Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery with Anatomical Recognition with Artificial Intelligence Assistance for Nerves and Dissection Layers.

BACKGROUND: In digestive tract surgery, dissection of an avascular space consisting of loose connective tissue (LCT) appearing by countertraction improves oncological outcomes and reduces complications.1-3 Kumazu et al.4 described a deep learning approach that automatically segments LCT to help surgeons.4 During left colorectal surgery, lumbar splanchnic, hypogastric, and pelvic visceral nerve injuries cause sexual dysfunction and/or urinary issues.5 As nerve preservation is critical for functional preservation, the AI model Kumazu reported is named Eureka (Anaut Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and was developed to separate nerves automatically. The educative efficacy of intraoperative nerve visualization has been described.6 Artificial intelligence (AI) assisted navigation is expected to aid in the anatomical recognition of nerves and the safe dissection layers surrounding nerves in the future. METHODS: We used Eureka as an educational tool for surgeons' training during laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The laparoscopic system used was Olympus VISERA ELITE3 (Tokyo, Japan). RESULTS: Total mesorectal excision (TME) was safely performed with nerve preservation. No postoperative complications occurred. Automatic segmentation and highlighting of LCT in the dissected layers, lumbar splanchnic, hypogastric, and pelvic visceral nerves (S3, S4), were performed in real time. CONCLUSIONS: In colorectal cancer surgery, the nerves are vital anatomical structures serving as landmarks for dissection. Lumbar splanchnic, hypogastric, and pelvic visceral nerve injuries (S3, S4) cause sexual dysfunction or urinary disorders.5 Nerve preservation is important for functional preservation. AI-assisted navigation methods are noninvasive, user-friendly, and expected to improve in accuracy in the future. They have the potential to develop nerve-guided TME.

Accelerated enhanced recovery after colon cancer surgery with discharge within one day after surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated that accelerated enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery is feasible for specific patient populations. The accelerated enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) tend to vary, and the majority of studies included a small study population. This hampers defining the optimal protocol and establishing the potential benefits. This systematic review aimed to determine the effect of accelerated ERPs with intended discharge within one day after surgery. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched using the following search terms: colon cancer, colon surgery, accelerated recovery, fast track recovery, enhanced recovery after surgery. Clinical trials published between January 2005 - February 2023, written in English or Dutch comparing accelerated ERPs to Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care for adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or robotic surgery for colon cancer were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Thirteen studies, including one RCT were included. Accelerated ERPs after colorectal surgery was possible as LOS was shorter; 14 h to 3.4 days, and complication rate varied from 0-35.7% and readmission rate was 0-17% in the accelerated ERP groups. Risk of bias was serious or critical in most of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated ERPs may not yet be considered the new standard of care as the current data is heterogenous, and data on important outcome measures is scarce. Nonetheless, the decreased LOS suggests that accelerated recovery is possible for selected patients. In addition, the complication and readmission rates were comparable to ERAS care, suggesting that accelerated recovery could be safe.

Development of a Predictive Nomogram for Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Circumferential resection margin (CRM) is a key quality metric and predictor of oncologic outcomes and overall survival following surgery for rectal cancer. We aimed to develop a nomogram to identify patients at risk for a positive CRM in the preoperative setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2014 for patients with clinical stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent total mesorectal excision. Patients were excluded for emergency operation, resection for cancer recurrence, palliative resection, transanal resection, and missing CRM status. The primary outcome was positive CRM. Secondary outcomes included overall survival. RESULTS: There were 28,790 patients included. 2245 (7.8%) had a positive CRM. Higher tumor grade, lack of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, mucinous/signet tumor histology, open approach, abdominoperineal resection, higher T stage, lymphovascular invasion, and perineural invasion were all significantly associated with positive CRM (P < 0.05) and were included in the nomogram. The C-statistic was 0.703, suggesting a good predictive model. CONCLUSIONS: Positive CRM is associated with specific patient demographics and tumor characteristics. These factors can be used along with preoperative MRI to predict CRM positivity in the preoperative period and plan accordingly.

Risk Factors for Readmission in Excisional Hemorrhoidectomy at a Tertiary Teaching Center.

INTRODUCTION: Unplanned readmission is often seen after excisional hemorrhoidectomy. This study aims to explore associations between patient and operative factors, and readmission rates in excisional hemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all excisional hemorrhoidectomies performed in Capital and Coast District Health Board for an 8-year period from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome measure was 30-day readmissions post hemorrhoidectomy. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors to readmisson. A decision tree model was designed to further look at the interactions between risk factors. RESULTS: There were a total 370 patients undergoing 389 excisional hemorrhoidectomies over the study period. There were 47 (12.1%) readmissions. The commonest reasons for readmission were pain (48.9%) and bleeding (38%). 17% of readmitted patients required operative intervention. Readmission was associated with the use of advanced energy devices (OR 2.21; P = 0.027). Trainees were more likely to use advance energy devices than consultants (51% versus 38%, P = 0.010). Consultants were involved in more procedures requiring a removal of 3 pedicles or more than trainees (43% versus 30%, P = 0.010). A decision tree model predicts readmission based on primary operator experience, age, advanced energy device use, and patient ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Two risk models are presented showing the complex relationship between the factors associated with readmission after hemorrhoidectomy. Advanced energy device use was associated with an increased risk of readmission after hemorrhoidectomy in our population. Future work could involve targeted interventions to patients at increased risk of readmission such as preprocedural and postprocedural information, early interval follow-up and targeted analgesia regimes.

The Decline of Small Practice in Colorectal Surgery: Practice Consolidation From 2015-2022.

INTRODUCTION: Physicians have gravitated toward larger group practice arrangements in recent years. However, consolidation trends in colorectal surgery have yet to be well described. Our objective was to assess current trends in practice consolidation within colorectal surgery and evaluate underlying demographic trends including age, gender, and geography. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study using the Center for Medicare Services National Downloadable File from 2015 to 2022. Colorectal surgeons were categorized by practice size and by region, gender, and age. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2022, the number of colorectal surgeons in the United States increased from 1369 to 1621 (+18.4%), while the practices with which they were affiliated remained relatively stable (693-721, +4.0%). The proportion of colorectal surgeons in groups of 1-2 members fell from 18.9% to 10.7%. Conversely, those in groups of 500+ members grew from 26.5% to 45.2% (linear trend P < 0.001). The midwest region demonstrated the highest degree of consolidation. Affiliations with group practices of 500+ members saw large increases from both female and male surgeons (+148.9% and +86.9%, respectively). New surgeons joining the field since 2015 overwhelmingly practice in larger groups (5.3% in groups of 1-2, 50.1% in groups of 500+). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal surgeons are shifting toward larger practice affiliations. Although this change is happening across all demographic groups, it appears unevenly distributed across geography, gender, and age. New surgeons are preferentially joining large group practices.

Uncommon Sociodemographic Factors Are Associated With Racial Disparities in Length of Stay Following Oncologic Elective Colectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Although outcome disparities by race have been identified in colorectal cancer, these patterns are challenging to explain using variables that are commonly available in databases. In a single institution serving a diverse community, length of stay (LOS) varies by race following elective oncologic colectomy. We investigated previously unexplored variables that may explain the relationship between race and LOS following elective resection of colorectal neoplasms. METHODS: Retrospective, single institution cohort study from January 2015 to December 2020 for adult patients undergoing elective colorectal cancer resections. Baseline demographic variables and intraoperative factors were analyzed for changes in LOS following elective colorectal resection. Additional retrospective chart review was carried out to determine household member composition and distance from home to hospital. Bivariate analysis was conducted to determine which variables should be included in multivariable analyses. All analyses were conducted using SAS Academic. RESULTS: Most patients (n = 383) were Asian (40%), Black (12%), or Hispanic (26%). Race and LOS were associated with age (P = 0.001 and P < 0.001 for race and LOS, respectively), American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P = 0.004 and P < 0.001), enhanced recovery after surgery protocols (P = 0.006 and P < 0.001), household members (P = 0.009 and P = 0.002), and discharge disposition (P = 0.049 and P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, household members (P = 0.021) independently remained associated with LOS after controlling for race (P = 0.008) and discharge disposition (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Household member composition varies with LOS, suggesting that level of support at home may influence decisions regarding discharge disposition, which lead to differences in LOS.

Evaluation of Medicare Reimbursement and Surgical Patterns for Male and Female Colorectal Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: There are documented differences in salary for male and female surgeons. Understanding the differences in the clinical practice, composition of male and female surgeons may provide a better understanding of reimbursement differences. We aim to evaluate the differences of Medicare reimbursement for different categories of clinical practice for male and female colorectal surgeons. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared Medicare claims made by male and female board-certified colorectal surgeons from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data between 2013 and 2017. Medicare claims were categorized by surgeon gender. Submitted claims were evaluated based on the following seven procedure categories: open abdominal surgery, laparoscopic abdominal surgery, anorectal surgery, diagnostic endoscopy, therapeutic endoscopy, and inpatient/outpatient services. The main outcomes were number of charges submitted by clinical activity category and procedural code variation billed through Medicare. Secondary outcome was category of procedure activity that each surgeon cohort had participated in. RESULTS: A total of 62,866 claims were reviewed, of which 10,058 (16.0%) were made by female surgeons and 52,808 (84.0%) were made by male surgeons. On average, male surgeons submitted more claims per year, a greater variety of claims per year, and higher revenue generating claims than female surgeons (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Male and female colorectal surgeons may participate in different categories of clinical activities that result in male surgeons performing more and higher relative value units-generating activity than female surgeons.

Does Tri-Staple™ technology reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery? A propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the Tri-Staple™ technology in colorectal anastomosis. METHODS: Patients who underwent rectosigmoidectomy between 2016 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated and divided into two groups: EEA™ (EEA) or Tri-Staple™ (Tri-EEA). The groups were matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and neoadjuvant radiotherapy using propensity score matching (PSM). RESULT: Three hundred and thirty-six patients were included (228 EEA; 108 Tri-EEA). The groups were similar in sex, age, and neoadjuvant therapy. The Tri-EEA group had fewer patients with ASA III/IV scores (7% vs. 33%; p < 0.001). The Tri-EEA group had a lower incidence of leakage (4% vs. 11%; p = 0.023), reoperations (4% vs. 12%; p = 0.016), and severe complications (6% vs. 14%; p = 0.026). There was no difference in complications, mortality, readmission, and length of stay. After PSM, 108 patients in the EEA group were compared with 108 in the Tri-EEA group. The covariates sex, age, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and ASA were balanced, and the risk of leakage (4% vs. 12%; p = 0.04), reoperation (4% vs. 14%; p = 0.014), and severe complications (6% vs. 15%; p = 0.041) remained lower in the Tri-EEA group. CONCLUSION: Tri-Staple™ reduces the risk of leakage in colorectal anastomosis. However, this study provides only insights, and further research is warranted to confirm these findings.

Robot-assisted transanal minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma.

This is a video vignette of a 57-year-old asymptomatic female patient. The patient underwent a screening colonoscopy which revealed a 10 mm scar in the rectum. Biopsy resulted in a well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma. Computed tomography and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging confirmed tumor characteristics without distant or lymph nodal metastasis. A minimally invasive robotic transanal resection using the Da Vinci Xi platform was performed, achieving full-thickness lesion excision with uneventful recovery. Histopathology revealed intramucosal adenocarcinoma with free margins. Local resection is advocated for selected T1 lesions and demands a thorough preoperative assessment. Robotic-assisted surgery presents a valuable alternative for early rectal adenocarcinoma management.

Electronic health record-integrated questionnaires in colorectal surgery patients as a new standard: Could preoperative bowel function be used to predict postoperative patient-reported outcomes?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported bowel function has been previously shown to correlate with quality of life and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after colorectal surgery. We examined the relationship between preoperative patient-reported bowel function and postoperative symptom reporting using an electronic health record-integrated symptom management (eSyM). METHODS: Patients who underwent major abdominal surgery for colorectal cancer at a single institution were included. Preoperative bowel function was assessed prospectively using the validated colorectal functional outcome (COREFO) questionnaire. Patients with electronic portal access received automated eSyM questionnaires after discharge. Logistic regression was used to analyze the association between COREFO scores and eSyM use. RESULTS: 169 patients underwent surgery between April 2020 and June 2022 (median age 64, 46.7% female). 148 completed COREFO questionnaires preoperatively; 54 (36.5%) had scores ≥15. Of the 108 patients with portal access, 67.6% used eSyM postoperatively. Among users, 72.3% (47/73) reported severe symptoms. Those with COREFO scores ≥15 were more likely to use eSyM (80.0% vs. 62.7%) though this difference was not significant (p = 0.079). CONCLUSIONS: We found that eSyM utilization regardless of preoperative baseline bowel function was high in this cohort of colorectal surgery patients. This suggests that electronically captured PROs is an effective way for patients to communicate symptoms to their care teams in a postsurgical setting.

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection for colonic neoplasms: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The current literature describes a variety of techniques detailed under the name of combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) procedures. This systematic review of literature assessed the outcomes of colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic-wedge resection (CAL-WR) in particular to evaluate its feasibility to remove colonic lesions that do not qualify for endoscopic resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for studies evaluating CAL-WR for the treatment of colonic lesions. Studies with missing full text, language other than English, systematic reviews, and studies with fewer than ten patients were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Out of 68 results, duplicate studies (n = 27) as well as studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria (n = 32) were removed. Nine studies were included, encompassing 326 patients who underwent a CAL-WR of the colon. The technical success rate varied from 93 to 100%, with an R0 resection rate of 91-100%. Morbidity ranged from 6% to 20%. The quality of the included studies was rated as low to moderate and contained heterogeneous terminology, methodology, and outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient high-quality data and substantial variation in outcome measures to draw firm conclusions regarding the value of CAL-WR. Although CAL-WR is a promising local resection technique for endoscopically unremovable neoplasms of the colon, further investigation of this technique in well-designed prospective, multicenter studies with predefined outcome measures is required.Trial registration: A protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42023407966.

Clostridium difficile infection after stoma reversal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been described in the early post-operative phase after stoma reversal. This systematic review aimed to describe the incidence of CDI after stoma reversal and to identify pre-operative variables correlated with an increased risk of infection. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines in March 2024. Manuscripts were included if reported at least one patient with CDI-associated diarrhoea following stoma reversal (colostomy/ileostomy). The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of CDI; the secondary outcome was the comparison of clinical variables (age, sex, time to stoma reversal, neo-adjuvant and adjuvant therapies after index colorectal procedure) in CDI-positive versus CDI-negative patients. A meta-analysis was performed when at least three studies reported on those variables. RESULTS: Out of 43 eligible manuscripts, 1 randomized controlled trial and 10 retrospective studies were selected, including 17,857 patients (2.1% CDI). Overall, the mean age was 64.3 ± 11.6 years in the CDI group and 61.5 ± 12.6 years in the CDI-negative group (p = 0.51), with no significant difference in sex (p = 0.34). Univariable analyses documented that the mean time to stoma reversal was 53.9 ± 19.1 weeks in CDI patients and 39.8 ± 15.0 weeks in CDI-negative patients (p = 0.40) and a correlation between neo-adjuvant and adjuvant treatments with CDI (p < 0.001). A meta-analysis was performed for time to stoma reversal, age, sex, and neo-adjuvant therapies disclosing no significant differences for CDI (stoma delay, MD 11.59; 95%CI  24.32-1.13; age, MD 0.97; 95%CI 2.08-4.03; sex, OR1.11; 95%CI 0.88-1.41; neo-adjuvant, OR0.81; 95%CI 0.49-1.35). Meta-analysis including patients who underwent adjuvant therapy evidenced a higher risk of CDI (OR 2.88; 95%CI 1.01-8.17, p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: CDI occurs in approximately 2.1% of patients after stoma reversal. Although a trend of increased delay in stoma reversal and a correlation with chemotherapy were documented in CDI patients, the use of adjuvant therapy was the only possible risk factor documented on meta-analysis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023484704.

Comparison of low versus high (standard) intraabdominal pressure during laparoscopic colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate outcomes of low with high intraabdominal pressure during laparoscopic colorectal resection surgery. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing low with high (standard) intraabdominal pressures were included. Our primary outcomes were post-operative ileus occurrence and return of bowel movement/flatus. The evaluated secondary outcomes included: total operative time, post-operative haemorrhage, anastomotic leak, pneumonia, surgical site infection, overall post-operative complications (categorised by Clavien-Dindo grading), and length of hospital stay. Revman 5.4 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one observational study with a total of 771 patients (370 surgery at low intraabdominal pressure and 401 at high pressures) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in all the measured outcomes; post-operative ileus [OR 0.80; CI (0.42, 1.52), P = 0.50], time-to-pass flatus [OR -4.31; CI (-12.12, 3.50), P = 0.28], total operative time [OR 0.40; CI (-10.19, 11.00), P = 0.94], post-operative haemorrhage [OR 1.51; CI (0.41, 5.58, P = 0.53], anastomotic leak [OR 1.14; CI (0.26, 4.91), P = 0.86], pneumonia [OR 1.15; CI (0.22, 6.09), P = 0.87], SSI [OR 0.69; CI (0.19, 2.47), P = 0.57], overall post-operative complications [OR 0.82; CI (0.52, 1.30), P = 0.40], Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 [OR 1.27; CI (0.59, 2.77), P = 0.54], and length of hospital stay [OR -0.68; CI (-1.61, 0.24), P = 0.15]. CONCLUSION: Low intraabdominal pressure is safe and feasible approach to laparoscopic colorectal resection surgery with non-inferior outcomes to standard or high pressures. More robust and well-powered RCTs are needed to consolidate the potential benefits of low over high pressure intra-abdominal surgery.

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. METHODS: A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

Short-term postoperative outcomes for obese versus non-obese inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing bowel resection: a propensity score matched analysis.

PURPOSE: Up to 40% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are obese. Obesity is a well-known risk factor for increased perioperative morbidity, but this risk has never been quantified in IBD patients undergoing abdominal surgery using the United States National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. This study aims to compare postoperative morbidity between obese and non-obese patients undergoing bowel resection for IBD using recent NIS data. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent bowel resection for IBD from 2015 to 2019 were identified in the NIS using ICD-10-CM coding. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) and non-obese groups, then propensity score matched (PSM) for demographic, operative, and hospital characteristics. The primary outcome was postoperative in-hospital morbidity. Secondary outcomes included postoperative in-hospital mortality, system-specific postoperative complications, total admission healthcare costs, and length of stay (LOS). Univariable and multivariable regressions were utilized. RESULTS: Overall, 6601 non-obese patients and 671 obese patients were identified. The PSM cohort included 659 patients per group. Obese patients had significantly increased odds of experiencing postoperative in-hospital morbidity (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.10-2.03, p = 0.010) compared to non-obese patients. Specifically, obese patients experienced increased gastrointestinal complications (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.00-2.24, p = 0.050), and genitourinary complications (aOR 1.71, 95% CI 1.12-2.61, p = 0.013). There were no differences in total admission healthcare costs (MD - $2256.32, 95% CI - 19,144.54-14,631.9, p = 0.79) or LOS (MD 0.16 days, 95% CI - 0.93-1.27, p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Obese IBD patients are at greater risk of postoperative in-hospital morbidity than non-obese IBD patients. This supports targeted preoperative weight loss protocols for IBD patients to optimize surgical outcomes.

Associations of preoperative anaemia with healthcare resource use and outcomes after colorectal surgery: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anaemia is common in patient undergoing colorectal surgery. Understanding the population-level costs of preoperative anaemia will inform development and evaluation of anaemia management at health system levels. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using linked, routinely collected data, including residents from Ontario, Canada, aged ≥18 yr who underwent an elective colorectal resection between 2012 and 2022. Primary exposure was preoperative anaemia (haemoglobin <130 g L-1 in males; <120 g L-1 in females). Primary outcome was 30-day costs in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD), from the perspective of a publicly funded healthcare system. Secondary outcomes included red blood cell transfusion, major adverse events (MAEs), length of stay (LOS), days alive at home (DAH), and readmissions. RESULTS: We included 54,286 patients, with mean 65.3 (range 18-102) years of age and 49.0% females, among which 21 264 (39.2%) had preoperative anaemia. There was an absolute adjusted cost increase of $2671 per person at 30 days after surgery attributable to preoperative anaemia (ratio of means [RoM] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.06). Compared with the control group, 30-day risks of transfusion (odds ratio [OR] 4.34, 95% CI 4.04-4.66), MAEs (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.27), LOS (RoM 1.08, 95% CI 1.07-1.10), and readmissions (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24) were higher in the anaemia group, with reduced DAH (RoM 0.95, 95% CI 0.95-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately $2671 CAD per person in 30-day health system costs are attributable to preoperative anaemia after colorectal surgery in Ontario, Canada.

The effect of diabetes mellitus on perioperative outcomes after colorectal resection: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a significant modulator of postoperative outcomes and is an important risk factor in the patient selection process. We aimed to investigate the effect of diabetes mellitus and use of insulin on outcomes after colorectal resection using a national cohort. METHODS: Adults with a recorded colorectal resection in England between 2010 and 2020 were identified from Hospital Episode Statistics data linked to the Clinical Practice Research Database. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) and readmission within 90 days. RESULTS: Of the 106 139 (52 875, 49.8% male) patients included, diabetes mellitus was prevalent in 10 931 (10.3%), 2145 (19.6%) of whom had a record of use of insulin. Unadjusted 90-day mortality risk was 5.7%, with an increased adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for people with diabetes mellitus (aHR 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.37, P<0.001). This risk was higher in both people with diabetes using insulin (aHR 1.51, 95% CI 1.31-1.74, P<0.001) and not using insulin (aHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13-1.33, P<0.001), compared with those without diabetes. Ninety-day readmission occurred in 20 542 (19.4%) patients and this was more likely in those with diabetes mellitus (aHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.18-1.29, P<0.001). Median (inter-quartile range) LOS was 8 (5-15) days and was higher in people with diabetes mellitus (adjusted time ratio 1.10, 95% CI 1.08-1.11, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: People with diabetes mellitus undergoing colorectal resection are at a higher risk of 90-day mortality, prolonged LOS, and 90-day readmission, with use of insulin associated with additional risk.

The impact of operative approach for obese colorectal cancer patients: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample 2015-2019.

AIM: Obesity is a well-established risk factor for the development of colorectal cancer. As such, patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer have increasingly higher body mass indices (BMIs). The advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques in recent years have helped surgeons circumvent some of the challenges associated with operating in the setting of obesity. While previous studies suggest that laparoscopy improves outcomes compared with open surgery in obese patients, this has never been established at the population level. Therefore, we designed a retrospective database study using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) with the aim of comparing laparoscopic with open approaches for obese patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of the NIS from 2015 to 2019 was conducted including patients with a BMI of greater than 30 kg/m2 undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. The primary outcomes were postoperative in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative system-specific complications, total admission healthcare cost and length of stay (LOS). Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were utilized to compare the two operative approaches. RESULTS: A total of 4742 patients underwent open surgery and 3231 underwent laparoscopic surgery. We observed a significant decrease in overall postoperative morbidity [17.5% vs. 31.4%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.64; p < 0.001], gastrointestinal morbidity (8.1% vs. 14.5%, aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.50-0.69; p < 0.001) and genitourinary morbidity (10.1% vs. 18.6%, aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52-0.70; p < 0.001) with the use of laparoscopy. Postoperative LOS was 1.7 days shorter (95% CI 1.5-2.0, p < 0.001) and cost of admission was decreased by $9106 (95% CI $4638-$13 573, p < 0.001) with laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery for obese patients with colorectal cancer is associated with significantly decreased postoperative morbidity and improved healthcare resource utilization compared with open surgery. Laparoscopic approaches should be relied upon whenever feasible for these patients.

Risk prediction algorithms for prolonged postoperative ileus: A systematic review.

AIM: Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) is common and is associated with a significant healthcare burden. Previous studies have attempted to predict PPOI clinically using risk prediction algorithms. The aim of this work was to systematically review and compare risk prediction algorithms for PPOI following colorectal surgery. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. Studies that developed and/or validated a risk prediction algorithm for PPOI in adults following colorectal surgery were included. Data were collected on study design, population and operative characteristics, the definition of PPOI used and risk prediction algorithm design and performance. Quality appraisal was assessed using the PROBAST tool. RESULTS: Eleven studies with 87 549 participants were included in our review. Most were retrospective, single-centre analyses (6/11, 55%) and rates of PPOI varied from 10% to 28%. The most commonly used variables were sex (8/11, 73%), age (6/11, 55%) and surgical approach (5/11, 45%). Area under the curve ranged from 0.68-0.78, and only three models were validated. However, there was significant variation in the definition of PPOI used. No study reported sensitivity, specificity or positive/negative predictive values. CONCLUSION: Currently available risk prediction algorithms for PPOI appear to discriminate moderately well, although there is a lack of validation data. Future studies should aim to use a standardized definition of PPOI, comprehensively report model performance and validate their findings using internal and external methodologies.

Training and assessment for colorectal surgery and appendicectomy- a systematic review.

AIM: There is currently an increased focus on competency-based training, in which training and assessment play a crucial role. The aim of this systematic review is to create an overview of hands-on training methods and assessment tools for appendicectomy and colon and rectal surgery procedures using either an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach. METHOD: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted the last search on 9 March 2023. All published papers describing hands-on training, evaluation of performance data and development of assessment tools were eligible. The quality of studies and the validity evidence of assessment tools are reported. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were identified. Laparoscopic assessment tools are abundant, but the literature still lacks good-quality assessment tools for open appendicectomy, robotic colectomy and open rectal surgery. Overall, there is a lack of discussion regarding the establishment of pass/fail standards and the consequences of assessment. Virtual reality simulation is used more for appendicectomy than colorectal procedures. Only a few of the studies investigating training were of acceptable quality. There is a need for high-quality studies in open and robotic-assisted colon surgery and all approaches to rectal surgery. CONCLUSION: This review provides an overview of current training methods and assessment tools and identifies where more research is needed based on the quality of the studies and the current validity evidence.