Patients with Crohn's disease have longer post-operative in-hospital stay than patients with colon cancer but no difference in complications' rate

BACKGROUNDRight hemicolectomy or ileocecal resection are used to treat benign conditions like Crohn's disease (CD) and malignant ones like colon cancer (CC).AIMTo investigate differences in pre- and peri-operative factors and their impact on post-operative outcome in patients with CC and CD.METHODSThis is a sub-group analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology's prospective, multi-centre snapshot audit. Adult patients with CC and CD undergoing right hemicolectomy or ileocecal resection were included. Primary outcome measure was 30-d post-operative complications. Secondary outcome measures were post-operative length of stay (LOS) at and readmission.RESULTSThree hundred and seventy-five patients with CD and 2,515 patients with CC were included. Patients with CD were younger (median = 37 years for CD and 71 years for CC (P < 0.01), had lower American Society of Anesthesiology score (ASA) grade (P < 0.01) and less comorbidity (P < 0.01), but were more likely to be current smokers (P < 0.01). Patients with CD were more frequently operated on by colorectal surgeons (P < 0.01) and frequently underwent ileocecal resection (P < 0.01) with higher rate of de-functioning/primary stoma construction (P < 0.01). Thirty-day post-operative mortality occurred exclusively in the CC group (66/2515, 2.3%). In multivariate analyses, the risk of post-operative complications was similar in the two groups (OR 0.80, 95%CI: 0.54-1.17; P = 0.25). Patients with CD had a significantly longer LOS (Geometric mean 0.87, 95%CI: 0.79-0.95; P < 0.01). There was no difference in re-admission rates. The audit did not collect data on post-operative enhanced recovery protocols that are implemented in the different participating centers.CONCLUSIONPatients with CD were younger, with lower ASA grade, less comorbidity, operated on by experienced surgeons and underwent less radical resection but had a longer LOS than patients with CC although complication's rate was not different between the two groups

An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020

AimThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units.MethodAn online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted.ResultsOf hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017.ConclusionsUptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation.AimThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units.MethodAn online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted.ResultsOf hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017.ConclusionsUptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation.A

An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020

Aim: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units. Method: An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted. Results: Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017. Conclusions: Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation

An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020

Aim: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units. Method: An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted. Results: Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017. Conclusions: Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation

Association of mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre, prospective audit.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: , (2018), Association of mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi‐centre, prospective audit. Colorectal Dis, 20: 15-32. doi:10.1111/codi.14362, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14362. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived VersionsINTRODUCTION: The optimal bowel preparation strategy to minimise the risk of anastomotic leak is yet to be determined. This study aimed to determine whether oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP+Abx) was associated with a reduced risk of anastomotic leak when compared to mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP) or no bowel preparation (NBP). METHODS: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 Left Sided Colorectal Resection audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective left sided colonic or rectal resection with primary anastomosis between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. RESULTS: Of 3676 patients across 343 centres in 47 countries, 618 (16.8%) received MBP+ABx, 1945 MBP (52.9%) and 1099 patients NBP (29.9%). Patients undergoing MBP+ABx had the lowest overall rate of anastomotic leak (6.1%, 9.2%, 8.7% respectively) in unadjusted analysis. After case-mix adjustment using a mixed-effects multivariable regression model, MBP+Abx was associated with a lower risk of anastomotic leak (OR 0.52, 0.30-0.92, P = 0.02) but MBP was not (OR 0.92, 0.63-1.36, P = 0.69) compared to NBP. CONCLUSION: This non-randomised study adds 'real-world', contemporaneous, and prospective evidence of the beneficial effects of combined mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics in the prevention of anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection across diverse settings. We have also demonstrated limited uptake of this strategy in current international colorectal practice

Predictors for anastomotic leak, postoperative complications, and mortality after right colectomy for cancer: Results from an international snapshot audit

Background: A right hemicolectomy is among the most commonly performed operations for colon cancer, but modern high-quality, multination data addressing the morbidity and mortality rates are lacking. Objective: This study reports the morbidity and mortality rates for right-sided colon cancer and identifies predictors for unfavorable short-term outcome after right hemicolectomy. Design: This was a snapshot observational prospective study. Setting: The study was conducted as a multicenter international study. Patients: The 2015 European Society of Coloproctology snapshot study was a prospective multicenter international series that included all patients undergoing elective or emergency right hemicolectomy or ileocecal resection over a 2-month period in early 2015. This is a subanalysis of the colon cancer cohort of patients. Main Outcome Measures: Predictors for anastomotic leak and 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality were assessed using multivariable mixed-effect logistic regression models after variables selection with the Lasso method. Results: Of the 2515 included patients, an anastomosis was performed in 97.2% (n = 2444), handsewn in 38.5% (n = 940) and stapled in 61.5% (n = 1504) cases. The overall anastomotic leak rate was 7.4% (180/2444), 30-day morbidity was 38.0% (n = 956), and mortality was 2.6% (n = 66). Patients with anastomotic leak had a significantly increased mortality rate (10.6% vs 1.6% no-leak patients; p 65 0.001). At multivariable analysis the following variables were associated with anastomotic leak: longer duration of surgery (OR = 1.007 per min; p = 0.0037), open approach (OR = 1.9; p = 0.0037), and stapled anastomosis (OR = 1.5; p = 0.041). Limitations: This is an observational study, and therefore selection bias could be present. For this reason, a multivariable logistic regression model was performed, trying to correct possible confounding factors. Conclusions: Anastomotic leak after oncologic right hemicolectomy is a frequent complication, and it is associated with increased mortality. The key contributing surgical factors for anastomotic leak were anastomotic technique, surgical approach, and duration of surgery

The impact of stapling technique and surgeon specialism on anastomotic failure after right?sided colorectal resection: an international multicentre, prospective audit

Aim There is little evidence to support choice of technique and configuration for stapled anastomoses after right hemicolectomy and ileocaecal resection. This study aimed to determine the relationship between stapling technique and anastomotic failure. Method Any unit performing gastrointestinal surgery was invited to contribute data on consecutive adult patients undergoing right hemicolectomy or ileocolic resection to this prospective, observational, international, multicentre study. Patients undergoing stapled, side?to?side ileocolic anastomoses were identified and multilevel, multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to explore factors associated with anastomotic leak. Results One thousand three hundred and forty?seven patients were included from 200 centres in 32 countries. The overall anastomotic leak rate was 8.3%. Upon multivariate analysis there was no difference in leak rate with use of a cutting stapler for apical closure compared with a noncutting stapler (8.4% vs 8.0%, OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54–1.53, P = 0.72). Oversewing of the apical staple line, whether in the cutting group (7.9% vs 9.7%, OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52–1.46, P = 0.60) or noncutting group (8.9% vs 5.7%, OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46–4.23, P = 0.55) also conferred no benefit in terms of reducing leak rates. Surgeons reporting to be general surgeons had a significantly higher leak rate than those reporting to be colorectal surgeons (12.1% vs 7.3%, OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04–2.64, P = 0.04). Conclusion This study did not identify any difference in anastomotic leak rates according to the type of stapling device used to close the apical aspect. In addition, oversewing of the anastomotic staple lines appears to confer no benefit in terms of reducing leak rates. Although general surgeons operated on patients with more high?risk characteristics than colorectal surgeons, a higher leak rate for general surgeons which remained after risk adjustment needs further exploration

Relationship between method of anastomosis and anastomotic failure after right hemicolectomy and ileo-caecal resection: an international snapshot audit

Aim: The anastomosis technique used following right-sided colonic resection is widely variable and may affect patient outcome. This study aimed to assess the association between leak and anastomosis technique (stapled vs handsewn). Method: This was a prospective, multicentre, international audit including patients undergoing elective or emergency right hemicolectomy or ileo-caecal resection operations over a 2-month period in early 2015. The primary outcome measure was the presence of anastomotic leak within 30\ua0days of surgery, determined using a prespecified definition. Mixed effects logistic regression models were used to assess the association between leak and anastomosis method, adjusting for patient, disease and operative cofactors, with centre included as a random-effect variable. Results: This study included 3208 patients, of whom 78.4% (n\ua0=\ua02515) underwent surgery for malignancy and 11.7% (n\ua0=\ua0375) underwent surgery for Crohn's disease. An anastomosis was performed in 94.8% (n\ua0=\ua03041) of patients, which was handsewn in 38.9% (n\ua0=\ua01183) and stapled in 61.1% (n\ua0=\ua01858). Patients undergoing handsewn anastomosis were more likely to be emergency admissions (20.5% handsewn vs 12.9% stapled) and to undergo open surgery (54.7% handsewn vs 36.6% stapled). The overall anastomotic leak rate was 8.1% (245/3041), which was similar following handsewn (7.4%) and stapled (8.5%) techniques (P\ua0=\ua00.3). After adjustment for cofactors, the odds of a leak were higher for stapled anastomosis (adjusted OR\ua0=\ua01.43; 95% CI: 1.04\u20131.95; P\ua0=\ua00.03). Conclusion: Despite being used in lower-risk patients, stapled anastomosis was associated with an increased anastomotic leak rate in this observational study. Further research is needed to define patient groups in whom a stapled anastomosis is safe