 points. CONCLUSIONS: Our students, after outstanding participation, evaluated the BPCGE, and improved their theoretical and practical knowledge, as well as their skills in a gynaecological clinical examination. Moreover, in their view, after the workshop, they felt very satisfied, far outreaching the proposed aims. In addition, excellent results were maintained over time, year after year.

"Long-term oncologic outcomes and risk factors for distant recurrence after pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. A nationwide, multicentre study".

BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) after multimodal treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is used as surrogate marker of success as it is assumed to correlate with improved oncologic outcome. However, long-term oncologic data are scarce. METHODS: This retrospective, multicentre study updated the oncologic follow-up of prospectively collected data from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project database. pCR was described as no evidence of tumour cells in the specimen. Endpoints were distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). Multivariate regression analyses were run to identify factors associated with survival. RESULTS: Overall, 32 different hospitals were involved, providing data on 815 patients with pCR. At a median follow-up of 73.4 (IQR 57.7-99.5) months, distant metastases occurred in 6.4% of patients. Abdominoperineal excision (APE) (HR 2.2, 95%CI 1.2-4.1, p = 0.008) and elevated CEA levels (HR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.7, p = 0.049) were independent risk factors for distant recurrence. Age (years) (HR 1.1; 95%-CI 1.05-41.09; p < 0.001) and ASA III-IV (HR = 2.0; 95%-CI 1.4-2.9; p < 0.001), were the only factors associated with OS. The estimated 12, 36 and 60-months DMFS rates were 96.9%, 91.3%, and 86.8%. The estimated 12, 36 and 60-months OS rates were 99.1%, 94.9% and 89.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of metachronous distant metastases is low after pCR, with high rates of both DMFS and OS. The oncologic prognosis in LARC patients that achieve pCR after neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy is excellent in the long term.

“Optimal recovery” after colon cancer surgery in the elderly, a comparative cohort study: Conventional care vs. enhanced recovery vs. prehabilitation / “Recuperación óptima” tras cirugía por cáncer de colon en el paciente añoso. Resultados de un estudio de cohorte: Cuidados convencionales, Recuperación intensificada y programa de prehabilitación

Background: Colon cancer in elderly patients is an increasing problem due to its prevalence and progressive aging population. Prehabilitation has experienced a great grown in this field. Whether it is the best standard of care for these patients has not been elucidated yet. Methods: A retrospective comparative cohort study of three different standards of care for elderly colon cancer patients (>65 years) was conducted. A four-weeks trimodal prehabilitation program (PP), enhanced recovery program (ERP) and conventional care (CC) were compared. Global complications, major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), reinterventions, mortality, readmission and length of stay were measured. Optimal recovery, defined as postoperative course without major complications, no mortality, hospital discharge before the fifth postoperative day and without readmission, was the primary outcome measure. The influence of standard of care in optimal recovery and postoperative outcomes was assessed with univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Results: A total of 153 patients were included, 51 in each group. Mean age was 77.9 years. ASA Score distribution was different between groups (ASA III-IV: CC 56.9%, ERP 25.5%, PP 58.9%; p = 0.014). Optimal recovery rate was 55.6% (PP 54.9%, ERP 66.7%, CC 45.1%; p = 0.09). No differences were found in major complications (p = 0.2) nor reinterventions (p = 0.7). Uneventful recovery favors ERP and PP groups (p = 0.046 and p = 0.049 respectively). Conclusions: PP and ERP are safe and effective for older colon cancer patients. Fewer overall complications and readmissions happened in ERP and PP patients. Major complications were independent of the standard of care used. (AU)

Introducción: El cáncer de colon (CC) en pacientes de edad avanzada es un problema creciente por su prevalencia y envejecimiento progresivo de la población. La prehabilitación ha experimentado un gran crecimiento en este campo sin haberse dilucidado si es el mejor estándar de cuidados para estos pacientes. Métodos: Estudio retrospectivo comparativo de cohortes de tres estándares diferentes de cuidados para pacientes mayores de 65 años con CC. Se compararon un programa de prehabilitación (PP) trimodal de cuatro semanas, uno de recuperación intensificada (RI) y cuidados convencionales (CC). Se midieron complicaciones globales, complicaciones mayores (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), reintervenciones, mortalidad, reingresos y estancia hospitalaria. La recuperación óptima fue la medida de resultado primaria. La influencia del estándar de atención en la recuperación óptima y los resultados postoperatorios se evaluó con modelos de regresión logística univariante y multivariante. Resultados: Se incluyeron 153 pacientes, 51 por grupo. La edad media fue 77,9 años. La distribución del ASA fue diferente entre los grupos (ASA III–IV: CC 56,9%, RI 25,5%, PP 58,9%; p = 0,014). La tasa de recuperación óptima fue del 55,6% (PP 54,9%, RI 66,7%, CC 45,1%; p = 0,09). No se encontraron diferencias en complicaciones mayores (p = 0,2) ni reintervenciones (p = 0,7). La recuperación sin incidencias favorece a los grupos RI y PP (p = 0,046 y p = 0,049 respectivamente). Conclusiones: PP y RI son seguros y efectivos para pacientes mayores con CC. Las complicaciones generales y reingresos en pacientes con RI y PP fueron menores. Las complicaciones mayores resultaron independientes del estándar de cuidados utilizado. (AU)

Stent as bridge to surgery decreases postoperative complications without worsening oncological outcomes: retrospective unicentric cohort study and stent placement protocol.

BACKGROUND: Even if the use of stent as bridge to surgery (BTS) for obstructive colon cancer was described long ago, there is still much controversy on their use. Patient recovery before surgery and colonic desobstruction are just some of the reasons to defend this management that can be found in several available articles. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study, including patients with obstructive colon cancer treated between 2010 and 2020. The primary aim of this study is to compare medium-term oncological outcomes (overall survival, disease-free survival) between stent as BTS and ES groups. The secondary aims are to compare perioperative results (in terms of approach, morbidity and mortality, and rate of anastomosis/stomas) between both groups and, within the BTS group, analyze whether there are any factors that may influence oncological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 251 patients were included. Patients belonging to the BTS cohort presented a higher rate of laparoscopic approach, required less intensive care management, less reintervention, and less permanent stoma rate, when comparing with patients who underwent urgent surgery (US). There were not significant differences in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival between the two groups. Lymphovascular invasion negatively affected oncological results but was not related with stent placement. CONCLUSION: The stent as a bridge to surgery is a good alternative to urgent surgery, which leads to a decrease in postoperative morbidity and mortality without significantly worsening oncological outcomes.

Is ICG essential in all colorectal surgery? A 3-year experience in a single center: a cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Indocyanine green (ICG) was introduced as a promising diagnostic tool to provide real-time assessment of intestinal vascularization. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether ICG could reduce the rate of postoperative AL. The objective of this study is to assess its usefulness and to determine in which patients is most useful and would benefit the most from the use of ICG for intraoperative assessment of colon perfusion. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a single center, including all patients who underwent colorectal surgery with intestinal anastomosis between January 2017 and December 2020. The results of patients in whom ICG was used prior to bowel transection were compared with the results of the patients in whom this technique was not used. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to compare groups with and without ICG. RESULTS: A total of 785 patients who underwent colorectal surgery were included. The operations performed were right colectomies (35.0%), left colectomies (48.3%), and rectal resections (16.7%). ICG was used in 280 patients. The mean time since the infusion of ICG until detection of fluorescence in the colon wall was 26.9 ± 1.2 s. The section line was modified in 4 cases (1.4%) after ICG due to a lack of perfusion in the chosen section line. Globally, a non-statistically significant increase in anastomotic leak rate was observed in the group without ICG (9.3% vs. 7.5%; p = 0.38). The result of the PSM was a coefficient of 0.026 (CI - 0.014 to 0.065, p = 0.207). CONCLUSIONS: ICG is a safe and useful tool to assess the perfusion of the colon prior to performing the anastomosis in colorectal surgery. However, in our experience, it did not significantly lower the anastomotic leakage rate.

Has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the clinical picture and tumour stage at the time of presentation of patients with colorectal cancer? A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the management of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnosis delay, symptoms, and stage of patients with CRC during the pandemic with a control cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients referred to the CRC multidisciplinary team between September 2019 and January 2020 (cohort 1, control group) were compared with those who presented between September 2020 and March 2021 (cohort 2, pandemic group). RESULTS: 389 patients were included, 169 in cohort 1 and 220 in cohort 2. No differences were observed in the main characteristics of the patients. CRC screening and anaemia were the most common causes leading to the diagnosis of the tumour in cohort 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.001). Diagnostic and therapeutic delay was longer in cohort 2 [6.4 (95% CI 5.8-6.9) vs. 4.8 (95% CI 4.3-5.3) months, p<0.001]. More patients required non-elective treatment in the pandemic cohort (15.5% vs. 9.5%, p=0.080). The tumour stage was more advanced in patients in cohort 2 [positive nodes in 52.3% vs. 36.7% (p=0.002), and metastatic disease in 23.6% vs. 16.6% (p=0.087)]. CONCLUSION: CRC patients in the pandemic cohort had a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay and less patients were diagnosed because of CRC screening. In addition, patients with CRC during the pandemic needed non-elective treatment more frequently than patients in the control cohort, and their tumour stage tended to be more advanced.

Evolución de la cirugía urgente en un servicio de cirugía general durante la pandemia de COVID-19 y comparación con una cohorte histórica.

BACKGROUND: Acute care surgery decreased during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To study the evolution of acute care surgery and its relationship with the pandemic severity. METHOD: Retrospective cohort study which compared patients who underwent acute care surgery during the pandemic to a control group. RESULTS: A total of 660 patients were included (253 in the control group, 67 in the first-wave, 193 in the valley, and 147 in the second wave). The median daily number of acute care surgery procedures was 2 during the control period. This activity decreased during the first wave (1/day), increased during the valley (2/day), and didn't change in the second wave (2/day). Serious complications were more common during the first wave (22.4%). A negative linear correlation was found between the daily number of acute care surgery procedures, number of patients being admitted to the hospital each day and daily number of patients dying because of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care surgery was reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, increased during the valley, and returned to the pre-pandemic level during the second wave. Thus, acute care surgery was related to pandemic severity, with fewer surgeries being performed when the pandemic was more severe.

ANTECEDENTES: La cirugía urgente disminuyó durante la primera ola de la pandemia de COVID-19. OBJETIVO: Estudiar la evolución de la cirugía urgente y su relación con la gravedad de la pandemia. MÉTODO: Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo que compara los pacientes intervenidos de forma urgente durante la pandemia con un grupo control. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 660 pacientes (253 en el grupo control, 67 en primera ola de la pandemia, 193 en el periodo valle y 147 en la segunda ola). La mediana del número de cirugías urgentes fue de 2 (intervalo intercuartílico: 1-3) durante el periodo control, disminuyó durante la primera ola (1/día), aumentó durante el valle (2/día) y no se modificó en la segunda ola (2/día). Las complicaciones mayores fueron más comunes durante la primera ola (22.4%). Se encontró una correlación lineal negativa entre el número de procedimientos quirúrgicos urgentes diarios y el número de ingresos hospitalarios y fallecimientos diarios por COVID-19. CONCLUSIONES: La cirugía urgente se redujo durante la primera ola, aumentó durante el periodo valle y volvió a niveles prepandémicos durante la segunda ola. Además, la cirugía urgente se relaciona con la gravedad de la pandemia, ya que se realizaron menos cirugías urgentes durante el periodo de mayor gravedad de la pandemia.

Has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the clinical picture and tumour stage at the time of presentation of patients with colorectal cancer? A retrospective cohort study / ¿Ha cambiado la pandemia de COVID-19 la presentación clínica y el estadio tumoral en el momento del diagnóstico en los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal? Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes

Introduction: Treatment of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the management of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnosis delay, symptoms, and stage of patients with CRC during the pandemic with a control cohort.Material and methods: Patients referred to the CRC multidisciplinary team between September 2019 and January 2020 (cohort 1, control group) were compared with those who presented between September 2020 and March 2021 (cohort 2, pandemic group).Results: 389 patients were included, 169 in cohort 1 and 220 in cohort 2. No differences were observed in the main characteristics of the patients. CRC screening and anaemia were the most common causes leading to the diagnosis of the tumour in cohort 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.001). Diagnostic and therapeutic delay was longer in cohort 2 [6.4 (95% CI 5.8–6.9) vs. 4.8 (95% CI 4.3–5.3) months, p<0.001]. More patients required non-elective treatment in the pandemic cohort (15.5% vs. 9.5%, p=0.080). The tumour stage was more advanced in patients in cohort 2 [positive nodes in 52.3% vs. 36.7% (p=0.002), and metastatic disease in 23.6% vs. 16.6% (p=0.087)].Conclusion: CRC patients in the pandemic cohort had a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay and less patients were diagnosed because of CRC screening. In addition, patients with CRC during the pandemic needed non-elective treatment more frequently than patients in the control cohort, and their tumour stage tended to be more advanced. (AU)

Introducción: La pandemia de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 ha afectado al manejo de los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal (CCR). El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar el retraso diagnóstico, la sintomatología y el estadio de los pacientes con CCR durante la pandemia con una cohorte histórica. Material y métodos: Los pacientes valorados en el comité multidisciplinar de CCR entre septiembre de 2019 y enero de 2020 (cohorte 1) se compararon con los presentados entre septiembre de 2020 y marzo de 2021 (cohorte 2). Resultados: Trescientos ochenta y nueve pacientes fueron incluidos, 169 en la cohorte 1 y 220 en la cohorte 2. El cribado del CCR y la anemia fueron las causas que llevaron al diagnóstico en más pacientes en la cohorte 1 y 2, respectivamente (p<0,001). El retraso diagnóstico y terapéutico fue mayor en la cohorte 2 (6,4 [IC 95%: 5,8-6,9] vs. 4,8 [IC 95%: 4,3-5,3] meses, p<0,001). En la cohorte pandémica hubo más pacientes que requirieron tratamiento urgente (15,5% vs. 9,5%, p=0,080). El estadio tumoral fue más avanzado en la cohorte 2 (ganglios positivos en el 52,3% vs. 36,7% [p=0,002] y enfermedad metastásica en el 23,6% vs. 16,6% [p=0,087]). Conclusión: Los pacientes con CCR en la cohorte pandémica tenían un retraso diagnóstico y terapéutico más largo, y menos pacientes fueron diagnosticados en el cribado de CCR. Además, los pacientes con CCR durante la pandemia necesitaron tratamiento urgente con más frecuencia y su estadio tumoral fue más avanzado. (AU)

Has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the clinical picture and tumour stage at the time of presentation of patients with colorectal cancer? A retrospective cohort study.

Introduction: Treatment of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the management of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnosis delay, symptoms, and stage of patients with CRC during the pandemic with a control cohort. Material and methods: Patients referred to the CRC multidisciplinary team between September 2019 and January 2020 (cohort 1, control group) were compared with those who presented between September 2020 and March 2021 (cohort 2, pandemic group). Results: 389 patients were included, 169 in cohort 1 and 220 in cohort 2. No differences were observed in the main characteristics of the patients. CRC screening and anaemia were the most common causes leading to the diagnosis of the tumour in cohort 1 and 2, respectively (p < 0.001). Diagnostic and therapeutic delay was longer in cohort 2 [6.4 (95% CI 5.8-6.9) vs. 4.8 (95% CI 4.3-5.3) months, p < 0.001]. More patients required non-elective treatment in the pandemic cohort (15.5% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.080). The tumour stage was more advanced in patients in cohort 2 [positive nodes in 52.3% vs. 36.7% (p = 0.002), and metastatic disease in 23.6% vs. 16.6% (p = 0.087)]. Conclusion: CRC patients in the pandemic cohort had a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay and less patients were diagnosed because of CRC screening. In addition, patients with CRC during the pandemic needed non-elective treatment more frequently than patients in the control cohort, and their tumour stage tended to be more advanced.

Introducción: La pandemia de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 ha afectado al manejo de los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal (CCR). El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar el retraso diagnóstico, la sintomatología y el estadio de los pacientes con CCR durante la pandemia con una cohorte histórica. Material y métodos: Los pacientes valorados en el comité multidisciplinar de CCR entre septiembre de 2019 y enero de 2020 (cohorte 1) se compararon con los presentados entre septiembre de 2020 y marzo de 2021 (cohorte 2). Resultados: Trescientos ochenta y nueve pacientes fueron incluidos, 169 en la cohorte 1 y 220 en la cohorte 2. El cribado del CCR y la anemia fueron las causas que llevaron al diagnóstico en más pacientes en la cohorte 1 y 2, respectivamente (p < 0,001). El retraso diagnóstico y terapéutico fue mayor en la cohorte 2 (6,4 [IC 95%: 5,8-6,9] vs. 4,8 [IC 95%: 4,3-5,3] meses, p < 0,001). En la cohorte pandémica hubo más pacientes que requirieron tratamiento urgente (15,5% vs. 9,5%, p = 0,080). El estadio tumoral fue más avanzado en la cohorte 2 (ganglios positivos en el 52,3% vs. 36,7% [p = 0,002] y enfermedad metastásica en el 23,6% vs. 16,6% [p = 0,087]). Conclusión: Los pacientes con CCR en la cohorte pandémica tenían un retraso diagnóstico y terapéutico más largo, y menos pacientes fueron diagnosticados en el cribado de CCR. Además, los pacientes con CCR durante la pandemia necesitaron tratamiento urgente con más frecuencia y su estadio tumoral fue más avanzado.

"Optimal recovery" after colon cancer surgery in the elderly, a comparative cohort study: Conventional care vs. enhanced recovery vs. prehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer in elderly patients is an increasing problem due to its prevalence and progressive aging population. Prehabilitation has experienced a great grown in this field. Whether it is the best standard of care for these patients has not been elucidated yet. METHODS: A retrospective comparative cohort study of three different standards of care for elderly colon cancer patients (>65 years) was conducted. A four-weeks trimodal prehabilitation program (PP), enhanced recovery program (ERP) and conventional care (CC) were compared. Global complications, major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), reinterventions, mortality, readmission and length of stay were measured. Optimal recovery, defined as postoperative course without major complications, no mortality, hospital discharge before the fifth postoperative day and without readmission, was the primary outcome measure. The influence of standard of care in optimal recovery and postoperative outcomes was assessed with univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were included, 51 in each group. Mean age was 77.9 years. ASA Score distribution was different between groups (ASA III-IV: CC 56.9%, ERP 25.5%, PP 58.9%; p = 0.014). Optimal recovery rate was 55.6% (PP 54.9%, ERP 66.7%, CC 45.1%; p = 0.09). No differences were found in major complications (p = 0.2) nor reinterventions (p = 0.7). Uneventful recovery favors ERP and PP groups (p = 0.046 and p = 0.049 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PP and ERP are safe and effective for older colon cancer patients. Fewer overall complications and readmissions happened in ERP and PP patients. Major complications were independent of the standard of care used.

Cystic fibrosis with liver involvement in adults has a benign course. Results from a tertiary referral center cohort.

BACKGROUND: Cystic Fibrosis Liver Disease is a poorly understood entity, especially in adults, in terms of its real prevalence, natural history and diagnostic criteria, despite being the most important extrapulmonary cause of mortality. The aim was to evaluate the prevalence, characteristics and potential risk factors of liver disease in adults with cystic fibrosis, according to two diagnostic criteria accepted in the scientific literature. METHODS: Patients were recruited in a tertiary referral hospital, and laboratory, ultrasound, non-invasive liver fibrosis tests (AST to Platelet Ratio Index; Fibrosis-4 Index) and transient elastography (Fibroscan) were performed. The proportion of patients with liver disease according to the Debray and Koh criteria were evaluated. RESULTS: 95 patients were included, 48 (50.5%) females, with a mean age of 30.4 (28.6-32.2) years. According to the Debray criteria, 6 (6.3%) patients presented liver disease. According to the Koh criteria, prevalence increased up to 8.4%, being statistically different from the 25% value described in other published series (p = 0.005). Seven (7.5%) presented ultrasonographic chronic liver disease. Eleven (13%) presented liver fibrosis according to the APRI score; 95 (100%) had a normal FIB-4 value. Mean liver stiffness value was 4.4 (4.1-4.7) kPa. FEV1 (OR=0.16, p 0.05), meconium ileus (OR=14.16, p 0.002), platelets (Pearson coefficient -0.25, p 0.05) and younger age (Pearson coefficient -0.19, p 0.05) were risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence and severity of liver disease in adult cystic fibrosis patients were lower than expected. Meconium ileus, platelets, age and respiratory function were confirmed as risk factors associated to cystic fibrosis liver disease.

Cystic fibrosis with liver involvement in adults has a benign course. Results from a tertiary referral center cohort

Background: Cystic Fibrosis Liver Disease is a poorly understood entity, especially in adults, in terms of its real prevalence, natural history and diagnostic criteria, despite being the most important extrapulmonary cause of mortality. The aim was to evaluate the prevalence, characteristics and potential risk factors of liver disease in adults with cystic fibrosis, according to two diagnostic criteria accepted in the scientific literature. Methods: Patients were recruited in a tertiary referral hospital, and laboratory, ultrasound, non-invasive liver fibrosis tests (AST to Platelet Ratio Index; Fibrosis-4 Index) and transient elastography (Fibroscan) were performed. The proportion of patients with liver disease according to the Debray and Koh criteria were evaluated. Results: 95 patients were included, 48 (50.5%) females, with a mean age of 30.4 (28.6-32.2) years. According to the Debray criteria, 6 (6.3%) patients presented liver disease. According to the Koh criteria, prevalence increased up to 8.4%, being statistically different from the 25% value described in other published series (p = 0.005). Seven (7.5%) presented ultrasonographic chronic liver disease. Eleven (13%) presented liver fibrosis according to the APRI score; 95 (100%) had a normal FIB-4 value. Mean liver stiffness value was 4.4 (4.1-4.7) kPa. FEV1 (OR=0.16, p 0.05), meconium ileus (OR=14.16, p 0.002), platelets (Pearson coefficient -0.25, p 0.05) and younger age (Pearson coefficient -0.19, p 0.05) were risk factors. Conclusions: Prevalence and severity of liver disease in adult cystic fibrosis patients were lower than expected. Meconium ileus, platelets, age and respiratory function were confirmed as risk factors associated to cystic fibrosis liver disease (AU)

Magnetic device in reduced port and single port bariatric surgery: First 170 cases experience / Dispositivo magnético en cirugía bariátrica por puerto reducidos y puerto único: Primera experiencia de 170 casos

Introduction: Magnetic devices have been successfully used in bariatric surgery. To the date, the only reported use of the magnet was for liver retraction. Our purpose in this study is to demonstrate the safety and viability of using a magnetic system in different steps in single port and reduced port bariatric surgery.MethodsProspective and observational study was performed. Patients older than 18 years, undergoing primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or revisional surgery by single-port or reduced-port approach between July 2020 and June 2021 were included.ResultsA total of 170 patients (mean BMI, 41.47kg/m2; mean age 36.92 yrs) completed laparoscopic bariatric surgery (54 single-port sleeve gastrectomy [SPSG], 16 reduced-port SG, 83 RYGB, 4 OAGB and 14 revision surgeries), using the magnetic surgical system in different steps of the surgery. Mean surgical time for SPSG and reduced-port SG was 65.52min and 59.36min respectively; and for RYGB 74.19min, OAGB 70.98min, and revisional surgeries 88.38min. As for intraoperative complications, 2.94% mild liver laceration without significant bleeding was reported. There were no 30-day mortalities and no major complications.ConclusionMagnetic assistance in single-port and reduced-port bariatric surgery is an innovative technique. With this prospective study we attempt to demonstrate the safety profile and potential uses that may improve the implementation of new surgical approaches in bariatric surgery (AU)

Introducción: Los dispositivos magnéticos se han usado satisfactoriamente en cirugía bariátrica. Hasta la fecha, el único uso reportado de los imanes ha sido para la retracción hepática. Nuestro propósito con este estudio es demostrar la seguridad y viabilidad de usar dispositivos magnéticos en diferentes pasos de la cirugía bariátrica por puerto único y por puerto reducido.MétodosSe realizó un estudio prospectivo y observacional. Se incluyeron pacientes mayores de 18 años que fueron sometidos a cirugía laparoscópica primaria de manga gástrica (MG), bypass gástrico de una sola anastomosis (BAGUA), bypass gástrico en Y de Roux (BGYR) y cirugía de revisión por abordaje de puerto único o puerto reducido entre los meses de julio de 2020 y junio de 2021.ResultadosA un total de 170 pacientes (media IMC, 41,47 kg/m2; media edad 36,92 años) se les realizó una cirugía bariátrica laparoscópica (54 MG por puerto único, 16 MG por puerto reducido, 4 BAGUA y 14 cirugías de revisión) utilizando el dispositivo magnético en diferentes pasos del proceso quirúrgico. El tiempo promedio de la MG por puerto único y MG por puerto reducido fueron 65,52 min y 59,36 min, respectivamente; mientras que para BGYR 74,19 min, BAGUA 70,98 min y cirugías de revisión 88,38 min. Entre las complicaciones intraoperatorias se reportaron 2,94% de laceraciones hepáticas leves sin sangrado significante. No hubo ningún porcentaje de mortalidad ni de complicaciones mayores a los 30 días.ConclusionesLa asistencia magnética en cirugía bariátrica por puerto único y por puerto reducido es una técnica innovadora. Con este estudio prospectivo intentamos demostrar el perfil de seguridad y los usos potenciales que pueden mejorar la implementación de nuevos abordajes quirúrgicos en cirugía bariátrica (AU)

Magnetic device in reduced port and single port bariatric surgery: First 170 cases experience.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic devices have been successfully used in bariatric surgery. To the date, the only reported use of the magnet was for liver retraction. Our purpose in this study is to demonstrate the safety and viability of using a magnetic system in different steps in single port and reduced port bariatric surgery. METHODS: Prospective and observational study was performed. Patients older than 18 years, undergoing primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or revisional surgery by single-port or reduced-port approach between July 2020 and June 2021 were included. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients (mean BMI, 41.47kg/m2; mean age 36.92 yrs) completed laparoscopic bariatric surgery (54 single-port sleeve gastrectomy [SPSG], 16 reduced-port SG, 83 RYGB, 4 OAGB and 14 revision surgeries), using the magnetic surgical system in different steps of the surgery. Mean surgical time for SPSG and reduced-port SG was 65.52min and 59.36min respectively; and for RYGB 74.19min, OAGB 70.98min, and revisional surgeries 88.38min. As for intraoperative complications, 2.94% mild liver laceration without significant bleeding was reported. There were no 30-day mortalities and no major complications. CONCLUSION: Magnetic assistance in single-port and reduced-port bariatric surgery is an innovative technique. With this prospective study we attempt to demonstrate the safety profile and potential uses that may improve the implementation of new surgical approaches in bariatric surgery.

Right laparoscopic pudendal release + neurostimulator prosthesis (LION procedure) in pudendal neuralgia.

AIM: Pudendal neuralgia is a highly disabling entity with complex diagnostic and controversial treatment results. Surgical neurolysis has been shown to be the most effective treatment. Sacral root neurostimulation or posterior tibial nerve stimulation are used to rescue patients who either have not responded to surgery or have worsened after an initial improvement. METHODS: Given the excellent visualization of the pudendal nerve during laparoscopic pudendal release, we propose to combine this procedure with neurostimulation, taking advantage of the possibility of in situ placement of the electrode. The abdominal cavity is accessed laparoscopically through four ports, and after identifying and releasing the pudendal nerve a neurostimulation electrode is placed next to the nerve and is connected to a generator located in a subcutaneous pocket. RESULTS: This procedure has been performed in one patient with a satisfactory result. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pudendal release with neurostimulator prosthesis is an experimental technique that can be promising for the treatment of pudendal neuralgia.