Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LPP) in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. METHODS A PRISMA-compliant systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted, searching PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized-controlled trials assessing outcomes of LPP vs standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum (SPP) in colorectal surgery. Efficacy outcomes [pain score in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), pain score postoperative day 1 (POD1), operative time, and hospital stay] and safety outcomes (blood loss and postoperative complications) were analyzed. Risk of bias2 tool assessed bias risk. The certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE. RESULTS Four studies included 537 patients (male 59.8%). LPP was undertaken in 280 (52.1%) patients and associated with lower pain scores in PACU [weighted mean difference: -1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.65 to -0.47, P = 0.004, I 2  = 0%] and POD1 (weighted mean difference: -0.49, 95% CI: -0.91 to -0.07, P = 0.024, I 2  = 0%). Meta-regression showed that age [standard error (SE): 0.036, P < 0.001], male sex (SE: 0.006, P < 0.001), and operative time (SE: 0.002, P = 0.027) were significantly associated with increased complications with LPP. In addition, 5.9%-14.5% of surgeons using LLP requested pressure increases to equal the SPP group. The grade of evidence was high for pain score in PACU and on POD1 postoperative complications and major complications, and blood loss, moderate for operative time, low for intraoperative complications, and very low for length of stay. CONCLUSIONS LPP was associated with lower pain scores in PACU and on POD1 with similar operative times, length of stay, and safety profile compared with SPP in colorectal surgery. Although LPP was not associated with increased complications, older patients, males, patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, and those with longer operative times may be at risk of increased complications

Predictors of nodal positivity in clinically under-staged patients with colon cancer: A National Cancer Database study and proposal of a predictive scoring system.

BACKGROUND Colon cancer pathological and clinical staging may be disoncordant. This study assessed patients with colon cancer in whom the nodal status was clinically understaged. METHODS Patients with stage I-III clinical node-negative colon cancer from the National Cancer Database were included. Regression analyses were conducted to elucidate risk factors for clinical nodal understaging and a scoring system was developed to identify high-risk patients. RESULTS The study included 94,945 patients with 78.4 ​% of patients correctly staged and 21.6 ​% clinically understaged. The predictors of nodal positivity in clinically understaged patients were age <65 (OR 1.43), left-sided tumors (OR 1.41), elevated CEA (OR 2.03), moderately (OR 1.81) or poorly/undifferentiated tumors (OR 3.76), T1 tumors (OR 1.29), signet-ring cell histology (OR 2.26), and microsatellite-stable tumors (OR 1.4). CONCLUSION Patients with colon cancer and the above factors are more likely to have their nodal status clinically understaged. A scoring system has been developed to identify high-risk patients

A systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials on the role of prehabilitation programs in colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND Prehabilitation is gaining popularity in colorectal surgery but lacks high-quality postoperative outcomes data. This meta-analysis explored whether prehabilitation impacts postoperative outcomes. METHODS In this meta-analysis, compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, we searched PubMed and Scopus through November 2022. High-quality randomized control trials involving adults who underwent colorectal surgery with/without exercise-based prehabilitation were included. The main outcomes were short-term postoperative morbidity, readmissions, and length of stay. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed, and statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS Seven high-quality randomized control trials comprising 1,225 patients were included. The median prehabilitation duration was 4 (2-4) weeks. Four studies compared prehabilitation and standard of care, and 3 compared prehabilitation and rehabilitation. Exercise-based prehabilitation did not reduce the odds of short-term complications (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.27-1.40, P = .25, I2 = 68%) or readmission (odds ratio 1, 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.46, P = .85, I2 = 0%). The prehabilitation group had shorter length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -0.2, 95% confidence interval -0.25 to -0.14, P < .0001, I2 = 43.3%). Prehabilitation and rehabilitation had similar odds of short-term complications (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.56-1.89, P = .91, I2 = 33%), length of stay (weighted mean difference -0.16, 95% confidence interval -0.47 to 0.16, P = .33, I2 = 59%), and readmission (odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.28-5.56, P = .77, I2 = 52%). The only benefit of prehabilitation over rehabilitation was better 6-minute walking distance test results at time of surgery (weighted mean difference: -9.4 m; 95% confidence interval -18.04 to 0.79, P = .03, I2 = 42%). CONCLUSION Prehabilitation provided decreased postoperative length of hospital stay and improved preoperative functional outcomes, but not reduced odds of complications and/or readmissions. Prehabilitation and rehabilitation had similar clinical outcomes

Trans‑anal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus rigid platforms for local excision of early rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

BACKGROUND Available platforms for local excision (LE) of early rectal cancer are rigid or flexible [trans‑anal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS)]. We systematically searched the literature to compare outcomes between platforms. METHODS PRISMA-compliant search of PubMed and Scopus databases until September 2022 was undertaken in this random-effect meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic. Studies comparing TAMIS versus rigid platforms for LE for early rectal cancer were included. Main outcome measures were intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes and specimen quality. RESULTS 7 studies were published between 2015 and 2022, including 931 patients (423 females); 402 underwent TAMIS and 529 underwent LE with rigid platforms. Techniques were similar for operative time (WMD 11.1, 95%CI - 2.6 to 25, p = 0.11), percentage of defect closure (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.06-8.22, p = 0.78), and peritoneal violation (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.12-1.43, p = 0.16). Rigid platforms had higher rates of short-term complications (19.1% vs 14.2, OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.07-2.4, p = 0.02), although no significant differences were seen for major complications (OR 1.41, 95%CI 0.61-3.23, p = 0.41). Patients in the rigid platforms group were 3-times more likely to be re-admitted within 30 days compared to the TAMIS group (OR 3.1, 95%CI 1.07-9.4, p = 0.03). Rates of positive resection margins (rigid platforms: 7.6% vs TAMIS: 9.34%, OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.42-1.55, p = 0.53) and specimen fragmentation (rigid platforms: 3.3% vs TAMIS: 4.4%, OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.33-1.64, p = 0.46) were similar between the groups. Salvage surgery was required in 5.5% of rigid platform patients and 6.2% of TAMIS patients (OR 0.8, 95%CI 0.4-1.8, p = 0.7). CONCLUSION TAMIS or rigid platforms for LE seem to have similar operative outcomes and specimen quality. The TAMIS group demonstrated lower readmission and overall complication rates but did not significantly differ for major complications. The choice of platform should be based on availability, cost, and surgeon's preference

Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review

This review aimed to illustrate the types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review (PR) based on a literature review together with the opinions of a social media audience via Twitter. This study was conducted via the #OpenSourceResearch collaborative platform and combined a comprehensive literature search on the current PR system with the opinions of a social media audience of surgeons who are actively engaged in the current PR system. Six independent researchers conducted a literature search of electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. Electronic polls were organized via Twitter to assess surgeons’ opinions on the current PR system and potential alternative approaches. PR can be classified into single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind, and open PR. Newer PR systems include interactive platforms, prepublication and postpublication commenting or review, transparent review, and collaborative review. The main limitations of the current PR system are its allegedly time-consuming nature and inconsistent, biased, and non-transparent results. Suggestions to improve the PR process include employing an interactive, double-blind PR system, using artificial intelligence to recruit reviewers, providing incentives for reviewers, and using PR templates. The above results offer several concepts for possible alternative approaches and modifications to this critically important process

Surviving rectal cancer at the cost of a colostomy: global survey of long-term health-related quality of life in 10 countries

Background Colorectal cancer management may require an ostomy formation; however, a stoma may negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare generic and stoma-specific HRQoL in patients with a permanent colostomy after rectal cancer across different countries. Method A cross-sectional cohorts of patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, China, Portugal, Australia, Lithuania, Egypt, and Israel were invited to complete questionnaires regarding demographic and socioeconomic factors along with the Colostomy Impact (CI) score, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and five anchor questions assessing colostomy impact on HRQoL. The background characteristics of the cohorts from each country were compared and generic HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 presented for the total cohort. Results were compared with normative data of reference European populations. The predictors of reduced HRQoL were investigated by multivariable logistic regression, including demographic and socioeconomic factors and stoma-related problems. Results A total of 2557 patients were included. Response rates varied between 51-93 per cent. Mean time from stoma creation was 2.5-6.2 (range 1.1-39.2) years. A total of 25.8 per cent of patients reported that their colostomy impairs their HRQoL 'some'/'a lot'. This group had significantly unfavourable scores across all EORTC subscales compared with patients reporting 'no'/'a little' impaired HRQoL. Generic HRQoL differed significantly between countries, but resembled the HRQoL of reference populations. Multivariable logistic regression showed that stoma dysfunction, including high CI score (OR 3.32), financial burden from the stoma (OR 1.98), unemployment (OR 2.74), being single/widowed (OR 1.35) and young age (OR 1.01 per year) predicted reduced stoma-related HRQoL. Conclusion Overall HRQoL is preserved in patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer, but a quarter of the patients interviewed reported impaired HRQoL. Differences among several countries were reported and socioeconomic factors correlated with reduced quality of life. In this global survey among 2557 individuals with a colostomy after rectal cancer, generic and stoma-specific HRQoL differed significantly between countries; however, it resembled that of country-specific population norms. The most important predictors of stoma-related reduced HRQoL were stoma dysfunction and being financially burdened by the colostomy

AGREE-S: AGREE II extension for surgical interventions - United European Gastroenterology and European Association for Endoscopic Surgery methodological guide

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument has been developed to inform the methodology, reporting and appraisal of clinical practice guidelines. Evidence suggests that the quality of surgical guidelines can be improved, and the structure and content of AGREE II can be modified to help enhance the quality of guidelines of surgical interventions

Biological Treatment and the Potential Risk of Adverse Postoperative Outcome in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Open-Source Expert Panel Review of the Current Literature and Future Perspectives

Abstract Background There is widespread concern that treatment with biologic agents may be associated with suboptimal postoperative outcome after surgery for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Aim We aimed to search and analyze the literature regarding the potential association of biologic treatment on adverse postoperative outcome in patients with IBD. We used the subject as a case in point for surgical research. The aim was not to conduct a new systematic review. Method This is an updated narrative review written in a collaborative method by authors invited through Twitter via the following hashtags (#OpenSourceResearch and #SoMe4Surgery). The manuscript was presented as slides on Twitter to allow discussion of each section of the paper sequentially. A Google document was created, which was shared across social media, and comments and edits were verified by the primary author to ensure accuracy and consistency. Results Forty-one collaborators responded to the invitation, and a total of 106 studies were identified that investigated the potential association of preoperative biological treatment on postoperative outcome in patients with IBD. Most of these studies were retrospective observational cohorts: 3 were prospective, 4 experimental, and 3 population-based studies. These studies were previously analyzed in 10 systematic/narrative reviews and 14 meta-analyses. Type of biologic agents, dose, drug concentration, antidrug antibodies, interval between last dose, and types of surgery varied widely among the studies. Adjustment for confounders and bias control ranged from good to very poor. Only 10 studies reported postoperative outcome according to Clavien–Dindo classification. Conclusion Although a large number of studies investigated the potential effect of biological treatment on postoperative outcomes, many reported divergent results. There is a need for randomized controlled trials. Future studies should focus on the avoiding the weakness of prior studies we identified. Seeking collaborators and sharing information via Twitter was integral to widening the contributors/authors and peer review for this article and was an effective method of collaboration