SAGES/AHPBA guidelines for the use of minimally invasive surgery for the surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

BACKGROUND: Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) occur in roughly half of patients with colorectal cancer. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become an increasingly acceptable and utilized technique for resection in these patients, but there is a lack of specific guidelines on the use of MIS hepatectomy in this setting. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the decision between MIS and open techniques for the resection of CRLM. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted for two key questions (KQ) regarding the use of MIS versus open surgery for the resection of isolated liver metastases from colon and rectal cancer. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Additionally, the panel developed recommendations for future research. RESULTS: The panel addressed two KQs, which pertained to staged or simultaneous resection of resectable colon or rectal metastases. The panel made conditional recommendations for the use of MIS hepatectomy for both staged and simultaneous resection when deemed safe, feasible, and oncologically effective by the surgeon based on the individual patient characteristics. These recommendations were based on low and very low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: These evidence-based recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of CRLM and highlight the importance of individual considerations of each case. Pursuing the identified research needs may help further refine the evidence and improve future versions of guidelines for the use of MIS techniques in the treatment of CRLM.

Timing of cholecystectomy following cholecystostomy tube placement for acute cholecystitis: a retrospective study aiming to identify the optimal timing between a percutaneous cholecystostomy and cholecystectomy to reduce the number of poor surgical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to identify the optimal timing between a percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) and cholecystectomy to reduce the number of poor surgical outcomes. BACKGROUND: Biliary disease is a common surgical disease and laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred strategy for the management of acute cholecystitis. However, in high-risk surgical patients, a PC tube may be placed instead. In the 2018 Tokyo Guidelines, the optimal timing of cholecystectomy following a PC has been identified as an important future research question. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that focuses on identifying the ideal timing of cholecystectomy after PC tube placement to minimize complications. Poor surgical outcomes were measured as 90-day reoperations, 30-day readmissions, 30-day emergency department (ED) visits, length of stay (LOS), and discharge destination. Patients were selected from the New York SPARCS database from 2005 to September 30, 2015. RESULTS: 1213 records that consisted of both PC and cholecystectomy were collected. No significant differences in 30-day readmissions, 90-day reoperations, and 30-day ED visits in relation to timing between PC and cholecystectomy were found. Additionally, the decision to replace or not replace dislodged PC tubes was not associated with 90-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day ED visit, LOS, or discharge destination. However, discharge destination and LOS were significantly different between early intervention of 3 days or less between PC and cholecystectomy and late intervention of more than 14 days with late intervention being associated with shorter LOS and more home discharges. CONCLUSION: Performing a cholecystectomy more than 14 days after a PC is associated with better surgical outcomes.

Minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy for the resection of colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000-September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD). RESULTS: From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70-1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84-1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.

Does the adoption of an emergency general surgery service model influence volume of cholecystectomies at a tertiary care center.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate of cholecystectomy before and after adoption of an emergency general surgery (EGS) model at our institution. METHODS: A longitudinal, observational study was conducted prior to and following introduction of an EGS model at our institution. Using the New York SPARCS Administrative Database, all adult patients presenting to the emergency department with gallbladder-related emergencies were identified. The rates of laparoscopic and open cholecystectomies performed 3 years prior and 3 years following the adoption of the EGS model were examined. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to compare the incidence of cholecystectomy at initial ED visit at our institution pre- and post-EGS introduction as well as to those in the rest of the state as an external control group, while adjusting for potentially confounding factors. RESULTS: There were 176,159 total ED visits of patients with gallbladder emergencies (154,743 excluding repeat presenters) in the studied period in NY State. Of these, 63,912 patients (41.3%) had a concurrent cholecystectomy in NY State. The rate of cholecystectomy at these institutions remained relatively steady from 38.8% from 2010 to 2013 and 38.6% from 2013 to 2016. At our institution, there were 2039 gallbladder emergencies, and of those 755 underwent cholecystectomy. At our institution, there was an increase from 28.21% 3 years prior to the adoption of the EGS model to 40.2% in the following 3 years (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.0164-1.1078, p = 0.0069). CONCLUSION: The initiation of the EGS model at a tertiary center was associated with a significant increase in the number of concurrent cholecystectomies from 28.21 to 40.2% over a 6-year period. This change was accompanied by an increase in the number of patient comorbidities and a lower insurance status.

Increased incidence of surgical site infection with a body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2 following abdominal wall reconstruction with open component separation.

BACKGROUND: To quantify the impact of body mass index (BMI) on surgical site infection (SSI) following abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) using component separation techniques and attempt to identify obesity-related targets, such as BMI, that can be potentially used to guide preoperative patient optimization. Though AWR has established perioperative outcomes for hernia repair, the applicability in the obese population is not well established. METHODS: The 2005-2013 ACS-NSQIP participant use file was reviewed to compare SSI, severe, and overall morbidity in non-emergent AWR patients based on BMI. Multivariable logistic regression was used to control for patient demographics and comorbidities. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were reported. RESULTS: We identified 4488 patients. The average BMI was 32.76 ± 7.70 kg/m2. The majority of cases (76.8%) had wound classified as clean. The SSI rate significantly increased at a BMI of ≥ 35 kg/m2 compared to < 35 (18.5% vs. 10.5%, p < 0.0001). There was no significant different in SSI rate between BMI 35-40 and > 40. After controlling for differences in baseline characteristics and wound classification, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 was independently associated with SSI (OR 1.47, 1.21-1.78), minor complications (OR 1.65, 1.41-1.94), major complications (OR 1.91, 1.60-2.27), re-operation (OR 1.59, 1.23-2.05), and hospital re-admission (OR 1.93, 1.23-3.02). CONCLUSION: There is a significant increase in SSI and other perioperative complications in patients with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 undergoing AWR. Higher BMI is also independently associated with higher resource utilization in this patient population. Severely obese patients in need of AWR may benefit from a structured preoperative weight loss intervention.

What happens to biliary colic patients in New York State? 10-year follow-up from emergency department visits.

INTRODUCTION: Biliary colic is a common diagnosis for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this study is to examine the outcomes of patients coming to the ED with biliary colic. METHODS: The NYS longitudinal SPARCS database was used to identify patients presenting to the ED with biliary colic from 2005 to 2014. Through the use of a unique identifier, patients were followed in NYS across multiple institutions. Patients who were lost to follow-up, with duplicated records, and those that underwent percutaneous cholecystectomy tubes were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2014, there were 72,376 patients who presented to an ED with biliary colic. The admission rate was 20.7-26.02%. Overall, most patients who presented to the ED did not undergo surgery (39,567, 54.7%), of which 35,204 (89%) had only one ED visit, while 4,363(11%) returned to the ED (≥ 2 visits). Only 3.23-5.51% of patients underwent cholecystectomy at the time of initial presentation. Most subsequent cholecystectomies were performed electively (27.38-52.51%) (See Table 1 in this article). Average time to surgery among patients with elective cholecystectomy was 178.4 days. From the patients who underwent cholecystectomy, 10.35% had cholecystectomy at their first ED visit, 77.7% had cholecystectomy following the first ED visit, and 12% had multiple ED visits prior to surgery. Among patients who were discharged from the ED, 32% had their surgery at a different hospital than index presentation. CONCLUSION: A significant portion of patients (48.6%) who present to the ED with biliary colic will not return or have surgery within 5 years. A third of patients who eventually undergo cholecystectomy will go to another hospital for their surgery.

Crossing borders to change lives: Surgical mission amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID pandemic, elective global surgical missions were temporarily halted for the safety of patients and travelling healthcare providers. We discuss our experience during our first surgical mission amidst the pandemic. We report a safe and successful treatment of the patients, detailing our precautionary steps and outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective manual chart review and data collection of patients' charts was conducted after IRB approval. We entail our experience and safety steps followed during screening, operating and postoperative care to minimize exposure and improve outcomes during a surgical mission in an outpatient setting during the pandemic. The surgical mission was from February 8 to February 12, 2022. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients who were screened. 33 patients underwent surgical intervention. One patient required postoperative hospitalization for a biliary duct leak. No patient or healthcare provider tested positive for COVID at the end of the mission. The average age of patients was 46.9 years. The average operative time was 116 min, and all patients had local nerve blocks. It included 45 health work providers. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe to perform outpatient international surgery during the pandemic while following pre-selected precautions.

Crossing borders to change lives: Surgical mission amidst the COVID-19 pandemic / Cruzando fronteras para cambiar vidas: Misión quirúrgica durante la pandemia de COVID-19

Introduction: During the COVID pandemic, elective global surgical missions were temporarily halted for the safety of patients and travelling healthcare providers. We discuss our experience during our first surgical mission amidst the pandemic. We report a safe and successful treatment of the patients, detailing our precautionary steps and outcomes. Methods: Retrospective manual chart review and data collection of patients’ charts was conducted after IRB approval. We entail our experience and safety steps followed during screening, operating and postoperative care to minimize exposure and improve outcomes during a surgical mission in an outpatient setting during the pandemic. The surgical mission was from February 8 to February 12, 2022. Results: A total of 60 patients who were screened. 33 patients underwent surgical intervention. One patient required postoperative hospitalization for a biliary duct leak. No patient or healthcare provider tested positive for COVID at the end of the mission. The average age of patients was 46.9 years. The average operative time was 116 min, and all patients had local nerve blocks. It included 45 health work providers. Conclusions: It is safe to perform outpatient international surgery during the pandemic while following pre-selected precautions. (AU)

Introducción: Durante la pandemia de COVID, las misiones quirúrgicas globales electivas se detuvieron temporalmente por la seguridad de los pacientes y los proveedores de atención médica que viajaban. En el presente trabajo presentamos nuestra experiencia durante la primera misión quirúrgica en medio de la pandemia. Reportamos el tratamiento seguro y exitoso de los pacientes, detallando nuestros pasos de precaución y resultados. Métodos: Luego de obtener la aprobación del IRB, se realizó la revisión manual retrospectiva de las historias clínicas y la recopilación de datos de las historias clínicas de los pacientes. Exponemos nuestra experiencia y los pasos de seguridad seguidos durante la detección, la operación y la atención posoperatoria para minimizar la exposición y mejorar los resultados durante una misión quirúrgica en un entorno ambulatorio durante la pandemia. La misión quirúrgica fue del 8 al 12 de febrero de 2022. Resultados: Un total de 60 pacientes fueron tamizados. De ellos, 33 pacientes fueron intervenidos quirúrgicamente. Un paciente requirió hospitalización postoperatoria por una fuga del conducto biliar. Ningún paciente o proveedor de atención médica dio positivo por COVID al final de la misión. La edad media de los pacientes fue de 46,9 años. El tiempo operatorio promedio fue de 116 min, y todos los pacientes tuvieron bloqueos nerviosos locales. Participaron 45 proveedores de trabajo de salud. Conclusiones: Es seguro realizar una cirugía internacional ambulatoria durante la pandemia siguiendo las precauciones preseleccionadas. (AU)

Role of lymphadenectomy in surgical treatment of solid tumors: an update on the clinical data.

BACKGROUND: The role of lymphadenectomy as an adjunct of standard excision for treatment of cancer is highly debated and controversial. Standard practice for treatment of solid tumors is resection with regional lymphadenectomy. This surgical concept assumes that cancers grow and spread in an orderly manner, from primary cancer to regional lymph nodes and finally to vital organs. We reviewed randomized trials, published a description of lymphatic anatomy and physiology, and presented data that disputed the role of lymphadenectomy as standard practice. The present review updates the literature and reiterates the concept that lymphadenectomy does not increase survival in the surgical treatment of solid tumors. METHODS: We reviewed the English-language literature (Medline) for prospective randomized trials and nonrandomized reports, as well as retrospective studies addressing the role of lymphadenectomy in cancers of the esophagus, lung, stomach, pancreas, breast, and skin (melanoma) reported between 2000 and 2006. RESULTS: This extensive review demonstrates that there are few prospective randomized trials assessing patient survival with solid tumors that contrast resection with or without lymphadenectomy. However, there was at least one, and for some cancers more than one, prospective randomized trial for each organ site studied, and the data demonstrate no statistically significant difference in overall survival of patients treated with or without lymphadenectomy. Most nonrandomized and retrospective studies, with a few exceptions, support the conclusions of randomized trials; lymphadenectomy does not improve overall survival in solid tumors. Overall survival is primarily a function of the biological nature of the primary tumor, as evidenced by lymphovascular invasion, lymph node involvement, and other prognostic features. CONCLUSIONS: This extensive literature review of recent reports indicates that lymphadenectomy does not improve overall survival. Lymph node resection should be conceived in terms of staging, prognosis, and regional control only.