Treatment for acute uncomplicated diverticulitis without antibiotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background: Use of antibiotics in selected cases of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD) has recently been questioned. Objective: The aim of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of treatment regimens without antibiotics compared with that of traditional treatments with antibiotics in selected patients with AUD. Data sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines by searching through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published before December 2022. The outcomes assessed were the rates of readmission, change in strategy, emergency surgery, worsening, and persistent diverticulitis. Study selection: RCTs on treating AUD without antibiotics published in English before December 2022 were included. Intervention: Treatments without antibiotics were compared with treatments with antibiotics. Main outcome measures: The outcomes assessed were the rates of readmission, change in strategy, emergency surgery, worsening, and persistent diverticulitis. Results: The search yielded 1163 studies. Four RCTs with 1809 patients were included in the review. Among these patients, 50.1% were treated conservatively without antibiotics. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between nonantibiotic and antibiotic treatment groups with respect to rates of readmission [odds ratio (OR) = 1.39; 95% CI: 0.93-2.06; P = 0.11; I-2 = 0%], change in strategy (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.52-2,02; P = 0.94; I-2 = 44%), emergency surgery (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.12-1.53; P = 0.19; I-2 = 0%), worsening (OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.48-1.73; P = 0.78; I-2 = 0%), and persistent diverticulitis (OR = 1.54; 95% CI: 0.63-3.26; P = 0.26; I-2 = 0%). Limitations: Heterogeneity and a limited number of RCTs. Conclusions: Treatment for AUD without antibiotic therapy is safe and effective in selected patients. Further RTCs should confirm the present findings

“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 chemoradiotherapy is excellent in the long term. (c) 2023 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2: 1). Results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort.

Objective:To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL).Background:AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma.Methods:This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated.Results:This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76).Conclusions:The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population

Delayed colorectal cancer care during covid-19 pandemic (decor-19). Global perspective from an international survey

Background The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer (CRC) care during the pandemic. Methods The impact of COVID-19 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of CRC patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in CRC care. Respondents were divided into two comparator groups: 1) ‘delay’ group: CRC care affected by the pandemic; 2) ‘no delay’ group: unaltered CRC practice. Results A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the ‘delay’ (745, 70.9%) and ‘no delay’ (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to COVID-19 units, units fully dedicated to COVID-19 care, personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the ‘delay’ group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of CRC care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in COVID-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to COVID-19 units were statistically associated with unaltered CRC care in the ‘no delay’ group, while the geographical distribution was not. Conclusions Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic CRC practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health-care delivery systems, hospital’s preparedness, resources availability, and local COVID-19 prevalence rather than geographical factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize CRC care