Global treatment of haemorrhoids—A worldwide snapshot audit conducted by the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons

Aim: There is no universally accepted treatment consensus for haemorrhoids, and thus, management has been individualized all over the world. This study was conducted to assess a global view of how surgeons manage haemorrhoids. Methods: The research panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) developed a voluntary, anonymous questionnaire evaluating surgeons' experience, volume and treatment approaches to haemorrhoids. The 44 multiple-choice questionnaire was available for one month via the ISUCRS email database and the social media platforms Viber and WhatsApp. Results: The survey was completed by 1005 surgeons from 103 countries; 931 (92.6%) were in active practice, 819 (81.5%) were between 30 and 60 years of age, and 822 (81.8%) were male. Detailed patient history (92.9%), perineal inspection (91.2%), and digital rectal examination (91.1%) were the most common assessment methods. For internal haemorrhoids, 924 (91.9%) of participants graded them I–IV, with the degree of haemorrhoids being the most important factor considered to determine the treatment approach (76.3%). The most common nonprocedural/conservative treatment consisted of increased daily fibre intake (86.9%), increased water intake (82.7%), and normalization of bowel habits/toilet training (74.4%). Conservative treatment was the first-line treatment for symptomatic first (92.5%), second (72.4%) and third (47.3%) degree haemorrhoids; however, surgery was the first-line treatment for symptomatic fourth degree haemorrhoids (77.6%). Rubber band ligation was the second-line treatment in first (50.7%) and second (47.2%) degree haemorrhoids, whereas surgery was the second-line treatment in third (82.9%) and fourth (16.7%) degree symptomatic haemorrhoids. Rubber band ligation was performed in the office by 645(64.2%) of the participants. The most common surgical procedure performed for haemorrhoids was an excisional haemorrhoidectomy for both internal (87.1%) and external (89.7%) haemorrhoids – with 716 (71.2%) of participants removing 1, 2 or 3 sectors as necessary. Conclusion: Although there is no global haemorrhoidal treatment consensus, there are many practice similarities among the different cultures, resources, volume and experience of surgeons around the world. With additional studies, a consensus statement could potentially be developed

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