Best Evidence for Each Surgical Step in Minimally Invasive Right Hemicolectomy:A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature for each surgical step of the minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) for non-locally advanced colon cancer, to define the most optimal procedure with the highest level of evidence.BACKGROUND: High variability exists in the way MIRH is performed between surgeons and hospitals, which could affect patients' postoperative and oncological outcomes.METHODS: A systematic search using PubMed was performed to first identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if there were none then landmark papers and consensus statements were systematically searched for each key step of MIRH. Systematic reviews were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and selection was based on highest quality followed by year of publication.RESULTS: Low (less than 12 mmHg) intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) gives higher mean quality of recovery compared to standard IAP. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is associated with lowest recurrence and highest 5-year overall survival rates, without worsening short-term outcomes. Routine D3 versus D2 lymphadenectomy showed higher LN yield, but more vascular injuries, and no difference in overall and disease-free survival. Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with better intra- and postoperative outcomes. The Pfannenstiel incision gives the lowest chance of incisional hernias compared to all other extraction sites.CONCLUSION: According to the best available evidence, the most optimal MIRH for colon cancer without clinically involved D3 nodes entails at least low IAP, CME with D2 lymphadenectomy, an intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision.</p

Best Evidence for Each Surgical Step in Minimally Invasive Right Hemicolectomy:A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature for each surgical step of the minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) for non-locally advanced colon cancer, to define the most optimal procedure with the highest level of evidence.BACKGROUND: High variability exists in the way MIRH is performed between surgeons and hospitals, which could affect patients' postoperative and oncological outcomes.METHODS: A systematic search using PubMed was performed to first identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if there were none then landmark papers and consensus statements were systematically searched for each key step of MIRH. Systematic reviews were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and selection was based on highest quality followed by year of publication.RESULTS: Low (less than 12 mmHg) intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) gives higher mean quality of recovery compared to standard IAP. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is associated with lowest recurrence and highest 5-year overall survival rates, without worsening short-term outcomes. Routine D3 versus D2 lymphadenectomy showed higher LN yield, but more vascular injuries, and no difference in overall and disease-free survival. Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with better intra- and postoperative outcomes. The Pfannenstiel incision gives the lowest chance of incisional hernias compared to all other extraction sites.CONCLUSION: According to the best available evidence, the most optimal MIRH for colon cancer without clinically involved D3 nodes entails at least low IAP, CME with D2 lymphadenectomy, an intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision.</p

National implementation of an optimal standardised technique for right-sided colon cancer:protocol of an interventional sequential cohort study (Right study)

Purpose: Minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with right-sided colon cancer. This operation has evolved during recent decades, with many innovations and improvements but this has also resulted in high variability of uptake with subsequent substantial variableness. The aim of this ongoing study is to identify current surgical variations, determine the most optimal and standardised MIRH and nationally train and implement that technique to improve short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes. Methods: The Right study is a national multicentre prospective interventional sequential cohort study. Firstly, current local practice was evaluated. Subsequently, a standardised surgical technique for right-sided colon cancer was determined using the Delphi consensus method, and this procedure was trained during hands-on courses. The standardised MIRH will be implemented with proctoring (implementation cohort), after which the performance will be monitored (consolidation cohort). Patients who will receive a minimally invasive (extended) right hemicolectomy for cT1-3N0-2M0 colon cancer will be included. The primary outcome is patient safety reflected in the 90-day overall complication rate according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. Secondary outcomes will include intraoperative complications, 90-day mortality rate, number of resected tumour-positive lymph nodes, completeness of mesocolic excision, surgical quality score, locoregional and distant recurrence and 5-year overall survival. A total number of 1095 patients (365 per cohort) will be included. Discussion: The Right study is designed to safely implement the best surgical practice concerning patients with right-sided colon cancer aiming to standardise and improve the surgical quality of MIRH at a national level. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04889456, May 2021.</p

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study)

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH. METHOD: Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923. CONCLUSION: Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).</p

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study)

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH. METHOD: Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923. CONCLUSION: Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).</p

Standard Outpatient Re-Evaluation for Patients Not Admitted to the Hospital After Emergency Department Evaluation for Acute Abdominal Pain

The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of standard outpatient re-evaluation for patients who are not admitted to the hospital after emergency department surgical consultation for acute abdominal pain. All patients seen at the emergency department between June 2005 and July 2006 for acute abdominal pain were included in a prospective study using a structured diagnosis and management flowchart. Patients not admitted to the hospital were given appointments for re-evaluation at the outpatient clinic within 24 h. All clinical parameters, radiological results, diagnostic considerations, and management proposals were scored prospectively. Five-hundred patients were included in this analysis. For 148 patients (30%), the final diagnosis was different from the diagnosis after initial evaluation. Eighty-five patients (17%) had a change in management after re-evaluation, and 20 of them (4%) were admitted to the hospital for an operation. Only 6 patients (1.2%) had a delay in diagnosis and treatment, which did not cause extra morbidity. Standard outpatient re-evaluation is a safe and effective means of improving diagnostic accuracy and helps to adapt management for patients that are not admitted to the hospital after surgical consultation for acute abdominal pain at the emergency department.Vascular Surger

Two Days Versus Five Days of Postoperative Antibiotics for Complex Appendicitis:Cost Analysis of a Randomized, Noninferiority Trial

Objective: To compare costs for 2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics within the antibiotics after an aPPendectomy In Complex appendicitis trial. Background: Recent studies suggest that restrictive antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction in hospital stays without compromising patient safety. Its potential effect on societal costs remains underexplored. Methods: This was a pragmatic, open-label, multicenter clinical trial powered for noninferiority. Patients with complex appendicitis (age ≥ 8 years) were randomly allocated to 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendectomy. Patient inclusion lasted from June 2017 to June 2021 in 15 Dutch hospitals. The final follow-up was on September 1, 2021. The primary trial endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. In the present study, the main outcome measures were overall societal costs (comprising direct health care costs and costs related to productivity loss) and cost-effectiveness. Direct health care costs were recorded based on data in the electronic patient files, complemented by a telephone follow-up at 90 days. In addition, data on loss of productivity were acquired through the validated Productivity Cost Questionnaire at 4 weeks after surgery. Cost estimates were based on prices for the year 2019. Results: In total, 1005 patients were evaluated in the "intention-to-treat" analysis: 502 patients were allocated to the 2-day group and 503 to the 5-day group. The mean difference in overall societal costs was - €625 (95% CI: -€ 958 to -€ 278) to the advantage of the 2-day group. This difference was largely explained by reduced hospital stay. Productivity losses were similar between the study groups. Restricting postoperative antibiotics to 2 days was cost-effective, with estimated cost savings of €31,117 per additional infectious complication. Conclusions: Two days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis results in a statistically significant and relevant cost reduction, as compared with 5 days. Findings apply to laparoscopic appendectomy in a well-resourced health care setting.</p

Two Days Versus Five Days of Postoperative Antibiotics for Complex Appendicitis:Cost Analysis of a Randomized, Noninferiority Trial

Objective: To compare costs for 2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics within the antibiotics after an aPPendectomy In Complex appendicitis trial. Background: Recent studies suggest that restrictive antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction in hospital stays without compromising patient safety. Its potential effect on societal costs remains underexplored. Methods: This was a pragmatic, open-label, multicenter clinical trial powered for noninferiority. Patients with complex appendicitis (age ≥ 8 years) were randomly allocated to 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendectomy. Patient inclusion lasted from June 2017 to June 2021 in 15 Dutch hospitals. The final follow-up was on September 1, 2021. The primary trial endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. In the present study, the main outcome measures were overall societal costs (comprising direct health care costs and costs related to productivity loss) and cost-effectiveness. Direct health care costs were recorded based on data in the electronic patient files, complemented by a telephone follow-up at 90 days. In addition, data on loss of productivity were acquired through the validated Productivity Cost Questionnaire at 4 weeks after surgery. Cost estimates were based on prices for the year 2019. Results: In total, 1005 patients were evaluated in the "intention-to-treat" analysis: 502 patients were allocated to the 2-day group and 503 to the 5-day group. The mean difference in overall societal costs was - €625 (95% CI: -€ 958 to -€ 278) to the advantage of the 2-day group. This difference was largely explained by reduced hospital stay. Productivity losses were similar between the study groups. Restricting postoperative antibiotics to 2 days was cost-effective, with estimated cost savings of €31,117 per additional infectious complication. Conclusions: Two days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis results in a statistically significant and relevant cost reduction, as compared with 5 days. Findings apply to laparoscopic appendectomy in a well-resourced health care setting.</p

2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis:a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised trial

Background: The appropriate duration of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis is unclear. The increasing global threat of antimicrobial resistance warrants restrictive antibiotic use, which could also reduce side-effects, length of hospital stay, and costs. Methods: In this pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, patients with complex appendicitis (aged ≥8 years) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendicectomy. Randomisation was stratified by centre, and treating physicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. The main outcome was the absolute risk difference (95% CI) in the primary endpoint, adjusted for age and severity of appendicitis, with a non-inferiority margin of 7·5%. Outcome assessment was based on electronic patient records and a telephone consultation 90 days after appendicectomy. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Safety outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NL5946. Findings: Between April 12, 2017, and June 3, 2021, 13 267 patients were screened and 1066 were randomly assigned, 533 to each group. 31 were excluded from intention-to-treat analysis of the 2-day group and 30 from the 5-day group owing to errors in recruitment or consent. Appendicectomy was done laparoscopically in 955 (95%) of 1005 patients. The telephone follow-up was completed in 664 (66%) of 1005 patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 51 (10%) of 502 patients analysed in the 2-day group and 41 (8%) of 503 patients analysed in the 5-day group (adjusted absolute risk difference 2·0%, 95% CI −1·6 to 5·6). Rates of complications and re-interventions were similar between trial groups. Fewer patients had adverse effects of antibiotics in the 2-day group (45 [9%] of 502 patients) than in the 5-day group (112 [22%] of 503 patients; odds ratio [OR] 0·344, 95% CI 0·237 to 0·498). Re-admission to hospital was more frequent in the 2-day group (58 [12%] of 502 patients) than in the 5-day group (29 [6%] of 503 patients; OR 2·135, 1·342 to 3·396). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: 2 days of postoperative intravenous antibiotics for complex appendicitis is non-inferior to 5 days in terms of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days, based on a non-inferiority margin of 7·5%. These findings apply to laparoscopic appendicectomy conducted in a well resourced health-care setting. Adopting this strategy will reduce adverse effects of antibiotics and length of hospital stay. Funding: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.</p