Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

General Surgery Training and One Year of COVID-19. What Has Been the Impact on Residents’ Operating Room Surgical Activity? A Report From an Italian Academic Hospital

BACKGROUND In the last year and a half, the COVID-19 pandemic has put great pressure on the healthcare systems of many countries, Italy included, leading to a reorganization of hospital activities and a dramatic reduction in surgical activity. Our study aimed to evaluate, from a quantitative and qualitative perspective, the impact of this reduction on the formation of surgery residents at the Academic Hospital of Udine. METHODS We compared the resident's surgical activity during the pandemic year (March 2020–2021) with the one during the pre-pandemic year, declining the surgical procedures by timing, type, and complexity and categorizing the residents by postgraduate year (PGY) and surgical role. RESULTS Our analysis highlighted how the main reductions occurred in the elective and medium complexity surgery due to the procrastination of benign pathologies such as hernias, cholelithiasis, and hemorrhoids, which also appeared to be the more frequent cases where the residents are first operators. On the other hand, the residents of the last PGY still maintained a good exposure to neoplasm and high complexity interventions, which are cardinal aspects in the last year of formation. CONCLUSIONS These results mostly confirmed the critical points noted by the resident surgeons themselves, highlighting however the specific impact on different PGY and surgical activities, offering a starting point to better understand how to challenge the negative effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the surgical resident formation

Cholecystectomy in the elderly: clinical outcomes and risk factors

AIM OF THE STUDY: Recent decades have seen a steady increase in the number of elderly patients undergoing cholecys- tectomy surgery. The objective of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients and to identify any predictive factors correlative with adverse outcomes arising in the postoperative period. METHOD: A retrospective study was conducted regarding patients aged ≥65 years who underwent cholecystectomy surgery. The independent variables considered to be related to the patient were: age, gender, co-morbidities, and severity of cholelithiasis. The clinical variables were type of procedure, length of stay and hospitalization. The outcomes considered were mortality, re-intervention, transfer to intensive care and post-operative complications. RESULTS: 778 patients with an age between 65 and 74 and 508 patients with an age above 75 were reviewed. With the increase of age, patients who underwent cholecystectomy presented greater co-morbidity, more accesses in emergency, more cases of cholecystitis, which led to a higher number of interventions in open surgery. Considering postoperative out- comes: the need for intensive care, postoperative complications and mortality significantly increase in older patients. Negative predictive factors are the presence of co-morbidities, emergency access and cholecystectomy performed in open. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients undergoing cholecystectomy are an increased surgical risk group in particular because of the presence of co-morbidities and because of the frequent need to perform an emergency procedure often for complicat- ed lithiasis pathology. This implies a special attention towards these patients, and towards those over 75 considering, when possible, alternative treatments such as percutaneous drainage

Current approach to loop ileostomy closure: a nationwide survey on behalf of the Italian Society of ColoRectal Surgery (SICCR)

Compared to standardized minimally invasive colorectal procedures, there is considerable perioperative heterogeneity in loop ileostomy reversal. This study aimed to investigate the current perioperative practice and technical variations of loop ileostomy reversal following rectal cancer surgery. A nationwide online survey was conducted among members of the Italian Society of ColoRectal Surgery (SICCR). A link to the questionnaire was sent via mail. The survey consisted of 31 questions concerning the main procedural steps and application of the ERAS protocol after loop ileostomy reversal. Overall, 219 participants completed the survey. One respondent in four used a combination of water-soluble contrast studies (WSCS) and digital rectal examination to assess the integrity of the anastomosis before ileostomy closure. Conversely, 17.8% of them used either only WSCS or only endoscopy. Surgeons routinely perform hand-sewn or stapled anastomoses in 45.2% and 54.8% of the cases, respectively. Side-to-side antiperistaltic stapled anastomosis was the most performed anastomosis (36%). Most surgeons declared that they have never used prostheses for abdominal wall closure (64%), whereas 35% preferred retromuscular mesh placement in selected cases only. Forty-six respondents (66.7%) reported using interrupted stitches for skin closure, while 65 (29.7%) a purse-string suture. Furthermore, skin approximation at the stoma site using open methods was significantly more common among surgeons with greater experience in ileostomy reversal (p = 0.031). Overall, a good compliance with the ERAS protocol was found. However, colorectal surgeons were significantly more likely to follow the ERAS pathway than general surgeons (p < 0.05). Surgeons use different anastomotic techniques for ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery. Based on current evidence, purse-string skin closure and ERAS pathway should be implemented, while the role of mesh prophylactic strategy needs to be explored further

Effect of centre volume on pathological outcomes and postoperative complications after surgery for colorectal cancer: results of a multicentre national study

Background: The association between volume, complications and pathological outcomes is still under debate regarding colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of the study was to assess the association between centre volume and severe complications, mortality, less-than-radical oncologic surgery, and indications for neoadjuvant therapy.Methods: Retrospective analysis of 16,883 colorectal cancer cases from 80 centres (2018-2021). Outcomes: 30-day mortality; Clavien-Dindo grade >2 complications; removal of >= 12 lymph nodes; non-radical resection; neoadjuvant therapy. Quartiles of hospital volumes were classified as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, and VERY HIGH. Independent predictors, both overall and for rectal cancer, were evaluated using logistic regression including age, gender, AJCC stage and cancer site.Results: LOW-volume centres reported a higher rate of severe postoperative complications (OR 1.50, 95% c.i. 1.15-1.096, P = 0.003). The rate of >= 12 lymph nodes removed in LOW-volume (OR 0.68, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.85, P = 12 lymph nodes removed was lower in LOW-volume than in VERY HIGH-volume centres (OR 0.57, 95% c.i. 0.41-0.80, P = 0.001). A lower rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiation was associated with HIGH (OR 0.66, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.77, P < 0.001), MEDIUM (OR 0.75, 95% c.i. 0.60-0.92, P = 0.006), and LOW (OR 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.52-0.94, P = 0.019) volume centres (vs. VERY HIGH).Conclusion: Colorectal cancer surgery in low-volume centres is at higher risk of suboptimal management, poor postoperative outcomes, and less-than-adequate oncologic resections. Centralisation of rectal cancer cases should be taken into consideration to optimise the outcomes